You knew this: Iraqis 'suffer a lack of rights' (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/12/05). Particularly, lacks of rights guaranteed by international law for occupied nations.

It's a shame the U.S. only believes in international law when it's time to invade!

Iraq cannot produce enough drinking water to meet its needs. So how is the U.S. helping? Iraq blighted by poor services (news.bbc.co.uk,04/05/05).

The Americans have allocated $18.4bn dollars for reconstruction in Iraq, but Mr Misocni says more than 70% of the money his ministry was originally granted has now been reallocated to spending on defence and security.

Since the Iraqis don't have security, where is the money going?

Oh. To keep Americans safe. Americans, who should not BE there.

This approach will not get the water clean.

"The Americans brought the terrorists here. They weren't here before." This is from BBC NEWS | In pictures: Iraqi lives two years after Saddam, photos of Iraqis and commentary about what their situation is currently like. Many express optimism that a new government can help them, but nearly all also mention that there is no security, and corruption is now rampant, including among the police.

Where U.S. tax money is going: Fury at 'shoot for fun' memo (guardian.co.uk, 04/03/05). Private contractors doing the U.S.' dirty work abroad are embarrassing.

Dated 7 March and bearing the name of Blackwater's president, Gary Jackson, the electronic newsletter adds that terrorists 'need to get creamed, and it's fun, meaning satisfying, to do the shooting of such folk.'

The essential information that is lacking in the memo, but which would reveal much more about this sentiment expressed by a major mercenary agency, is what they define as a "terrorist."

The suspicion of many of us is that it is a) anyone who is not white, b) anyone who one is paid to shoot.

Speaking of laws that Bremer dissolved, read this: Squatters in ruins of Iraq build hopes on new government (guardian.co.uk, 04/04/05). It tells of how Iraqis who support the elected government wound up homeless and squatting in the ruins of Baghdad.

When the US-led invasion toppled the Ba'athist regime in April 2003, the system of price controls which kept rents artificially low evaporated.

Landlords across the country seized the opportunity to increase rents and to evict those who could not pay. Within weeks thousands of families were homeless and trekking to the capital in search of accommodation.

Yaay, capitalism?

Juan Cole is quoted in the BBC! Iraqi compromise fuels angry debate (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/06/05) discusses how the transitional laws put in place by the U.S. prevent majority rule from occurring in the someday "democratic" Iraq.

Under the U.S.'s rules, a 2/3 majority is required for all sorts of actions to pass, unlike in other democracies which require just 51%. So Iraq is held to a different standard than democracies in the rest of the world, and coincidentally, one of the minority parties that favors US involvement gets veto power over anti-US positions held by other groups.

It is an interesting case of social engineering and foreign intervention for many purposes. This article provides a good overview.

The occupation of Iraq by U.S. corporations: The BBC has a good article covering a few of the odd occupation orders issued by the U.S.' representative in Iraq that don't relate to the immediate well-being of the Iraqi people. US legal legacy for Iraqi economy (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/07/05) describes a few of the big items that the occupation saw fit to change, despite the limits on occupying powers in wartime. They are all economic, and all benefit U.S. and other multinational corporations. Excerpt:

Orders 37 and 49 slash top tax rates from 45% to 15% - one of the lowest rates in the world. Order 54 erases all duties on imports to Iraq. Order 39 allows 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies except in the oil, gas and banking sectors.

There are also quotes by pro-free-market-capitalist publications describing this arrangement as a "capitalist's dream."

The inherently undemocratic nature of having an occupying military authority issuing economic edicts favoring foreign control of local resources doesn't bother the cheerleaders, who believe that capitalism and democracy are inherently intertwined, even when only capitalism is in evidence.

Perhaps because the cheerleaders are foreign corporations.

It looks like the UK's odds are slightly better than the US': Hundreds arrested, few convicted (news.bbc.co.uk, 03/11/05). Out of 201 arrests on terrorism charges, 17 have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses, and some of those were related to the IRA or crimes committed Sikkhim or Sri Lanka. They found a few who had "Islamic" ties, but considering the number of people arrested...

Well, it's still not as bad as the U.S.' figures.

The U.S. isn't agonizing over smuggling suspects to torture-using nations as much as the British are agonizing over being used as an airport for the practice: Does UK turn a blind eye to torture? (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/05/05).

It's really difficult to have a vision of positive futures for your country and the world, and see others driving people apart for greed and empire. REALLY difficult. As if the only way to live in the world is through the violent, military oppression of others.

I guess it's easy to think like that if you assume everyone is violent and greedy, but the people who usually argue that usually appear to be projecting.

Just in case you haven't looked at images from the last country the U.S. "liberated," look at these images reflecting the status of women in Afghanistan: BBC NEWS | In pictures: The darkness within. (news.bbc.co.uk). Recall that Afghan women were *supposed* to be the major beneficiaries of U.S. intervention.

Yes, I was paying attention to the peace marches & protests around the world on the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And I've been paying attention to how protests still work in governments that still claim to be representative, like Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan, where threats to democracy, like the dubious elections that the U.S. has had in recent years, are overturned promptly after popular protest.

I think protest hasn't been working as effectively in the United States, because the ruling classes that dominate both of the official political parties feel completely insulated from any consequences of their actions. Having a media run by the same interests that own the politicians, plus a federal judiciary with partisan outbursts, enables all sorts of unpleasant facts to be kept from the public or made to look legitimate, whose votes may or may not be counted anyway.

I haven't been writing because I've been trying to find a positive way to present a solution to this, but it isn't materializing.

I do believe that, what little democracy remains in the U.S. will have to be very heavily nursed by a lot of people to survive. That people who were used to saying that they 'aren't political' and 'just want to do their own thing' will actually have to work to maintain the right to live that way by SOME active involvement in the nation, beyond shopping, partying, and praying.

If I can find a way to present this sensibly, I'll post it here.

Well, at least the genetic engineering companies feel safe in Iraq: With all the unrest in Iraq, you'd think that the U.S. would stay focused on what it claims it is there to do, which is currently maintaining order.

This would be more compelling if there was some evidence that it was what the U.S. was doing. But it looks like occupation authority's attention has been elsewhere: Plowing for Profits: U.S. agribusiness eyes Iraq's fledgling markets -- In These Times (inthesetimes.com, 03/28/05 issue) describes some strange things, including one of the legal orders Bremer left behind.

Order 81 paves the way for genetically modified crops (GMOs), stating: "Farmers shall be prohibited from reusing seeds of protected varieties." The order... etches into Iraqi law WTO-style patent protections for genetically engineered crops -- assuring U.S. GMO-producing firms a legally protected niche in the country's future.

Yes, while the Iraqi people were looking for safe drinking water, Bremer was concerned with corporate patent rights for products which haven't even been forced on the Iraqi people yet.

It's just amazing.

This was discussed in the foreign press and blogosphere ages ago, but now it's hitting the mainstream: US held youngsters at Abu Ghraib (bbc.co.uk, 03/11/05). Yes, there were kids as young as 11 in the prison where abuses occurred. Yes, there are documented incidents involving drunken American soldiers and underaged female detainees. And this:

In her interview, she said Maj Gen Walter Wodjakowski, then the second most senior army general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners, even if they were innocent.

'I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians,' she said Maj Gen Wodjakowski told her. 'We're winning the war.'

There's an attitude for you.

I think when the U.S. said that it wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people, it really should have provided a definition of what "liberate" means to a country that until recently executed juveniles, had a big debate about executing the retarded, and who aren't concerned about whether incarcerated Iraqis are innocent or not.

Image of the Day: New Liberty.

Getting the Purple Finger, by Naomi Klein (thenation.com, 02/10/05) explains that the Iraqis voted for continued public investment, guarantees of jobs for all who need them, subsidized housing, and a U.S. withdrawal. That's not what they're going to get, according to U.S. officials who are contradicting 'the will of the people,' and instead feigning pride at the vote itself, not what was voted for.

It's amazing. Go read this.

This sucks: Agent Orange legal case dismissed (bbc.co.uk, 03/10/05). All the people who believe they were poisoned by the scary herbicide 'Agent Orange' during the American military operation in Vietnam (Vietnam War to Americans, American War to the Vietnamese) have been told by a U.S. judge that they no valid claims ANYWHERE (something of a reach). This long after the maker of the herbicide settled with American veterans for health problems they suffered.

For those of you paying attention, you may remember that Iraq is paying reparations to American corporations for projected profits they lost during the war that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Why is war-torn Iraq giving $190,000 to Toys R Us?, by Naomi Klein (guardian.co.uk and elsewhere, 10/16/04) So it's okay for the loser of one war to pay reparations for IMAGINARY BUSINESS LOSSES, but NOT okay for the loser of a devastating invasion in SE Asia to pay damages for health problems they actually caused?

What?

Creepy quote:

The US justice department had urged the federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

In a brief filed in January, it said opening the courts to cases brought by former enemies would be a dangerous threat to presidential powers to wage war.

All that talk about responsibility and morality, and THIS is what the U.S. government does?

Pretend to be surprised.

"Ramadi Madness?" US troops 'made Iraq abuse video' (bbc.co.uk) Yes, another abuse video. This one with titles for each sequence.

What is wrong with this people? Our military is good at brainwashing our troops to dehumanize our opponents, and Americans are already terrified of everyone else in the world, but still.

Things are not really improving in the U.S.' posture for war. I read a good interpretation this morning: that the Democrats are afraid that our wholly tabloid media will blame them for losing the war in Iraq if they criticize it, say anything negative about it, or (heaven forfend) demand that the U.S. forces leave Iraq, either immediately OR on ANY timetable.

That's exactly the sort of thing our (tabloid posing as news) media would do.

But it's created a gridlock legislatively, where the few Dems who stand up for troop withdrawals are attacked by other Dems trying to look good to a media which will never be their friend. Go figure.

Are you following this story? About how the US shot up the car containing rescued Italian hostage Guiliana Sgrena, injuring her and killing the secret service agent who had negotiated her release? Funeral for Italian shot in Iraq is the understated headline today. (bbc.co.uk, 03/07/05), though earlier articles on Ms. Sgrena's belief that there's no way such an incident could be accidental, were more lively.

The U.S. has been killing people in cars in Iraq near its checkpoints, including entire families, for some time, but most of their victims have been Iraqis, and the press has largely excused such behavior. Now that it is Italians dying under wild U.S. fire, the practice is coming under greater scrutiny.

The U.S. responded that it's ridiculous to believe that U.S. soldiers would target her. The quote from the article is: "It's absurd to make any such suggestion, that our men and women in uniform would target individual citizens." That's one of those strange, selectively worded answers which suggests that it IS perfectly reasonable to suggest that the uniformed US personnel DO target groups of citizens.

I suppose the U.S. will try to offer a few hundred dollars to this intelligence officer's family, the way they do to the bereaved in Iraq?