The new Ultra Mega Bad Ass Mother 3000 Political Thread o Rama!

[Briareos]

The other one kinda faded and I wana post this it was on National Reviews blog:

THE DARK SIDE OF COALITIONS [Jonah Goldberg]

Very interesting editorial in the Lebanese Daily Star making the point that Hizbollah is more on the side of Lebanese nationalism than Syrian soldiarity.But this was the most interesting point:

"We hope we won't be led into another situation like 1990, when America's strategic interests outweighed Lebanese democratic aspirations, and Syria was given carte blanche in Lebanon in exchange for its support of the U.S.-led Gulf war. Lebanon must not fall prey to any outside agendas; the Lebanese must be free to democratically govern themselves, without any foreign interference."

Recall how John Kerry and many, many, many other Democrats criticized George W. Bush for not building a "grand coalition" the way his father had? Well, what was always left out of these criticisms is that grand coalitions need to be built with something. Was it really so grand to have Syria in our coalition if it came at the price of acceding to Syria's control of Lebanon for a decade? Was our coalition more legitimate -- as Kerry and Howard Dean claim -- because it had so many members or was it less legitimate because in order to gain allies like the Syrians we had to betray our principles.

Again: the key foreign policy principle of the Democratic Party -- and the pro-Europe "multilateralists" -- coming out of the Iraq war is this notion that it is better to do wrong in a group than to do right alone.

Just something to ponder.

[Cam63]

Whatever happens next, I hope it works out for the best.

[the4thpip]

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports on a new study of TV news. U-decide.
In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.

These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of other stories -- "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

In a 617-page report, the group also found that "Fox is more deeply sourced than its rivals," while CNN is "the least transparent about its sources of the three cable channels, but more likely to present multiple points of view."

The project defines opinion as views that are not attributed to others.

Last March, Fox reporter Todd Connor said that "Iraq has a new interim constitution and is well on its way to democracy."

"Let's pray it works out," said anchor David Asman.

Another time, after hearing that Iraqis helped capture a Saddam Hussein henchman, Asman said: "Boy, that's good news if true, the Iraqis in the lead."

Fox legal editor Stan Goldman challenged Amber Frey's hiring of attorney Gloria Allred, saying: "If you want to keep a low profile, Gloria is not the lawyer to represent you."

In an interview, Fox's executive daytime producer, Jerry Burke, says: "I encourage the anchors to be themselves. I'm certainly not going to step in and censor an anchor on any issue . . . You don't want to look at a cookie-cutter, force-feeding of the same items hour after hour. I think that's part of the success of the channel, not treating our anchors like drones. They're number one, Americans, and number two, human beings, as well as journalists."

CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson says the study "reaffirms what anyone watching CNN already knows: CNN's reporting is driven by news, not opinion." MSNBC declined to comment.

The project, a Washington-based research group, offers a three-part breakdown of cable journalists voicing their opinions. From 11 a.m. to noon, this happened on 52 percent of the stories on Fox, 50 percent on MSNBC and 2.3 percent on CNN. Among news-oriented evening shows, journalist opinions were voiced on 70 percent of the stories on Fox's "Special Report with Brit Hume," due in part to its regular analysts' panel at the show's end; 9 percent on MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," and 9 percent on CNN's "NewsNight with Aaron Brown."

As for the most popular prime-time shows, nearly every story -- 97 percent -- contained opinion on Fox's "O'Reilly Factor"; 24 percent on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews"; and 0.9 percent on CNN's "Larry King Live." King devoted nearly half his time to entertainment and lifestyle topics, twice as much as O'Reilly and more than three times as much as Matthews.

The project describes cable news reporting as pretty thin compared to the ABC, NBC and CBS evening newscasts. Only a quarter of the cable stories examined contained two or more identifiable sources, compared with 49 percent of network evening news stories and 81 percent of newspaper front-page stories.

This, says the study, is in part because cable leans heavily on live reports, 60 percent of which are based on only a single identifiable source ("the White House said today," etc.). What's more, cable news is far more one-sided than other media outlets, with only a quarter of the stories involving controversy making more than a passing reference to a second point of view. By contrast, says the report, the network morning shows, PBS and newspaper front pages were more than three times as likely to contain a mix of views.

Cable networks "have gravitated, particularly as Fox has surged in the ratings, toward programs and somewhat less toward reporting," says Tom Rosenstiel, the group's director. He says opinion-laden journalism "probably is part of Fox's identity, but it's not true of all the programs."

As for the tone of Iraq coverage, 38 percent of Fox stories were positive, compared to 20 percent on CNN and 16 percent on MSNBC, the report says. But Fox war stories were about as likely to be neutral (39 percent), and more likely to be neutral at CNN (41 percent) and MSNBC (28 percent).

Despite its 24 hours of available air time, cable isn't exactly bursting with new news. Seven in 10 reports involve recycling of the same subject matter, with only 10 percent adding meaningful updates. "The time required to continuously be on the air seems to take a heavy toll on the nature of the journalism presented," the report says.

On the broadcast front, journalists offered no opinions on 83 percent of the evening news stories, 89 percent of the morning news reports and 97 percent of the pieces on PBS's "NewsHour." The biggest exception: campaign stories, where nightly news correspondents felt comfortable offering horse-race and other opinions 44 percent of the time.

more here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/?nav=pq)

[Pixies Chick]

The other one kinda faded and I wana post this it was on National Reviews blog:

THE DARK SIDE OF COALITIONS [Jonah Goldberg]

Very interesting editorial in the Lebanese Daily Star making the point that Hizbollah is more on the side of Lebanese nationalism than Syrian soldiarity.But this was the most interesting point:

"We hope we won't be led into another situation like 1990, when America's strategic interests outweighed Lebanese democratic aspirations, and Syria was given carte blanche in Lebanon in exchange for its support of the U.S.-led Gulf war. Lebanon must not fall prey to any outside agendas; the Lebanese must be free to democratically govern themselves, without any foreign interference."

Recall how John Kerry and many, many, many other Democrats criticized George W. Bush for not building a "grand coalition" the way his father had? Well, what was always left out of these criticisms is that grand coalitions need to be built with something. Was it really so grand to have Syria in our coalition if it came at the price of acceding to Syria's control of Lebanon for a decade? Was our coalition more legitimate -- as Kerry and Howard Dean claim -- because it had so many members or was it less legitimate because in order to gain allies like the Syrians we had to betray our principles.

Again: the key foreign policy principle of the Democratic Party -- and the pro-Europe "multilateralists" -- coming out of the Iraq war is this notion that it is better to do wrong in a group than to do right alone.

Just something to ponder.

Our failures in the middle east tend to be the combination of robust goals and skimpy commitment. Bush told the world to rise up, and be supported by the U.S. Well, hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah supporters have marched in the streets in opposition to the guys we said we'd support. We're the people with the outside agenda since it seems that Hezbollah has a ton more support in Lebanon than we do. What the hell do we do now that GW has delegitimized their democracy movement by linking it to the West, discrediting them, and uniting the opposition? What do you think GW is going to opt for now? Supporting the Lebanese democracy movement, or the U.S. strategic interests? When we opt for strategic interests, it just proves once again how faithless we are.

We're heavily into "Groupthink" right now. The press is kissing butt huge about the glories we're reaping in the middle east, but it's highly volatile. I can't count the number of times I've heard that George W. Bush personally brought democracy to the middle east. Meanwhile, the one thing that seems to be uniting the region is hatred of US. Without the support of more parties in the region, we were revealed to be arrogant, militaristic, and vengeful. After the war, the CPA showed itself to be corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent. A multiparty coalition is a way to separate animosity toward the U.S. from the mission.

Coalitions are especially useful because other players present different points of view. They can save us from our own myopia. Without diverse voices, we are doomed to make the same error as before, which is confusing national pride with objective analysis.

[Screwtape]

Robust goals, skimpy commitment, and a total lack of respect for out own stated self-evident truths as a country on the subject of human rights. With all this talk about freeing people from their godless oppressors, too few have stopped to think about what alliances with countries like Iran and Pakistan say about credibility as champions of freedom throughout the world (what little of it remains).

The idea that Iraq, previously a stable country under a loathsome tyrant, will retain that stability sans the tyrant himself is eminently laughable. The current regime can't even police Baghdad with any efficiency, let alone the outlying towns and cities where rebellions form.

With A) blatantly inhuman allies and B) a ruined, bloodily invaded country on our hands, how long before this turns into a real war, involving someone who really does have weapons of mass destruction and a grudge, or maybe just a well-grounded fear that their natural resources are starting to look tasty to someone in the president's cabinet?

Hey, Pixie, I'm reading a book you'd really like at the moment calld "Hegemony and Survival" by Noam Chomsky. Pick it up; it's great.

[anthony!]

Frankly its a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Its just as wrong to do nothing as it is to do something about these problems.

And who is really to blame? While some might say the U.S. or others George W. Bush— I hesitate that the answer is that simple-minded.

Was the second Gulf War a just war? Not by my standards, and certainly not by most others. Yet, it does pose interesting questions as to certain goals, principles and attitudes many of us in developed countries claim to adhere to.

All of these regimes are pretty brutal, regardless of whether they are democratic. They've stymied economic growth, and sold out their own populace to ensure their own political and economic wealth. And we routinely help them. Why? Because it allows our government to ensure our own political and economic wealth. Its all self-interest.

Unfortunately, that completely flies against all the principles that the U.S. and Europe supposedly stood for post-WWII. Standing up for opressed peoples under harsh regimes was nearly the entire reason for the creation of United Nations, yet that body and the rest of the world constantly fail to live up to much of anything.

Self-interest is as much of the problem as it is the solution. Everyone tends to think of their local self interest, not the community self interest. For all Europe's supposed liberalness and equality, when push comes to shove— Europe will do what Europe needs to do to survive and flourish, even if it means appeasing threatening regimes (ala China, Iran and to a lesser extent— Russia) and selling out the U.S.

Conversely there's the U.S.— big and bulkly; constantly motivated by its own consumption. At least the U.S. admits it acts in its own self interest. And to a certain degree its a little more sinister. U.S. diplomacty always plays countries against each other. In the 80's we went to bed with both Iraq and Iran. Today, its Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If they end up fighting against themselves— then "so be it" has been the U.S. attitude. Unfoturnately for us, as 9-11 sort of proved, working explicitly for our own political gain can have unforseen damage. In others, working in our self interest can end up working against our interest.

My big fear is that right now the next 150 years of warfare are being written as we speak. If Iraq and Palestine do not stabilize, and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran fall to extremists then over the course of the century I would fear a united Arab region run by Islamists. I don't think it would look all that different from Nazi Germany. The big hurdles of course are the economic development all these little nations lack.

China, on the other hand is sitting pretty right now if you ask me. All they have to do is wait in the wings— and eventually the U.S. will be so stretched thin putting out fires around the world they will be able to pounce.

All this is theory of course, and can be changed...there are signs that it could all work out for the best. However, it will require BOTH Europe and the U.S. to think in terms of trans-Atlantic interests, not individual self interest.

-A!

[anthony!]

And it continues...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4352259.stm

[the4thpip]

Maybe they shouldn't have tried to turn that journalist into a colander.

[anthony!]

Maybe they shouldn't have tried to turn that journalist into a colander.

Definately it was a screwup on the part of the U.S., but obviously Italy must have been moving in that direction for some time now. There is no way one incident like this would have that effect.

That said, I really don't believe in the paranoid "U.S. army targets journalists" theory...

And Italy must be aware that they aren't helping matters by leaving...it will only serve to destabilize the situation more. Hopefully it will be a slow withdrawl.

—A!

[the4thpip]

Definately it was a screwup on the part of the U.S., but obviously Italy must have been moving in that direction for some time now. There is no way one incident like this would have that effect.

.

—A!
Well, maybe they could have been influenced by the fact that the entire operation has been one horrible, bloody disaster and the reasons they all went were completely fabricated?

Or maybe they've just decided they don't like sun and heat.

[Screwtape]

Haha! Those Italians need to go home to the Mediterranean shade. Waitaminnit...

[anthony!]

Well, maybe they could have been influenced by the fact that the entire operation has been one horrible, bloody disaster and the reasons they all went were completely fabricated?

Or maybe they've just decided they don't like sun and heat.

Well, considering the election went well— I don't think you can call it a horrible, bloody disaster.

I wasn't for the war, and I'm still not— but what is done is done, and its better to bring it to a close the right way as opposed to just giving up and leaving the country worse than what it was before— which was pretty bad to start.

Ah, Pip. Where would I be if you didn't reply to my posts with anger and sarcasm?

—A!

[Adam Crocker]

Definately it was a screwup on the part of the U.S., but obviously Italy must have been moving in that direction for some time now. There is no way one incident like this would have that effect.

Well...you're both right. The Iraq war has never exactly been popular with the Italian public, but this incident helped to boil things over.

[the4thpip]

Well, considering the election went well— I don't think you can call it a horrible, bloody disaster.



—A!
Oh, but I can.

Horror? Check.
Blood? Check.
Chaos? Check.

It's still a horrible, bloody disaster. It didn't even slow down for one day after people voted.

[Pixies Chick]

Robust goals, skimpy commitment, and a total lack of respect for out own stated self-evident truths as a country on the subject of human rights. With all this talk about freeing people from their godless oppressors, too few have stopped to think about what alliances with countries like Iran and Pakistan say about credibility as champions of freedom throughout the world (what little of it remains).

The idea that Iraq, previously a stable country under a loathsome tyrant, will retain that stability sans the tyrant himself is eminently laughable. The current regime can't even police Baghdad with any efficiency, let alone the outlying towns and cities where rebellions form.

With A) blatantly inhuman allies and B) a ruined, bloodily invaded country on our hands, how long before this turns into a real war, involving someone who really does have weapons of mass destruction and a grudge, or maybe just a well-grounded fear that their natural resources are starting to look tasty to someone in the president's cabinet?

Hey, Pixie, I'm reading a book you'd really like at the moment calld "Hegemony and Survival" by Noam Chomsky. Pick it up; it's great.

I'll look for it. Thanks for the tip. It looks really interesting.

I used to think that GW was that guy in the bar who wouldn't apologize when he spilled your drink because he had two buddies and a shotgun waiting outside. Just a dick. Now, I think he's more like the high school jock who, after spilling his milk, says, "I meant to do that." Can't lose face. Spreading chaos is now supposed to be his great gift to the region. Meant to do that. Can they understand that the outcome of a coin toss isn't really determined by whether you like the prize? And that you can't just take credit for it if it does end up heads when there's losses to be accounted for. It's gambling with lives, and we're cheating.

Lots of people in the middle east have struggled for equality and democracy, but the take-home message we're being fed from this imbroglio is that invading a country that wasn't going to attack us was visionary. Cuz we're democratizing them through war and occupation. As a pacifist, that scares the shit out of me. Violence and chaos have highly unpredictable outcomes. Expecting democracy to shake out of this mess seems highly delusional, not visionary.

[Screwtape]

Lots of people in the middle east have struggled for equality and democracy, but the take-home message we're being fed from this imbroglio is that invading a country that wasn't going to attack us was visionary.Well said. It demonstrates the incredible lack of cultural understanding that has been the hallmark of the entire administration (yes, George, a black, female secretary of state is the perfect choice in the middle of a crisis within the fundamentalist Islamic world).

Moreover, I really don't think most of these countries are wrong to resist globalization. The American television media is always the first entrant into a given country, and they just cart in sleaze and filth that runs counter to nearly everyone religion's stated values. It's natural to see a powerful country that produces that kind of swill as immoral and scary.

[Pixies Chick]

Ya gotta be kidding me. Guess GW hasn't pissed off the world enough yet.

Bush Taps Wolfowitz as New World Bank President

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a lightning rod for controversy as one of the main advocates for the Iraq (news - web sites) war, is President Bush (news - web sites)'s choice for World Bank (news - web sites) president, administration officials said on Wednesday.

Wolfowitz would replace outgoing World Bank chief James Wolfensohn, who said earlier this month that Wolfowitz was no longer in the running for the top job after a Pentagon (news - web sites) official suggested he wanted to stay at the Defense Department.

The U.S. Treasury Department (news - web sites) has said it wants a new president in place before Wolfensohn departs in June after 10 years in the post.

By tradition, the United States selects the World Bank president while Europeans nominate a head of the International Monetary Fund (news - web sites). Bush's choice of Wolfowitz must still be ratified by other World Bank members, a process that could prove unusually contentious.

Wolfowitz is a deeply controversial figure in Europe because of his role in designing and promoting the Iraq war.

He has also been a frequent target of criticism from congressional Democrats for what they called his "rosy" assessments of the Iraq war. Before the invasion, he assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

The selection follows Bush's controversial decision to nominate John Bolton, another leading administration hawk, to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites). http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20050316/pl_nm/bush_worldbank_dc

Damn. It's a compelsion, I tells ya! He cain't help it. Bushie just gotta shove his asshole cronies to greatness, with no regard for how it pisses off allies, no matter how incapable they prove themselves to be.

[Screwtape]

Jeezum Crow on a popsicle stick.

Oh well, at least he's not at the Pentagon any more.

[the4thpip]

Following are some comments on Iraq Paul Wolfowitz, President's Bush's choice to head the World Bank:



-Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: "They've worked at hiding things very, very deliberately. There's no question in my mind that there was something there. There are just too many pieces of evidence, and we'll get to the bottom of it." May 31, 2003.

-The justification for attacking Iraq: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but ... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. ... The third one by itself ... is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it." Pentagon (news - web sites) transcript of interview with Vanity Fair magazine, May 2003.

-Occupying Iraq: "The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." March 4, 2003.

"If you're looking for a historical analogy, it's probably closer to post-liberation France (after World War II)." Interview with Trudy Rubin of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 17, 2002.

"We want to see a situation where power and responsibility is transferred as quickly as possible to the Iraqis themselves, with as much international assistance as possible. ... We have no desire to occupy Iraq. ..." April 10, 2003.

-Rebuilding Iraq: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." March 27, 2003.

-The futures of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq: "If we keep our commitment to helping Afghans and Iraqis chart their course toward a better future and demonstrate that we have no motive other than a more peaceful planet, then we will have struck a major blow to the ideology of terror and made major steps forward in making our country safer. The terrorists know that." May 6, 2004.

Compiled by researcher Tish Wells

[the4thpip]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military denied that US troops shot and killed an Iraqi general at a checkpoint Tuesday night in Iraq (news - web sites)'s western al-Anbar province.


"It is categorically untrue," Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, a Pentagon (news - web sites) spokesman, told reporters on Wednesday.

In Baghdad, the US military said in a statement that no coalition checkpoints in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force's area of responsibility, under which al-Anbar province falls, "reported any engagement of any kind during this timeframe."

Captain Amin al-Hitti, an Iraqi police officer, told AFP that Brigadier General Ismail Swayed al-Obeid was shot dead by US forces on the the road after curfew.

"The US forces opened fire at 8:00 pm (1700 GMT) on Brigadier General Ismail Swayed al-Obeid, who had left his base in Baghdadi to head home," al-Hitti said.

"They spotted him on the road after the curfew, which goes into effect at 6 pm," the officer said in Baghdadi, 185 kilometres (142 miles) west of the capital.



__________________________________________________ ______________
A lot of smoke there recently. Wonder if there is fire somewhere.

[the4thpip]

DC Mayor's Gay Liaison Murdered
(Washington) Wanda R. Alston, Washington Mayor Tony Williams' liaison to the gay community, has been found murdered in her home.

The body was discovered by her partner on returning to the Northeast Washington home Wednesday night.

Police Chief Charles Ramsey said Alston was lying face down, in a bloody crime scene.

The chief, along with other top members of the Williams cabinet arrived at the home as soon as the first police officers at the scene realized who the victim was.

Alston, 45, was considered a member of Williams's inner cabinet.

City Administrator Robert Bobb and school board president Peggy Cooper Cafritz arrived shortly after chief Ramsey.

Chief Ramsey told reporters that it was too early in the investigation to have a suspect or discuss a motive. It appeared Alston had been stabbed, but no murder weapon has been found.

Ramsey said there was no sign of forced entry but noted that Alston's car is missing.

At a morning news conference Mayor Williams said he was in shock.

"Her contributions to the people of our city were really beyond measure," Williams said. "All of us remember her as a passionate energetic woman who spoke for those who were unable to speak for themselves."

Williams said Alston did not show up for her afternoon appointments on Wednesday.

Alston is a longtime activist. She has served as co-chair of the DC Coalition of Black Lesbians, Gay Men & Bisexuals. She also worked at the Human Rights Campaign as an events manager and later went on to establish a political consulting firm, Alston Consulting Services, Inc.

"Wanda was an incredible woman and the profound meaning of her loss cannot be overstated," said Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese.

"Wanda's reach went far beyond Washington. She left her mark on the nation. Wanda exemplified the spirit of activism that awakens the masses and ultimately wins equality. While she has been tragically taken from the community, her spirit will never die."

In 1992, Alston served as the executive assistant to the president of the National Organization of Women, Patricia Ireland, and later as the special projects director where she helped to organize four national marches in Washington, DC and one in San Francisco.

Alston was a founding member of the National Stonewall Democrats, serving as a former board member and was active in the organization's DC chapter - the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club.

"Stonewall is saddened by the loss of our friend, and one of our community's finest leaders," said Eric Stern, NSD Executive Director.

"Wanda Alston helped foster the creation of our national organization in 1998, and continued to increase the visibility of LGBT Americans, especially LGBT Americans of color, among the residents of the District of Columbia and among Democrats throughout the country."

Williams named Alston his special assistant for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs in 2001. Last September the mayor raised her position to a Cabinet-level.

At the time of her murder Alston had been preparing for Williams' first gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender summit currently scheduled for April 30.

[Screwtape]

More on this from the Post...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43577-2005Mar17.html

[Briareos]

(yes, George, a black, female secretary of state is the perfect choice in the middle of a crisis within the fundamentalist Islamic world).

Wow that's rather bigoted of you.

Why do I get the feeling that if Kerry had nominated say Harold Ford JR. to be his Secratary of State you'd be calling it a bold move on his part.

And to be honest if having a black secratary of state bothers anyone in the world "Fuck them"

[Briareos]

Well it seems the whole "grassroots" Campaign Finance reform movement was a lie:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/treglia1.wmv
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/treglia2.wmv
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/treglia3.wmv

[Pixies Chick]

And to be honest if having a black secratary of state bothers anyone in the world "Fuck them"

I agree. I don't think this is a negotiation point, it's a principle.

[Pixies Chick]

Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005

Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel.

The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed.

The Pentagon has never provided comprehensive information on how many prisoners taken during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have died, and the 108 figure is based on information supplied by Army, Navy and other government officials. It includes deaths attributed to natural causes.

To human rights groups, the deaths form a clear pattern.

"Despite the military's own reports of deaths and abuses of detainees in U.S. custody, it is astonishing that our government can still pretend that what is happening is the work of a few rogue soldiers," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "No one at the highest levels of our government has yet been held accountable for the torture and abuse, and that is unacceptable."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml

I just want a number. A number for any one of these questions. 1. How many people detained without trial is too many? 2. How many people dying in U.S. military custody is too many? 3. What percentage of the deaths of people held in military custody should be investigated? More than, say, twenty-five?

Anybody got a figure they'd like to throw out? Second term is kinda young, so I'm willing to bet that they can make all kinds of people die and disappear before they're done. They got Alberto helping 'em keep on doing it.

[Briareos]

I agree. I don't think this is a negotiation point, it's a principle.


*Checks His faucet to see if blood comes out* :D

[the4thpip]

Well it seems the whole "grassroots" Campaign Finance reform movement was a lie:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/treglia1.wmv
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/treglia2.wmv
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/treglia3.wmv
Didn't we have a rule about NY Post stories that have not been independtly confirmed ever since they announced Kerry's running mate?
Just saying.

[the4thpip]

I agree. I don't think this is a negotiation point, it's a principle.
Personally, I think he should have gone with a lesbian black woman.

Then again, maybe he did? :confused:

[the4thpip]

Rapper Lil' Kim convicted of perjury

March 17, 2005 | New York -- Rap diva Lil' Kim was convicted Thursday of lying to a federal grand jury to protect friends involved in a shootout outside a radio station.

Lil' Kim and her assistant were both convicted of perjury and conspiracy but acquitted of obstruction of justice. They each face up to 20 years in prison; sentencing was set for June 24.

The 29-year-old former sidekick and mistress of the late Notorious B.I.G., known for her revealing outfits and raunchy raps, testified that she did not notice two close friends at the scene of the 2001 shootout -- her manager, Damion Butler, and Suif "Gutta" Jackson. Both men have since pleaded guilty to gun charges.

The jury saw radio station security photos showing Butler opening a door for Lil' Kim. And witnesses Antoine "Banger" Spain and James "Lil' Cease" Lloyd, who once teamed with Lil' Kim in the group Junior M.A.F.I.A, testified that Butler and Jackson were at the station with her.

[Cam63]

Here's hoping justice is done for all the above mentioned.

[Pixies Chick]

Volokh Conspiracy:

Something the Iranian Government and I Agree on: I particularly like the involvement of the victims' relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he'd killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing — and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act — was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging. The one thing that troubles me (besides the fact that the murderer could only be killed once) is that the accomplice was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, but perhaps there's a good explanation.

I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness. I think it slights the burning injustice of the murders, and the pain of the families, to react in any other way.

And, yes, I know this aligns me in this instance with the Iranian government — but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in this instance the Iranians are quite correct.

UPDATE: I should mention that such a punishment would probably violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. I'm not an expert on the history of the clause, but my point is that the punishment is proper because it's cruel (i.e., because it involves the deliberate infliction of pain as part of the punishment), so it may well be unconstitutional. I would therefore endorse amending the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause to expressly exclude punishment for some sorts of mass murders.

Naturally, I don't expect this to happen any time soon; my point is about what should be the rule, not about what is the rule, or even what is the constitutionally permissible rule. I think the Bill of Rights is generally a great idea, but I don't think it's holy writ handed down from on high. Certain amendments to it may well be proper, though again I freely acknowledge that they'd be highly unlikely.

In any event, there's nothing unconstitutional about letting victims' relatives participate in the execution; it's only the use of cruel means that would require an amendment.
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_03_13-2005_03_19.shtml#1111021309

Volokh is a pretty well-known blog. What the hell is happening to the far Right? Where did the bloodlust and cries for revenge-killing come from? Isn't war enough? Isn't torture of untried prisoners and permanent detention enough? Even state sanctioned murder doesn't sate their thirst for violence anymore. It's got to be ratcheted up a notch with an innovative *new* plot twist. And they think the left is ruining our culture. These guys want to toss our culture out the window and start over as barbarians.

Seriously, the call for violence I hear from the Right -- from the call to beat liberals, the drums of war, and the reckless disregard of the lives of our military's prisoners, they are channeling the end of the Roman empire.

[anthony!]

Seriously, the call for violence I hear from the Right -- from the call to beat liberals, the drums of war, and the reckless disregard of the lives of our military's prisoners, they are channeling the end of the Roman empire.

Not to pick a fight— but I really can't stand the "U.S. as Roman Empire" metaphor. People use that as some sort of catch all for saying the U.S. sucks.

As long as there is decent and debate the U.S. doesn't suck. People have been saying the U.S. is going to implode for decades. If you think conservatives are the death knell of the republic in modern times, then you really would have been convinced the end was near during post-Civil War reconstruction, when half the country was under military rule and mobs went around killing pretty much anyone who disagreed with them.

A better historical metaphor for the U.S. would be Victorian Britain, IMHO. We are big and bulky, we influence everything and its pissing everyone off. Eventually our power will fade from the top and we'll end up looking a lot like the U.K. of today. Just my opinion.

—A!

[the4thpip]

Sometimes I think we need to create a comic book reading list for conservatives. The Captain America "Madbomb" trade paperback by Jack Kirby that was reprinted recently is a great metaphor for the industrial cronyism that's shaping the new neocon society: a powerful elite convining people that security is worth giving up freedom over, and that money increases the worth of a human being.

And as for the way enemy prisoners are being treated.... Even 60s Cap knew better:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/the4thpip/cap.jpg

[Screwtape]

I agree. I don't think this is a negotiation point, it's a principle.Standing on principle is a fine thing, but Condi Rice, through no fault of her own, starts from a handicapped position in every negotiation with Saudi, Iran, Jordan, and most of the other middle-eastern countries. That does not make her a good choice for secretary of state. And the "fuck the world if they think different" attitude is what got us into trouble in the first place.

[Briareos]

How exactly did we get into "Trouble" Are you saying the fact that islamist terrorists want to kill us is our fault? I mean I suppose it is Gail won't wear a Burka and I haven't killed my quota of Jews for today so I can see why they blame us.

[Adam Crocker]

*Checks His faucet to see if blood comes out* :D

Would it help if I stated that a wormhole just opened up in my room and Kang the Conqueror is demanding that join his cosmic D&D game of the ages and play for the fate of the timeline or be slain?

Now the following post below should adequately sum up my thoughts on matter of U.S. power in the Middle East from the moment that Pixie brought it up to Briareos' most recent response to Screwtape.


It demonstrates the incredible lack of cultural understanding that has been the hallmark of the entire administration (yes, George, a black, female secretary of state is the perfect choice in the middle of a crisis within the fundamentalist Islamic world).

Not sure if the Iraq war demonstrates so much a lack of cultural understanding as a general obliviousness about the effects of U.S. foriegn policy across the world and why the U.S. is looked upon poorly across the world. Around 9/11 when Rudy Guiliani rejected the checque from Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia after the Prince suggested that U.S. policy in the Middle East had helped contribute to the anger that led to the 9/11 attacks I could only roll my eyes resignedly. Frankly I though the Prince's suggestion was pretty hypocritical given that the stupid, corrupt Saudi regime that he leads has given Al-Qaeda it's reason for being more than anything else.

On the other hand he was right. George W. Bush prattling on about bringing democracy to the region comes off as downright bizarre considering America's continued support for the House of Saud or given the role the CIA played in originally boosting the Ba'ath party into power in 1968. (To be fair they didn't help them in a second time a year later, but they did provide lists of people for the party to massacre on the first go.) Everyone praising Bush for putting pressure on Iran seems to forget that Iran has the Ayatollahs percisely because the CIA engineered overthrow of Mossadeq in favour of the Shah, the U.S.'s continued support for his brutal, incompetent regime discredited the West as well as secular, western modernization which the Shah so espoused while at the same time revelling in opulence while most Iranians benefitted not at all from his regime.

(Yet the line down in the National Review is STILL that the Shah fell because Carter was willing to call him out on something every Iranian knew all too well and hated him for anyways, and thus that emboldened the Ayatollahs to make their move...never mind that their move was to merely move back to Iran after a popular uprising had forced the Shah out of power and capitalize on the symbol of opposition that Khoemini had served as abroad. Hell the parallels between the Shah and the Saudi regimes in their slowness to reform and the way they give rise to religious fanatics is somewhat creepy when I think about it. Though it seems that the Saudis are waking up sooner to how much they are digging their own grave.)

And this same crap got pulled in Indonesia, where Washington supported a butcher like Suharto, or far too many countries in Latin America, including Guatemala where they overthrow a moderate, democratically elected government for enacting land reform and in its stead supported a virtual mafia state. So it's not simply a cultural insensitivity thing between the U.S. and the Middle East. It's a sheer insensitivity to the actual consequences of continually interfering in other countries' affairs to protect the interests of U.S. power (or more accurately, the power of the politicians and their corporate buddies seeing as how they have no problem screwing over the average person in the United States).

That said, why would it matter if Rice were black? I understand what you mean about her being a woman due to the rampant misogyny in the Middle East, but black? As far as I know that being black isn't so much a problem in regards to being discriminated against there as her being a woman might be. Then again I don't see why Rice would be any more problematic as a Secretary of State than Madeliene Albright was under Clinton.

...especially since the sex of the secretary of state is hardly comparable to kind the political interference the U.S. has been running in the Middle East, and if we go by the logic of your statement we come to the self-serving B.S. that was "They hate us for our freedom." What really matters more in regards to the Middle East? That Albright is a woman or that she said that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children under the sanctions was worth it? That Ms. Rice is a woman or that she supported Bush's policy of illegally invading Iraq on a flimsy pretext and killing many civilians due to the resultant bombing in the process? So long as the U.S. continues with the pattern of foreign policy it has established since WWII whether or not the U.S.'s Secretary of State is a black, white, yellow, pink hermaphroditic drag queen is going to mean all of jack and shit in regards to the Middle East.

[Pixies Chick]

Not to pick a fight— but I really can't stand the "U.S. as Roman Empire" metaphor. People use that as some sort of catch all for saying the U.S. sucks.

—A!

Then don't say that.

Funny, A, but I gotta ask where your morals are. This jerkoff says he wants bloodlust in America, and you're pissed at my metaphor?

You say he's America? And when I criticize him I'm critizing America? I reject that. In fact, I want him to get the hell out of my country.

But it's not even shocking anymore is it, this call for blood? A year ago, we were stunned to hear about torture in Abu Ghraib. People debated whether it should ever be used at all. Now the debate is how much, how often would indicate it's gotten out of hand. Torture is assumed. In fact, bring the kids! It'll be fun!

This is what we used to believe:

Because democracy does not mean one man, one vote, one time. In the German elections of 1932 and 1933, the Nazis won more votes than any other party. We know what they did with the power thus won. Totalitarians are perfectly capable of achieving power through democracy, then destroying it.

Moreover, democracy does not just mean elections. It also means constitutionalism -- the limitation of state power -- in political life, and tolerance and pluralism in civic life.

What happened?

I'm not saying that the U.S. sucks, and if you think about it, you'd realize that HE IS. He's the one who wants us to abandon our culture and take up the lash. I'm saying we need to hold onto what America is. Why you're siding with him in his quest to brutalize us is beyond me.

[anthony!]

Then don't say that.

Funny, A, but I gotta ask where your morals are. This jerkoff says he wants bloodlust in America, and you're pissed at my metaphor?

Oh please. I wasn't commenting on his writing, I was commenting on your use of a metaphor people commenly use. That was all.
—A!

[the4thpip]

Oh please. I wasn't commenting on his writing, I was commenting on your use of a metaphor people commenly use. That was all.
—A!
I think that was her point. Your outrage seemed oddly directed.

[the4thpip]

As to the other discussion going on:
There have been women as members of the Iranian parliament for years now, some even serving on the cabinet and there are high ranking judges and university professors who are women. Pakistan even had a female Prime Minister for a while. It's true, societies based in the rules of Islam are misogynistic, but that does not seem to necesserily extend 100% to political roles.

[Pixies Chick]

Oh please. I wasn't commenting on his writing, I was commenting on your use of a metaphor people commenly use. That was all.
—A!

And that says a lot. Utter silence when a conservative calls for increased violence in America, and state-sanctioned, public torture, and you'd like the person who's bothered by it to object with moderation. How patriotic.

When you've finished policing my language for words you don't like, can you take a sec to look at the conservative right? You want me to be polite when he says he wants the U.S. to abandon the restriction on cruel and unusual punishment so we can torture people publicly and legally. IMO, if you love America, you don't stand idly by when prominent people on your side of the political spectrum call for the destruction of her core values. But I'm not a conservative. You guys do it differently, I guess.

If you're not willing to take responsibility for what your side says, you've got a hell of a lot of nerve criticizing me. You may have decided that the conservative label gives him free reign to run down the principles that made us a great nation, but don't tell me I'm obligated to.

I'll stand by what I said earlier. The calls for violence on the right are increasing exponentially, and I don't hear ANY conservatives being upset by this. Until someone objects, I can only assume you agree with him.

[anthony!]

I think that was her point. Your outrage seemed oddly directed.

I'm not outraged. I was just discussing.


And that says a lot. Utter silence when a conservative calls for increased violence in America, and state-sanctioned, public torture, and you'd like the person who's bothered by it to object with moderation. How patriotic.

When you've finished policing my language for words you don't like, can you take a sec to look at the conservative right? You want me to be polite when he says he wants the U.S. to abandon the restriction on cruel and unusual punishment so we can torture people publicly and legally. IMO, if you love America, you don't stand idly by when prominent people on your side of the political spectrum call for the destruction of her core values. But I'm not a conservative. You guys do it differently, I guess.

If you're not willing to take responsibility for what your side says, you've got a hell of a lot of nerve criticizing me. You may have decided that the conservative label gives him free reign to run down the principles that made us a great nation, but don't tell me I'm obligated to.

I'll stand by what I said earlier. The calls for violence on the right are increasing exponentially, and I don't hear ANY conservatives being upset by this. Until someone objects, I can only assume you agree with him.

I didn't feel the need to comment because I don't even believe in the death penalty to begin with. You said that Volokh Conspiracy is a pretty well known blog. Well, I don't know about it and I rarely ever read blogs. I'm not a big fan of blogs, and I really don't think I should comment on something I know little about. Experience has taught me usually its best not to comment on things your not familiar with. The guy (who ever he is) is entitled to his own opinion of course, but yes it does bother me that people think like that. However, I've only read YOUR edited version of his comments— it would be unwise of me to judge the blogger based solely on that.

And by the by, you seem to be implying that I'm conservative. I certainly don't identify myself as such— particularly considering I voted for Kerry, I'm pretty anti-war and don't believe in the the death penalty. Simply because I also happen to also be pro-life does not automatically label me a conservative. Half the problem with politics in this country is based in the fact that we like to label people. It makes them easier to attack.

I merely pointed out your use of a metaphor. It wasn't intended as a point of attack, it was intended as a point of conversation. If you took it personally, there's little I can do passed apologizing. This is a thread for debate and discussion, not necessarily a board for group 1 vs. group 2.

You seem to be more bothered by me not commenting on whatever asinine comments someone made on a blog I've never read. Well, now you have them. Based on what you quoted I think its a crappy attitude and philosophy, but I don't have much more than that to go on.

—A!

[Pixies Chick]

I didn't feel the need to comment because I don't even believe in the death penalty to begin with. You said that Volokh Conspiracy is a pretty well known blog. Well, I don't know about it and I rarely ever read blogs. I'm not a big fan of blogs, and I really don't think I should comment on something I know little about. Experience has taught me usually its best not to comment on things your not familiar with. The guy (who ever he is) is entitled to his own opinion of course, but yes it does bother me that people think like that. However, I've only read YOUR edited version of his comments— it would be unwise of me to judge the blogger based solely on that...
—A!

WTH? You DID respond A. The link's there. You felt a need to criticize to my post, but you didn't bother to check into it? And for that reason - your own laziness - you imply that I was dishonest in how I portrayed his comments. Lovely bit of dishonorable behavior there.

And by the by, you seem to be implying that I'm conservative. I certainly don't identify myself as such— particularly considering I voted for Kerry, I'm pretty anti-war and don't believe in the the death penalty. Simply because I also happen to also be pro-life does not automatically label me a conservative. Half the problem with politics in this country is based in the fact that we like to label people. It makes them easier to attack. ...—A!

Half? So labels are half the problem with politics. Not state-sanctioned rape. Not state sanctioned violence. Not the erosion of civil liberties. Not inequality or injustice. Labels are half?

I considered you conservative because you publicly expressed opposition to state-sponsored gay marriage, but not to state-sponsored torture.

I merely pointed out your use of a metaphor. It wasn't intended as a point of attack, it was intended as a point of conversation. If you took it personally, there's little I can do passed apologizing. This is a thread for debate and discussion, not necessarily a board for group 1 vs. group 2.

You seem to be more bothered by me not commenting on whatever asinine comments someone made on a blog I've never read. Well, now you have them. Based on what you quoted I think its a crappy attitude and philosophy, but I don't have much more than that to go on.

—A!

Well, at least I know your criticism of my metaphor was out of willful ignorance.

[Ian Boothby]

Not to pick a fight— but I really can't stand the "U.S. as Roman Empire" metaphor. People use that as some sort of catch all for saying the U.S. sucks.

As long as there is decent and debate the U.S. doesn't suck.
—A!

Any country that uses torture kinda sucks. They may have some good qualities too but if they keep torturing they're like the boyfriend who's great most of the time and only beats you when he thinks you're asking for it.

You can debate something all you want but until you stop doing it, you live in the land of suck.

[anthony!]

WTH? You DID respond A. The link's there. You felt a need to criticize to my post, but you didn't bother to check into it? And for that reason - your own laziness - you imply that I was dishonest in how I portrayed his comments. Lovely bit of dishonorable behavior there.

I read your post! I read the blog. I wasn't familiar with it prior to your post. How does any of that negate what I said?



Half? So labels are half the problem with politics. Not state-sanctioned rape. Not state sanctioned violence. Not the erosion of civil liberties. Not inequality or injustice. Labels are half?

I considered you conservative because you publicly expressed opposition to state-sponsored gay marriage, but not to state-sponsored torture.

I haven't publicly stated opposition to gay marriage. I've publicly supported the abolition of all state-sponsored marriage. I've posted on this numerous times. So it looks like you've been reading my posts about as well as you are accusing me of reading yours. I'm not sure what my position on gay marriage makes me, but it is my position and I'm sticking to it. Government has no business in people's lives on that level.

Yes, labels are a huge problem in politics. Torture, rape, etc would be policy problems.

And of course the above items you mention concern me. Simply because I'm not holding a protest sign or publicly moaning about it doesn't mean that it doesn't hold my interest or my feelings. Obviously how we conduct ourselves in the theatre of war is going to have far reaching implications down the road. Frankly it doesn't surprise me at all that people are getting tortured post 9-11. It doesn't surprise me that civil liberties are being eroded. This is what ends up happening when government acts out of fear, no matter how well-founded that fear is. Your misreading my posts and not understanding my intent.

Your angry at me simply because I din't respond the way you wished I had.I fail to see why you are being alarmist about me NOT being alarmist. How strange.


Well, at least I know your criticism of my metaphor was out of willful ignorance.

WTF is with the insults? I've never insulted you. I read your post and your link. Simply because I haven't read the blog that you say is well known in the PAST doesn't qualify as willful ignorance. How could I be WILLFULLY ignorant of a blog I haven't heard of before yesterday?

Any country that uses torture kinda sucks. They may have some good qualities too but if they keep torturing they're like the boyfriend who's great most of the time and only beats you when he thinks you're asking for it.

You can debate something all you want but until you stop doing it, you live in the land of suck.

Ah thanks for chiming in Ian. I know I can always count on you to help me with my mental handicaps.

I'm sure the Canadian government is totally squeeky clean, right? I'm sure they've totally never made a mistake, or had those in power use it for there own advantage. Oh, and its a good thing Canada is around to save us all from ourselves. They've been such a beacon of inspiration to those of us in the Land of Suck.

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

Ah thanks for chiming in Ian. I know I can always count on you to help me with my mental handicaps.

I'm sure the Canadian government is totally squeeky clean, right? I'm sure they've totally never made a mistake, or had those in power use it for there own advantage. Oh, and its a good thing Canada is around to save us all from ourselves. They've been such a beacon of inspiration to those of us in the Land of Suck.

—A!

Canada has tortured prisoners in the recent past in Somalia. Not squeeky clean at all and something we had to deal (and still deal) with. But you know what, if we have blood on our hands that doesn't make yours cleaner.

Torture is about as serious an issue as there is and if the U.S. really does find it acceptable then its policies are immoral. Again, you can find other countries that are more immoral but are those the low standards you want to be judged by?

Oh and I'm attacking an action your country has taken and the reaction to it, not your country itself. If you have a shot to take at mine then let me know the action we've taken (or not taken) that you've got a problem with.

My country right or wrong is position that brings its own mental handicaps.

[the4thpip]

I considered you conservative because you publicly expressed opposition to state-sponsored gay marriage, but not to state-sponsored torture.



In his defense, before Bush, those were more considered Stalinist than conservative.

[anthony!]

Canada has tortured prisoners in the recent past in Somalia. Not squeeky clean at all and something we had to deal (and still deal) with. But you know what, if we have blood on our hands that doesn't make yours cleaner.

Torture is about as serious an issue as there is and if the U.S. really does find it acceptable then its policies are immoral. Again, you can find other countries that are more immoral but are those the low standards you want to be judged by?

Oh and I'm attacking an action your country has taken and the reaction to it, not your country itself. If you have a shot to take at mine then let me know the action we've taken (or not taken) that you've got a problem with.

My country right or wrong is position that brings its own mental handicaps.

What angers me is simply the fact that I'm getting pissed on because I'm not openly, viscerally angry about all the stuff thats happened over the last year or so.

Of course I'm dissappointed and extremely worried. Activities going on in Iraqi prisons alone should have brought about Rumsfeld's head— and I'm shocked that he's still Secretary of Defense. That said, I reiterate that it doesn't surprise me that torture has been used, nor does it surprise that the government willfully bends, stretches and outright breaks war conventions to accomplish its own goals. In war, horrible things happen. There is no such thing as a clean and efficient hot war that goes without crimes. Again, when governments are motivated by fear, bad sh!t always goes down.

I've never claimed the U.S. was any more or less morally clean than any other country. I do believe it to be a bit more open, straightfoward and blunt— but not without any less sin than other countries of equal principle.


In his defense, before Bush, those were more considered Stalinist than conservative.

Color me slightly confused. How does my position make me Stalinist, and what position are we specifically refering?

I'm unsure what abolishing all marriage in the U.S. makes me. To me, it makes me what a conservative ought to be. It seems almost modern-Jeffersonian.

And just to clarify I DON'T support state sponsored torture. Just because I'm not up in arms over it the way Pixies Chick seems to be doesn't by default mean I'm okay with it. I can't even begin to tell you how many tenets of my own moral compass that would be breaking if I was for it.

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

What angers me is simply the fact that I'm getting pissed on because I'm not openly, viscerally angry about all the stuff thats happened over the last year or so.

Of course I'm dissappointed and extremely worried. Activities going on in Iraqi prisons alone should have brought about Rumsfeld's head— and I'm shocked that he's still Secretary of Defense. That said, I reiterate that it doesn't surprise me that torture has been used, nor does it surprise that the government willfully bends, stretches and outright breaks war conventions to accomplish its own goals. In war, horrible things happen. There is no such thing as a clean and efficient hot war that goes without crimes. Again, when governments are motivated by fear, bad sh!t always goes down.

—A!

Yes, bad things happen in war but when war crimes occur saying, "shit happens" doesn't cut it. Your reaction to me (and others) saying this is wrong isn't agreeing but getting defensive and lashing out against Canada.
I am upset you're not more upset because I'm steamed America doesn't seem more outraged. You've chucked out the Bill of Rights and giving a damn about that seems to make your part of the fringe not the mainstream. People are tortured under your watch and the excuse seems to be, "Hey other countries do worse". Like a wife beater who says they aren't as bad as the arsonist next door. America was better than that. It can be again.


And just to clarify I DON'T support state sponsored torture. Just because I'm not up in arms over it the way Pixies Chick seems to be doesn't by default mean I'm okay with it. I can't even begin to tell you how many tenets of my own moral compass that would be breaking if I was for it.

—A!


So if you don't get up in arms about something that breaks the tenets of your moral compass what do you get up in arms about? Without a broken moral compass where are you?

[anthony!]

Yes, bad things happen in war but when war crimes occur saying, "shit happens" doesn't cut it. Your reaction to me (and others) saying this is wrong isn't agreeing but getting defensive and lashing out against Canada.

Whatever Ian. I only lashed out at Canada because you declared America to be the land of suck. Sorry if I take it personally that you are so judgmental about my nation. You seem to be great at judging. Humility certainly doesn't seem to be one of your virtues.

And I don't even think that last part makes sense. My initial reaction was to a metaphor describing the U.S. as a modern day Roman Empire— a metaphor that I believe to be incorrect. I was only defensive when suddenly my comments were interpreted as some sort of perverse indirect endorsement of torture. I've since apologized directly to those involved if it was seen that way.

This entire thread has been about more than just the torture issue. Multiple issues have been brought up. I tried to make it briefly about the Roman metaphor. Excuse my stupidity in thinking that I could actually introduce a new idea and facet to the topic without being villified, judged and labelled as some sort of neocon in heat.

I am upset you're not more upset because I'm steamed America doesn't seem more outraged. You've chucked out the Bill of Rights and giving a damn about that seems to make your part of the fringe not the mainstream. People are tortured under your watch and the excuse seems to be, "Hey other countries do worse". Like a wife beater who says they aren't as bad as the arsonist next door. America was better than that. It can be again.

Give me a break, Ian. I'm merely being realistic about this. You can't look at war and not expect this stuff go down. It happens. And you know what— everyone envolved ought to be discharged and jailed for it. I don't know what more you'd want. Thats why we have tribunals and courts and war conventions. I'm not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, simply because of a minority of troops or a group of political idealists or an extreme intelligence agency.

Why we have to drag everyone through the mud every single time a contraversy arises is beyond me. Charge those involve. Change the policy and move on. If the problem keeps happening you keep taking them to court.

And what exactly is "your watch" supposed to mean? I'm not a Republican. I am a citizen, and I've been watching the issue with keen interest when I get the chance pull myself away from my desk.

What bothers me more is that attitudes such as yours seem to be great at criticizing and tearing down, but not particularly good at being innovative and constructive. You'll criticize the problem, but you aren't going even allow for a drop of positive thinking.

I was never for the war, but at this stage in the game the consequences of messing this all up are far greater than leaving. And frankly pieces are moving in the Middle East that I never thought would move. Maybe it will all fall a part, but I sincerely do believe that there is a shot and making it work in the end. I just fear how dirty its all going to be when its all over.


So if you don't get up in arms about something that breaks the tenets of your moral compass what do you get up in arms about? Without a broken moral compass where are you?

Lord, Ian didn't I say that it did bother me? It does. But on issues like this I choose to see what happens within the system. This isn't the first time in history the U.S. has dealt with stuff like this. What would you prefer— a nice little violent revolution French-style were we burn down the White House, cut off a few heads and allow supposedly more enlightended people in? There are mechanisms in place to punish those involved. And yeah, those who should be punished might not be, but I'm not exactly going to turn my back on my country for it.

Believing that what occured is wrong; that the war was wrong in the first place should be indicative of my moral compass as is. I don't know what else I can do for you— and I really shouldn't have to explain that fact for the umpteenth time. Something tells me you won't be happy until I'm protesting with a bunch of stoned college kids in the middle of Union Square while selling ridiculous anti-war buttons with retarded puns like "Dykes Hate Bush".

—A!

[Pixies Chick]

Whatever Ian. I only lashed out at Canada because you declared America to be the land of suck. Sorry if I take it personally that you are so judgmental about my nation. You seem to be great at judging. Humility certainly doesn't seem to be one of your virtues.

And I don't even think that last part makes sense. My initial reaction was to a metaphor describing the U.S. as a modern day Roman Empire— a metaphor that I believe to be incorrect. ...

—A!

Hey, me again. Don't duck! I'm not armed.

See, here's where I think the wheels came off. I never described the U.S. as a modern-day Roman Empire. I said the neocon deathcult was channelling the Roman Empire. I still believe that. They're vicious, barbaric thugs, and I want them to stop contaminating our country with their violence and injustice. I get to criticize them. They deserve it.



...Lord, Ian didn't I say that it did bother me? It does. But on issues like this I choose to see what happens within the system. This isn't the first time in history the U.S. has dealt with stuff like this. What would you prefer— a nice little violent revolution French-style were we burn down the White House, cut off a few heads and allow supposedly more enlightended people in? There are mechanisms in place to punish those involved. And yeah, those who should be punished might not be, but I'm not exactly going to turn my back on my country for it.

Believing that what occured is wrong; that the war was wrong in the first place should be indicative of my moral compass as is. I don't know what else I can do for you— and I really shouldn't have to explain that fact for the umpteenth time. Something tells me you won't be happy until I'm protesting with a bunch of stoned college kids in the middle of Union Square while selling ridiculous anti-war buttons with retarded puns like "Dykes Hate Bush".

—A!

I can't believe you can see me all the way from there. That was me, late Reagan, early Bush. The same corrupt bastards who are running things now were overseeing the murder of tens of thousands in Central America while arming Iran. They're back, and the truth about the Reagan era has come out. Nobody cares. So they're criminals. They were never punished, and they never will be. They're responsible for tens of thousands dead in Iraq, and they won't have to answer for that.

You're right to wonder why I reacted as I did. It's not you. It's the impotence. Over the next four years, they'll kill tens of thousands more. And why not? After being responsible for all those deaths, they know it's free. Nobody is going to hold them accountable or even get upset.

We gave up everything to try to fight the administration on this. Careers, school, everything was put on hold to devote ourselves to trying to stop them. And look how well we did. We're a joke to you, and just about everybody else. That threw me into a deep depression that took years to crawl out of. Now I'm about half-way through graduate school, and it's all happening again. All that work, and we accomplished nothing. Absolutely nothing. Our failure back then is directly linked to the horrors taking place now. If only we could have stopped them. So much that's so awful wouldn't have happened if we had been able to stop them.

[anthony!]

I can't believe you can see me all the way from there. That was me, late Reagan, early Bush. The same corrupt bastards who are running things now were overseeing the murder of tens of thousands in Central America while arming Iran. They're back, and the truth about the Reagan era has come out. Nobody cares. So they're criminals. They were never punished, and they never will be. They're responsible for tens of thousands dead in Iraq, and they won't have to answer for that.

Please tell me you've seen Fog of War. If not, you are to step away from the computer and immediately rent it. It makes PBS Frontline reports look like fluff pieces. Had any of these events and wars turned out the opposite of how they actually did, most of these administrations, half of Europe and half of Asia ought to be tried as war criminals. To the winner goes the spoils— but you already know that.

You're right to wonder why I reacted as I did. It's not you. It's the impotence. Over the next four years, they'll kill tens of thousands more. And why not? After being responsible for all those deaths, they know it's free. Nobody is going to hold them accountable or even get upset.

Your talking about American/European, U.S./U.N.— government impotence, right? I hope so, because I'm pretty sure my equipment works downstairs. I'm a little too young for Viagra, Catholicism aside. I kid, I kid.

We gave up everything to try to fight the administration on this. Careers, school, everything was put on hold to devote ourselves to trying to stop them. And look how well we did. We're a joke to you, and just about everybody else. That threw me into a deep depression that took years to crawl out of. Now I'm about half-way through graduate school, and it's all happening again. All that work, and we accomplished nothing. Absolutely nothing. Our failure back then is directly linked to the horrors taking place now. If only we could have stopped them. So much that's so awful wouldn't have happened if we had been able to stop them.

And you certainly should not feel bad about putting your life on hold to express your beliefs, even if you didn't get the result you wanted. It was clearly an engaging life experience that no doubt will inform your future paths.

I can say from a personal point of view— that although I voted for Kerry, the protests that occured (and living in NYC, there were more than I could count) certainly made me feel alienated. I don't like being yelled at, and thats how it felt this past election. I feel like Bush only really won because he had a clear cut course of action that could be easily understood— Kerry was all nuance, and that won't cut it in the real world. Take it from a guy who works in advertising.

Clearly you believe these guys (Reagan-Bush-Bush) to be evil sons 'o biotches. While I don't agree with their philosophies (Reagan/Bush II in particular), I've never seen them as evil villains, twirling their handlebar mustaches. They aren't Sith Lords. Well, maybe Paul Wolfowitz— I'll give you that one.

I believe conservatives of today are motivated by an antiquated and outmoded political philosophy. They lack vision, and essentially their only goal is to ensure the U.S's place as the dominant world power. Plus, they genuinely believe that U.S. dominance is the only way towards a peaceful (and profitable) world. That said, though you think them bastards, I would add Clinton to the equation. Simply because the body count in his administration was smaller, doesn't mean he didn't move with the same motives and intentions. The Reagan and Clinton administrations are key to what eventually led up to 9-11. The Bushes are important but lesser players in this game— particularly Bush the Elder. Thats not a defense, just a perspective. Please don't take it as support for them, I just want to look at the larger picture.

I'll shut up now. Ian? Comments? :evilsmile

[Ian Boothby]

Whatever Ian. I only lashed out at Canada because you declared America to be the land of suck. Sorry if I take it personally that you are so judgmental about my nation. You seem to be great at judging. Humility certainly doesn't seem to be one of your virtues.

And I don't even think that last part makes sense. My initial reaction was to a metaphor describing the U.S. as a modern day Roman Empire— a metaphor that I believe to be incorrect. I was only defensive when suddenly my comments were interpreted as some sort of perverse indirect endorsement of torture. I've since apologized directly to those involved if it was seen that way.

—A!

If America is cool with torture then yes, no way around it, that sucks. If a guy beats his wife and I call him on it does that make me arrogant? America needs to be called on shit they do. You've got a President who doesn't feel he's ever made a mistake. You've got a press that's giving him a free ride. As long as you've got Guanatamo Bay the Bill of Right doesn't exist any more.
How does saying America shouldn't arrest without lawyers, jail without trial and torture prisoners have anything to do with my humility?

[LtMarvel]

When you are using references from the latest Star Wars trilogy in a political piece, you know everyone will take you seriously.

[anthony!]

When you are using references from the latest Star Wars trilogy in a political piece, you know everyone will take you seriously.

It is a comic book website after all, Lt. Marvel. I like to mix it up a little. :)

[Adam Crocker]

I'm sorry Ian, but Anthony! is correct on this. Simply because America's condone or support torture doesn't mean that the US as a whole sucks. Otherwise you're making the same logical error that many of the neo-cons make when attacking critics of the Bush administration, that the American nation as a whole can be equated with its leaders and their actions. And while the power brokers in Washington have certainly done plenty of horrible things abroad the U.S. as whole has not (at least not yet) descended into an economic and authoritarian hell-hole.

Moreover, I fail to see what hounding the man for not showing sufficient outrage over things like Abu Gharib is supposed to do other than turn him off commenting on these matters or showing outrage over it. I understand your frustration over people not showing enough moral outrage but the approach of getting angry about them over it. Explain to them why this is so serious, but if you start getting abrasive with them about it then you're going to get nowhere.

Please tell me you've seen Fog of War. If not, you are to step away from the computer and immediately rent it. It makes PBS Frontline reports look like fluff pieces. Had any of these events and wars turned out the opposite of how they actually did, most of these administrations, half of Europe and half of Asia ought to be tried as war criminals. To the winner goes the spoils— but you already know that.

Er, your point? I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here, but it seems to miss the main point that Pixies was making. That being: the same people who were responsible for or aided atrocities in Central America are now trying to extend America's imperial reach into Iraq yet the American people don't care about the dictatorships being supported or crimes being committed in their name.

And that's exactly what led up to 9/11 and it's been going on much longer than Reagan or Bush.

[Adam Crocker]

Clearly you believe these guys (Reagan-Bush-Bush) to be evil sons 'o biotches. While I don't agree with their philosophies (Reagan/Bush II in particular), I've never seen them as evil villains, twirling their handlebar mustaches. They aren't Sith Lords. Well, maybe Paul Wolfowitz— I'll give you that one.

Well...none of them really are, but very rarely does such villainy actually exist in the real world. They likely genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing, however the results have often been far from that. We've had tens of thousands dead in Latin America, support or complicity for an international terrorist network (Operation Condor), CIA complicity when it came to the Contras and Muhajadeen running cocaine and heroin into American cities to fund their operations, support for a butcher like Suharto, etc. So on the whole I can see why she regards them as evil bastards.

[anthony!]

Er, your point? I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here, but it seems to miss the main point that Pixies was making. That being: the same people who were responsible for or aided atrocities in Central America are now trying to extend America's imperial reach into Iraq yet the American people don't care about the dictatorships being supported or crimes being committed in their name.

And that's exactly what led up to 9/11 and it's been going on much longer than Reagan or Bush.

No I got that— I just wanted to refer her to that film. It deals with war in general (using WWII and Vietnam as primary examples), which I thought would add nicely to her comments. The former Secretary of Defense makes some fascinating and frightening comments regarding the punishment of leaders for their actions. Basically he says that in any normal and rational situation he and many others would be locked up for their systematic and brutal conduct of war.

—A!

[anthony!]

And that's exactly what led up to 9/11 and it's been going on much longer than Reagan or Bush.

Well, I'd say 9/11 specifically started with FDR and the Saudis on an aircraft carrier in the 40's arranging for the U.S.'s future energy needs. Its been a mess ever since.

Before that I'd say 9/11 would also have origins in British occupation in the Middle East/Asia.

Its all fodder for the term paper.

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

I'm sorry Ian, but Anthony! is correct on this. Simply because America's condone or support torture doesn't mean that the US as a whole sucks. Otherwise you're making the same logical error that many of the neo-cons make when attacking critics of the Bush administration, that the American nation as a whole can be equated with its leaders and their actions. And while the power brokers in Washington have certainly done plenty of horrible things abroad the U.S. as whole has not (at least not yet) descended into an economic and authoritarian hell-hole.

Moreover, I fail to see what hounding the man for not showing sufficient outrage over things like Abu Gharib is supposed to do other than turn him off commenting on these matters or showing outrage over it. I understand your frustration over people not showing enough moral outrage but the approach of getting angry about them over it. Explain to them why this is so serious, but if you start getting abrasive with them about it then you're going to get nowhere.
.


Okay suck isn't the best term. The word doesn't really mean anything.
But on the flip side saying "America is the Best Country in the World" doesn't mean anything either and that's shouted from the rooftops.
There are things that make the U.S. great. Most of those ideals are in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is being violated under this administration and the country is in the middle of an illegal war. Young people are dying over sloppy research and/or outright lies. People are being thrown in prison without trial for as long as the government sees fit. People are being tortured. And people who give a damn about this are seen as a left wing fringe element and sarcastically dismissed.

The arguement I keep hearing seems to be that there are worse countries out there. How does another country being horrible make yours any better? Are they saying you have to sink to their level to fight them? If so why was torture illegal during World War 2? Are the terrorists of today worse than the Nazis?

If you're not going to get outraged about rape, torture and the unnecessary deaths of young people then what'll it take to do it? Does someone have to come to your house and kick you in the nuts? I understand 9/11 scared the shit out of the country. But now fear seems to be the prime motivator and when a superpower is scared the people around it get hurt. It need checks and balances and those seems to be vanishing.

It's not a hell hole for most (the people in jail or being tortured might disagree) but hell holes don't happen overnight. They happen when people let things slide, take shortcuts and turn a blind eye.

Here's my two questions. If America is the greatest country in the world what would it have to do to screw that up in your mind. What would take it off the #1 spot? What ideals would it have to violate?

And what would it take to get you to protest? What would get you off the couch and into the street?

[the4thpip]

(Washington) People got their first look late Friday afternoon at the man accused of killing Wanda Alston, Washington Mayor Tony Williams' liaison to the gay community.

William M. Parrot, Jr., 38, was led into court where he was arraigned on charges of first-degree murder while armed.

Parrot, an unemployed neighbor of Alston, stood silently as the charges were read.

Police say that Parrot had been "high" on drugs for several days before he killed Alston. He was arrested Thursday night following foot chase (story) after a tip Alston's stolen car had been spotted in Southeast Washington about two miles from the murder scene.

When he was arrested Parrot was in possession of Alston's credit cards.

Prosecutors say that Parrot told police that he used some crack, then got a knife and went to Alston's home. He told police he attacked Alston and believed he had hurt her.

Magistrate Judge Diana Harris Epps denied a defense request for bond, saying she's concerned with Parrot's admitted drug use.

Alston, a longtime Washington feminist and LGBT activist was found murdered in her home Wednesday night by her partner. (story)

An autopsy showed she had been stabbed numerous times.

Police said that in addition to having Alston's credit cards there was material left at the crime scene pointing to Parrot.

[the4thpip]

"I have to admit that as a Mormon, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman."
-Mass. Governor Mitt Romney

OK, that's actually kinda funny.

[Pixies Chick]

Please tell me you've seen Fog of War. If not, you are to step away from the computer and immediately rent it. It makes PBS Frontline reports look like fluff pieces. Had any of these events and wars turned out the opposite of how they actually did, most of these administrations, half of Europe and half of Asia ought to be tried as war criminals. To the winner goes the spoils— but you already know that.

Yes. In this case, in a war in which there is no enemy, the victor is predetermined. Cowards, murderers, thieves.

Your talking about American/European, U.S./U.N.— government impotence, right? I hope so, because I'm pretty sure my equipment works downstairs. I'm a little too young for Viagra, Catholicism aside. I kid, I kid.

And you certainly should not feel bad about putting your life on hold to express your beliefs, even if you didn't get the result you wanted. It was clearly an engaging life experience that no doubt will inform your future paths.


No, I'm not. I mean citizen participation. We were unable to keep our government from committing crimes that we knew were occurring. We ran into a wall of apathy disguised as patriotism that shut us down.

I didn't do it for the life experience. We did it because it hurt so bad to think that our government was ruthlessly participating in the destruction of these people's way of life, and teaching thugs how to more effectively oppress and murder them. Impoverishing myself was just a bonus.

I can say from a personal point of view— that although I voted for Kerry, the protests that occured (and living in NYC, there were more than I could count) certainly made me feel alienated. I don't like being yelled at, and thats how it felt this past election. I feel like Bush only really won because he had a clear cut course of action that could be easily understood— Kerry was all nuance, and that won't cut it in the real world. Take it from a guy who works in advertising.

Jeez, you sure you don't want to rethink that graph? Take it from a protester, it sounds arrogant as hell.

I've heard this by people who admit openly, as you do, that they don't really have strong feelings about the violence being committed by our government. It goes back to the original point, I think. The request from people who don't care to people who do, is that we use measured, polite, inside voices to express our outrage. Meanwhile, we look at people who know and don't care, and wonder how you sleep.

Clearly you believe these guys (Reagan-Bush-Bush) to be evil sons 'o biotches. While I don't agree with their philosophies (Reagan/Bush II in particular), I've never seen them as evil villains, twirling their handlebar mustaches. They aren't Sith Lords. Well, maybe Paul Wolfowitz— I'll give you that one.

I believe conservatives of today are motivated by an antiquated and outmoded political philosophy. They lack vision, and essentially their only goal is to ensure the U.S's place as the dominant world power. Plus, they genuinely believe that U.S. dominance is the only way towards a peaceful (and profitable) world. That said, though you think them bastards, I would add Clinton to the equation. Simply because the body count in his administration was smaller, doesn't mean he didn't move with the same motives and intentions. The Reagan and Clinton administrations are key to what eventually led up to 9-11. The Bushes are important but lesser players in this game— particularly Bush the Elder. Thats not a defense, just a perspective. Please don't take it as support for them, I just want to look at the larger picture.

I'll shut up now. Ian? Comments? :evilsmile

While you're looking at the larger picture, people are dying. I don't see how the larger view helps that. It's obfuscation disguised as history, and really doesn't have anything to do with what citizen responsibility is when the crimes are discovered.

What it comes down to is a basic misunderstanding we had the first time around. We thought that middle America didn't know the evil that was going on in the middle east and central America, and if they did, they'd object. Wrong. They really don't care. That's the realization that sent me into depression.

Meanwhile, as long as you're not participating in trying to change this policy, you might want to go back to a question I asked you earlier. Is criticizing me for not behaving in a manner you find pleasing a higher priority for you than seeing this policy changed? If so, what are your priorities? It seems to me that one might be sitting comfortably on the sidelines theorizing while the world goes to hell. If so, picking faults on the people trying to change it may be a way to justify not joining in. In any event, if you do have some philosophical agreement with the opposition, please consider if there isn't a small degree of support you are willing to give, like maybe not criticizing us anymore, if you wouldn't mind. It'd help.

I'm not sure why more people don't care about this. An illegal war by a lying administration leading to a quagmire seems like a gimmee to me. I expect that will change in a year or two. The level of violence in Iraq has not dipped since the election. We've got 150,000 soldiers there now. Lebanon is more unstable, and we appear to have picked a fight with North Korea over - you guessed it - a lie. The Bush budget significantly raises the cost to veterans for medical care, at the same time that more people are wounded, and the wounds are more grave than in past conflicts. An awful lot of those folks come from Red States. They gotta find more troops somewhere. One theory I heard is that they'll outsource administrative functions and send the army desk jockeys into combat. Once the number of dead and disabled reaches critical mass, more Americans will care. I think it took fifty thousand in Vietnam.

[Pixies Chick]

Yeah, culture of life, my ass.

Schiavo, Hudson, and Nikolouzos
Sun Hudson, a six-month-old boy with a fatal congenital disease, died Thursday after a Texas hospital, over his mother's objections, withdrew his feeding tube. The child was apparently certain to die, but was conscious. The hospital simply decided that it had better things to do than keeping the child alive, and the Texas courts upheld that decision after the penniless mother failed, during the 10-day window provided for by Texas law, to find another institution willing to take the child .

Where, I would ask, is the outrage? In particular, where is the outrage from those like Tom DeLay, who referred to the withdrawal of Terry Schiavo's life support as "murder"? If it's appropriate to Federalize the Schiavo case, what about the people being terminated simply because their cases are hopeless and their bank accounts empty?

Sun Hudson is dead, but 68-year-old Spiro Nikolouzos is still alive, thanks to an emergency appeals court order issued yesterday. However, his life support could be cut off at any moment. A nursing home is willing to take him if his family can show that he will be covered by Medicaid after his Medicare runs out. Otherwise, the hospital gets to pull the plug. ...

But the notion of letting the health-care providers decide, after doing a careful biopsy of the patient's wallet, strikes me as pretty damned outrageous. And it seems to me that the Right-to-Lifers ought to agree, though apparently anti-abortion groups had no problem with it when Gov. George W. Bush signed the Texas Futile Care Law. ...

What I can't figure out is how someone could be genuinely outraged about the Schiavo case but not about the Hudson and Nikolouzos cases. Perhaps Mr. Bush, who says he thinks there should be a "presumption in favor of life," can explain that to us.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php

Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934

[Pixies Chick]

Baseball and politics:

Last June, the Boston Red Sox chartered an executive jet to help their manager make a quick visit home in the midst of the team's championship season.

But what was the very same Gulfstream--owned by one of the Red Sox's partners, but presumably without the team's logo on its fuselage--doing in Cairo on Feb. 18, 2003?

Perhaps by coincidence, Feb. 18, 2003, was the day an Islamic preacher known as Abu Omar, who had been abducted in Italy the previous day and forced aboard a small plane, also arrived at the Cairo airport.

Omar, whose given name is Osama Nasr Mostafa Hassan, was imprisoned by the Egyptians and, he claims, brutally tortured. The public prosecutor in Milan, Armando Spataro, who is investigating Omar's apparent kidnapping, expects to file charges within a few days, according to an Italian official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Spataro made headlines last month when, attempting to identify the plane that transported Omar from Italy to Egypt, he served a warrant on the Italian commander of the air base at Aviano, Italy, which is home to the U.S. Air Force's 31st Fighter Wing.

Spataro declines to say whether the Gulfstream that landed in Cairo, which bore the tail number N85VM, departed from Aviano around the time of Omar's disappearance.

But Federal Aviation Administration records obtained by the Tribune show that Gulfstream N85VM has been many places around the world that the Red Sox have almost certainly never gone.

Between June 2002 and January of this year, the Gulfstream made 51 visits to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, site of the U.S. naval base where more than 500 terrorism suspects are behind bars.

During the same period, the plane recorded 82 visits to Washington's Dulles International Airport as well as landings at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., outside the capital and the U.S. air bases at Ramstein and Rhein-Main in Germany.

The plane's flight log also shows visits to Afghanistan, Morocco, Dubai, Jordan, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, Azerbaijan and the Czech Republic.

In case you are wondering, this isn't the same plane that was offered to John Kerry's legal team on election night. This plane is owned by another Red Sox partner named Philip H. Morse. Morse, the wealthy former owner of a catheter company, is listed as the sole officer and director of a company called Assembly Point which Dun and Bradstreet describes as a "religious organization" that is somehow involved with "churches, temples and shrines."

Now this seems like it would be a good topic on which the congress could hold fruitful "baseball" hearings. They could call Curt "Bush shill" Schilling in just for fun and harrass him about whether he knows anything about his pals in the Bush administration using one of the Red Sox owners' private planes to transport suspects to countries where they can be tortured with impunity. And if he refuses to appear maybe the committee could charter the plane to take him to one of those countries that have been so helpful to us to see if he changes his mind.

This is another of those juicy stories that just eludes the mainstream media. I know they write a story or two here and there. But, it never gets the kind of attention that these right wing soap operas get.

Let's look at the nut here. The US government appears to be using one of the world series winning Boston Red Sox's jet to kidnap and transport suspected terrorists all over the world to be tortured.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_20_digbysblog_archive.html#111134934659869 241

[Screwtape]

So here's my political polemic for Monday morning (incidentally, I think most of the objections to my Condi Rice comment were good and valid ones)...

The problems with the Republican party and the problems with evangelical Christians have really started to turn into one and the same thing.

Evangelicalism started off as a movement away from the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox liturgical worship services, which were largely composed of ceremony and devoid of emotional connection to faith as a practice, rather than as a ritual. As the movement got stronger, the doctrine got weaker, until the Christian music industry began in the seventies with Larry Norman and Keith Green.

Green in particular was a deeply sincere Christian who seemed to want to live out his faith in a considered and charitable way, and his songs made it into churches far and wide, mostly stripped down to a few basic chords because few music ministers could play the piano like he could. Most of these songs are deeply emotional and sung repeatedly until there is some kind of emotional/physical "connection" achieved (you can do this by singing "Freshmen" by the Verve just as easily, by the way).

The success of praise music prompted a number of evangelical pastors to abandon scholarship and doctrine for more "spiritually focused" (which is to say "emotionally driven") work. Beginning with a Christian version of "Future Shock" called "The Late, Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey (which plays well alongside Larry Norman's "I Wish We'd All Been Ready"), the dispensationalist movement took its first firm foothold in the layperson's mind, predicting the ways in which the Second Coming of Christ would appear to the masses. This has spawned such classics as the "Left Behind" series and a number of other, even less plausible books, with the common thread that they all tie the end of the world to a government that overtakes and abuses Christians.

What the Republican party began to notice with the Reagan administration was that these works of sub-culture had begun to form an actual rhetoric of their own that was in no way unique to the doctrine of Christianity or the teachings of Christ himself; in fact, the two could be very easily divorced and set against one another, provided that a suitable frontman who professed Christianity could be found. Ronald Reagan was the perfect choice for this post, especially given that he could out-charisma Jimmy Carter and take away a large part of Carter's support system: evangelical Christians. Reagan's "smaller government" strongly appealed to a group that was half-afraid, half-hopeful of disenfranchisement by the powers that be, and he won their full support.

This worked so well for Reagan that it not only became the Republican party line, but also made its way into Christian churches under the guise of the doctrine that had been so recently spurned. In filling the academic void with political jargon, many churches created a religion that actually revolved around such Christlike issues as the right to bear arms (would Jesus pack heat?) and trickle-down economics (help the poor by getting richer!).

Perhaps inevitably, more books performing back-handsprings to support capitalist/oligarchic ideology surfaced, notably the "Prayer of Jabez," which uses a single verse from an Old Testament history book to support the amassing of material wealth as a Christian ideal, and exhorts readers to consider the "enlargement of our territory" as proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Christ's observation that it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven" is apparently lost to the ages.

Now, besides basic greed, we have a president who attempts to justify with scripture a cultural and literal war on the Arab world, including cultures remarkably similar to the one that produced Jesus. Moreover, much of the church has managed to completely escape the actual theologians of the last hundred years or so (C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Francis Schaeffer), and is producing no new ones; simply taking on faith the words of the Bible as [mis]interpreted by anyone with an agenda, hidden or otherwise. The idea that the Bible, however remarkably preserved, is a book that comes out of at least three if not more long-dead cultures is completely foreign in most churches, or worse, reeks of heresy to those who shop at Lifeway and read The Living Bible (which claims to be a "translation" and takes such notable liberties with the text as making mention of Moses leading the Israelis throug the desert. Not the Israelites. The Israelis).

In the words of Ray Bradbury from the sadly relevant "Fahrenheit 451,"I often wonder if God recognizes His own Son the way we've dressed him up, or is it dressed him down? He's a regular peppermint stick now, all sugar-crystal and saccharine when he isn't making veiled references to products that every worshipper absolutely needs."

[anthony!]

Jeez, you sure you don't want to rethink that graph? Take it from a protester, it sounds arrogant as hell.

Really, because I felt that the protestors were pretty arrogant. All I saw from them was anger, and thats about it. Having just moved to New York this past summer, I got innudated with arrogant propoganda, insults to my home state, cruel jokes, crappy slogans, celebrity b.s. and basically a lot of irrational arguing. The debate quickly degenerated to deep ideas such as "You suck", "No, you suck". We got nowhere, and thats why nothing has changed.

I've heard this by people who admit openly, as you do, that they don't really have strong feelings about the violence being committed by our government. It goes back to the original point, I think. The request from people who don't care to people who do, is that we use measured, polite, inside voices to express our outrage. Meanwhile, we look at people who know and don't care, and wonder how you sleep.

While you're looking at the larger picture, people are dying. I don't see how the larger view helps that. It's obfuscation disguised as history, and really doesn't have anything to do with what citizen responsibility is when the crimes are discovered.

No, I do care about the violence our government is doing. I care about the people routinely executed for no real good reason by my home state of Texas. I care about the fact that while we were off blowing stuff up in Iraq, we really should have been in Africa stopping genocide. I also care about the fact that while everyone is crying over war, we turn a blind eye to the millions of unborn children that get hacked to pieces every year.

As far as citizen responsibility goes, well I vote don't I? I go on message boards such as this one and argue my opinion, don't I? In the past I've participated in both church and student government issues— and I generally don't have a problem expressing my opinion. Oh, and while it might be totally meaningless to you, I do pray on these matters. People who want to take to the streets are fine by me. But you really don't have a right to get ticked off if the method you choose is a big turn off to me. My life has taught me that anger doesn't get you very far. It gets you nothing in fact.


Meanwhile, as long as you're not participating in trying to change this policy, you might want to go back to a question I asked you earlier. Is criticizing me for not behaving in a manner you find pleasing a higher priority for you than seeing this policy changed? If so, what are your priorities? It seems to me that one might be sitting comfortably on the sidelines theorizing while the world goes to hell. If so, picking faults on the people trying to change it may be a way to justify not joining in. In any event, if you do have some philosophical agreement with the opposition, please consider if there isn't a small degree of support you are willing to give, like maybe not criticizing us anymore, if you wouldn't mind. It'd help.

My priorities are that for once we actually get something right instead of intellectually beating each other up. Its too late for that, obviously.

I have every right to criticize, and I'll continue to do so because it pertains to something I care about. And while you think my theorizing isn't helping, well as you've pointed out— niether did your protesting. So who really accomplished anything more? I like to listen to all sides and form my own opinion— emphasis on MY opinion. I supported the anti-war effort by voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life, even though I pretty much disagreed with him on every other issue he spoke on AND the fact that we all know that the war won't end, regardless of who is in office. Again, there is not much more I can do for you. I'm not rich, and I'm starting a new life on the east coast— I act and move where and when I can, and on issues that matter to me most.

—A!

[anthony!]

Hey Screwtape, you've just given a good explanation for why I've remained Catholic.

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

Jeez, you sure you don't want to rethink that graph? Take it from a protester, it sounds arrogant as hell.

I've heard this by people who admit openly, as you do, that they don't really have strong feelings about the violence being committed by our government. It goes back to the original point, I think. The request from people who don't care to people who do, is that we use measured, polite, inside voices to express our outrage. Meanwhile, we look at people who know and don't care, and wonder how you sleep.
.

Thanks for saying how I feel way better than I could.

[Buzz Maverik]

America doesn't condone torture. American troops have committed illegal acts, probably under orders from superiors who are committing illegal acts. Even if the orders came from Bush itself, that doesn't mean America is condoning those acts. Probably just the dumb grunts who were stupid enough to carry out the orders will be punished. It should go all the way up. But that doesn't mean America is doing it. Quit generalizing.

Also, in this little debate, I find it interesting that the most important thing seems to be to tell someone how the must think, how they must feel, how they must act. That seems way more important than making any point here.

People are free to react and not react any way they see fit. And they can even disagree with you. Most importantly, you can't tell someone how they have to think.

[Ian Boothby]

America doesn't condone torture. American troops have committed illegal acts, probably under orders from superiors who are committing illegal acts. Even if the orders came from Bush itself, that doesn't mean America is condoning those acts. Probably just the dumb grunts who were stupid enough to carry out the orders will be punished. It should go all the way up. But that doesn't mean America is doing it. Quit generalizing.

Also, in this little debate, I find it interesting that the most important thing seems to be to tell someone how the must think, how they must feel, how they must act. That seems way more important than making any point here.

People are free to react and not react any way they see fit. And they can even disagree with you. Most importantly, you can't tell someone how they have to think.


Yes, people are free to react to torture with apathy. And that seems to be the case in the States. You have the right to apathy but people who get angry at you about it need to calm down. It seems like the anger of the outraged is a bigger problem than what they are outraged about.

What the hell do you mean quit generalizing? If American soldier tortures someone then America is torturing someone. If a police office punches you in the face then the police are punching you in the face. Once you put on a solider's outfit you represent your country and your actions speak for it.

You say the States doesn't condone torture but it and the general public tolerates it. How is that different morally?

[Pixies Chick]

So here's my political polemic for Monday morning (incidentally, I think most of the objections to my Condi Rice comment were good and valid ones)...

The problems with the Republican party and the problems with evangelical Christians have really started to turn into one and the same thing.

Evangelicalism started off as a movement away from the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox liturgical worship services, which were largely composed of ceremony and devoid of emotional connection to faith as a practice, rather than as a ritual. As the movement got stronger, the doctrine got weaker, until the Christian music industry began in the seventies with Larry Norman and Keith Green.

Green in particular was a deeply sincere Christian who seemed to want to live out his faith in a considered and charitable way, and his songs made it into churches far and wide, mostly stripped down to a few basic chords because few music ministers could play the piano like he could. Most of these songs are deeply emotional and sung repeatedly until there is some kind of emotional/physical "connection" achieved (you can do this by singing "Freshmen" by the Verve just as easily, by the way).

The success of praise music prompted a number of evangelical pastors to abandon scholarship and doctrine for more "spiritually focused" (which