I love this observation about our media, and the fuss the US has made in attempting to refute an Amnesty International report about abuses at Guantanamo Bay by Adam Felber in Fanatical Apathy: Light Years Ahead (felbers.net). Of course, you should go read the whole thing, but here's a hint:

First, bear in mind that the summary on the US from the Amnesty International annual report does not contain the word “gulag.” Nor does an exhaustive specific report released a couple of weeks ago. The phrase “gulag of our times” comes from a speech made two weeks ago that refers to the reports.

That’s where our stunning advantage in spin technology began to assert itself. By the middle of last week, there wasn’t a single member of the Bush administration who wasn’t pushing his or her way towards a microphone in order to denounce Amnesty International for their ridiculous, unfounded, absurd, unfair “gulag” statement. They likened Gitmo to a gulag! Do they even know what went on at those gulags? What kind of gulag gulag says that we gulag our gulag with the gulag gulag still at gulag? Our technicians stuffed the foreign and domestic press’ ears so full of gulag that it became the story, the lead that consigned the actual report to the background.

This is the same point being discussed by Jefferson Morley in The Guantanamo Debate Comes Home (washingtonpost.com, 06/20/05)

In the U.S. media, the debate about Guantanamo often focuses on the propriety of the language used to describe the treatment of prisoners. The White House, conservative columnists and his Senate colleagues criticized Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) for saying U.S. interrogation techniques were reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The Post's Anne Applebaum, a Guantanamo critic, rebuked Amnesty International for likening the prison camp to the Soviet gulag.In the foreign media, the debate is more likely to focus on the propriety of the treatment itself.

Imagine that! Focusing on the treatment of the prisoners! What a novel idea.

When the going gets tough, inadvertently offend your allies by flushing copies of their holy books down the toilet: BBC NEWS | South Asia | Dismay at US Koran 'desecration' (05/08/05).

t r u t h o u t - Bob Herbert | Lifting the Censor's Veil on the Shame of Iraq (truthout.org, 05/05/05) describes some of the disturbing photos taken by soldiers in Iraq that we have NOT seen on the national news.

It's not necessarily something you need to read, - it is upsetting - but I found it interesting that the Abu Ghraib torture photos were such a media sensation... and then, nothing. I didn't believe that soldiers stopped taking photos, or that the only photos they had were from that one prison. And, it turns out, there are a lot more out there.

That raises some questions about the U.S. news media, and what motivates them to publicize, or not publicize, that kind of information.

t r u t h o u t - Naomi Klein | How to End the War (truthout.org, 05/07/05): is one of several articles that discusses how profitable war can be, and how that is always encouragement for those who profit to make new wars.

There are several articles which have detailed how the US government has attempted to subvert efforts at "democracy" in Iraq, with puppet governments, payola, and other tricks. This discusses the motivation for doing so:

The reality is the Bush administration has fought democracy in Iraq at every turn.

Why? Because if genuine democracy ever came to Iraq, the real goals of the war - control over oil, support for Israel, the construction of enduring military bases, the privatization of the entire economy - would all be lost. Why? Because Iraqis don't want them and they don't agree with them. They have said it over and over again - first in opinion polls, which is why the Bush administration broke its original promise to have elections within months of the invasion.

...They protested that 500,000 people had lost their jobs. They protested the fact that they were being shut out of the reconstruction of their own country, and they made it clear they didn't want permanent US bases.

That's when the administration broke its promise and appointed a CIA agent as the interim prime minister. In that period they locked in - basically shackled - Iraq's future governments to an International Monetary Fund program until 2008.

Democracy without actual FINANCIAL control for the people is a foreign capitalist corporation's dream!

[I'm compiling a large collection of clippings, but haven't been posting because... well, really, nothing has changed. It's all still terrible, and the media is still largely cheerleading. But I will post here again in the short term, to repeat this in a longer way. :-) ]

Al-Jazeera Puts Focus on Reform (washingtonpost.com, 05/08/05) reveals that the Bush Administration likes Al-Jazeera when it reports news that Bush likes!! Who knew!

Interesting: If you want to know how representatives of Iraq's Kurdish minority, the U.S. occupation's greatest beneficiaries and allies, perceive the current conflicts in Iraq officially, read What Do the Insurgents Want? by Hiwa Osman (washingtonpost.com, 05/08/05).

It's an amazing coincidence that the position Osman reflects matches almost exactly with press releases from Washington. Amazing.

Hey, Homeland Security: Will ya just listen to this, please? by Omar Khan (csmonitor.com, 05/03/05) is one of those sensible proposals to make currently boneheaded Homeland Security airport practices efficient and sensible.

Which it currently isn't.

I like the part of this article in which one of the security supervisors is getting delayed by such checks, and there is NOTHING the security personnel can do about it, because the current system is so pathetic.

This is a good, short read.

Baghdad Burning: the hostage crisis (riverbendblog.blogspot.com) is about the non-existent hostage crisis that was covered in western media as if it were a real event. I've read references to the alleged hostage taking of dozens of Shias in a town in the western press, and am shocked that no one investigated to be sure it was real, despite the conditions in Iraq. GO READ THIS. Yes, the BBC recently put out some articles explaining that bodies recently found in a river aren't those of any alleged hostages, because no one has been reported missing where the hostages were allegedly taken.

Riverbend's blog is very informative, and she has some great insights of the sort that never make it to the U.S. newspapers.

Marla died. Marla was a young activist who founded a group to help Iraqi civilians called CIVIC Worldwide. She recently died in Iraq, along with others from her organization. Raed in the Middle: Remembering Marla Ruzicka has more information.

This is extremely sad. As is so much news from Iraq...

*

One sad thing is all of the unproductive hate mail Raed received in response to his tribute to Marla. Not only is poor Raed risking his life to document civilian losses in Iraq, but he has people demanding that he make loyalty oaths and denounce all Iraqi resistance, especially so-called insurgents. The demands and insults are pointless and unproductive: they won't make Raed safer, they won't bring Marla back, they won't help move their non-profit's work forward.

It's unfortunate that he has to deal with nutcases on all sides.

Who are the random Iraq checkpoints working for? Christian Science Monitor Blog | Notebook: Iraq Archive March, 2005 describes a foreign journalist's frightening experiences with American checkpoints.

"You're driving along and you see a couple of soldiers standing by the side of the road - but that's a pretty ubiquitous sight in Baghdad, so you don't think anything of it. Next thing you know, soldiers are screaming at you, pointing their rifles and swiveling tank guns in your direction, and you didn't even know it was a checkpoint.

If it's confusing for me - and I'm an American - what is it like for Iraqis who don't speak English?"

US (mostly) lets Iraq form its cabinet (csmonitor.com, 04/28/05). This is a great article on how the U.S.' past meddling with Iraq is impacting the ongoing efforts to form an Iraqi government, though it doesn't put it that way.

It describes current meddling - phone calls, political pressure, chiding from Condi.

It describes past meddling, though not in enough detail to make it clear that the current interim government is set up based on rules laid out by the U.S., and the inherent weakness of using a U.S. structured system to prevent majority rule is complicating the government's legitimacy.

It mentions that "government by the numbers," the factionalized system inherited by the U.S., may result in years of instability. It even mentions that historical U.S. support for the Kurds is complicating negotiations by allowing the Kurds to bargain out of proportion to their numbers, confident in U.S. backing.

I am not saying that proportional representation is an evil thing: I'm saying it's going to be difficult to legitimize because it was imposed by a self-interested foreign power with a minority ally. I'm saying it's unusual among democracies, which complicates its acceptance by majorities who will experience minority veto. I'm saying it raises questions about why different groups forced together by the British years ago must be forced to act as one nation now, even though some groups (most notably the Kurds) want their own country.

While we're on the subject of how tough it is for women in Afghanistan, let's look at this: Taliban coming in from cold (csmonitor.com, 04/28/05).

President Karzai offered an olive branch to rank-and-file Taliban fighters last year and said all but a core group of 150 militants wanted for human-rights violations would be able to rejoin the political process. 'Not only the Taliban but all Afghans who are afraid of their past political affiliation can return home and resume their normal lives,' says Jawed Luddin, a Karzai spokesman. 'It is the time to rebuild our country.'

On the surface, this sounds like a nice step toward peace. However, peace generally requires that war criminals be brought to justice, and it's highly unlikely that the myriad atrocities done during the Taliban's long reign were performed by a mere 150 militants.

Other nations, such as Argentina, which let war criminals on the loose who had been prematurely forgiven by the government have failed to advance: the burdens of the crimes left unresolved have been too much for civil society to bear. The Afghan people have surely been through enough of an ordeal already, and don't need to bump into their torturers and the people who executed their relatives walking free in the streets.

The current Afghan government may think that it cannot afford to hold people accountable for their crimes during this tenuous and decisive time, but if it can't now, it may never be able to.

Why things haven't improved much for women in Afghanistan since the election: To understand why things are still dismal, you need to go back and look at how the candidates ran. BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Silence over Afghan women's rights (news.bbc.co.uk, 10/07/04) describes the horrific societal conditions which lead to women's lives being ruined by male relatives and husbands (or their lack), yet which weren't touched upon by politicians for fear of backlash. In a country with 40% of voters being female, one would hope that there would be some movement toward improved conditions. But no. No one stuck their proverbial neck out, figuring women didn't have a choice.

That doesn't say much about democracy. Not much that's good, anyway.

Still winning hearts and minds around the world: BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Afghan civilians die in air raid (news.bbc.co.uk). Yes, this is a small incident, but it's one of many, and they're adding up in the public's list of things to be angry about.

One of the more entertaining things about this article is this quote:

"All possible efforts are taken to prevent non-combatant injuries and deaths," the US military said in a statement issued from their base at Bagram.

All possible efforts, EXCEPT for wildly throwing bombs when civilians are around, it appears.

The U.S. is losing its popularity (such that it was) and influence in the region, and small incidents like this are contributing to that decline.

Why does popular protest work elsewhere in the world, but not in the U.S.?
t r u t h o u t - Mexico's Lopez Obrador Wins Round One: "People Power Rattling Politics of Latin America" by Danna Harman of The Christian Science Monitor (truthout.org, post dated 04/29/05). I'll provide a sample of this article since I'm reviewing and recommending it, but only to induce you to read the entire thing.

Mexico City - First came the indignation, then the street protests and the disapproving comments from foreign countries. It culminated last Sunday with an estimated 1.2 million Mexicans marching silently through center of the capital. But President Vicente Fox moved to defuse the political crisis Wednesday night by accepting the resignation of his attorney general, who had been leading the criminal case against popular Mexico City Mayor and 2006 presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Chalk up another victory for Latin American people power. In the 1990s, what politicians feared most was apathy. But lately, Latin Americans from Mexico City to Quito, Ecuador - much like the citizens of Ukraine and Lebanon - have been taking to the streets in unprecedented numbers. Civic protest is emerging as an increasingly effective - if controversial - political tool....

Since 1990, 10 South American leaders have had to step down before their terms ended, many eased out by mass protests against them, according to the Argentine think tank Nueva Mayoria. A popular uprising brought down Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 2003, and then almost toppled his replacement, President Carlos Mesa, earlier this year; Peru and Argentina have all seen their governments fall, with angry crowds thronging the capital. In Ecuador, Mr. Guti[e]rrez is the third president in a decade to be forced from office. And Haiti has seen several elected leaders brought down by mass protests.

Go read it all, and then figure out what is different - why it is possible for mass protest to work elsewhere.

Of course, you should know that authoritarians HATE these popular revolts - they think that the public is a mob, and that any mass action to exert pressure is mob rule, no matter how peaceful. They don't explicitly say that they prefer secret rule by elites, which is tidier because it isn't democratic or inclusive, but I am suspicious.

t r u t h o u t - Pressured by FOIA Demands, Pentagon Releases Coffin Photos (truthout.org/latimes.com, 04/29/05)

Explain this: t r u t h o u t - Iraq Gets Partial Cabinet, Chalabi Deputy PM (truthout.org/AP, 04/28/05):

Ahmad Chalabi, a Shiite Arab and former Pentagon favorite, will be one of four deputy prime ministers and acting oil minister.

Actually, don't explain this if your explanation includes the phrase "pact with Satan."

Duh. t r u t h o u t - Tenet Admits WMD 'Slam-Dunk' Remark "Dumbest Ever" (truthout.org/repost from cnn):

Former CIA Director George Tenet said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had 'slam dunk' evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

'Those were the two dumbest words I ever said,' Tenet told about 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday.

It's different in England: In England, people are still concerned about the legality of invading Iraq, and some are using the word "impeachment" with regard to legal memoranda that were kept secret by the government on that same topic. UK Election 2005 | Iraq war legal advice published (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/28/05).