Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Independent Media Center | www.indymedia.org | ((( i ))) "The Fightback Begins" has some reporting on the state of freedom here in the U.S. during the political conventions, which is a good indicator of the freedom and liberty our government always purports to be fighting for:
The summer is heating up as the Democratic National Convention(DNC) and the Republican National Convention(RNC) approach. Activists are being harassed in New York, Boston and the Midwest, but they continue to organize.Live links and commentary (including lots of 'hey, you people, DO something!' and 'nothing can be done!' writing, which is always entertaining) at the link above.
The police are doing their best to create a climate of fear in Boston, blanketing the city with surveillance cameras, preparing to arrest 2500 people, conducting random searches of passengers on public transportation and trying to make protesters gather in a "free-speech zone." The FBI is even claiming that a "domestic extremist group" is planning to attack news trucks. But local activists refuse to be cowed.
Anti-DNC action kicks off July 23 with the Boston Social Forum and continues with a "unwelcoming party", direct action and the "Really Really Democratic Bazaar."
Meanwhile, in New York, the NY Daily News ran an unsubstantiated front-pagestory claiming that "internet-using anarchists" are planning to cause chaos by fool bomb-sniffing dogs at Penn Station and major organizer United for Peace and Justice has been forced to hold their August 29 rally on the West Side Highway, instead of Central Park. But Still We Rise and the Poor People?s Economic Human Rights Campaign are still holding large demonstrations on August 30, the day of direct action is still (tenatively) planned for August 31 and various speaks-outs and conferences are still going ahead.
Something that tickled me, which I forgot to post earlier: A Tiny Revolution: More Terrifying Funniness on the topic of the forged Niger uranium documents, which the CIA had to send to the State Department for Translation:
The documents are in French. So... does this mean the CIA doesn't have any translators who SPEAK FRENCH? I mean, I realize French is an incredibly exotic, traitorous language that's only taught in 90% of the high schools in America. And like everyone, I'm offended when foreigners insist on making those guttural, non-English sounds they call their 'language.' Nonetheless, it seems to me the CIA might take some of those tens of billions of dollars they spend every year and hire people who speak the languages used by the others who inhabit this planet. Just because it's like, you know, the very most basic part of their job.I should link you to tinyrevolution.com more often - good stuff. A little humor makes our dire world situation a little easier to contemplate.
A Tiny Revolution: The Autonomous Republic of Charlie Brownistan has some good points to make about the U.S.'s treatment of the Kurds, the Bush Administration's favorite victims of Saddam Hussein when it's convenient, and an ignored group when they inconveniently want rights. "By my count, we're now working on our sixth betrayal of the Kurds since World War I...." Check out both this page, its cartoon, and the comments.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
The always worthwhile column by Gomez at sfgate.com has some interesting quotes from the foreign press on the background of the interim leader of Iraq. WORLD VIEWS: Aussie journo alleges that new Iraqi prime minister shot prisoners down (sfgate.com, 07/22/04) deals with a report from Australia that the leader executed detained insurgents. Quotes about this man's past from sources selected by Gomez are intriguing. Samples:
"The immediate question is how did Allawi, who helped install Saddam Hussein, become the White House choice to lead this benighted country into freedom and democracy." [Greens leader Bob Brown of Australia]Interesting, yes? There's more at wikipedia's biography page for Mr. Allawi, in which we learn that he was a member of the CIA-supported group that provided arguments that Iraq had WMDs, and of how he passed his time in exile:
"Allawi, a former hit man for the Saddam regime, has shown signs of flexing his power under the interim constitution to its limits and [of] breaking out of U.S. control.'"
Some have reported this as an exile, but some of Allawi's old counterparts have claimed that he continued to serve the Baath Party, and the Iraqi secret police, searching out enemies of the regime. During this time he was president of the Iraqi Student Union in Europe. Seymour Hersh quotes former CIA officer Vincent Cannistraro: "[...] Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London [...] he was a paid Mukhabarat agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff." A Middle Eastern diplomat confirmed that Allawi was involved with a Mukhabarat "hit team" that killed Baath Party dissenters in Europe. However, he resigned from the Baath party for undisclosed reasons in 1975.Oh my. Read the entire entry, especially for the entertaining characterization of the "45 minute" WMD claim, which Allawi was involved in passing along.
Election Observers are only for despotic regimes! Oh, wait...
I know I made much of the article about postponing U.S. elections at the discretion of the Homeland Security team. There's other stuff I made much of to my friends, but failed to post here.
Introduction: Congresswoman Corrine Brown in Jacksonville after Censure (firstcoastnews.com)
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
I know I made much of the article about postponing U.S. elections at the discretion of the Homeland Security team. There's other stuff I made much of to my friends, but failed to post here.
Introduction: Congresswoman Corrine Brown in Jacksonville after Censure (firstcoastnews.com)
The argument started during a debate over HR-4818. The bill would provide international monitoring of the November presidential election. Congress has been considering an outside monitor due to all the confusion over the last election, and the "hanging chads" in Florida.Related Story: This Modern World's "Unpopular juntas never like UN observers" from July 16, 2004, proves additional comments on events surrounding Representative Brown's censure. Her district had 27,000 ballots discounted in the 2000 election, and she doesn't want her constituents disenfranchised again.
Representative Brown said, "I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world."
Those comments drew an immediate objection from Republican members of the House. Leaders moved to strike her comments from the record. The House also censured Brown which kept her from talking on the House floor for the rest of the day.
The backstory: about a dozen members of Congress, including several leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus, recently called for UN observers to verify American elections, given the hanky-panky we all know is coming.And the bill: From the Library of Congress (if this link doesn't work, search thomas.loc.gov for HR-4818):The ruling junta, displaying their usual integrity, promptly produced a bill forbidding any such thing, shouted the Congresswoman down when she wouldn't just Go F*ck Herself™, censured her, and then had her comments stricken from the Congressional Record.
Nice "democracy" we got here.
H.R.4818
PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO REQUEST THE UNITED NATIONS TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
- SEC. 579. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by any official of the United States Government to request the United Nations to assess the validity of elections in the United States.
Name Calling Oh no, it's happening again. The New York Times article, 25 Rebels Are Killed in Daylong Firefight in Iraq, U.S. Says (nytimes.com, 7/22/04), uses the phrase "the hardline Sunni Muslim city of Ramadi."
Roll that over your tongue a few times. "the hardline Sunni Muslim city of Ramadi." The CITY is hardline? Everyone in the City? The municipal water system is hardline? The schools?
Have you ever heard any city in the U.S. described as "hardline" or "fundamentalist" or "radical?" After the tragic Oklahoma City federal building bombing, no one said that McVeigh was from "the hardline, separatist, militant state of Montana."
No one said that, because here in the U.S., we're all considered to be individuals. No matter how fringe some American like, say, Pat Robertson is, you'll never hear the mainstream press refer to him as "extreme Christian fundamentalist Robertson." (At least, you won't hear that kind of language about white guys, the dominant minority.) And you won't hear his town described by the same terms.
*
We dimly understand here that our cities, towns, states, and regions are populated by individuals. Even if we characterize them broadly ("red" states vs. "blue" states), the labels are general and imprecise.
[Note to non-US readers: in the last presidential election, states were labeled either "red" and "blue" depending on which party won the state's electoral votes in our indirect election system. Many of the states were won by single-digit electoral victories, but the whole state was still presented as having been just one color. We've just let oversimplified graphics dictate our reality in terms of thinking of the people in those states, which have never been purely 'red' or 'blue.']
But foreigners are treated as caricatures. They're all the same. They're good or evil -- there are no shades of gray. They all deserve the same fate. It's RIDICULOUS to think this way. But how else can you characterize the population of a major city in one swoop as "hardline?"
*
*
Compare your search engine results for "extremist Christian" (972 right now) to "radical Shiite cleric" (12,600 hits).
["Radical Christian" is a brand name and a positive term, so it's not comparable for searching purposes.]
Now matter how extreme we are, we're okay, and subject to nearly polite treatment in the press, unless our last name is Clinton or we're black and have been convicted of something. But everyone else is open to some very rude characterizations.
*
You're thinking, Yes, but these are special circumstances! The people being rudely characterized are SHOOTING Americans! I remember that rash of school massacres here in the U.S. They all turned out to be perpetrated by suburban white boys, but even in that circumstance the killers were bestowed with individualism. Which is why you didn't read headlines like "Radical Violent Caucasian Males Terrorize Suburban Schools Nationwide." They were still all treated as individuals - and they were killing Americans, mostly KIDS, many of them GIRLS.
Yeah, but that's us killing our own. That's different, you might say.
Not really. All of these things are political. Teenage gun toting killers really shouldn't be treated with so much more respect than foreign rebels who believe they're defending their homes and families. We shouldn't give outrageous labels to foreigners, while coddling our own domestic killers. It gives us a distorted perception of the world.
It's bad enough that I was almost ready to believe that certain rebel leaders in Iraq actually had the official title "radical Shiite cleric." I never heard their names without that phrase. Which is ridiculous.
Roll that over your tongue a few times. "the hardline Sunni Muslim city of Ramadi." The CITY is hardline? Everyone in the City? The municipal water system is hardline? The schools?
Have you ever heard any city in the U.S. described as "hardline" or "fundamentalist" or "radical?" After the tragic Oklahoma City federal building bombing, no one said that McVeigh was from "the hardline, separatist, militant state of Montana."
No one said that, because here in the U.S., we're all considered to be individuals. No matter how fringe some American like, say, Pat Robertson is, you'll never hear the mainstream press refer to him as "extreme Christian fundamentalist Robertson." (At least, you won't hear that kind of language about white guys, the dominant minority.) And you won't hear his town described by the same terms.
*
We dimly understand here that our cities, towns, states, and regions are populated by individuals. Even if we characterize them broadly ("red" states vs. "blue" states), the labels are general and imprecise.
[Note to non-US readers: in the last presidential election, states were labeled either "red" and "blue" depending on which party won the state's electoral votes in our indirect election system. Many of the states were won by single-digit electoral victories, but the whole state was still presented as having been just one color. We've just let oversimplified graphics dictate our reality in terms of thinking of the people in those states, which have never been purely 'red' or 'blue.']
But foreigners are treated as caricatures. They're all the same. They're good or evil -- there are no shades of gray. They all deserve the same fate. It's RIDICULOUS to think this way. But how else can you characterize the population of a major city in one swoop as "hardline?"
*
Not by our hearts
will we allow whole peoples
or countries to be deemed evil.
--Not in Our Name Pledge of Resistance
*
Compare your search engine results for "extremist Christian" (972 right now) to "radical Shiite cleric" (12,600 hits).
["Radical Christian" is a brand name and a positive term, so it's not comparable for searching purposes.]
Now matter how extreme we are, we're okay, and subject to nearly polite treatment in the press, unless our last name is Clinton or we're black and have been convicted of something. But everyone else is open to some very rude characterizations.
*
You're thinking, Yes, but these are special circumstances! The people being rudely characterized are SHOOTING Americans! I remember that rash of school massacres here in the U.S. They all turned out to be perpetrated by suburban white boys, but even in that circumstance the killers were bestowed with individualism. Which is why you didn't read headlines like "Radical Violent Caucasian Males Terrorize Suburban Schools Nationwide." They were still all treated as individuals - and they were killing Americans, mostly KIDS, many of them GIRLS.
Yeah, but that's us killing our own. That's different, you might say.
Not really. All of these things are political. Teenage gun toting killers really shouldn't be treated with so much more respect than foreign rebels who believe they're defending their homes and families. We shouldn't give outrageous labels to foreigners, while coddling our own domestic killers. It gives us a distorted perception of the world.
It's bad enough that I was almost ready to believe that certain rebel leaders in Iraq actually had the official title "radical Shiite cleric." I never heard their names without that phrase. Which is ridiculous.
There are a couple of odd parts in a discussion of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was given command of Iraq last June, and whose career was ruined by the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. The Military: The General Departs, With a Scandal to Ponder (nytimes.com, 07/22/04). This is the first odd part:
The other odd comment:
*
But, in respects which haven't been frequently discussed, Sanchez is right. This war is something that has "happened" to the U.S. (as a result of U.S. actions), and has had a huge negative domestic impact that is rarely mentioned.
The war was marketed to the American people as prevention of an imminent attack; then as an effort to remove weapons of mass destruction from a supporter of terrorism that we like less than other supporters of terrorism; then as an effort to rid the world of an evil dictator and to liberate the Iraqi people; and now as a nation-building effort, complete with massive funding and posh rebuilding contracts for Bush's political donors.
The focus shifted from 'what this war will do for us' to 'what we're claiming this altruistic war will do for others, which we might just happen to make some money on.' Which is a big change. And despite the shifts in rhetoric, the impact on the U.S. has been huge. Not as huge as the impact on Iraq, obviously.
Here at home, reservists and National Guardsmen have all been taken from their families and jobs; soldiers have had their tours of duties extended repeatedly; veterans and military families have had their benefits cut; our tax money is being diverted to defense contractors away from the services we pay for; the Bush Administration is protested in every city and country he visits, and requires security measures that shut the public out of entire neighborhoods; our traditional international allies loathe our policies; the abuse scandal has tarnished the country's reputation abroad; the war has divided communities; and to cope with the criticism, war supporters have radicalized even further into a state of isolation and denial.
I don't recall any of those items being in the ads leading up to this war. But it's a high domestic cost. And it's a cost that isn't being fully acknowledged.
'One of my former commanders, a good friend, a mentor, instilled in me very early on that there's probably a minority of your soldiers - he used the number 10 percent- that can be criminals, that the only reason they manage to stay in line is because of the training and the discipline and the leadership that is provided by our institution,' he said.I suppose he's saying that the 'few bad apples theory as applied to prison scandals' has some basis, but it also is a strange admission that the folks representing the U.S. in the occupation aren't all apple-pie serving ambassadors, as has been suggested zealously post-scandal.
'And if you don't provide them that, they'll walk away, and they'll revert back to that instinct of being criminals.'
The other odd comment:
But the general rejected any suggestion that he deserved sympathy. "I've never seen this as something that those kids did to me,'' he said, referring to the soldiers implicated in the abuse. "I have looked at those events as something that happened to my country, and to my Army, and it is going to be our country and our Army that has to recover.''I'm pretty sure the Iraqis believe that the prison abuse is something that happened to THEIR country.
*
But, in respects which haven't been frequently discussed, Sanchez is right. This war is something that has "happened" to the U.S. (as a result of U.S. actions), and has had a huge negative domestic impact that is rarely mentioned.
The war was marketed to the American people as prevention of an imminent attack; then as an effort to remove weapons of mass destruction from a supporter of terrorism that we like less than other supporters of terrorism; then as an effort to rid the world of an evil dictator and to liberate the Iraqi people; and now as a nation-building effort, complete with massive funding and posh rebuilding contracts for Bush's political donors.
The focus shifted from 'what this war will do for us' to 'what we're claiming this altruistic war will do for others, which we might just happen to make some money on.' Which is a big change. And despite the shifts in rhetoric, the impact on the U.S. has been huge. Not as huge as the impact on Iraq, obviously.
Here at home, reservists and National Guardsmen have all been taken from their families and jobs; soldiers have had their tours of duties extended repeatedly; veterans and military families have had their benefits cut; our tax money is being diverted to defense contractors away from the services we pay for; the Bush Administration is protested in every city and country he visits, and requires security measures that shut the public out of entire neighborhoods; our traditional international allies loathe our policies; the abuse scandal has tarnished the country's reputation abroad; the war has divided communities; and to cope with the criticism, war supporters have radicalized even further into a state of isolation and denial.
I don't recall any of those items being in the ads leading up to this war. But it's a high domestic cost. And it's a cost that isn't being fully acknowledged.
UN 'to detail lack of Iraqi WMDs' (bbc.com, 07/20/04): Now that U.S.-friendly interim-government is in place in Iraq, it's okay to admit that there are no WMDs in the country, for financial reasons.
Mr ElBaradei [head of the International Atomic Energy Agency] told reporters in Cairo: 'The return of inspectors to Iraq is an absolute necessity, not to search for weapons of mass destruction, but to draft the final report on the absence of WMDs in Iraq so that the international community can lift the sanctions.'I haven't seen much play in the commercial US media about this, but perhaps the absence of WMDs is now old hat.
US army reveals more jail abuse (bbc.com, 07/22/04) The U.S. military has documented 94 cass of abuse (confirmed or alleged) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The report said the cases included theft, physical assault, sexual assault and death.This article notes that the Red Cross considers the abuse to be systemic.
But it described them as unauthorised actions taken by individuals, in some cases combined with the failure of a few leaders to provide supervision and leadership.
Friday, July 16, 2004
It's not just me: BBC NEWS: Americas: Campaign column: Is no news good news?: "A curious thing is happening with Iraq. It is disappearing from the front pages in the United States." In recent days, when I open the web pages of the local and national commercial news media, I find... stories about baseball. Wildfires. Local politicians running for office. Chess champions in trouble.
The media in the U.S. is all about short term, domestic news. It's so hard to really look at the bigger picture, with this style of reporting. It's as if there are no problems in the Sudan right now. Or Iraq. Or anywhere beyond the new Will Smith movie, which gets front billing on the splash page of our local daily.
"Will Smith: more important than the Sudan or the economy."
The media in the U.S. is all about short term, domestic news. It's so hard to really look at the bigger picture, with this style of reporting. It's as if there are no problems in the Sudan right now. Or Iraq. Or anywhere beyond the new Will Smith movie, which gets front billing on the splash page of our local daily.
"Will Smith: more important than the Sudan or the economy."
Thursday, July 15, 2004
The Scandal that Hasn't Broken: Women and Children Abused in Iraq
Back on July 8th, Bob Harris at thismodernworld.com linked to a German television report on children detained and abused by U.S. troops in Iraq. He provided a link to a machine-translation of a story summary (which isn't very successful in terms of smooth language), and to the video report provided by Report Mainz's July 5th feature, which provides firsthand witness accounts, including one of a child being abused to break his father's resistance to interrogation.Harris was sure that, with this story breaking abroad and the rest of the world was beginning to express outrage, it would break big in the U.S. soon.
Have you heard of this story? No? Even though UNICEF, the International Committee for the Red Cross, and Amnesty International all provided information to the report, the mainstream U.S. press has been silent.
The story is available in English, but still in the foreign press. In Norway, Aftenposten's July 6th feature, "Norway protests child abuse in Iraq" (aftenposten.no) is one of the most detailed early translations of Norway's response to the revelations. The Norwegian government is demanding the release of all underage prisoners and an immediate end to the abuse. From Aftenposten:
In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been shoved up against a wall by a group of male soldiers who proceeded to manhandle her. They then started ripping off her clothes, and she was half-naked before military police broke in.Information Clearinghouse now offers, "More Than 100 Children Imprisoned, Report Of Abuse By U.S. Soldiers," a translation of the July 4th 'der Spiegel' summary report. (informationclearinghouse.info)
In another case, a boy aged 15 or 16 was stripped naked and sprayed with water before being placed in an open truck and driven around in the cold night air last winter. He then was covered with mud.
Try a news search for this on one of the standard news search engines. I did so this morning, and got articles about Abu Ghraib is 'cleaning up its image,' and how different things are there now.
Next, try a search of the web. It's in the blogs. Individuals are doing research, and posting the links they find. Among the best: back on the 10th, The Leftcoaster asked "Will Our News Media Cover the Abu Ghraib Children's Story?" in a good, alarming summary of what was available as of that day, citing stories in English in the foreign press dating BACK TO MAY. Follow all of her links!
*
[I sent links to the talented Edward Gomez, World Views columnist. He translates press accounts from multiple languages, and can likely provide even better coverage. I planned to send a link to Jeff Morley, World Opinion Roundup columnist at the Washington Post, but a reader pushed him on it, and his editor has linked back to thismodernworld at the bottom of this discussion. We'll see if he follows up on it.]
*
I asked a similar question about the women abused by U.S. custody back on May 12th. The military's own internal investigation had come out May 4th, and mentioned soldiers having sex with female captives -- the soldiers had even taken photographs of such incidents.
Despite the source being the military itself, and the widespread dispersal of the report, I'm still waiting for mainstream coverage.
Focus shifts to jail abuse of women, by Luke Harding in Baghdad (guardian.co.uk, 05/12/04) has revelations which surely should have come out at about the same time as those about male prisoners.
Senior US military officers who escorted journalists around Abu Ghraib on Monday admitted that rape had taken place in the cellblock where 19 "high-value" male detainees are also being held.The Other Prisoners by the same author, dated May 20, 2004 (and inexplicably reprinted under a different title and date, What About The Women Prisoners? at countercurrents.org) is more substantive and alarming.
Asked how it could have happened, Colonel Dave Quantock, who is now in charge of the prison's detention facilities, said: "I don't know. It's all about leadership. Apparently it wasn't there."
Journalists were forbidden from talking to the women, who are kept upstairs in windowless 2.5 metre by 1.5 metre cells. The women wailed and shouted.
They were kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, Col Quantock said, with only a Koran.
Taguba discovered that guards have also videotaped and photographed naked female detainees. The Bush administration has refused to release other photographs of Iraqi women forced at gunpoint to bare their breasts (although it has shown them to Congress) - ostensibly to prevent attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, but in reality, one suspects, to prevent further domestic embarrassment.This very worthwhile article continues to note that various women are being held illegally due to marriage or other relationships with men wanted for questioning, and that other detainees who had been raped can't speak about it outside the prison, since they will be killed by their families. The victim mentioned in Taguba's report is already believed to have been killed by her family, according to an Amnesty International spokesperson quoted.
Earlier this month it emerged that an Iraqi woman in her 70s had been harnessed and ridden like a donkey at Abu Ghraib and another coalition detention centre after being arrested last July. Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who investigated the case and found it to be true, said, "She was held for about six weeks without charge. During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey."
[Yes, you should be reading the Guardian.)
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
I saw a pro-war poster stuck to the side of a dumpster on my way home today. It's a rare thing: pro-war folk tend not to be artsy.
It showed a skull-faced soldier toting heavy weaponry, and said something like, 'it takes more than tie dye and love beads to win the peace.'
At least, I think it was a pro-war poster. The image looked like it was from the Vietnam war. And we all know how well heavy weaponry brought about peace there.
*
Yahoo! News - A Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq:
It showed a skull-faced soldier toting heavy weaponry, and said something like, 'it takes more than tie dye and love beads to win the peace.'
At least, I think it was a pro-war poster. The image looked like it was from the Vietnam war. And we all know how well heavy weaponry brought about peace there.
*
Yahoo! News - A Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq:
"As of Wednesday, July 14, 883 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq (news - web sites) in March 2003, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 653 died as a result of hostile action and 230 died of non-hostile causes."
Oh-oh. Maybe he was correct: Freedom (Harpers.org)
2002 Week of Feb 5: CNN aired a video of Osama bin Laden in which he gloated that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people and the West in general into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”
A bigger pattern emerges, from Harpers.org:
[Reuters] Iyad Allawi, the prime minister of Iraq's new puppet government, signed a law giving him the power to declare martial law and ban seditious groups. Allawi hinted recently that national elections, which are scheduled for January 2005, might be delayed. [New York Times] President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was planning to delay parliamentary elections once again, and federal [New York Times] authorities in the United States were discussing the possibility of postponing the November elections in the event of a terrorist attack. [CNN] Tom Ridge, the secretary of homeland security, warned that Al Qaeda might be planning an attack to disrupt the November elections, but he said that he was aware of no specific threat or details about the alleged plan. The color-coded threat level remained unchanged, and many observers suspected the announcement was made to distract attention from Senator John Kerry and his new running mate, Senator John Edwards, whom President Bush accused of being too inexperienced.
I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't just read it: USATODAY.com - Counterterrorism officials look to postpone elections: "Newsweek said DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government power to cancel or reschedule a federal election. " (usatoday.com)
Why? An unspecified threat of terrorism near the elections.
Which, if it's unspecified, doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect rescheduled elections, does it? No.
Why? An unspecified threat of terrorism near the elections.
Which, if it's unspecified, doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect rescheduled elections, does it? No.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Democracy: messy, difficult, and not our best export. Perhaps you remember the quiz listing the countries we've bombed in the last 50 years which have failed to become democracies. I was reflecting on that and considering the state of our own democracy. We aren't the priciple's best spokesperson.
Have you seen how low voter turnout is? Have you seen the plentiful evidence of corruption in the current system? Have you read the scandals associated with people who have been financing our government officials and persuading them to pass laws in their own favor? The way democratically elected governments abroad have always been replaced my repressive, U.S.-friendly regimes with U.S. covert assistance? At the moment, the system we have is distant from the ideals upon which it was founded, and more people seem to stop believing and participating in it all the time.
All the while, there is the active attempt to undermine our democratic freedoms with big-invasive-government laws which should be anathema to our beliefs, but which are being promoted by both lawmakers and panicked citizens alike. (toledoblade.com) It seems like, in a moment of national crisis, it is democracy that we would cling to and defend, rather than attempt to disassemble.
After some reflection, I don't think that's actually what ordinary, non-profiteering war promoters are fighting for. I have a modest theory.
Many of the folks quoted in newspapers are demanding 100% obedience to our leaders, offering to sacrifice the freedoms on which our country was to operate, decrying the accurate reporting of news and of the occupation's lack of progress, and providing awkwardly self-contradictory expressions of fealty to the country, right or wrong. Especially wrong. But what makes our system different from a monarchy or totalitarian state if we demand such complete and unquestioning obedience? What can we hope to accomplish through blind loyalty?
I think the answer is: a complete lack of responsibility for world events, combined with the self-satisfaction of absolute "truth."
If you look at Americans, especially those with fundamentalist leanings, you see a demand for certainty: announcements that there is only one way to live life, that there is only one church that has the right god and right message, that there is only one way to be patriotic, that there is only one way to serve your country, that there is only one nation that enjoys the one god's protection, we're number one, we have the highest standard of living of anyone (well, with numerous exceptions), our way is the best and only way... They're looking for an absolute model. The ambiguity of the real world - lying Presidents, soldiers who commit atrocities, persecution of brown people - is too much for them. They want ONE answer, and reassurance that it is the ONLY answer.
A colleague who has proposed that the American public would be well suited by a return to a monarchy system isn't far wrong. Monarchies are much better with absolutes: chosen by the one god to rule, demanding loyalty on par with the one correct god, always divinely inspired, always correct. It's a great model of ONE way - and excuses citizens from having to do the hard work required to support a democracy.
Democracy IS hard work. You need to stay informed of the issues! Choose between many candidates! Consider running for office! Vote! Attend hearings! Chime in on key subjects to be sure your representatives know your view! Organize your community! It's so much work! Obedience, especially the unquestioning kind, is FAR easier. Just sit and know that higher powers have decided it all for you, and you just have to obey.
Obedience and faith in absent ideals provides a consistent compass. Facts need not apply. It's nicer to think we're the richest nation on earth than work to solve poverty in our neighborhoods. It's nicer to think other nations are just jealous when we wield power for undemocratic purposes, and they don't benefit. It's nicer to think that we've overwritten the 10 commandments as a reward for our inherent greatness than that we need to really consider our actions. Doubt can be painful. Doubt can be divisive. It's harder to be convinced that your nation is absolutely good when you know what your government is really doing in your name - such knowledge creates some responsibility to repair the system. Which requires effort. It is MUCH easier to deny that there are problems, and to claim that everything is fine. When bad news surfaces, plead ignorance.
("Death camps? We had no idea. But we know we're number 1!")
An emotional need for an absolute position explains the zeal and defensiveness with which people defend undemocratic (and even un-Christian) activities our nation has embarked upon, which they don't understand and can't explain. They're already in their absolute construct, which in some cases is modeled on fundamentalist (absolutist) beliefs. They're just waiting for the rest of us to join in, are mystified that we haven't, and are hoping that we'll be quiet soon.
Have you seen how low voter turnout is? Have you seen the plentiful evidence of corruption in the current system? Have you read the scandals associated with people who have been financing our government officials and persuading them to pass laws in their own favor? The way democratically elected governments abroad have always been replaced my repressive, U.S.-friendly regimes with U.S. covert assistance? At the moment, the system we have is distant from the ideals upon which it was founded, and more people seem to stop believing and participating in it all the time.
All the while, there is the active attempt to undermine our democratic freedoms with big-invasive-government laws which should be anathema to our beliefs, but which are being promoted by both lawmakers and panicked citizens alike. (toledoblade.com) It seems like, in a moment of national crisis, it is democracy that we would cling to and defend, rather than attempt to disassemble.
Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither.It doesn't jibe that we are "fighting for freedom" without intending to protect freedom.
-- Ben Franklin
After some reflection, I don't think that's actually what ordinary, non-profiteering war promoters are fighting for. I have a modest theory.
Many of the folks quoted in newspapers are demanding 100% obedience to our leaders, offering to sacrifice the freedoms on which our country was to operate, decrying the accurate reporting of news and of the occupation's lack of progress, and providing awkwardly self-contradictory expressions of fealty to the country, right or wrong. Especially wrong. But what makes our system different from a monarchy or totalitarian state if we demand such complete and unquestioning obedience? What can we hope to accomplish through blind loyalty?
I think the answer is: a complete lack of responsibility for world events, combined with the self-satisfaction of absolute "truth."
If you look at Americans, especially those with fundamentalist leanings, you see a demand for certainty: announcements that there is only one way to live life, that there is only one church that has the right god and right message, that there is only one way to be patriotic, that there is only one way to serve your country, that there is only one nation that enjoys the one god's protection, we're number one, we have the highest standard of living of anyone (well, with numerous exceptions), our way is the best and only way... They're looking for an absolute model. The ambiguity of the real world - lying Presidents, soldiers who commit atrocities, persecution of brown people - is too much for them. They want ONE answer, and reassurance that it is the ONLY answer.
A colleague who has proposed that the American public would be well suited by a return to a monarchy system isn't far wrong. Monarchies are much better with absolutes: chosen by the one god to rule, demanding loyalty on par with the one correct god, always divinely inspired, always correct. It's a great model of ONE way - and excuses citizens from having to do the hard work required to support a democracy.
Democracy IS hard work. You need to stay informed of the issues! Choose between many candidates! Consider running for office! Vote! Attend hearings! Chime in on key subjects to be sure your representatives know your view! Organize your community! It's so much work! Obedience, especially the unquestioning kind, is FAR easier. Just sit and know that higher powers have decided it all for you, and you just have to obey.
Obedience and faith in absent ideals provides a consistent compass. Facts need not apply. It's nicer to think we're the richest nation on earth than work to solve poverty in our neighborhoods. It's nicer to think other nations are just jealous when we wield power for undemocratic purposes, and they don't benefit. It's nicer to think that we've overwritten the 10 commandments as a reward for our inherent greatness than that we need to really consider our actions. Doubt can be painful. Doubt can be divisive. It's harder to be convinced that your nation is absolutely good when you know what your government is really doing in your name - such knowledge creates some responsibility to repair the system. Which requires effort. It is MUCH easier to deny that there are problems, and to claim that everything is fine. When bad news surfaces, plead ignorance.
("Death camps? We had no idea. But we know we're number 1!")
An emotional need for an absolute position explains the zeal and defensiveness with which people defend undemocratic (and even un-Christian) activities our nation has embarked upon, which they don't understand and can't explain. They're already in their absolute construct, which in some cases is modeled on fundamentalist (absolutist) beliefs. They're just waiting for the rest of us to join in, are mystified that we haven't, and are hoping that we'll be quiet soon.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Unnatural causes: the impact of Abu Ghraib on families. It looks like ALL of the deaths of all prisoners in US custody should be investigated by an impartial, non US military entity.
A Death at Abu Ghraib: Family: Iraqi Was Murdered in Prison; U.S. Cites Natural Causes (npr.org, 07/09/04) provides the story of a family which suffered the loss of their family patriarch.
Their story isn't unique: the US military raided their home at night and took the men away. ("A soldier told the family that a neighbor had turned them in as suspected insurgents, for a $500 reward.") They were abused. Ultimately, none of the men abducted and held for more than a month were charged with any crime. This story has been repeated ever since the end of the war, and is sadly familiar.
In this case, the tribal leader of the family was tortured, denied medical care, and then died. The military "investigated" without investigating, concluding that the (not released) autopsy report concluding that heart failure was the cause of death, therefore the circumstances surrounding the death aren't relevant, and so this man died of 'natural causes.'
Refusal to provide care isn't considered "natural." But this shouldn't come as a surprise. The U.S. prison system is rife with abuse, and the prison agencies are found guilty of denying care again and again. The same mentality that dehumanizes convicts here, justifying all manner of abuse, has been exported. Some of the prison guards in Iraq were prison guards in the U.S., and some were at prisons were abuse had occurred and created domestic scandals. (phillyimc.org)
A Death at Abu Ghraib: Family: Iraqi Was Murdered in Prison; U.S. Cites Natural Causes (npr.org, 07/09/04) provides the story of a family which suffered the loss of their family patriarch.
Their story isn't unique: the US military raided their home at night and took the men away. ("A soldier told the family that a neighbor had turned them in as suspected insurgents, for a $500 reward.") They were abused. Ultimately, none of the men abducted and held for more than a month were charged with any crime. This story has been repeated ever since the end of the war, and is sadly familiar.
In this case, the tribal leader of the family was tortured, denied medical care, and then died. The military "investigated" without investigating, concluding that the (not released) autopsy report concluding that heart failure was the cause of death, therefore the circumstances surrounding the death aren't relevant, and so this man died of 'natural causes.'
Refusal to provide care isn't considered "natural." But this shouldn't come as a surprise. The U.S. prison system is rife with abuse, and the prison agencies are found guilty of denying care again and again. The same mentality that dehumanizes convicts here, justifying all manner of abuse, has been exported. Some of the prison guards in Iraq were prison guards in the U.S., and some were at prisons were abuse had occurred and created domestic scandals. (phillyimc.org)
Friday, July 09, 2004
TNR Online's "PAKISTAN FOR BUSH. July Surprise?" (tnr.com, 07/07/04) provides this update on the 'war on terror:'
Comment from my source for this, Bob Harris of thismodernworld.com:
According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt....I'd think that LAST YEAR or the YEAR BEFORE would have been better. But it appears that the early capture of bin Laden would not be "better" for everyone's purposes.
A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [High Value Targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
Comment from my source for this, Bob Harris of thismodernworld.com:
The article goes on to detail the carrot-and-stick measures used to crank up the pressure on Islamabad to deliver up Bin Laden in a timely fashion.
Which means they could have done this earlier....
We should rejoice at Osama's capture, whenever it happens. But if Bin Laden suddenly shows up as scheduled, this should be understood, in advance, as prima facie evidence George W. Bush has spent years -- years! -- not doing all in his power to bring the greatest mass murderer in our history to justice.