Your War on Terror [Archive]

Tiassa

02-05-04, 04:53 PM

Your War on Terror: German judge laments US complication of terror trial

A German judge, in acquitting terror suspect Abdelghani Mzoudi ... well, A Moroccan man accused of helping set up the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 was acquitted Thursday by a court here, whose chief judge complained from the bench that the trial had had been seriously complicated by lack of access to intelligence agency files and al Qaeda members held in secret U.S. custody.

Defendant Abdelghani Mzoudi was found not guilty "even though intelligence services may have information against him," chief judge Klaus Ruehle said in announcing the verdict. "One of the main problems in this trial was that it was not possible to get files from intelligence services."

Addressing Mzoudi, he said: "You are acquitted not because the court is convinced of your innocence, but because the evidence was not enough to convict you." (Burgess (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14898-2004Feb5.html))The issue may have serious international political ramifications. Judge Klaus Ruehle may have phrased the acquittal specifically to send a message across the Pond. Mzoudi is only the second person tried on charges directly connected to the 9/11 attacks against the United States, and the US government failed to provide information for either the prosecution or the defense.

Whether that information would have helped convict Mzoudi is nonetheless a question mark. At least one German intelligence official noted that such information as was requested would not necessarily be of any use, as the individuals in question obfuscate well enough to render the information unreliable. On top of that, a German intelligence document citing unknown sources suggests that Mzoudi was unaware of the hijackers' plans. This document apparently figured greatly in his acquittal, leaving the judge with few options: "Mr. Mzoudi . . . you have been acquitted. This may be a relief to you, but it is no reason for joy . . . What Atta, al-Shehhi and Jarrah told you after they traveled to Afghanistan, no one knows but you." (Klaus Ruehle, quoted by Burgess)Ruehle seems somewhat frustrated; yes, the verdict will upset some, but he had nothing to convict the man with.The verdict was announced at shortly 11:30 a.m. after Andreas Schulz, an attorney representing Americans who lost family members in the attacks, made a last-minute appeal to put it off and again ask the United States to release intelligence information. But the court ruled against that request. (Burgess)Comment:

I'm not sure quite how to read this. Certes, I acknowledge security concerns, but if someone has a chance to convict and lock up a guilty party to the 9/11 attacks (a mighty presumption for me, an American, to make, but work with me here), shouldn't the United States help make sure that conviction happens?

It's sarcastic enough to ask why we can't throw the Germans a bone in order to help our own situation in the War on Terror while we're happy to wrongly incarcerate how many people? (And here we can look away from the War on Terror and watch the slow parade of convicts acquitted by DNA evidence in rape and murder trials and also think about the politics of the Drug War if we don't want to think about the War on Terror.)

But the only specific informational issue raised in Burgess' article was a defense request for information from the interrogations of Ramzi bin al Shibh.

It may be that Mzoudi is, in fact, innocent, and the US simply didn't wish to acknowledge that it had nothing on him, but while I think the political ramifications of Ruehle's words might become spectacular, the idea that the US had nothing on Mzoudi to help convict him also includes the idea that a German judge really is that impetuous, so it's a coin flip that, thankfully, doesn't involve freedom fries.

But as the American case against Zacarias Moussaoui falls apart in Virginia, we're actually losing this aspect of the War on Terror. The American people have been promised justice, and at present the 9/11 count sits as follows:

• Moussaoui - accused, conviction doubt moderate to strong. (US)
• Mzoudi - accused, acquitted. (Germany)
• Motassadeq - accused, convicted, appealing; chance of winning appeal is moderate to strong; decision expected March 4, 2004. (Germany)

Which means that the official score is:

- Al Qaeda: 2,749 (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8478555%255E401,00.html)
- World: 1 (under review)

But in a state of perpetual warfare, we must remember that it's still early in the game. And it could change to a straight shutout by this time next month.

Mr. Bush? I hear you're a baseball fan. Heck, you even owned a team. I'm sure you're aware of the jokes that go on when the Mariners, late in the season, need a win, but can't score a run against the bottom of the league? I hear you're also a smart man, which means you can figure it out from there. Every day counts, Mr. President, and if there's anything you should have learned from your time in baseball, it's that manager, coaches, and players alike must come out and play to win every day. Your opponents are working the outside corner very well, and much like the Mariners in September can demonstrate, you have to swing the bat now and then in order to get a hit. The United States cannot afford to wait for a base on balls, else it might wind up in another hit batsman. And we didn't convert the baserunner last time, so ... think, Skipper. There's a steady thunder in the house of the holy and the hometown whites are aglow. Get us a hit, Mr. President. Just get on base and start the wheels turning. We actually need to get a man in scoring position before we can bring him home. Lastly, remember that the Mariners had Griffey, Martinez, Rodriguez, Buhner ... remember when they played longball? We had Randy Johnson, for heaven's sake. We should have gone all the way. But it was without Griffey, without Buhner, without Johnson or the New Texas Gigolo that the Mariners tied the league record for wins in a season. They didn't play longball. They played smartball. Stop swinging for the fences; you ain't da Boone. We need contact. We need men on base. We need to give ourselves the opportunity to bring a few runs around, and not sit waiting for a curveball to hang like a Haymarket martyr.

We'll try the pitching metaphors later in the season.

Remember your drunken frat days? "Scooore-booooard! Scooore-booooard! Scooore-booooard!"

No, George, the numbers ain't great. Fix them, please. I would recommend that you take notes from Paul Abbot, but you've got Karl Rove to tell you when to duck.

Notes:

• Burgess, John. "Moroccan Man Acquitted of Aiding 9/11 Hijackers." Washington Post.com, February 5, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14898-2004Feb5.html
• Report, Correspondent. "9/11 death toll drops by three." News.com.au, January 23, 2004. See http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8478555%255E401,00.html

15ofthe19

02-05-04, 05:26 PM

Sweet metaphor T. Hell, a bunt would be a start at this point.

This story sounds eerily familiar to other episodes where the intelligence community is so constipated it simply can't move when it's obvious that old stalwart's of the business are hindering the process. The goal is to get these people locked up, forever. But I can just imagine some mid-level director stubbornly refusing to turn over a file because then, oh shit, the Germans might know a source. This same bs is pervasive in any level of law enforcement where making the collar, and taking credit for the conviction, supersede the goal of the process. My cynicism grows.... :mad:

kmguru

02-07-04, 03:49 PM

Park Police fumble dirty-bomb drill

There is plenty of garbage out in the open on a given day in any major city streets. So police just ignore them - from the mouth of a Boston Police

dsdsds

02-07-04, 09:41 PM

I agree with Hypewaders .. I think... (it's getting harder and harder to understand you Hype. You should tone it down a notch for us more intellectually challenged majority – and more importantly, your dumb compatriot voter.)
This is exactly what Bush & Co. wants. They are more than willing to expose any “security” gaps in systems they, themselves put into place - All to avert attention from the sources and causes of the terror. The aim for this admin is bigger defense through bigger offence and absolute control over not only the ROW but its own people’s freedom.

hypewaders

02-07-04, 11:29 PM

Sorry, ds- sometimes I can't understand my own stuff looking back either. Rather than any great intellectuality, it's more likely clumsiness obscuring whatever I may have tried to convey.

T's 2nd note recalled the catalyst for the US' "War on Terror", which still has never been quantified:

We now count 2749 9-11 victims, of which it is apparently unpublished how many were US citizens. Here is one Victim List (http://66.223.12.161/september11Victims/victims_list.htm) I found. Subtracting the toll of non-Americans (http://66.223.12.161/september11Victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm), it would seem that somewhere around 2550 Americans were actually murdered by hijackers that day.

If Americans are to someday put the 9-11 tragedy into perspective, it would seem fitting that the number of American victims would be popularly known. As I recall 2001 in commonly-known round numbers regarding tragic American deaths, I believe that along with roughly 2,500 victims of terrorism, 40,000 Americans were killed in traffic, 30,000 by suicide, and 20,000 in cold blood by other Americans.

As a result of 9-11, I suspect that something far upwards of 25,000 foreign civilians have lost their lives to American retaliation. Clearer perspectives on 9-11 and the "War on Terror" it spawned will be important to the future of the US and of the world.

Proud_Muslim

02-08-04, 05:58 AM

Tiassa

02-08-04, 06:55 AM

Defeating those fanatic muslims can ONLY be achieved by MUSLIMS, the MODERATE MUSLIMS, who are not given any chance or space to speak out against those fanatics in the US media and indeed throughtout the world.This is an incredibly difficult challenge as I see it. My own investigation of Islam is hampered by poor and limited translation into the English language.

The appearance in the West is that these voices are not there; indeed, the Western media plays a role in this, but at the same time I use mostly Western sources to point me toward the information I need to find about Islam. Stetkevych, Armstrong, even Russell--certes, they are respected, but they are all Americans. Idries Shah? Sure, he's Afghani, but he's also Sufi, so I'm not exactly tapping the main vein. (Sure, I like Mansur al-Hallaj, but is the Prophetic Lamp really that fundamental to understanding Islam?)

Personally, I think the US should be raising hell every time a progressive news editor is silenced by a government in Egypt or Iran just as surely as it should be raising hell about Mugabe's suppression of the press in Zimbabwe. Our tendency in the West is to not notice until something's on fire, and then take offense at the severity of the situation.

Regardless of the reasons, the information is not getting to the West. Though Sciforums be but a tiny corner of a vast Universe, bring them to us, please. You would know better than most around here what speaks properly of the Islamic cause. Slough off the toadie flamers and bring us the reality; the audience is listening. We're just never quite sure what it is we're hearing.

Lastly, remember that this is the West you're dealing with. Deal sympathetically, compassionately. Obviously, folks in the West don't understand why Muslims are upset. You can bring the golden and perfect truth, but if it's brought on a wave of imperfect passion, Westerners tend to shun the appearance of anger. (Just ask Howard Dean.)

Proud_Muslim

02-08-04, 10:52 AM

[font=trebuchet ms]This is an incredibly difficult challenge as I see it. My own investigation of Islam is hampered by poor and limited translation into the English language.

I agree and this is not only your fault or the west fault, it is our fault as well, we have millions of Muslims who speak prefect English, they should do more to help you understand us much clearer.

The appearance in the West is that these voices are not there; indeed, the Western media plays a role in this, but at the same time I use mostly Western sources to point me toward the information I need to find about Islam. Stetkevych, Armstrong, even Russell--certes, they are respected, but they are all Americans.

Karen Armstrong is great writer, she is very fair but yes as you said, it is not enough, you need to know from the sources.

Fortunately, more and more English speaking Islamic websites are appearing, I think we began to realize the clamity of the situation, the ignorance and the misconception about Islam is unbearable.

this site is little candle in this dark universe:

http://www.islamonline.net

And of course AL JAZEERA in English is another window:

http://english.aljazeera.net

Personally, I think the US should be raising hell every time a progressive news editor is silenced by a government in Egypt or Iran just as surely as it should be raising hell about Mugabe's suppression of the press in Zimbabwe. Our tendency in the West is to not notice until something's on fire, and then take offense at the severity of the situation.

You are right, America only get involved when things are badly damaged, I rememebr here the case of my fellow Syrian MAHER ARAR, he is Syrian but with Canadian Passport, he has been living in Canada for more than 12 years, he was stopped in one of the American airports in his way to Canada and SENT BACK to Syria instead of Canada although the American authorities know very well that our regime is very oppressive and use brutal torture against prisoners, he was tortured for 6 month in notorious Syrian prison, his wife back in Canada went mad and lauched a huge camapain against the American and the Canadian government, after huge pressure and a threat to cut the Canadian diplomatic relations with Syria, the regime there sent him back to Canada after unbearable ordeal..The American government which is the one who handed him over DID NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!!...I just wonder: IS AMERICA REALLY ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS and FREEDOM ???????? how on earth they handed him over to a regime they know very well use torture systematiclly ???? :mad:

Regardless of the reasons, the information is not getting to the West. Though Sciforums be but a tiny corner of a vast Universe, bring them to us, please.

I am doing my best despite a barrage of hate and bigotry from some members here in sciforums.

You would know better than most around here what speaks properly of the Islamic cause. Slough off the toadie flamers and bring us the reality; the audience is listening. We're just never quite sure what it is we're hearing.

You know sometimes, all this hatred and bigotry against Islam put me off from even bothering to post, but then, I say to myself, instead of cursing the darkness, try to lit even a small candle.

Lastly, remember that this is the West you're dealing with. Deal sympathetically, compassionately. Obviously, folks in the West don't understand why Muslims are upset. You can bring the golden and perfect truth, but if it's brought on a wave of imperfect passion, Westerners tend to shun the appearance of anger. (Just ask Howard Dean.)

Point taken and observed, but the problem is we muslims are very very upset and angry, it is difficult to ask angry person to be compassionate, because we see in America an oppressive incompassionate brutal state that kills Muslims and support their enemies ( Israel ).

But again, how we are going to talk if we will shout abuse at each other ?

Your advice is highly appreciated and as camels are something very dear and a symbol of our endurance and patience throughout the centuries, we have very great proverb in our arabic culture which goes:

HE WHO GIVES ME AN ADVICE, I WILL GIVE HIM A CAMEL.

:)

hypewaders

02-08-04, 11:28 AM

I prefer Marlboro Lights, shukran.

Proud_Muslim

02-08-04, 11:54 AM

Smoking endanger your life, quit it and get a camel...I promise.

:)

Pakman

02-08-04, 01:51 PM

Touche Proud Muslim. Touche. That's the path America should follow if they want to end all this hatred.

Eng Grez

02-08-04, 04:35 PM

As a Muslim and an Arab from the Middle East, let me give this advice to the Americans:

No one ever throughout history won any war against 'terrorism', the U.K. has been fighting the IRA for 30 years with no results, the same in Seri Lanka, the same in Philipenes, the same in Kashmire....etc

The only way to defeat terrorism is by doing the following:

1- Comprehensice review of America's foriegn policy: your support for Israel has to stop because the terrorist state of Israel is at the heart of the Muslim hatred and RAGE against the Americans.

2- You have to stop nourishing and supporting our dictators and tyrannts ( until now and even after 9/11, the american government is still supporting the oppressive Saudi regime, the dictators in the gulf region and the dictator in Egypt and now, it seems Colonel Ghadafi will become your friend again !! ) :mad:

3- The American government need to be seen as FAIR and JUST regarding Muslim causes all over the world ( we dont hear America complaining about the BARBARIC Russian treatments of the chechyen muslims, the same regarding the Kashmiris in India, the same regarding the treatment of Muslims in the Philipenes ).

4- Defeating those fanatic muslims can ONLY be achieved by MUSLIMS, the MODERATE MUSLIMS, who are not given any chance or space to speak out against those fanatics in the US media and indeed throughtout the world.

5- America has to drop more love instead of BOMBS on the heads of the muslims throughout the world....BUILDING instead of BOMBING.

6- America has to tackle its own christian fanatics back home who incite so much hate and bigotry against Muslims.

Imagine the reaction in the muslim world when they will see the next American president ( hopefully not this current moron ) visiting the refugee camps in GAZA and the WEST BANK and talking to poor palestineans about their pain and suffering, I am sure this would give America A HUGE SYMPATHY THROUGHOUT THE MUSLIM WORLD, IT WILL CAUSE AN EARTHQUAKE WHICH WILL SHAKE THE FANATICS' BASES AND DESTROY IT.

1 - Israel is not a terrorist state and no.

2 - No. Moderates would be eradicated by extremists.

3 - No. Once again, not caving in to extremists equals oppression and "unfairness" in your eyes.

4 - No. They speak out daily in the West. It is in their own countries that they are oppressed by extremists.

5 - No. We give plenty of money to governments for "building."

6 - No. First Amendment, and all that. We're not tearing up the Constitution so Abdel Raziz al-Schmoe in Cairo feels that the Christians aren't coming to make him an infidel.

What a load of Islamist BS. All six points, inherently tilted toward appeasement. Appeasement showed its worth at Munich. Appeasement showed its worth in New York.

Extremist Muslims started this fight, and we're sure as hell going to end it. The United States has been more successful at fighting terrorism than any other country in history. In the space of three years, we did more than in the past 30 at fighting terrorism.

The differences between the IRA, Sri Lanka and Islamic terrorism is that the IRA was fighting for a negotiable goal. The Sri Lankan terrorists - whose conflict over the years took 60,000 lives, far more than those in Chechnya or Israel - was fighting for a negotiable goal.

The IRA's agenda was not destruction of an entire society. The Sri Lankan terrorists' goal was not the destruction of an entire society.

The goal of Islamic terrorists is that of the destruction of not just one society. The goal of Islamic terrorists is the destruction of any and all societies save the one they deem acceptable. Negotiations are pointless.

The unrivaled, unparalleled power of the United States presents a situation unlike any before seen in history. The power of the United States literally crisscrosses the globe. We do not need to send the Marines into Cairo. The Egyptian government will round up the terrorist we want for us. We do not need to send troops to Kashmir or the Phillipines. India and the Phillipines are more than capable of handling their situations on their own, and we give them advice, intelligence, organization, coordination and money.

There has never been such a coalition of nations arrayed against terrorism. Even countries where they draw their support from have governments that are actively opposed to them. Anti-terrorist cooperation has rolled along unfettered, even with the infighting about Iraq amongst the nations of the West.

You portray Islamic terrorists as some kind of unstoppable juggernaut, Proud_Muslim. The unstoppable juggernaut is on the other side. You're not just dealing with the Zionist Entity and the Great Satan; you're dealing with Britain and France and Germany and Egypt and Jordan and Turkey and Japan and South Korea and India and Australia and the Phillipines and South Africa and Italy and Russia and Poland and quite literally the entire world.

The interconnected world works against the terrorist. The level of coordination and cooperation among different nations, which exceeds that of any other point in history, works against the terrorist.

The key is money. To make more money, countries grow closer together. Terrorists survive on the inefficiency and divided nature of their opponents. If it was the 1920s, I'm sure you'd be quite right. Nations were truly separate entities unto themselves. It is not the 1920s. The actual differences between the United States and Canada and France and Germany and Britain and Italy and Japan and Australia are near-nonexistent. That works against the terrorist.

Appeasement. Right.

Tiassa

02-08-04, 07:19 PM

One of my favorite, most diversely applicable philosophic gems collected through time:In the Wind of the mind arises the turbulence called I.
It breaks; down shower the barren thoughts.
All life is choked.
This desert is the Abyss wherein is the Universe. The Stars are but thistles in that waste.
Yet this desert is but one spot accursèd in a world of bliss.
Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go.
As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, till it flower.
See! five footprints of a Camel! V. V. V. V. V.

(Perdurabo (http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/uncle_al/lies/45.html))Just something that struck me about camels.

In my life, and even in my time at Sciforums (it's there about three years ago or so) I focused largely on a frustration that was part of a traditional process in American sociopolitical life and held Christians responsible as the latest main offender. The process is simple; if you are of an "honest" and "liberal" politic, you find yourself pressed to the point that you must either surrender or violate your principles. What happens is that one side of the equation can, theoretically, continually back up in compassionate allowance of the errors of the other. Yet the other continually advances without adjusting their perception of the situation.

I share a lot of values with the Judeo-Christian experience in America. What seems deviant about me in comparison with my "average American" neighbors stems from conflicts originating within the confines and conditions of that Judeo-Christian experience. For years, I found communication with "the other side" impossible, as I was always willing to make allowances in perception for differences in fundamental beliefs, but found no such compassion among those who disagreed.

While Christianity and Christians are not solely responsible for this process in America, the process is largely responsible for the continual resetting of lower and lower standards for American education, politics, and conduct. In the Christian context, it is how we arrive at an internecene American conflict in which treating everybody fairly is somehow discriminatory against Christians. (We see this conflict of justice being unjust in the religions of American "Capitalism" and American "Democracy" every day, as well.)

I'm very happy for what progress has occurred in Northern Ireland over the last decade or so. It sure beats the 1980s, when I first became aware of "terrorists" and "guerillas," among other things. But in my heart's principles I'm quietly pissed at the fact that the British will never apologize to Ireland for centuries of unnecessary crap. And, admittedly, some of that crap is necessary to the "learning curve" of social relations, but at some point it just got ridiculous.

The aggressors keep coming, the victims and the "enlightened compassionate" keep falling back in response to abstract principles which the aggressors are happy to abuse like altar boys.

Flip a coin in Israel. The establishment of an Israeli state makes a tremendous amount of sense according to an old politic that finally started crumbling in 1989 or 1990 for me, in Catholic school. But within that politic is a cheap and simplistic rendering of the situation. A child might draw mommy and daddy fighting, but one cannot necessarily extract the real issues from that depiction. More information is required, and over time one comes to see the establishment of Israel as just the latest in a millennia-long real-estate squabble that has cost the world much more than it has ever given.

What does that say of present-day Israelis? I'm unsure; I've never kidded myself that it was anything other than a war going on over there.

I live in a world where the historical tradition is colored by such notable paradoxes as the respectable character and brilliant mind of Lord Acton arguing on behalf of the American Confederacy and slavery. I live in an America where villains are folk heroes, and bright minds are vilified to fill in the abhorrent vacuum. (How is it that, all these years on, someone so reviled as Emma Goldman--once called the most feared woman in the world in her day--could be revealed as nearly prophetic on some issues is a testament to the America I live in.)

But in the end, what to do about the process and what it brings is a difficult question. Oftentimes, the only real option is to sacrifice a principle in order to gamble on an unlikely result.

I'm 30 years old. Trying to be a "nice guy" over the years has cost me almost every one of my defining principles. And yet the woman who has demanded over the years that such extraneous and inefficient baggage as principles should be thrown out one by one now wonders why I'm so dispassionate and without certain sympathies. It hasn't occurred to her that they're lying beside the highway here and there, parched to dust or rotting in the rain.

And yet, there's nothing about this paring away of principles that is new or uncommon. That I feel this way, I'm told, is not unique. Turns out, if you look closely, it's the primary factor lending to what wisdom there is in the infamous Churchill quote: Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

In other words, if you haven't surrendered to the absurd, if you haven't given over to sublimated vices and the appearance of conformity, if you haven't given up those things that make your life worth living to you and settled yourself proudly and confidently amid your newfound numbness, you're an idiot.

Sorry, Winston. You can't crush the seeds of what makes a person human. You can't destroy them forever. The wrecked carcasses of fantastic flowers strewn across the desert whisper only the slightest hints of what still germinates.

Camus knew it. Just because Sisyphus is happy doesn't mean he's smart.

And so you wander on, seeking evidence of the passing of the Travelers--the footprints of a camel?--hoping to find the flowers amid the barren wastes.

At least the garden grows. Whether or not we enjoy its fruits is as simple as stopping to smell the roses and looking afresh at the world around us.

What to do about those who would steal away the blossoms and tear away the roots is a different question entirely. By the metaphysical at least, they have the right to. And, as you know, with so many people in this world, that you can is sufficient reason why you should.

Amid the waste and wreckage, does the King of Fools smile and say, "It is good"?

hypewaders

02-09-04, 01:37 AM

Finding meaning amid the waste and wreckage of human relations on any scale requires no creed, but gets easier in the experience of every selfless, simple, minute, mocked, and courageous act of love.

Proud_Muslim

02-09-04, 04:35 PM

1 - Israel is not a terrorist state and no.

That is it....no way to discuss with someone who think Israel is not terrorist state....hell, even some jews say Israel is indeed terrorist state:

http://www.nkusa.org

http://www.jewsnotzionists.com

ISRAELIS vs ARABS: WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?

http://www.koshertaxscam.com/atroc/

Appeasement. Right.

You guys are living in a state of self denial....keep sleeping dude.

:rolleyes:

spidergoat

02-10-04, 04:17 PM

1- Comprehensice review of America's foriegn policy: your support for Israel has to stop because the terrorist state of Israel is at the heart of the Muslim hatred and RAGE against the Americans.
Let them hate, that's what they do best anyway. Israel does not strap bombs to it's children in order to influence the political climate. Good fences make good neighbors! If we did not support Israel, they would be besieged on all sides by the muslims, and be forced to war, which they would surely win, again.
2- You have to stop nourishing and supporting our dictators and tyrannts ( until now and even after 9/11, the american government is still supporting the oppressive Saudi regime, the dictators in the gulf region and the dictator in Egypt and now, it seems Colonel Ghadafi will become your friend again !! )
We have to deal with whoever is in power. Why don't you stop creating dictators and tyrants that we have to deal with?
3- The American government need to be seen as FAIR and JUST regarding Muslim causes all over the world ( we dont hear America complaining about the BARBARIC Russian treatments of the chechyen muslims, the same regarding the Kashmiris in India, the same regarding the treatment of Muslims in the Philipenes ).
Perhaps when muslims become fair and just in fighting their causes, rather than resorting to terror.
4- Defeating those fanatic muslims can ONLY be achieved by MUSLIMS, the MODERATE MUSLIMS, who are not given any chance or space to speak out against those fanatics in the US media and indeed throughtout the world.
Talk is cheap, no amount of talk will defeat fanatical muslims, they are institutionally closed-minded.
5- America has to drop more love instead of BOMBS on the heads of the muslims throughout the world....BUILDING instead of BOMBING.
They ARE bombs of love. Feel the warm embrace of a vaporizing cloud, the only thing sure to warm the fanatical muslim's heart.
6- America has to tackle its own christian fanatics back home who incite so much hate and bigotry against Muslims.
In America, you are free to hate whoever you wish, it is none of the government's business.

Proud_Muslim

02-11-04, 03:44 AM

Let them hate, that's what they do best anyway. Israel does not strap bombs to it's children in order to influence the political climate.

Oh Yeah, Israel does worse, they send their planes to bomb palestienans sleeping in their homes, something more disgusting than the suicide bombers.

Beside: ' what is the difference between Palestinean suicide martyer using the only mean available to him to deliver the bomb and an Israeli pilot wrapping himself with AMERICAN F16 to deliver the bomb ???????????

http://www.koshertaxscam.com/atroc

Good fences make good neighbors!

Build your RACIST WALL on your land not on the palestinean land, but again, since when the jews were that considerate about others ??

If we did not support Israel, they would be besieged on all sides by the muslims, and be forced to war, which they would surely win, again.

what a load of bullshit, Israel was kicked out from lebanon in 1982 by the Syrian army and later in 2000 and after 20 years of war with SMALL group of freedom fighters ( Hizbollah ) Israel was defeated and was forced to FLEE south lebanon... :D

We have to deal with whoever is in power. Why don't you stop creating dictators and tyrants that we have to deal with?

Are all jews like you ?? it is you who create them...because you jews know very well once we have democracies in the ME, your terrorist state will evaportate.

Perhaps when muslims become fair and just in fighting their causes, rather than resorting to terror.

Terrorism is like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder.

Talk is cheap, no amount of talk will defeat fanatical muslims, they are institutionally closed-minded.

Like the zionist jews.

They ARE bombs of love. Feel the warm embrace of a vaporizing cloud, the only thing sure to warm the fanatical muslim's heart.

Islam is now stealing the sleep from your eyes....you are very scared from small bunch of the so called 'extremists'' !!

In America, you are free to hate whoever you wish, it is none of the government's business.

I did not know you speak on behlaf of America !! :rolleyes:

Rick

02-11-04, 07:38 AM

Posted by Proud Muslim

The American government need to be seen as FAIR and JUST regarding Muslim causes all over the world ( we dont hear America complaining about the BARBARIC Russian treatments of the chechyen muslims, the same regarding the Kashmiris in India, the same regarding the treatment of Muslims in the Philipenes ).

What the hell do you mean by Kashmiris in India? Do YOU Know what the real issue of Kashmir is? Did you know that Kashmiris are a subject of terror in India and they have been terrorised by the the Pakistan Ocuppied Kashmir training camps.

When you said dictator; you should have said President Musharraf.His duality and inefficient administartion has become talk of town.He recently let a Nuclear scientist go away after he leaked information to Iran etc! How did he? Needless to say that Pakistan's Dictator is not sure how much havoc he has caused and the whole world knows what exactly has happened,and that Musharraf was an accomplice in doing so.

India has been subjugated to terrorism for almost a decade now.America was attacked only once which killed many people.My condolences,But in Case of India America refuses to admit that Pak occupied Kashmir has Terrist Camp despite the information given to them on a regular basis.

Did you know that free and Fair elections were held in Kashmir recently?And Zillions of poeple participated in these Elections.

Pakistan says,Kashmir is an issue.Yes it is.POK is an issue and India wants this POK back and reunited with Kashmir.Pakistan says,kashmir needs to be in Pakistan because of Muslim population and do you know that terrorists regularly target Hindu Kashmiri Pandts there so that they could leave Kashmir?Not only that Sikhs were Targeted recently by militancy in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

India tried Lahore peace process,and look what happened?!! They did Kargil? right? and who was the leader of Pakistan then? Nawaz Shariff? what happened to him,he was sent to exile! just when peace process was around the corner.
Both nations are trying hard today to find their lost brotherhood back.India and Pak faught their independence together under Mahatma Gandhiji.Pakistan is fond of Bollywood films,Lahore loves Indian Films and serials.Indians Love Pakistani plays.Both the countried speak same langauge.Both the countries have common passion : Cricket!.You mustnt forget: there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan.And they live excellent lives.And contribute to worlds fastest growing economy.

bye!

Rick

02-11-04, 07:57 AM

1 - Israel is not a terrorist state and no.

2 - No. Moderates would be eradicated by extremists.

3 - No. Once again, not caving in to extremists equals oppression and "unfairness" in your eyes.

4 - No. They speak out daily in the West. It is in their own countries that they are oppressed by extremists.

5 - No. We give plenty of money to governments for "building."

6 - No. First Amendment, and all that. We're not tearing up the Constitution so Abdel Raziz al-Schmoe in Cairo feels that the Christians aren't coming to make him an infidel.

Engrez,

I am grateful to you for clarifying India's position on War on Terrorism.It has experienced this phenomenon for a long time.And all of this has been agenda of POK camps,needless to say that Pakistan knows about this,But situation has become uncontrollable in Pakistan too recently.Indians have raised these issuess in front of U.S. lots of times.The U.S.in recent times has provided India with great help.FBI offices have recently been opened.But India asserts that it wouldnt require any mediation of U.S.,since it would like the talks to be bilateral.Pakistan and India are moving towards a solution which i hope would be a peaceful end to the whole process.Both the countries have recently warmed up their cold relations.As i said earlier,Pakistan and India know each other,they just need to sit down and have a heart to heart talk on issues.POK camps will be an issue raised in Pakistan.I am sure Musharraf wont faler this time.Also,i think India warned to world recently about the leakage of Nuclear Secrets.This is where India has an advantage of Political maturity.India has an outstanding record of Secularist culture with some minor incidents happening here and there and is sole example which it presents to all the other third world countries as a stable democracy for more than 50 years.India is moving fast towards Capitalism,as Disinvestment continues,The countries has shown great signs of overall growth with heightened up stock markets due to openness with foreign investments.

Let Kashmir issue not be a Nuclear flash point.Indians have had enough of this Terrorism.Muslims in India (As a Hindu,I have many of them as great pals) are amazed at what these imbecile jehadies and their Agenda.Quaran's mentioned Jehad needless to say has lost its meaning .

bye!

spidergoat

02-11-04, 12:52 PM

Beside: ' what is the difference between Palestinean suicide martyer using the only mean available to him to deliver the bomb and an Israeli pilot wrapping himself with AMERICAN F16 to deliver the bomb ?

What's the difference between a bank robber that kills an innocent person and the cop who, in the course of shooting him, also kills an innocent person?

Build your RACIST WALL on your land
According to your views on Saudi Arabia, a country should be allowed to do what they wish, including restricting the travel of certain minorities.

Are all jews like you ?? it is you who create them...because you jews know very well once we have democracies in the ME, your terrorist state will evaportate.
No, most Jews are not atheists. Yes, when the ME consists of peaceful democracies, Israel will not have to fight terrorism anymore, and will cease to be accused of it.

Like the zionist jews.
Zionism is no longer an issue, the Jews have their state, and yes, they are closed minded enough to not even consider dissolving it.

I did not know you speak on behlaf of America !!
I don't know what you mean, it is perfectly legal to hate Islam, and even promote bigotry. It is public opinion, not federal law that must answer it.

you are very scared from small bunch of the so called 'extremists'' !! Yes, that's true. What's your point?

joe smith

02-12-04, 11:41 AM

Jews have an undeniable right to their homeland. They occupied Judea two thousand years ago and they occupy it again today as Israel.

Pakman

02-13-04, 08:52 PM

What's the difference between a bank robber that kills an innocent person and the cop who, in the course of shooting him, also kills an innocent person?

Bad analogy. Israel has the decision on whether they want to target terrorist leaders in civilian areas or not.

No, most Jews are not atheists. Yes, when the ME consists of peaceful democracies, Israel will not have to fight terrorism anymore, and will cease to be accused of it.

I'm sure the Middle East can set up a democracy once America stops supporting monarchies and dictatorships there.

Pakman

02-13-04, 08:53 PM

Jews have an undeniable right to their homeland. They occupied Judea two thousand years ago and they occupy it again today as Israel.

So do the Native Americans in America. They been living here for hundreds of years. So they have an undeniable right to their land. Why not give it to them?

Undecided

02-13-04, 09:18 PM

Jews have an undeniable right to their homeland. They occupied Judea two thousand years ago and they occupy it again today as Israel.

Jews have a right to that land, but not now.

Tiassa

03-04-04, 07:02 PM

9/11 Update: Bad Guys blank World Fellowship

Updating the score as we head to the next inning.
But as the American case against Zacarias Moussaoui falls apart in Virginia, we're actually losing this aspect of the War on Terror. The American people have been promised justice, and at present the 9/11 count sits as follows:

• Moussaoui - accused, conviction doubt moderate to strong. (US)
• Mzoudi - accused, acquitted. (Germany)
• Motassadeq - accused, convicted, appealing; chance of winning appeal is moderate to strong; decision expected March 4, 2004. (Germany)

Which means that the official score is:

- Al Qaeda: 2,749
- World: 1 (under review)

But in a state of perpetual warfare, we must remember that it's still early in the game. And it could change to a straight shutout by this time next month.

The score has changed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3531501.stm).

At present, the bad guys are blanking the rest of the world. Justice, thus far unaccounted for in the War on Terror, may well be the only actual beneficiary of this new development, as Mounir al-Motassadeq won his appeal against conviction, the German Federal Criminal Court threw out the verdict, and ordered a new trial. Presiding judge, Klaus Tolksdorf, said the evidence against Motassadeq was not sufficient for a conviction."The fight against terrorism cannot be a wild, unjust war," Klaus Tolksdorf said.

"A conflict between the security interests of the executive and the rights to defence of the accused cannot be resolved to the disadvantage of the accused,"

He added that although Mr Motassadek was "far from being beyond suspicion", but had a right to a new trial if legal standards were below those he expected.

"We are announcing a verdict here that we do not expect will be greeted with complete agreement," (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3531501.stm))According to the BBC, Andreas Schulz, a lawyer representing American relatives of victims, said that the verdict would "surely meet with incomprehension" among his clients.

As we go to the break, preparing for the Spring Offensive, the score:

• Al Qaeda: 2,749
• World: 0

An appeal to President George W. Bush, Jr. -

Mr. President? Mr. President?! All eyes are on us, in a way. Surely, the situation isn't incomprehensible to you, is it? Admittedly, the families of 9/11's victims need justice, and it may well be that their incomprehension will not be of the fact that the Motossadeq conviction has been thrown out, but perhaps it will be more directly related to the question of how this was allowed to happen. German judges seem to have made it clear throughout that they think this man is guilty. But they cannot and apparently will not set aside the rule of law, which is the declared foundation for justice, in order to tack Motossadeq to the wall.

The evidence compelling this decision comes from fragments acknowledged unofficially to come from Ramzi bin al-Shibh, currently in American custody. The BBC reinforces the standing notion that the United States government is not doing enough to assist its international neighbors in the prosecution of known terrorists.

Did I say, "us"?

I meant, "you."

All eyes are on you, Mr. President. As it stands, Al Qaeda is shutting us out.

Please, sir, help the world help us.

The irony of it is that if you actually did, as conspiracy theorists suggest, have bin Laden tucked away somewhere to be hauled out as an election surprise--a most distasteful accusation, I admit--now would be a very good time to pull the rabbit out of your hat.

As you launch your advertising campaign for re-election, as you tell Americans so eloquently that you know what needs to be done, your critics have launched their first salvo--If you know, why isn't it being done?

Perhaps, Mr. President, you might bear in mind that if security must come before both freedom and justice, you can help secure the nation greatly if you assist other nations in the prosecution of persons accused of facilitating the attacks which destroyed our towers, killed 2,749 people, and shattered thousands, if not millions of American lives.

All eyes are on you, Mr. President. All eyes are on you.

• BBC. "9/11 prisoner wins German retrial." March 4, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3531501.stm

See Also

• BBC. "'We're Canada's al-Qaeda family." March 4, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3534195.stm

(I'm not ready to make a post or topic out of this article; amid all the grim things in the world, there is still the idea that Osama bin Laden, "has issues with his wife, and he has issues with his kids, financial issues, you know, the kids aren't listening, the kids aren't doing this and that." Really, I ... I know it's not exactly proper, but ph@ck, that strikes me as absurdly funny.)

guthrie

03-05-04, 04:56 PM

Strictly speaking, since you seem to be counting all the 11/09 dead, you should count some of those killed in Afghanistan and, for example, I think it was Oman they Hellfired' a car carrying some terrorist suspects. That would up the count a bit.

Tiassa

03-05-04, 10:53 PM

I'm an American. Due process and "justice" still count for something. Well, in principle. After all, this is America ....

Sure, "Dead or Alive," sounds good, feels good to say. But it's so 19th century.

As Judge Tolksdorf explained, "A conflict between the security interests of the executive and the rights to defence of the accused cannot be resolved to the disadvantage of the accused."

And when the judge knows he's guilty, and has nothing to convict someone on, and a gray zone so wide that Ramzi bin al-Shibh can fill it?

We're willing to bomb and kill, but not support the due-process prosecution of terrorist suspects, including those accused of aiding and abetting the effort that killed so many people in New York?

Might bring carnage. Might bring satisfaction for some Americans. But it won't bring justice; you know, that thing sworn to in that pledge of allegiance the President is so intent on forcing children to recite?

For the world community, blowing up bad guys is a null exercise at best, and a losing proposition at worst. You're likely to inspire more bad guys than you get rid of. Justice is just too hard and slow a process for an electoral cycle in America.

Tiassa

03-28-04, 06:20 AM

Say "WoT"? Psychic tip cancels flight

That's right, folks. You did not read that incorrectly.

The Associated Press is reporting that American Airlines flight 1304, from Southwest Florida International Airport, was subject to search by bomb-sniffing dogs after a purported psychic called in a tip. The flight was later canceled for labor and hour considerations. The TSA concedes that the tip was "unusual."

No bomb was found.

• CNN. "Psychic tip prompts bomb search on plane." March 27, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/27/psychic.plane.ap/index.html

Tiassa

03-31-04, 07:53 AM

Syrian family seeking asylum wins reprieve in Ninth Circuit
Hamoui: "I still believe in America. I still believe in justice . . . ."

It should be noted at the outset that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (P-I) is traditionally the more liberal of Seattle's two major newspapers. It is also the home newspaper of Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist David Horsey.

(1) Skolnik, Sam. "INS moves to deport prominent Syrian." Seattle P-I, March 8, 2002. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/61449_ins08.shtml
(2) Jamieson, Robert L. "Grocer himself turned dream into nightmare." Seattle P-I, March 9, 2002. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/61613_robert09.shtml
(3) Iwasaki, John. "Syrian family's joy is muted." Seattle P-I. November 19, 2002. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/61449_ins08.shtml
(4) Olsen, Lisa. "Local INS director is abruptly replaced." Seattle P-I. December 20, 2002. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/100855_ins20.shtml
(5) Lange, Larry. "Speakers at Day of Remembrance warn of post-9/11 perils." Seattle P-I, February 10, 2003. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/107961_japanese10.shtml
(6) Editorial Board. "Defiant Justice Dept. makes no apologies." Seattle P-I, June 8, 2003. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/125457_righted8.html
(7) Editoral Board. "Justice with mercy due Syrian family." Seattle P-I, March 14, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/164568_familyed.html
(8) McGann, Chris. "Syrian's asylum hopes lifted in appeals court." Seattle P-I, March 30, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/166921_hamoui30.html

It goes on. In fact, if you're willing to get a free registration to the site, you can see the list of all their coverage of this story in the archive (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/search/PIsearch.asp?rank=date&UserQuery=hamoui&a_type=all&x=0&y=0).

The Story So Far:

In 1992, Safouh Hamoui, a former Syrian military pilot came to the United states on a short-term tourist visa. As the P-I explains:The arrests stem from the "Absconder Apprehension Initiative," quietly launched by Attorney General John Ashcroft in late January. The program targets 314,000 foreign nationals who have ignored past court orders to leave the country, with an initial focus on the 6,000 illegal immigrants from mostly Middle Eastern countries thought to be home to al-Qaida cells . . . .

. . . . According to court papers, Safouh Hamoui, 50, arrived in New York in October 1992 -- two months after Ismail, 42, and their two daughters entered in Los Angeles. All were admitted on short-term tourist visas.

Six months later, Safouh Hamoui requested asylum for himself and his family. Four years after that, in February 1997, an immigration judge denied the request, and ordered the family deported. The Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals rejected their appeal in 1998, and Hamoui appealed again, to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- the court of last resort.

Two years later, in June 2000, the family lost that petition as well, and were ordered to report to the INS for deportation. They never showed up. (1)In the early going, P-I columnist Robert Jamieson, Jr., wrote, Barring a miracle, the family will go. Some friends fear that if they are deported to Syria they'll be considered spies because they have been gone so long.

Hogwash! They could have been home much sooner, but they wanted to stay here in America, by any means necessary.

So they broke our rules. Now they have to face the consequences.

No exceptions allowed. (2)And yet yesterday, the P-I reported on the latest development of this case. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has once again aimed its critical trumpets squarely at the federal government, and also noted a shoddy legal defense:During a hearing in Seattle before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the harsh skepticism long focused on Safouh Hamoui -- a former Syrian pilot who came to this country in 1992 -- suddenly shifted to the government.

The three-judge panel blasted the Justice Department's handling of the immigration case and openly supported key contentions being raised by Hamoui's new lawyers.

The panel said it was clear that Hamoui had not received competent legal assistance. The appeals court also indicated that the Board of Immigration Appeals should have considered testimony outlining the dangers the Hamoui family faces if returned to Syria.

The bureau also misapplied the standard for "likely fear of torture" as outlined by the International Convention Against Torture, the appeals panel said.

Afterward, Justice Department lawyer Andrew MacLachlan had little to say.

"It was a good dialogue with the court," he said. (8)And you know, the rest of the links are yours to read or not. They're mostly for your information if you're so inclined. The P-I has been vocal on the Hamoui story ... pretty much the entire time.

I'm of the opinion that this is one of the travesties of our War on Terror. These articles, of course, speak rather quite ill of the Syrian government, but hey, the US is following all manner of tyrant down the road to nowhere. I mean, the US government, especially in the PNAC age, ought to be waving this guy around like a banner--rubbing Syria's nose in it. And, yes, Clinton well could have done that nose-rubbing if he wanted to, but at least he didn't try to deport the guy in a panicked reaction to terrorism.

Yes. Sometimes we must challenge our own the rules if it's what's best for human beings. Mr. Jamieson's article opens with a simple question: "Rules are rules, but sometimes they should be broken, right?"

Well ... yes. Not all rules are good rules. Sometimes rules do the wrong thing. In an age when politicians live by broken rules, Yes, we can occasionally accommodate specific needs for the right reasons.

And so finds our Ninth Circuit.

The Hamoui family's case is one of the more powerful dramas of our War on Terror. Self-sufficient, respectably conducted in the community, family-oriented ... these are the sorts of people we should want to bring to this country. I'm all for the poor, the tired, the huddled masses, but I tend to think that when you get right down to "political reality," people with the apparent qualities of the Hamoui family who also happen to feel as if they're on the run from a regime your government doesn't like . . . .

What? What am I missing?

Oh, yeah.

Knee.

Jerk.

On the east coast, where the sun rises, we have a statue that symbolically welcomes those who come to the United States with hopes for the future. And if they have to run all the way out here to the sunset before they can find Justice in America, then so be it.

And this on a waxing moon . . . .

Tiassa

04-01-04, 06:02 AM

Your War on Terror: "Party at Don's"?!
Directions to Rummy's found at Starbucks

Wouldn't you? Or, at least, wouldn't you pause to think about it? If you found, sitting on a table in Starbuck's, handwritten directions to some famous person's house, wouldn't you think about publishing it on the web, or distributing "Party at Don's house!" flyers?

Well, one citizen didn't go so far as that, but rather handed over some notes discovered in a DC-area Starbucks, including a pencil-drawn map from the Pentagon to Donald Rumsfeld's house, to the Center for American Progress, another useless left-wing policy think tank."Our plan had military plans to attack Al Q -- called on def to draw up targets in Afg -- develop mil options."

There's an underlined notation "DR" in the margin and a quotation, apparently from DR, perhaps Rumsfeld, to "Stay inside the line -- we dont need 2 ruff [or puff] this at all. we need 2b careful as hell about it. This thing will go away soon and what will keep it alive will be one of us going over the line" . . . .

. . . . The CAP folks have been having so much fun with this, they've taken to providing answers for the "Possible Q's." For example, in answer to the question, "Why did the Administration think it had 7 months to develop policy?" the CAP people offer: "We made a point of ignoring as long as possible anything that was recommended to us by the Clinton Administration." (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37321-2004Mar30.html))What's odd is that the first thing I thought was, "What will Franken say?" What? It's like T-minus six minutes to "Morning Sedition" time as I write this. Might as well give it a listen.

But how's this administration on security? Someone's gonna be fired, that's for sure.
______________________

• Kamen, Al. "Note to Eric: U Need 2B More Careful." Washington Post, March 31, 2004; page A23. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37321-2004Mar30.html

hypewaders

04-01-04, 12:28 PM

"The Bush administration has scuttled a plan to increase by 50 percent the number of criminal financial investigators working to disrupt the finances of Al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations to save $12 million, a Congressional hearing was told on Tuesday." - NYT 03-31-04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/business/31irs.html)

"Four Americans were attacked and their bodies subjected to barbaric maltreatment. The acts we have seen were despicable and inexcusable," he said. "They violate the tenets of all religions including Islam as one of the foundations of civilized society... Their deaths will not go unpunished." -Viceroy Bremer (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0401IraqBremer01-ON.html) 04-01-03

The present American administration prefers retaliation and escalation to intelligence. This is a leading reason why the War on Terror is having devastating results while terrorist groups are diversifying and growing.

crazy151drinker

04-01-04, 12:34 PM

PM,

Last time I checked, the EXTREMISTS in IRAN booted out all of the Legitimate MODERATES in their govt. The EXTREMISTS fixed the Elections. So your 'fix it' theory is CRAP.

And on another note: Has a terrorist group ever WON? NOPE. Why? Because they are nothing but an extremely small group of individuals who use fear to try to force the general public to accept their demands. If youre so concerned about the WEST's 'hatred', then maybe Muslims should stop flying planes into buildings and blowing up buses. Its bad for public relations.
What you need PM is a revolution. But it takes a massive amount of support for that, something which your extemist views will never have.

hypewaders

04-01-04, 12:39 PM

Considering the fundamentalist revolution that occured in Iran subsequent to US "nation building" there, discounting the potential for further fundamentalist revolutions is questionable.

crazy151drinker

04-01-04, 01:01 PM

hype,

The revolution in Iran was our fault. I can admit to that.
However, as we have seen, the Extremists are no longer supported by the population. They have become what they replaced.

hypewaders

04-01-04, 05:22 PM

In any desperate times anywhere, locals will always blame outsiders first. Whatever becomes of Iraq, America will be blamed by most local and regional Arabs, far more than will be Saddam Hussein, the Ba'ath Party, Sectarian fighting, shadowy "insurgents", "terrorists", or any Iraqi or Arab contributors to the increasingly likely civil war ahead. Even without justification, of which there is plenty (considering the invasion was entirely elective for the US) Americans will be blamed for the death of Iraq.

Iraqi trust for the USA is now extremely precarious, and is the most decisive factor in what is going to transpire in the near future. Without a rapid, massive and genuine transition to international peacekeepers, and without a bona-fide Iraqi government that can bind a fractious, destroyed country into one again, Iraqi trust in America will continue to erode.

At the breaking point, the collapse is likely to be very sudden, much like the collapse of the Ba'athists, with collaborators under dire threat of retribution, and sectarian fighting on at least 3 sides. US policymakers lack the nuance and subtlety that would be the only way to encourage a viable government to form that is not perceived as a puppet regime.

Of course Iraqis do not wish for civil war. Neither did the Lebanese. But when outside influences create a power vacuum, and fail to install a legitimate replacement, things can spin out of control very suddenly. The last fleeting expression if Iraqi nationalism could easily expend itself in a last spasm to expel Americans, and at such a juncture US firepower, however escalated, will be helpless to regain control of the situation.

The occupation is already hopelessly muddled with many other issues including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the "War on Terror", Ahmed Chalabi (and other mistrusted exile leaders), and the tenuous shift of balance between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, and Chaldeans. Considering these divisive factors along with gathering disillusion with US occupiers, the chances for any lasting government created by any process under US occupation is, tragically, very remote. The PNAC dream of Arab receptivity to American-sponsored self-government has already run aground.

Because the US will increasingly receive the blame, it is becoming politically impossible for the US to forge a viable Iraq from a unilateralist, interventionist base. The present coalition is widely perceived as a meaningless fig-leaf. Unless elections somehow bring a sea-change in Iraqi security, the resulting government will also lack legitimacy. The only sure chance for averting an increasingly likely cataclysm is for the peacekeeping/occupation/transition to be de-Americanized as rapidly as possible. Presently, there is no evidence of a concrete plan to do this, which will be another heavy burden of blame for American leaders who commited forces while lacking fundamental understanding of the implications.

Where the blame for all this agony will fall at every downturn is the single most pivotal issue in Iraq's future, and the die is already cast.

Tiassa

04-17-04, 04:38 AM

Sierra Club - "The Cost of Doing Business"
US firm accused of giving aid to terrorists

A former project manager for Echo Bay Mines has stated, and claims to have documentation to demonstrate, that his company paid as much as US$1.7 million to Filipino "terrorists," including some with connections to Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda.

Allan Laird claims to have approached the Department of Homeland Security, but to on avail. According to Sierra magazine, two former executives of the now-defunct Denver, Colorado company have confirmed that Laird did send "alarming updates and queries from the Philippines," and was trying to follow a money trail . . . .

Oh, hell ... just do the reading. One note is that Echo Bay was purchased by Kinross Gold Corporation, of Canada, in 2003. Kinross officials say they had no knowledge of the payments.

Notes:

• Associated Press. "Ex=worker says mine gave aid to terrorists." April 17, 2004. See http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2511366
• Berlin Snell, Marilyn. "The Cost of Doing Business." Sierra Magazine, March/April, 2004. See http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200405/terrorism/

See Also:

• Kinross Gold Corporation. See http://www.kinross.com/

kmguru

04-18-04, 04:05 PM

Once you are an Ex-Worker, everything you say about the company is ignored as sour grapes - that is normal practice in USA. Whether it is small stuff or big stuff, but only when they are negative in nature. Speaking from my own experience.

Tiassa

05-01-04, 06:53 AM

Wow. I hadn't seen this one yet.

At any rate, I went to Apple to download some software to play a couple of old games I really miss, and, well ... I've never seen this warning before:U.S. Export Compliance Agreement - You agree that you will not export or reexport any of the software or confidential information received from Apple (i) into (or to a national or resident of) Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, or any other country to which the U.S. has embargoed goods; or (ii) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, U.S. Commerce Department's Table of Denial Orders and Entities List, or the U.S. State Department's Debarred List. By downloading this software, you represent and warrant that you are not located in, under the control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list. You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.Wowsers.

Preacher_X

05-01-04, 09:33 AM

Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil. :D

Daddy ... what's a terrorist?
Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.

Why do they kill them?
Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.

Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?
Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.

So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?
No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.

Good blackmail? What's that?
That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.

But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.
True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.

So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?
No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.

Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?
Yes ... just like him.

But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?
Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.

So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?
Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.

What uniforms do terrorists wear?
That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.

War has rules?
Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.

So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?
Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.

The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?
Technically speaking, yes. But ...

So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?
Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.

But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?
Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.

Is it a better place?
I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.

Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?
Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...

So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?
Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...

Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.
What?
I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.

But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.
I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?

By: David Campbell :D

Preacher_X

05-01-04, 09:47 AM

1 - Israel is not a terrorist state and no.

not a terrorist state :rolleyes:

go on http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index.htm

anf look at the THOUSANDS of pictures of Israeli TERRORIST ACTS. and that includes the pictures of the newborn babies with bullet holes in them, the elderly women getting beaten to the ground by Israeli soldiers, the 50 year old man who had his leg shot OFF by Israeli soldiers, the infants that were tied up to milatry vehicles and driven around, the little kids who are being beaten up with sticks by Israeli soldiers.

is that not terrorism. look at the pics and reply back.

and are you forgettiong how Israel was created how in '67 it came in with tanks and planes and burnt down thousands of houses and mosques were suvillians were hiding. currently it is bulldozing thousands of homes on the OCCUPIED west bank, just for more land.

if you were one of the people who's house had just been bulldozed simply of land last week, wouldn't you fell like blowing up some Israeli houses?

in the coty of Hebron in Palestine (not Israel) there are 100,000 Muslims and 700 Jewish "settelers" for the convienience of the 700 jewish "settlers" the 100,000 Muslims ALL have curfews, have to go through border checks daily. and this isn't even in Israel, it is in the West Bank which Israel "says" it gave to the palestinians but is still capturing it since '67

also the Goldstine massacre happened in Hebron.

Preacher_X

05-01-04, 09:48 AM

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacre...stine/index.htm

for pictures of Israeli savagery that far surpasses any Nazis!!!!!!!!

Preacher_X

05-01-04, 09:51 AM

the correct URL:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index.htm

Tiassa

05-03-04, 11:26 PM

Lawsuit: Justice Department sued for post-9/11 abuse
Charges include verbal, physical abuse, even sodomy
In a telephone interview from Faisalabad, Pakistan, he spoke wistfully of his early, around-the-clock jobs as a 7-Eleven clerk and as a gas station attendant in Huntington, N.Y., where customers brought him Thanksgiving dinner and Christmas gifts. But he is so haunted by memories of the terror, pain and humiliation that the federal officers inflicted on him, he said, that he starts to shake at the sight of his own brother, a policeman, in uniform.

"Before I go to prison, the America that I know is a beautiful country and Americans are such beautiful, kind, humble people," he said. "When I go to prison, I see there a different face of the United States of America." (Bernstein, New York Times (http://nytimes.com/2004/05/03/nyregion/03brooklyn.html))For those who might have actually believed the line to the contrary, yes, our nation is at war against Islam.

It just bugs me that people don't want to believe it happens. Oh, well. We'll have to see; innocent until proven otherwise, you know. Unless, of course, you're Muslim.

Your war on terror . . . .
____________________

• Bernstein, Nina. "2 Men Charge Abuse in Arrests After 9/11 Terror Attacks." New York Times, May 3, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/03/nyregion/03brooklyn.html

Hesomagari

05-04-04, 04:55 AM

I love your passion Tiassa and read you whenever I find you, but this disturbs me.

I'm 30 years old. Trying to be a "nice guy" over the years has cost me almost every one of my defining principles.

Why? If you are not true to yourself, then what are you?

And yet the woman who has demanded over the years that such extraneous and inefficient baggage as principles should be thrown out one by one now wonders why I'm so dispassionate and without certain sympathies. It hasn't occurred to her that they're lying beside the highway here and there, parched to dust or rotting in the rain.

Why would you even get together with such a type as this? Bad choices?

And yet, there's nothing about this paring away of principles that is new or uncommon. That I feel this way, I'm told, is not unique. Turns out, if you look closely, it's the primary factor lending to what wisdom there is in the infamous Churchill quote: Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. So why is it, then, that all the liberal politians are OLD....

I disagree with Churchill. Any person with a sense of justice knows what is right, and what is wrong.

Only those who have sold their souls, sail under the flag called "expedience".

Tiassa

05-04-04, 06:08 AM

Why? Overextended liberal compassion; you wake up one day and find you've given away all the stones for the foundation.If you are not true to yourself, then what are you?Human.

(It's a grim theme, I admit.)Why would you even get together with such a type as this? Bad choices?Technically, yes. We all make bad decisions. So why is it, then, that all the liberal politians are OLD.... (Are there any real liberals left? What is the measure of a modern liberal?)I disagree with Churchill. Any person with a sense of justice knows what is right, and what is wrong.I tend to agree, but at 30 people tell me this is my overzealous sense of youth .... :confused: Only those who have sold their souls, sail under the flag called "expedience". (This is America; everything is for sale.)

(Or, Amen!)

(Or ....)

I think I was looking for imagery that didn't involve a bony old fart dressed in a sheet holding a lantern at the market square. Diogenes just doesn't have the same punch he did when I was a kid.

:cool:

Hesomagari

05-04-04, 06:21 AM

Tiassa, you are 30. I am 50. I'm not claiming age advantage.

What I do want to say, is that it is possible to retain your convictions right from an early age. I does, of course, assume that you made logical decisions having been given all the facts, and having been in a family that is not simply of the bovine ilk, chews their cud, and makes the milk.....

I disagree with Churchill in another sense. Children are the ultimate conservatives, until they get pissy at 15, half their brains fall out, and they spend at least 10 years trying to be "different" to their parents, until somewhere they find their brains again.

Sometimes they never do.

Chances are, if the parents are liberal, kids will be conservative, and also the other way round. After all, kids always think their parents messed up, no matter whether they did or not.

.......Until they become old enough, or maybe parents themselves to realise that there really are some basic core values, if you really care to look hard enough, beyond the culture of situational ethics.

I agree, some parents don't operate from basic core values, but rather from situational ethics.

You are right. When I look at America, everything is for sale. Or else, politically, its worth the price to take, for the long term benefit that will accrue.

I know what you mean. I was just distressed that you thought that perhaps at 30, you had to become a bony old fart against your better judgement.

That is a choice, not a need.

Tiassa

05-07-04, 02:31 AM

Terror arrests in two U.S. states
I. Oregon attorney material witness to Spanish bombing
II. 3 nabbed in Montana "Project 7" investigation
III. Soapbox - The Almost Obvious

Arrests in two states Thursday signal the latest progress in the War on Terror.

In Oregon the FBI arrested a Portland lawyer as a material witness to the March 11 bombings in Madrid. Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen, was taken into custody after his fingerprints allegedly turned up on materials related to the Madrid bombings.

Additionally, he bears a connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban: he represented Jeffrey Leon Battle in a custody issue.

Mayfield is a convert to Islam, with a wife and three children at home. Mona Mayfield insists on her husband's innocence, calling him, "a good man, a good father, a good husband."

Over in Kalispell, Montana, authorities have arrested three men in connection with a group calling itself "Project 7," the members of which allegedly collected weapons and ammunition and plotted political and law enforcement murders.

James R. Day, Steven N. Morey, and John W. Slater have all been charged with weapons crimes. Day with illegal possession of a machine gun and felon-in-possession; Morey and Slater with illegal possession of a machine gun and possessing weapons with serial numbers removed.

Last year, David Burgert, the alleged leader of Project 7, pled guilty to firearms charges.

Despite the allegations, nobody has actually been charged with plotting murder.

Now ... something about this just doesn't seem right. Read the AP links at the Seattle P-I, listed below. Look at how the word "terrorism" is used in the one, and not used at all in the other. I mean, if you flip through Google news looking for the word "terror" in connection with the Mayfield arrest, it's a curious contextual barrier maintained. The American media is being very restrained with their use of "terror."

Three guys from Montana plotting to kill politicians? Not a mention of terror.

And it's true; amid the torrential litany of "terror! terror! terror!" it's always good to get a breather. It's just an odd coincidence that we're getting a bit of a lull when it's Americans being arrested.

Maybe it's all a coincidence. Maybe things are looking up, and now that we get to deal with homegrown issues, we'll stop flogging the terror-dolphin.
____________________

• Associated Press. "U.S. citizen arrested in Spain bomb probe." May 6, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=US%20Spain%20Bombing%20Arrest
• Associated Press. "Feds arrest 3 in alleged militia plot." May 6, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Militia%20Plot

Related interest:

• United Press International. "Arrest made in L.A. mall terror threat." May 5, 2004. See http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040505-081305-6838r.htm

hypewaders

05-07-04, 07:25 PM

"...it's a curious contextual barrier maintained. The American media is being very restrained with their use of "terror."...Not a mention of terror... it's always good to get a breather. It's just an odd coincidence that we're getting a bit of a lull when it's Americans being arrested."

It's incurious, routine, and dangerous. The "War on Terror" has become, for American government and its imbedded media, an extremely useful oversimplification of the issues surrounding organized violence. As this movement reached critical mass, becoming culture war, the mainstream lost dramatically more capability for perception of American violence in the same light as violence perpetrated by foreigners. This national tunnel-vision is progressing, even as our conflict with the Arab and Islamic worlds is escalating. Rhetoric is constricting right along with the national mindset it reflects.

I wish for more than a lull, but also for a way out. This conflict will not end, nor will it de-escalate, until American illusions are demolished concerning war as just and effective response to terrorism. Because so many American lives are sacrificed in the learning (and while foreign ones don't count within this mentality), fundamental American pride is being heaped atop the altar along with all other military, political, and economic stakes. This is trapping the US in a make-or-break crusade on terrorism that could be impossible to escape.

While I wouldn't call it a lull, we are poised right now in a relatively calm moment, when the results of enraging the Mideast- as we have never before enraged the Mideast- have yet to emerge. We are not using this time very wisely. While popular American doubts are surfacing, there are very few voices prominent and courageous enough to reveal an uncomfortable but imperative exit from the disasters ahead.

The Federal government has not ordered troops to Montana to remove the state government, and has not surrounded and shelled Kallispell. Instead, the federal government is seeing to it that local authority not be disturbed, because the political implications of Federal occupation and martial law would not efficiently contribute to the objective of deterring Project 7. This seems laughably obvious, but it is no less obvious from the perspectives of Iraqis or Afghanis, who are watching their countries eviscerated by US intervention that is no less ignorant of basic political realities.

In the present relative quiet, the USA has a fleeting opportunity to ingest a repulsive but relatively modest helping of Humble Pie now- to back away from ill-conceived and duplicitously-launched neoimperialism. If we can't turn away from our counterproductive, self-destructive "War on Terror", there will be immeasurable humiliation ahead, and a horrific toll in lives and livelihoods.

Tiassa

05-07-04, 08:05 PM

I don't expect the War on Terror to go any better than the War on Drugs. However, the scale of the War on Terror ....

Was it ethically or morally wrong of me--a couple weeks back, none other than Barry McCaffrey himself I believe it was pointed out that the war on drugs and the war against organized crime laid the precursors for the USA-PATRIOT Act .... I do on some level that may be sublimated schadenfreude take pleasure in hearing the government finally admit it.

The War on Terror is already a disaster; it's going to kill so many people and destroy so many lives ... I admit I feel guilty as well for taking such a small, petty pleasure.

Here's to the terror-dolphin.

(Can you imagine that tattoo? A mean-looking dolphin saying, "Flog me!" Maybe I ought to design a mascot. The Easter Bunny will thank me. Er ... sorry. But I was actually aiming a little more toward the weary center than usual; I don't argue against a line of your post, and was looking for a subtle way of referring to back the terror-dolphin line. So much for subtlety ...)

:m: :cool: :m:

Whirlwind

05-09-04, 02:48 AM

[QUOTE=Eng Grez]1 - Israel is not a terrorist state and no.

Hum, first your made a poor start with that absured statement and then my bladder begged for relief and when I finally came back, I decided I should have stayed for a s*!t and when that was over, I forgot what I was going to say! :eek:

BTW: Zionist Israel represents all the worst elements of "evil" and the decent Jews of Israel find themselves in the same shoe as the decent people here in the US who see the fascist Neo-Con(men) in control and can't seem to do anything to shake them. :mad:

Carefull America, The German people had this kind of an experience and the rest is history. :eek:

Whirlwind....

Tiassa

05-26-04, 04:35 AM

Spanish doubts ignored in U.S. arrest
Court documents suggest FBI errors

Major newspapers will hit the streets today carrying the latest round in the arrest of Portland, Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield. The Muslim convert and former Army lieutenant was arrested May 6 as a material witness to the Madrid train bombings in March, 2004.

Mayfield was arrested largely because the FBI believed that his fingerprint was on a bag containing materials suspected to be used in the manufacture of the Madrid bombs. He was released two weeks later after evidence emerged that the partial fingerprint was that of a known terrorist.

As the New York Times describes:

Days after the train bombings in Madrid last March killed 191 people, the Spanish authorities, unable to find a match with a set of fingerprints found on a plastic bag full of detonators, sent the Federal Bureau of Investigation a digital copy, hoping the bureau could find what they could not.

The F.B.I. quickly and confidently found a match to a Portland-area lawyer, setting in motion a chain of events that led the authorities in the United States to link the wrong man to those fingerprints, tie him to Islamic terrorists, arrest him on a material-witness warrant, jail him for 14 days, drop the entire case on Monday and then face withering questions about how the investigation could have gone so wrong. (Kershaw and Lichtblau)

Tuesday brought the unsealing of certain court records, including doubts by Spanish authorities that the fingerprint match was Mayfield.

While the FBI described the match as "100 per cent," the unsealed court documents indicate that the Bureau never saw the original print and worked from a digital image, only viewing the original print after Spanish authorities suggested a known Algerian terrorist.

Prosecutors had filed a nine-page affidavit in order to get an arrest warrant; according to the Los Angeles Times,

The affidavit listed those associations:

• Mayfield handled a child-custody case involving Jeffrey Battle, a member of the so-called Portland Seven terrorist cell whose members had tried to join the Taliban. Battle is serving an 18-year sentence for conspiring to levy war against the United States.

• On the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, someone in Mayfield's house made a phone call to an Islamic charity run by a Muslim man now on a federal terrorism watch list.

• Mayfield's law practice was advertised in a directory run by a man who was once a business associate of Osama bin Laden's personal secretary.

• Mayfield was also observed by the FBI on several occasions visiting a mosque near his home in Aloha, Ore. (Tizon and Schmitt)

The Bureau has apologized; special agent in charge Robert Jordan said he plans to meet with Mayfield in order to apologize on behalf of the Portland office. Additionally, a policy review is beginning, and the Bureau intends to call for outside experts to help review the situation. Meanwhile, the implications of the case are echoing:

"None of this is worth anything in court," said Nelson, who believes Mayfield's Muslim connections were included in the affidavit to prejudice the grand jury. "All the FBI had was a fingerprint, and when that was gone, they had nothing."

The FBI has laid the blame on a digitized copy of the print that it originally received from Spanish authorities. The FBI said it did not receive images of the print with the "highest possible resolution."

Experts said the case raises basic questions about the FBI's methodology.

"But for the fortuity of the fact that the Spanish fingerprinting examiners were able to find another match — which was more compelling than the FBI was making — this guy would still be in jail," said Robert Epstein, an assistant federal public defender in Philadelphia who has challenged the FBI fingerprint techniques in court.

"Who knows how many other distorted images the FBI has made identifications on," Epstein said. "In many cases, there is no independent verification. This shows there is no assurance against a bad identification." (Tizon and Schmitt)

The New York Times offers more insight into the FBI's case:

In making their case to a federal judge in Portland for arresting Mr. Mayfield, a Muslim convert, F.B.I. investigators said their reasoning for the arrest went beyond the fingerprint match, according to the affidavit. Mr. Mayfield had represented a terrorism defendant in a custody case, telephone records showed a "telephonic contact" on Sept. 11, 2002, between his home and a phone number assigned to Pete Seda, the director of a local Islamic Charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, who is on a federal terrorism watch list.

The Mayfields denied having any contact with Mr. Seda, Mr. Mayfield's lawyers said, and said they had never heard of him. The affidavit also said that Mr. Mayfield's law firm, a family and immigration law practice in Beaverton, Ore., advertised in a "Muslim yellow page directory," which was produced by a man who had business dealings with Osama bin Laden's former personal secretary. The yellow pages directory was administered by "Jerusalem Enterprises, Inc.," which was registered to Farid Adlouni, a Portland resident whom the documents said was "directly linked in business dealings" with Wadih El Hage, the former bin Laden secretary who was convicted by a New York federal court of conspiring to murder U.S. citizens.

And finally, the affidavit said, Mr. Mayfield was seen driving from his home to the Bilal mosque, his regular place of worship. That mosque, said officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, had been under surveillance, but the F.B.I.'s mention of his attendance at the mosque as a justification for his arrest infuriated Muslim groups.

"I'd be surprised if there's a mosque in the country that hasn't come under scrutiny these days," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington. "It becomes the whole Kevin Bacon game — no Muslim is more than six degrees away from terrorism." (Kershaw and Lichtblau)

You know ... Hooper might get the prize for sound bite of the week.

Comment:

Yes, we have gone too far. I won't go so far as to say that Mayfield ought to consider himself lucky to be a white Muslim, but there's no harm in tossing it out there in order to defuse it.

Drugs, at one time, were called a threat to American life and to national security. I mention that because it serves well as an analogy. Aptly, perhaps, as the Drug War is part of the legal framework underpinning the veneer of acceptability glossing the frenzied shredding of the Constitution by an overly-ambitious U.S. government.

But think very carefully for a moment: There are nearly ten-thousand registered members at Sciforums. I, on the other hand, as a visible and prolific poster, have never made any apologies whatsoever for my primary violations of the law--e.g. smoking pot.

Now ... there's ten-thousand people who could go on a watch-list as possible drug dealers. We might even extrapolate to the ridiculous for a moment just to note that if we combine the propaganda that illicit drugs necessarily support terrorism with the number of posts I've written which are either critical of U.S. policy, sympathetic to human beings who happen to be Muslim, or lack this that or the other specific condemnation of some action somewhere in the world: You're all terror suspects!

Welcome to America. Yes, we've been bushwhacked.
____________________

Notes:

• Kershaw, Sarah and Eric Lichtblau. "Spain Had Doubts Before U.S. Held Lawyer in Madrid Blasts." May 26, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/26/national/26OREG.html
• Tizon, Alex and Richard B. Schmitt. "FBI Ignored Spain's Doubt on Fingerprint." May 26, 2004. See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mayfield26may26,1,6584975.story

(Free registration required for both websites.)

kmguru

05-27-04, 10:10 AM

Some disjointed thoughts:

Towards the end of Greek and Roman civilization, the civil and military servants raped, tortured and pillaged to the societies destruction. Are we imploding ourselves that way?

Consider this:

I just learned that in a ceratin state, 40,000 common prison inmates are released and 20,000 go back. They are looking to reduce the recidivism but have no clue and blame the society.

The K-12 students have no clue nor any parental involvement and are not prepared to join the society in a productive way.

The disadvantage kids fall through the cracks.

A batch of religious fanatics may be growing and they may not be Muslims. We have no news - is that good news?

Jobs are still leaving our country

Our torture methods are basically same as it was 2000 years ago.

To please the king, everyone wants a confession even if no crime was commited.

What would happen if those relatives of tortured people blow up all the refineries simultaneously?

Would it be more of the same towards a civil war?

crazy151drinker

05-27-04, 01:15 PM

The 'War on Drugs' is a Joke. Blame Nixon for that continual waste of resources and propaganda.

kmguru

05-27-04, 04:31 PM

If the "War on Drugs" is a joke, then we are in trouble because we are using the same methodology in the "War on Terror".

crazy151drinker

05-27-04, 06:35 PM

Kmguru,

Well the 'War on Drugs' is nothing but a business. I dont see how the War on Terror is. While it may be profitbable for the US businesses its not profitable for the terrorists.

Tiassa

05-27-04, 06:48 PM

Well the 'War on Drugs' is nothing but a business. I dont see how the War on Terror is.

The War on Drugs laid the "constitutional" foundation for the questionable persecutions and prosecutions of the domestic War on Terror. For years, judicial oddities surrounded the drug war that occurred nowhere else in law and justice. It is when these ideas were carried outside the drug war that they got shaken up (cf Apprendi v. New Jersey) and no decision outside the Drug War was willingly allowed back into the Drug War. The aforementioned Apprendi case, for instance. Out in the western US, the Ninth Court jumped on the Apprendi decision while the rest of the country hemmed and hawed. Apparently, compound sentencing for crimes the defendant isn't allowed to defend against and the jury is not aware they are convicting you of is unacceptable if you're convicted at threatening a person with a gun because of their skin color, but is very acceptable if you happen to be a pot smoker whose girlfriend put her prescription in your jacket pocket to hold.

As terror-prevention becomes a cottage industry, as law enforcement faces the choice of remilitarizing (see Weber, "Warrior Cops (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html)" for a discussion of the prior militarization), as Halliburton and other cronies continue to carpetbag in wars prosecuted in the name of fighting terror ... I don't see how the War on Terror isn't a business.

And while the profits of the terrorists seem minute to nonexistent, such is the difficulty of measuring another's profit empirically.

Tiassa

06-02-04, 07:36 AM

And the winner is . . . Accenture!
$10b bid proposal awarded to Bermuda company; GAO estimates $15b total

The Bush administration has awarded the largest homeland security contract in history to a company that has given up its U.S. citizenship and moved to Bermuda. The inconsistency is breathtaking. (Rep. Richard Neal)

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will entrust its U.S.-VISIT project, a "virtual border" designed to snare incoming terrorists that bears a price tag estimated variously at ten- and fifteen-billion dollars, to Accenture, a Bermuda corporation. The decision, described by USDHS Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson as "a significant milestone in the history of the department," has set off some early controversy.

While Hutchinson noted that the importance of the project responsibility could not be overstated, Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal (D), said, "The American taxpayers are paying $10 billion for passport inspection to a company that has turned down its own U.S. passport . . . This is simply outrageous." An early version of the Homeland Security funding bill would have blackballed companies including Accenture, Tyco, Ingersoll-Rand, and others who have relocated outside the US for tax purposes.

Maine Republican Olympia Snowe voiced concerns, "They moved offshore to avoid taxes and now they are benefiting and reaping the rewards."

And Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett took the most vicious swipe: "U.S.-Visit really describes the business strategy of these companies . . . Our security is undermined by corporations that devise ways to avoid paying their share of the cost of keeping our homeland secure."

An Accenture spokesman said the contracting authority was awarded to the US-based subsidiary Accenture LLP, which pays US income taxes and employs some 25,000 people.

Hutchinson told reporters at a news conference, "Legal counsel looked at this and determined that all three bidders met all the legal requirements."

US-VISIT, which stands for Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, is already underway at 115 airports and 14 seaports where incoming foreigners are required to be photographed and fingerprinted, and is scheduled to be extended to 50 land-border crossing points by the end of 2004. Among the challenges of US-VISIT is the integration of at least 19 large government databases.

Perhaps lending some clarity to the situation, one financial analyst pointed out Accenture's track record with the Transportation Security Administration. Cindy Shaw, of Schwab SoundView Capital Markets, said, "One of the things that got lost in this whole competition is that Accenture helped T.S.A. put together its airport screening process . . . They showed well under pressure there."

Accenture outbid competing contractors Computer Sciences and Lockheed Martin.

Comment:

Well apparently the name Accenture means "accent on the future." The name was submitted to the former Andersen Consulting by a Norwegian consultant. Frankly, I think it's one of the dumbest company names ever. There are worse names, to be sure. Siemans, for instance. (Surely, I jest.)

Five-thousand suggested names and "Accenture" was the best they could come up with.

These guys are going to spend between ten- and fifteen-billion dollars in order to save our asses from the terrorists?

Jesus f@¢k, George. Why don't you just spend it on bullets and shoot us all now?

And ... hey ... an historical milestone for the Department of Homeland Security? How tough is that? It's what? Two years old?

So let's sum up here .... Um, Secretary Ridge? Mr. Hutchinson? Mr. President? I just want to make sure I have this clearly in my mind. Now, you just bid for $10b what the GAO says might run $15b. First off, that's just a bad idea. The people are getting tired of these deceptive price tags. And this money is going to further a project which already has civil-liberties advocates in a snit, and which promises to be an information-management nightmare. So in order to address the coming nightmare, you pick offshore tax dodges who couldn't come up with a better name than "Accenture."

Mr. President, it sounds like you're spending billions on a goddamn luxury sedan. And we both know how vapid car names are in this country. So at that price tag, I'd like my Accenture to come with a Star-Trek replicator specifically attuned to Wendy's double-cheeseburgers, fries from Dick's, and I'll even vote for you if it can perfectly nail Green River poured over ice on a summer day.

That's what I want for my fifteen billion. Screw the terrorists.
____________________

• Donmoyer, Ryan J. "Accenture wins huge Homeland Security deal." Bloomberg News. June 2, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001944881_accenture02.html
• Greenemeier, Larry. "Andersen Consulting Changing Name To Accenture." InformationWeek, October 26, 2000. See http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20001026S0004
• Lichtblau, Eric and John Markoff. "Accenture Is Awarded U.S. Contract for Borders." New York Times, June 2, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/technology/02secure.html (registration required)

Don Hakman

06-02-04, 05:52 PM

Its not the only one...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/halliburt.jpg

Don Hakman

06-02-04, 07:08 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/track1.gif

Tiassa

06-03-04, 03:33 AM

Intelligence concerns free Al Qaeda confessor
Nabil al-Marabh deported to Syria

From the AP wire:

Nabil al-Marabh, once imprisoned as the No. 27 man on the FBI's list of must-capture terror suspects, is free again. He's free despite telling a Jordanian informant he planned to die a martyr by driving a gasoline truck into a New York City tunnel, turning it sideways, opening its fuel valves and having an al-Qaida operative shoot a flare to ignite a massive explosion.

Free despite telling the FBI he had trained on rifles and rocket propelled grenades at militant camps in Afghanistan and after admitting he sent money to a former roommate convicted of trying to blow up a hotel in Jordan.

Free despite efforts by prosecutors in Detroit and Chicago to indict him on charges that could have kept him in prison for years. Those indictments were rejected by the Justice Department in the name of protecting intelligence. Even two judges openly questioned al-Marabh's terror ties.

Source: Associated Press/Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4162573,00.html)

A Justice Department spokesman said Wednesday that the US government has concerns about many people with suspected terror ties, but cannot effectively prosecute these individuals without endangering intelligence sources and methods. "If the government cannot prosecute terrorism charges, another option is to remove the individual from the United States via deportation. After careful review, this was determined to be the best option available under the law to protect our national security," said Bryan Sierra.

There is, of course, a predictable backlash.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) rejected the government's explanation: "It's hard to believe that the best way to deal with the FBI's 27th most wanted terrorist is to send him back to a terrorist-sponsoring country."

DoJ is not without its own concerns, though. Last month, Chris Wray, of the department's criminal division, told Congress: "It may be more difficult than people would expect . . . We may be able to deport the person under the immigration laws . . . And while that should give us some comfort, the fact is, if we go that route, the person is removed to another country and turned loose there, and we have no ability to make sure that they're not engaged in further terrorist activity."

Comment

We cannot have everything. Underneath it all, we must consider that this is still the United States of America, and in the end that means sometimes the guilty must go free.

Nonetheless, this argument of how we treat suspects and people held questionable in the eyes of our beloved Department of Justice (seek and ye shall find ... maybe) has largely been relegated to somewhere around the fourth tier; the last we really heard about it was after the 2002-03 Super Bowl, when it was revealed that a large number of non-Arabic illegal aliens were deported for national security reasons.

But now one of the big birds goes free; these deportations we understand.

However, since the argument is at hand, the Bush administration might wish to consider using this case to give leverage to its lament that the government has not--or had not--the tools to effectively and properly combat terrorism. Reasonably-placed representatives of the cabinet ought to make the press rounds and explain, in detail, how the prosecution of Marabh was so convoluted that deportation was the best option.

Ordinarily I would say it cynical to speculate that maybe Marabh was released specifically because he was Syrian. There's no doubt about where to deport him to, but there seems to be a question about the wisdom of sending a known willing terrorist to a country our government accuses of sponsoring terror. The odds game, of course, would then wonder whether Marabh would eventually bite the US in the ass, and it's entirely possible that he will. But what logical sense, even in a Roving dimension, would that risk claim? It's unimaginable at this point.

Additionally, there's this aspect: How many Arabs does it take to light a fire? Two--one to pour the gasoline, and another to shoot the flare gun while he does.

Certes it seems simplistic in its excess. There's nothing there one man with a fuel truck and a Zippo can't accomplish. So it seems that his confessed form of martyrdom is really, really stupid. Of course, the guy who car-bombed the WTC a decade ago went back for the deposit, so ....

But man ... not only is Marabh dangerous and on the loose, but he's dangerous, as stupid as a bad stereotype, and on the loose.

However ... I prefer to simply see what the future writes. We Americans may cross paths with Mr. Marabh in the future, and we may not like the encounter. Then again, the future is unwritten.

Beyond the conspiracy nonsense, then, there is one substantive question that pushes to the fore:

Mr. President? Given that you can hold people indefinitely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act)--and correct me if I'm wrong with that one--why was Mr. Marabh deported instead of held until a better case can be made?
____________________

Works Cited

• Solomon, John. "AP: Administration Freed Terror Suspect." Associated Press, June 3, 2004. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4162573,00.html

See Also

• Wikipedia. "USA PATRIOT Act." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Tiassa

06-06-04, 04:18 AM

Shut Down: US-Canada border closed at Peace Arch crossing
"Suspicious vehicle" prompted security move

It was not immediately known why the vehicle was considered suspicious, except that "a number of indicators" prompted officials to inspect it . . . .

. . . . The occupant of the car, rented in the United States, was a Canadian male born in 1969, Milne said. His hometown was not immediately available, and it's not immediately known why he was crossing the border. A bomb squad was using a robotic device to inspect the car, but nothing had been found by late Saturday night.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer/Associated Press (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Border%20Shutdown)

I'm unsure what comment goes here. I mean, this better not be about a bong. The AP story also contains a note about a February incident in which a Texas woman was found to have a grenade in the glove compartment. And I have to share that note with you:

It turned out the woman's husband worked in the U.S. military and she had taken a wrong turn as she was heading for Vancouver, Washington, not Vancouver, B.C.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer/Associated Press (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Border%20Shutdown)

Okay, okay ... who isn't dangerous? That just might be a shorter list.
_____________________

• Associated Press. "Suspicious vehicle prompts border shutdown." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 5, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Border%20Shutdown

Tiassa

06-08-04, 05:47 AM

Torture
Justice, Defense advise torture may be justifiable

The headlines are not forgiving. The BBC howls, "US 'not bound by torture laws' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm)." The Washington Post says, "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html)."

And that pretty much sums it up.

The Justice Department advised the White House in August, 2002, that torture of al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad may be justified, and even went so far as to assert that laws against torture may be unconstitutional.

As the Post explains:

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later . . . .

. . . . The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html)

The memo comes only three months after the President rescinded the United States' signature to the International Criminal Court, a move which Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul called, "a great victory . . . to preserve our national sovereignty (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst051302.htm)."

The push continued into 2003, overlapping the Pentagon's report in March of that year. Marjorie Cohn wrote in September, 2003:

Even after the recent, tragic attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the U.S. was not willing to unreservedly support a U.N. Security Council resolution to help protect U.N. and other humanitarian workers. Instead, the U.S. greenlighted the resolution only when its reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was deleted. . . .

. . . . Thus, in 2002, it unanimously passed Resolution 1422 - calling for one year of immunity for peacekeepers from countries not party to the ICC statute, and providing that that immunity could be renewed in subsequent years. The resolution was renewed in June. But France, Germany and Syria abstained.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has reportedly extracted separate bilateral immunity agreements from 60 nations - primarily, they are either small countries, or fragile democracies with weak economies.

And if a country refuses to enter into such an agreement, the U.S. will often withdraw military assistance. Pursuant to the American Servicemembers Protection Act, it has done so with respect to a staggering 35 countries. As with the U.N. and other peacekeepers, the U.S. has put lives in danger by insisting on opposing the ICC treaty in every way possible.

Source: CommonDreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0909-13.htm) (FindLaw)

And the whole time, it appears, the United States government was lining up to justify torture:

A Pentagon report last year argued that President George W Bush was not bound by laws banning the use of torture . . . .

. . . . The document also argued that torturers acting under presidential orders could not be prosecuted . . . .

. . . . The report was written by military and civilian lawyers for US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

It came after staff at Guantanamo Bay complained normal interrogation tactics were not eliciting enough information.

The document outlined why restrictions on torture under US laws and international treaties might be overcome by considerations for national security or legal technicalities . . . .

Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm)

It is unclear whether the president ever saw the Defense report, but nonetheless it appears that the United States government was preparing to consciously and willingly engage in torture.

As all this comes up, FindLaw notes another aspect of the controversy:

At this year's graduation at the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, about one-quarter of graduates wore red armbands. They were protesting Boalt law professor John Yoo's co-authorship of a memorandum written in 2002, when he served in the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

In the memorandum, Yoo expressed the view that neither those whom the government deems to be Al Qaeda members, nor those whom it deems to be Taliban members, are covered by the Geneva Conventions. That strongly implies -- though the memo does not explicitly state -- that detainees in Guantanamo who are suspected of being Al Qaeda or Taliban members are not covered by the Geneva Conventions' protections against abuse or torture . . . .

. . . . Some Boalt Hall students see a connection between Yoo's memo and the reported abuses in U.S.-run prisons abroad - in particular, Abu Ghraib. They have denounced Yoo for "aiding and abetting war crimes."

Source: FindLaw (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040608.html)

Now ... let's take the "Chris Matthews" approach and blame the ideologues surrounding the president. Some lawyers at Justice and some experts (and more lawyers) over at Defense both relate to the president that this is the situation. And yet, as Hilden writes for FindLaw:

Human rights attorneys have complained that Yoo's Geneva Conventions argument, with respect to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, is not only wrong, but, in their view, specious - a misreading of the law. They have also noted that Yoo's memo ignores the protections of an important treaty that the U.S. has ratified: The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Source: FindLaw

Some of Bush's critics fear the worst--that he is not so much evil as stupid. An evil president they can hate, but a stupid one, well, a bleeding heart is bound to feel sorry for the deceived.

Could Bush be convinced? As the Abu Ghraib scandal demands a full-blown review of American prisoner policies and practices, will the ripples crack the walls of the Oval Office? At what point should the little voice kick in, and say, "They've got to be kidding, Mr. President!" Whether or not Bush saw the Defense report, did Rumsfeld base any advice or action on it?

This is your War on Terror, wherever the Bush League says it leads.
____________________

• BBC News. "US 'not bound by torture laws'." June 7, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm
• Cohn, Marjorie. "How the Bush Administration's Opposition to the International Criminal Court Has Put Peacekeepers and Others in Danger." Writ, September 9, 2003. See http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0909-13.htm
• Hilden, Julie. "Did a Government Lawyer "Aid and Abet" Possible War Crimes By Writing a Crucial Memo?" Writ, June 8, 2004. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040608.html
• Paul, Ron. "President Bush Delivers Victory Over UN Court!" Texas Straight Talk. May 13, 2002. See http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst051302.htm
• Priest, Dana and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture." Washington Post, June 8, 2002; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html

Tiassa

08-10-04, 12:13 AM

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html
Title: "Believing the Shepherd"
Date: August 9, 2004

Are they playing with us again? I mean, all that talk about terrorist threats so detailed that the government had to move quickly to raise the alert status to orange and to screw up traffic around the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Is this prudence? Is it a domestic psy-war charade? Or is it an embattled incumbent reminding us that he is a "war president"?

Several things prompt these thoughts that, at some level, amount to an accusation I don't want to make . . . .

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html)

Post columnist William Raspberry checks in on the state of cynicism and doubt in the War on Terror, specifically the recent elevations of the threat level in specific areas which have sparked so much discussion.

Comment:

Perhaps Raspberry is waiting to formulate and refine his opinion of the other side of the controversy, the supposed intelligence disaster that came when a U.S. official blew a multinational sting against al Qaeda by confirming the identity of the mole. He mentions nothing in his considerations of that chapter, though even I, a harsh critic of the Bush administration, am unsure how things came about; in the first place, the mole's identity was never so deeply hidden that the press couldn't figure it out, but ... never mind.

I could cite Raspberry's brilliance; the absence of such discussion might seem conspicuous to some. I certainly noticed it, though I'm unsure of whether it's important. But something in the back of my mind whispers that a blown cover in a sting against al Qaeda won't necessarily make the picture look any rosier.

But this all would presume the good author's intentions regarding an issue not raised in the article, and regardless of the man's brilliance or otherwise he spells out a very simple, easy-to-follow explanation of his doubts. And he winds up without ambiguity:

As I recall Aesop's fable, the shepherd boy survived his mendacity, losing only his job. It was the sheep that took the hit.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html)

It's a tough question he asks, with a remarkably simple foundation.

This is Your War on Terror.
_____________________

• Raspberry, William. "Believing the Shepherd." Washington Post, August 9, 2004; page A15. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html

Tiassa

08-10-04, 07:26 AM

U.S. Still Holding Back German Terror Trial
Decision to block access to terror suspects casts doubt on Motassadeq retrial

Please see the following links for background information:

• German judge laments US complication of terror trial (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=516931)
• Bad Guys blank World Fellowship (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=529908)

In February we learned that a German court was left with no option but to acquit a terror suspect, Abdelghani Mzoudi. In reading his decision, the judge reserved some choice words for the United States government. The crux of the accusation: German prosecutors were unable to convict Mzoudi because the United States would not allow German investigators access to other terror suspects whose information could have locked the case.

In a move that stunned relatives of 9/11 victims, March saw the German Federal Criminal Court throw out a conviction against Mounir al-Motassadeq. The quashing of Motassadeq's conviction lost the Western world its only criminal conviction related to the 9/11 terror strike against the United States.

Motassadeq was remanded to prison custody to await a new trial.

It is likely that there will not be another trial:

The United States will not allow German judges to question al Qaeda prisoners in the retrial of a Sept. 11 suspect, a Hamburg court was told on Tuesday.

The decision casts doubt on the prospects for the new proceedings against Mounir El Motassadeq, 30, who is charged with plotting the 2001 attacks alongside Mohamed Atta and others, and with membership of a terrorist organization.

In a letter to the German embassy in Washington, read out in court, U.S. authorities said they had to protect the sources and methods of the security services.

The letter said that "interactive access" to such prisoners could hamper their interrogation and lead to critical secret information, including about terrorist threats, being divulged.

In February 2003, Motassadeq became the first person anywhere to be convicted in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks and was sentenced to 15 years in jail.

But in March this year a higher court ruled the verdict was unsatisfactory as judges had not had access to testimony from Ramzi bin-al Shaibah, a key member of the al Qaeda Hamburg cell who was captured in Pakistan in 2002. It ordered a new trial.

Source: Reuters (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JXSTZXW4G4I1MCRBAEOCF FA?type=topNews&storyID=5921799)

Now, frankly, I just wonder about the American excuse. "Interactive access" could endanger investigations? I'm sure the British and Pakistanis understand that point of argument, but it doesn't change the fact that the only criminal conviction related to 9/11 is about to be lost forever.

Meanwhile, German judges are doing what they can to keep Motassadeq behind bars until they can close the case.

Earlier on Tuesday, presiding judge Ernst-Rainer Schudt promised the accused a fair trial independent of the wishes of government and of public expectations and one that would provide a definitive answer as to his involvement.

"The black hole in the chain of evidence will close. We will certainly not sink into it," he said as the bearded Motassadeq listened intently.

Source: Reuters (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JXSTZXW4G4I1MCRBAEOCF FA?type=topNews&storyID=5921799)

Thank you, President Bush, for striving to keep our country safe. Now, maybe you might wish to take a chance and, oh, I don't know, make an effort? You'll hang a sting operation for ratings, but you won't support the Germans in their effort to slam the prison doors on a terror suspect who is directly related to 9/11?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Your War on Terror.
____________________

• Trevelyan, Mark. "U.S. Denies German 9/11 Trial Access to Prisoners." Reuters, August 10, 2004. See http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JXSTZXW4G4I1MCRBAEOCF FA?type=topNews&storyID=5921799

Mr. G

08-10-04, 10:07 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Your War on Terror.
No, your interpretation of it all is just your own opinion.

If you were waging a real war on terror you wouldn't still be sitting in the safety of your own home hurling pretenses as if they were live ammo.

You're not taking on national enemies, you're just jousting with conceptual windmills.

Easy; no real effort.

Nothing tangible ever put at personal risk.

Perpetual Monday mornings.

So safe. So comfy.

So not happening.

Tiassa

08-11-04, 06:43 AM

Source: New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/politics/11terror.html
Title: "Man Is Held After Police Seize Tapes of Buildings and a Dam"
Date: August 11, 2004

A Pakistani man in the United States illegally is being investigated for possible terrorism ties after police seized videotapes of downtown buildings in four states and a dam in Texas. One unnamed senior law enforcement official said, "These were not your normal tourist videos . . . This could turn out to be something legitimate and innocent, but it's raised our suspicions, and we think there's something else going on here. We don't like the look of it."

The Times reports:

Officials acknowledged that they had no direct evidence linking the suspect, a former Queens resident named Kamran Shaikh, to terrorism. But they said they remained keenly interested in determining why he made the extensive videos, which included narratives in Arabic . . . .

. . . . The arrest underscored the increasing nervousness among federal counterterrorism officials about the possibility of a terrorist attack in the near future, perhaps before the November election . . . .

. . . . A search showed video footage of the Bank of America and Wachovia buildings in Charlotte's busy financial center, which officials said caused particular concern in light of the recent intelligence about the financial institutions in Washington and New York . . . .

. . . . Other videos in Mr. Shaikh's possession showed buildings and transit systems in Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas, Houston and Austin, Tex., as well as what appeared to be Mansfield Dam in Austin, according to an affidavit from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. It was not clear when the other videos were taken.

The tapes included audio of someone speaking in Arabic, but investigators said they were awaiting a translation from the F.B.I. Officials could not explain the apparent delay, which comes at a time when the bureau has faced sharp questioning from lawmakers about its ability to provide quick and accurate translations in terrorism cases . . . .

Source: New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/politics/11terror.html)

It's just a story to follow. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. I would hold him, especially since his whereabouts for eight or ten months are allegedly sketchy.

Although ... maybe it is just tourist footage.

(1) Charlotte, NC: Bank of America Corporate Center (http://www.city-data.com/picfiles/pic1086.php)
(2) Charlotte, NC: Wachovia Center (http://www.childressklein.com/ck/properties/propertyDetail.sa?detail=343)
(3) Texas: Mansfield Dam (http://www.lcra.org/water/mansfield.html)

Hey, I can dig it. Why wouldn't a Pakistani man illegally in the country want to go sightseeing in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and North Carolina these days?
____________________

• Lichtblau, Eric. "Man Is Held After Police Seize Tapes of Buildings and a Dam." August 11, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/politics/11terror.html

Tiassa

08-11-04, 07:03 AM

Source: Deutsche Welle (http://www.dw-world.de/)
Link: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1294236_1_A,00.html
Title: "US Exonerates Terror Suspect in German Trial"
Date: August 11, 2004

The retrial of Mounir el Motassadeq in Hamburg took an unexpected turn Wednesday: The US released testimony from a key al Qaeda captive who said Motassadeq had no knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Presiding Judge Ernst-Rainer Schudt said Wednesday the court had received a fax from the US Justice Department, containing summaries of three detainees' interrogation.

They included the testimony of Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

According to the summary read out in the court, Motassadeq, on trial for aiding the Hamburg-based Sept. 11 suicide pilots, Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shhehi and Ziad Jarrah, had no idea of the plot.

"We have to think about the consequences of this," Schudt said.

I sincerely doubt this is what the Germans had in mind when they sought American cooperation.

So it goes in this War on Terror.
____________________

• Deutsche Welle. "US Exonerates Terror Suspect in German Trial." August 11, 2004. See http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1294236_1_A,00.html?mpb=en

Asguard

08-11-04, 07:18 AM

Tiassa

do you think that when the oposition is up in the election campaine that the alert wont go up? or do you think that i am being to cinical, that even BUSH wouldnt be that oviouse?

Tiassa

08-11-04, 03:56 PM

The Bush administration has gotten away with some pretty ridiculously obvious stuff so far. I see no reason why they wouldn't continue.

I mean, the record is astounding. I reiterate that Bush transcend's all imaginable nightmares. I do not state lightly that to imagine a president could conduct himself this poorly used to be akin to treason: Americans by myth are not supposed to be like this.

The yellowcake scandal, the holy war, the WMD botch, the Plame blow, Cheney's obstinance over the energy notes--really, if I had said during the Clinton administration that the next GOP administration would lie in the State of the Union Address in order to foster a war, lie to the United Nations in order to foster a war, exploit a terrorist tragedy in order to foster a war, invoke something remotely resembling the Bush Doctrine, see a CIA operative's cover blown in what so nakedly appears a response to genuine criticism of the SotU lie, drive the country into deficit in order to pay for all this, blow the warfare operation with a lack of foresight, and tell a foreign leader that God told him to go to war ... do you really think I would have made it out of the tavern in one piece?

Given that the United States government has, in a week, blown one sting operation while exonerating a terrorist suspect in Germany on a longstanding fear of endangering stings and other intel operations ... yes, I'm cynical. But we can't be too cynical; if the country gets hit in the near future, Bush might actually try to blame it on the people: "You weren't vigilant enough."

In the meantime, we have to consider that the issue isn't necessarily the legitimacy of a present or past terror warning. Something I've noticed in conservative argumentation lately is an equivocation of ideas that really is inappropriate.

• Imagine that President Kerry receives information on two separate occasions, once in January and once in March, that compels him to elevate the terror warning twice during his first hundred days. Now, while many of us can make a basic distinction, there will be voices in the country that will accuse Kerry of manipulating the country for political ends. The accusations will play a tit-for-tat version exonerating Bush's record of elevated terror warnings. Yet inherent in that will be an attempt to ignore a certain comparison: Will Kerry be begging for an inadvisable war at that time? Will Kerry be seeking re-election at that time?

The problem is that such an argument is so superficial as to potentially render legitimate terror warnings ineffective in order to score political points with the country.

The obvious is already too subtle for many Americans. Yes, I'm cynical, but I'm also still hoping at this late date that the man currently occupying the White House is not truly as evil as he has played himself off to be.

In that sense, my cynicism reflects hope; Fool us once, Mr. President ....

I don't hold my neighbors responsible for an electoral-college result. Nonetheless, I haven't been fooled at all except to keep my expectations of the sinister too low in deference to a lifetime's conditioning.

And even to that dimension, I can't stand being fooled.

History will measure Mr. Bush's performance, including coincidentally-timed terror warnings.

Mr. G

08-12-04, 10:36 PM

The obvious is already too subtle for many Americans.
I've commented previously on this very quote. Oddly, others here must think that my comments were insufficiently subtle, and so made them so subtle as to disappear entirely.

I once read in a chinese newpaper, on my way by train to Shanghi from Nanjing, "It's okay to think what you want, it is not okay to say what you want."

I see the "man" behind the curtain here has the same philosophy.

Left, right?

guthrie

08-13-04, 12:04 PM

No, the third way straight down the centre!

Mr. G

08-13-04, 09:14 PM

No, the third way straight down the centre!
Um, I'm a registered Independant. I don't identify with either registered Democrats or registered Republicans. That supposedly makes me 'of the center'.

Don't tell me this place is centrist.

This place is nothing like me, justlike all the rightist places to which I don't bother to go.

Undecided

08-13-04, 09:35 PM

I'm a registered Independant. I don't identify with either registered Democrats or registered Republicans. That supposedly makes me 'of the center'.

Not really all it shows is that you don’t like Dems or the GOP it doesn’t mean your not a conservative. Maybe you find the GOP too human for your vote.

Mr. G

08-13-04, 11:08 PM

Not really...
I'm not you, I'm not like you, and I don't have to fit your definition of who I am.

Live with it, or not.

That I exist is enough evidence that your preferences are not universal -- merely ideologically pedestrian for your kind.

guthrie

08-14-04, 03:25 PM

"This place is nothing like me, justlike all the rightist places to which I don't bother to go. "

Ahh, so you dont bother coming here either! All becomes clear!

Undecided

08-14-04, 03:32 PM

I'm not you, I'm not like you, and I don't have to fit your definition of who I am.

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/3dlil/cry.gif No need to get so emotional Mr. Conservative, I know your in a state of denial or ignorance you choose.

That I exist is enough evidence that your preferences are not universal

Because people like you exist there will always be a need for people like me…;)

Asguard

08-14-04, 07:37 PM

tell me Mr G

i really want to know how you would fight the war on terror, Would you back out of all the international treties you have signed?

i was just wondering but wouldnt the world court be a good place to try osama?

Mr. G

08-15-04, 11:20 PM

guthrie:
Ahh, so you dont bother coming here either! All becomes clear!
Apparently not.

Herding instinct isn't my thing. And I'm not seeing much difference between the two prevailing 'flavors' -- your's and their's.

I'm only hanging here to look for reasons to believe that one is not the same as the other.

I'm not surprised to observe too obvious similarities.

Undie-sided:
Because people like you exist there will always be a need for people like me…
I'm not particularly flattered by your attempt to imitate. Timimg is everything. ;)

Sorry.

Mr. G

08-15-04, 11:40 PM

Asguard;
tell me Mr G i really want to know how you would fight the war on terror,
Kill all terrorists and their enablers, with maximum prejudice.
Would you back out of all the international treties you have signed?
Those not in our best interest? In a pico-second.
i was just wondering but wouldnt the world court be a good place to try osama?
If a constabulary associated with it actually caught Usama, maybe.

Buy a vowel.

The USofA is a sovereign entity. The USofA was attacked. The attack was an act of war. The USofA is at war. We are not engaged in a criminal prosecution. We are engaged in wholesale war.

Outside opinions are irrelevent.

Stop pretending you have a vote in the matter.

You don't.

Your help is welcome. Your difference of opinion is of insufficient consequence to us.

Asguard

08-16-04, 11:21 AM

if its a war why isnt the USofA treating prisioners as POW's?

they actually arnt treating them as criminals either. If its fair for you to ignore the rules YOU agreed to for the betterment of mankind why isnt it FAIR for them to ram your buildings with planes?

whats good for the goose...

if its just a war then stop trying to take the moral high ground because you dont HAVE any. Its not a half way issue, its a war when it suits us and a crime when it doesnt, all or nothing here. Rember if its a war then i shouldnt feel any more sympathy when "they" blow you up than i felt for the 3 crayfish i killed tonight because hey its just war and war means people die.

Asguard

08-16-04, 11:23 AM

Oh B\W when little johnny is voted out because of YOUR presidents stupidity and Australia pulls out of this and stops surporting you, just rember that i voted for labor. My vote DID count

Pangloss

08-16-04, 11:44 AM

If its fair for you to ignore the rules YOU agreed to for the betterment of mankind why isnt it FAIR for them to ram your buildings with planes?

This is the kind of backwards reasoning that really makes Americans feel like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Undecided

08-16-04, 02:49 PM

I'm not particularly flattered by your attempt to imitate. Timimg is everything.

Sorry I don’t imitate I lead… you should learn sometime that Dennis Miller is not the best role model for you Mr.G.

Pangloss

This is the kind of backwards reasoning that really makes Americans feel like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Well the question you have to ask yourself is what he is saying wrong? No of course not, the US made the laws of the international community has broken them yet expects other states to follow without question? Hypocrisy, and playing the victim come hand in hand sometimes…

Pangloss

08-16-04, 03:35 PM

I think a better question would be whether the world would still be critical of the US if we'd stayed out of Iraq, signed Kyoto, joined the war crimes tribunal, etc etc etc. There's your hypocrisy right there.

Criticism is easy. Leadership is hard.

Undecided

08-16-04, 04:04 PM

I think a better question would be whether the world would still be critical of the US if we'd stayed out of Iraq, signed Kyoto, joined the war crimes tribunal, etc etc etc.

Some will always be critical of the hyperpower, but that comes with the territory. My question to you remains as valid as ever. Don’t cry and bitch, when you expect other states to follow laws you broke. There's your hypocrisy right there.

Criticism is easy. Leadership is hard.

Sadly the US hasn’t been doing the latter in the last four years…that’s why we call you unilateralist.

Pangloss

08-16-04, 04:37 PM

As my question is valid. But at least we agree that some will always be critical of success. (shrug)

Undecided

08-16-04, 04:50 PM

Indeed...:D, soon China will bear the burden.

guthrie

08-16-04, 05:30 PM

Herding instinct isn't my thing. And I'm not seeing much difference between the two prevailing 'flavors' -- your's and their's.

I'm only hanging here to look for reasons to believe that one is not the same as the other.

I'm not surprised to observe too obvious similarities.

Oh well, you've come to the wrong place then. Obviously you dont think most people have a natural instinct for herding.
But on the other hand, you obviously dont have much of a clue what my flavour is either.

Tiassa

08-16-04, 06:10 PM

I think a better question would be whether the world would still be critical of the US if we'd stayed out of Iraq, signed Kyoto, joined the war crimes tribunal, etc etc etc

Is it really that simple a comparison?

As a general issue I've wondered about, how is it that there are only two alternative: the Bush way or nothing at all?

What that is meant to imply is that people look at the WoT itself, the presidential candidates arguing over the effort, the UN, &c., ad nauseam, whence comes that simple dualism that if you don't like the way one goes about a specific job, one must not want the job done at all?

A lot of pacifists remember what went on twenty years ago. It was a disheartening time, I'm sure, for those with dignified expectations not yet fully trounced by Vietnam politics and energy crises and American hostages in Iran. They looked to the Reagan administration with some sense of hope for change. What they got was a polarization of the economy, a massive arms race, and the chance to support the very criminals we now seek to destroy. American policy raised the prominence of fundamentalist Islamic extremism and sponsored the foundation of hundreds of madrassas in Paksitan. Over in Iran, the reaction to the Shah as embodied by the raising of Ayatollah Khomeni blew people's minds, and the United States propped up an insane madman, but this time (e.g. the second time in a chain of historically-relevant events) in Iraq.

Human rights and atrocities, chemical weapons, dangerous and unneighborly bluster--there is nothing about the Iraq deposed by the second Bush administration that wasn't approved of by Reagan and, initially, the first Bush administration.

Very simply--war was not acceptable as a means to assist those or any other people around the world. So to many, it looks simply like a case where a number of classic players (e.g. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Jr. as a Bush, &c) have come together to finish some unfinished business. What was not acceptable twenty years ago is now the official "reason" we went in the first place, although it is approximately the third-tier excuse.

Or think of Afghanistan: there were people here at Sciforums, myself among them, who would have written any administration a blank check to do something about the Taleban. And when it came right down to being time to do something, our government chose to render the real evils of the Taleban as secondary to a contrived slap in the face.

All of those human rights Bush touted about Afghanistan, all of that benefit that we allegedly brought, and still hope to legitimately bring to Afghanistan--none of it was good enough for the Afghani people until the Taleban asked for evidence to back up an extradition request they were most likely incapable of pulling off in the first place. There were terrible abuses of the people by the Taleban in Afghanistan, and we continued to give them money and recognition because the "Drug War" was that important. There were terrible abuses of the people by the Taleban in Afghanistan, and the leaders were foolish enough to attempt a form of due process in asking for evidence to back an extradition request.

So what happened in Afghanistan is telling: The suffering of the people was unimportant at best to American politicians and most of the people until the Afghani government asked for proof. Quite simply, the fact of atrocious conduct by the Taleban was not enough. Strangely, the fact of the unreasonable Taleban making a perfectly-reasonable request is enough.

The wellbeing of the Afghani people is of nothing more than propaganda value to the war dogs leading this adventure. And the same goes for Iraq.

So if we look at the idea of "staying out of Iraq," hey ... Kerry, for instance, is welcome to say he would have gone anyway. And had he played his hand as badly as Bush I would be screaming for his replacement, as well.

But it's not a dualism. It's not "the Bush way or no way at all". And recognition of that condition is what's lacking from the general debate about American war policies.

The world would probably be much less agitated by American actions in Iraq had we gone in with some measure of dignity and decency. Instead, we told the world they didn't matter except to hold in contempt as cowards, and foisted what turned out to be conveniently false information onto the U.N. The Bush administration has seemed at times hysterical with fear (aluminum tubes?) and has shown itself willing to act on those fears regardless of their lack of merit.

Bill O'Reilly, for instance, is driving home the point that Egypt, Jordan, Russia, Britain, &c. all thought the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction; CIA director Tenet, as well, for he apparently told Bush WMD was "a slam dunk". The question is then phrased, "What would you have done with that information before you?"

And nobody takes the simple response, which is somewhat disappointing. Not Michael Moore, not Paul Krugman. The simple response is, "Well, we know the weapons are there, so we know where they are?"

Were I president, that's one of the first things I would need to know. "Do we know what we're shooting at and where it is?"

The first thing I would have done is ask all of these knowing folks saying Iraq had WMD's where the things are.

Dealing with Iraq left two primary choices: a war in the long run, or a sudden gift of complicity from the Iraqis. That latter wasn't coming, and the object is to avoid the former. The Bush administration seized on the idea of a war and ran headlong into it. Just as they botched their entry to Afghanistan by being unreasonably hurried, so they did in Iraq--the administration treated the idea of the necessity of a war in Iraq at some point in the future much the way a psychopathic killer might tell his victim, "You've gotta die someday, after all." It's true, but it doesn't mean any one person gets to decide that today is the day.

So the Iraq portion of the question might be more roundly considered in terms of whether the world would still be critical if the United States had gone about its war effort in Iraq differently.

Beyond that, I would only note that it's not a matter of signing Kyoto or joining the war crimes tribunal. The United States already signed Kyoto and ICC. The question is more roundly considered in terms of whether the world would be less critical of the United States had we not withdrawn from Kyoto and ICC.

And in that case, the answer is, "Yes, of course the world would be less critical if we were at least trying to work and play well with others, instead of trying to lead a clubhouse gang."

The world needs something better than a War on Terror run by President Archie (http://www.toonopedia.com/archie.htm).

As Christine Todd Whitman explained to reporters in March, 2001, when announcing the US withdrawal from Kyoto, the US has no interest in taking part in the world community's effort to preserve the suitability of our planetary environment for human life. As Iraq demonstrates, the United States has a compelling interest in protecting its war criminals from the world community--the intent to commit, sanction, or allow war crimes.

And of that last--nobody but some Americans are really surprised at that idea. I mean, hell, the U.S. has helped fund a lot of crappy treatment of human beings around the world. Everybody knows shit happens during wartime, but only Americans seem to think they can exploit that point for license to be atrocious and expect the world to applaud.

Wait, it's not just Americans, but that's actually a separate debate.

Bottom line, Pangloss: If ---

• the United States had conducted itself better about this Iraqi affair
• had remained a party to the International Criminal Court

and

• shown some willingness to consider worldwide resource and environmental management issues

--the world community would definitely be less critical of the United States at present.

A general human trait especially pronounced in American politics is the one-way street of generalization. It is enough to say that Americans are "generous", and European protestations based on per capita numbers notwithstanding, it is fair enough if we accept and apply that degree of generalization to the other side of the street. But Americans like to pretend the sun shines whatever side of the street they're on, and so when the harmful effects of American policies are discussed, there is frequently a retreat to divorce individual Americans from the side effects and sometimes direct results of the expressed political priorities.

A particular slap in the face was delivered, at this general level, when George W. Bush announced that what happened in New York on That Day In September was not just an American problem, but a world problem. Commentary and analysis at home played to Bush's strengths: he was inviting the world to join us in our effort against terrorism. But to me it seemed almost pompous: the US is going to tell Britain, Germany, Israel, Russia, and our sympathetic neighbors in the Arab world that terrorism is now their problem, too? Hey, we are the latecomers.

And such a small slap of the tongue might seem insignificant, but it fits perfectly with a pattern of general disrespect the United States has long shown its neighbors.

And whether it's the market-appeal façade of the idea of a "Pax Americana", the superficial assertions intending to resolve our public discourse, or our habit of playing Pilate in a manner often imitated but never exceeded, Americans at such a general level can be reduced to the parody of a Texas bourbon cowboy wearing his flashiest duds and telling loud stories about how amazing he is at a black-tie affair of subdued European haute-couture. Imagine a vociferous New Jersey parody of a real estate developer leading prospective buyers through an orphans' hospital while pitching a corporate retreat center. Our collective character as Americans is such a caricature of itself that I don't blame our neighbors--despite their own personal difficulties--for being annoyed.

It was, I believe, either Dennis Miller in his pre-wuss days, or else A. Whitney Brown in The Big Picture, who made the joke about Reagan being the perfect puppet president since he thought it was all a movie, anyway. The justice or injustice of such a barb notwithstanding, Americans seem to be behaving as a collective force as if they're on television all the time. The public manifestations of our American virtues seem straight off a network hack's desk.

The United States has already resorted to the explanation that "God told (President Bush) to invade Iraq."

At some point, it's not a question of, "To f@ck, or not to f@ck," but rather a debate of method and style and degree and touch.

War is a last resort. So is concern for "people". And so, as the saying goes, is democracy. The one should remain so, but the latter two should be brought to the fore, as they have much to offer the human endeavor if given a leading role. However, democracy is a tricky question and perhaps a theoretical pipe-dream. Genuine compassion is a tough burden to carry happily. And when you've got the biggest and most advanced arsenal on the planet, it's easy enough to say you're at your wit's end and have no choice left but warfare.

So if one considers the idea that Americans are too quick to warfare, superficial in their focus on self-interest, and all too ready to promise what cannot be given, it could be said that in this respect "America" is truly human. However, we Americans claim that "America" leads, and does not follow.

And here we must consider the road less trodden.

We claim that road as our path, yet find ourselves mired in the traffic on the interstate.

Americans as a generalism would like to be measured by what we claim. We do not like being measured by what we actually do.

Pangloss

08-16-04, 07:01 PM

That's a nice post. Problem is, I don't believe it.

(I quoted below from the beginning of it, but I just wanted to mention that I did read the whole thing.) :-)

As a general issue I've wondered about, how is it that there are only two alternative: the Bush way or nothing at all?

See that's a very revealing question right there -- Bush may very well be doing that, but so are you! That question includes the statement that you believe that Bush has *zero* chance for meeting you on common ground.

That's an ultimatum. Whatever it says about Bush, it means you have no place to compromise. No room to maneuver. No common ground. Zip, zilcho, none. Empty set. Zero.

Where I come from, Tiassa, two wrongs don't make a right.

Admit it, you had him written off before he entered office. You're not really interested in fixing problems. What you want is to kick Bush out of office. World peace is just a tool, a talking point, an easy way to carry the masses.

That's what ideology and partisanship are all about. To hell with common ground, it's just "my way or the highway".

Has Bush done that as well? Certainly, and I'm pissed off about it. How many times do I have to say it? The moderate middle has been betrayed by George W. Bush. But you're not offering me anything better, Tiassa. You're just pushing the pendulum to the other extreme.

The proof is right there in the pudding, year after year. We swing one way, and the extremists on one side get all upset. We swing the other way, and another group of extremists gets all upset. Weee! Round and round and round we go. Where it stops nobody knows.

So what's going to happen if Kerry wins? Well you're happy, for an instant or two, because your man won. Yay. Now comes the fun part: Bcak to partisanship. Business as usual.

But that's an easy one for you to deal with: You simply start fighting the defensive war that Republicans are fighting now. Lookin' up those statistics, writing those nice, long, well-written posts of yours, only now in defense of the sitting president. Weee.

Meanwhile the rest of us, those who are *actually* interested in world peace, *ahead* of political concerns, are stymied by politics as usual.

Round and round and round we go. Where it stops, nobody knows.

Undecided

08-16-04, 07:29 PM

Pangloss I have a real hard time understanding you, it seems the only thing that would pacify you would be if we were all mute automatons, because you should know that opinion is innately partisan. Just because you perceive Tiassa or even me for that matter as liberal European appeasement sympathizers (which are worse generals then I have ever seen us call conservatives). We have exposed your conservative bias, and rightfully mocked the notion that you are completely moderate and centrist yet already having made up your mind about who you are going to vote for before watching both conventions, and the debates. You are the disingenuous one here Pangloss, Tiassa in the past has readily acknowledge he’s far left. This is why you and your position cannot make sense:

You proclaim yourself to be a synthesis, the moderate, the temperate, whatever you want to call yourself. Yet in Hegelian dialectics it is impossible to have a moderate position, or synthesis without a thesis and an anti-thesis. You might not like to admit it but you need the partisans to justify your existence. Do you think that democracy can only have a moderate middle? Folly, and you are just as partisan as Tiassa.

Where I come from, Tiassa, two wrongs don't make a right.

Where I come from two x’s make a y, not the other way around Pangloss.

Pangloss

08-16-04, 07:39 PM

Yeah that's the problem with being in the middle. Both sides get to hate me. On the other hand, I get to argue with... you guessed it... both sides! (chuckle)

Anyway, you believe as you like, of course, and I respect that. That, I'm afraid, is the difference between myself, and you & Tiassa. I respect your opinion. You begruge mine. I assume it's because it's so threatening to you. I am, after all, your worst nightmare: An intelligent moderate.

When it comes right down to it, that's what I object to most about ideologues (on BOTH sides). For all their fire and fury about freedoms and rights, they're really not happy unless they can take yours away by stereotyping you and telling you what you believe and what you need to be doing.

Ah well, way it goes.

Undecided

08-16-04, 08:03 PM

Yeah that's the problem with being in the middle. Both sides get to hate me.

I don’t hate you; I just think you’re being disingenuous, presumptuous, and relatively pompous. You aren’t a “middle” a “middle” doesn’t know before the debates or both conventions and already know who they are going to vote for. The only way someone does that is if they are bias, and you are bias to the right, you might not label yourself a conservative but that doesn’t mean you aren’t.

I assume it's because it's so threatening to you. I am, after all, your worst nightmare: An intelligent moderate.

You give yourself too much credit Pangloss…WAYYYY too much credit. I am not scared of you, I would wager neither is Tiassa. I just think that you are not only lying to us, but to yourself to justify your imaginary position of moderation. You don’t seem to understand that your position is impossible without people like Tiassa and GWB. Logic dictates as such, unless of course you are ideologically moderate and cannot take logics for what it is.

When it comes right down to it, that's what I object to most about ideologues (on BOTH sides).

Moderates can be ideologues unto themselves, so don’t flatter yourself.

For all their fire and fury about freedoms and rights, they're really not happy unless they can take yours away by stereotyping you and telling you what you believe and what you need to be doing.

Moderates do the same thing, difference is that they don’t call themselves “left-right”, moderates impose, moderates have opinions and because they have the latter they aren’t moderates.

Pangloss

08-16-04, 08:30 PM

Sure, I understand that. And no offense taken or intended, we're just talkin here.

You're right, of course, that the middle can be a partisan position. I don't think that's the case with me personally, if anything I'm too malleable. I get drawn in one direction or the other, only to get stabbed in the back down the road. Bush is hardly the first time that's happened! But I understand what you're facing there.

Undecided

08-16-04, 08:52 PM

I consider myself a moderate because I believe in a very arbitrary formula:

Three things have to be considered:

i) Your position on the economy
ii) Your position on social causes/welfare
iii) Your position on international affairs.

The economic one represents half of the value because it affects everything else; the other two are considered 25% of the total. I am liberal socially, and internationally, and conservative fiscally and economically thus I consider myself a moderate. No one in those categories can say that they are moderate, that’s either due to ignorance of being part of the ideological wing of the moderate camp.

Tiassa

08-16-04, 09:21 PM

See that's a very revealing question right there -- Bush may very well be doing that, but so are you! That question includes the statement that you believe that Bush has *zero* chance for meeting you on common ground.

So am I? How so?

The question examines a posture held by the Bush administration: "You're either with us or against us."

Why is it significant, for instance, that Kerry would have gone into Iraq, anyway? Are we to pretend that John Kerry would have conducted himself exactly as George W. Bush did?

That's an ultimatum. Whatever it says about Bush, it means you have no place to compromise. No room to maneuver. No common ground. Zip, zilcho, none. Empty set. Zero.

You may have read the rest of the post, but did you pay attention to it?

Where I come from, Tiassa, two wrongs don't make a right.

Where I come from, Pangloss, it is very rude to carry on without some foundation other than how you choose to posture a discussion in order to maximize your reasons for argument.

Try paying attention to what's written, Pangloss.

Admit it, you had him written off before he entered office.

Not entirely. He had plenty of chance to surprise me. The only times he did was by lowering the bar further than I had expected. Compared to what reality has dealt, my view of Bush, in hindsight, was optimistic.

You're not really interested in fixing problems.

These are the sorts of declarations you make that are so rude and ill-considered, Pangloss. For instance:

What you want is to kick Bush out of office.

Because doing so is the first step to fixing a number of problems.

World peace is just a tool, a talking point, an easy way to carry the masses.

Eden is merely a myth. Just because it addresses what is observably human does not mean the myth is correct.

Your cynicism about the crowd seeking to unseat the the president seems quite firmly rooted in your expectation of the worst in people. The cynicism of the crowd seeking to unseat the president is reinforced by history.

In short: Pangloss: Afraid of what the future may hold. Anti-Bush: Unwilling to repeat history.

If the anti-Bush movement is merely people who aren't interested in fixing problems and merely want Bush out of office, then you have nothing to fear, and your president will be properly elected this time out.

Problem is, that expectation of the anti-Bush movement would be false.

That's what ideology and partisanship are all about. To hell with common ground, it's just "my way or the highway".

So believing in common ground is an abdication of common ground? That sounds about as rational as the racist, "If I can't be superior to black people, then I'm being discriminated against," or the religious, "If I can't be superior to the infidels, then my rights are being infringed."

Has Bush done that as well? Certainly, and I'm pissed off about it. How many times do I have to say it? The moderate middle has been betrayed by George W. Bush. But you're not offering me anything better, Tiassa. You're just pushing the pendulum to the other extreme.

Your mind is not a virginal keyhole, and thus ought to be more open than that.

You can say the moderate middle has been betrayed by George W. Bush all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you, as a Bush supporter, are advocating the continuance of that betrayal.

And besides, there never really was any betrayal. The moderate middle cast its lot with the GOP for all the wrong reasons, and what they get from that partnership is their own fault and everybody else's problem. If they cast their lot with Kerry for the wrong reasons, they'll only be heartbroken all the same. Then again, you work with such a broad definition of special interests that there's no point in trying to do anything about it. Remember, once the "moderate middle" gets pissed off at a betrayal, it's no longer the moderate middle. As you have erroneously asserted, to hold a candidate to the spirit of his campaign--not even the literal promises--is to assert an inappropriate special interest. But if we apply that condition, Pangloss, as you have it, what is to be done about that betrayal?

What George W. Bush has betrayed is the ideological foundation of the United States of America. Theological instructions to war; the Bush doctrine; a full-blown assault against the U.S. Constitution--the President of the United States should be a voice of reason amid confusing times, a voice of strength among the fearful. George W. Bush has pushed superstition and fear as hard as he could in order to foster an agenda that is far from the moderate middle. And in order to blunt the perception of his betrayal of the American tradition, he picks out gay marriage--an inevitability of an allegedly free society with due process and equal protection--and makes a stand for traditional American values.

The proof is right there in the pudding, year after year. We swing one way, and the extremists on one side get all upset. We swing the other way, and another group of extremists gets all upset. Weee! Round and round and round we go. Where it stops nobody knows.

It stops when the moderate middle decides to lead and not follow. Of course, inasmuch as nobody can say when that day will come, I must agree that nobody knows.

So what's going to happen if Kerry wins? Well you're happy, for an instant or two, because your man won. Yay. Now comes the fun part: Bcak to partisanship. Business as usual.

Which part of business as usual? The negotiating for the delayed release of hostages for political gain? How about the illegal arms and drug sales one one side of a proxy war? Or perhaps the strengthening of a dictator with a penchant for chemical weapons on the other side of that proxy war? What about the flogging beyond all previously-known measure of special-prosecutor laws to no avail? Or the veil of secrecy between bankrupted criminal energy concerns and the executive branch? Perhaps the scathing attacks on patriotism? Oh, how about the advocacy of revoking equal protection in the Constitution?

But that's an easy one for you to deal with: You simply start fighting the defensive war that Republicans are fighting now. Lookin' up those statistics, writing those nice, long, well-written posts of yours, only now in defense of the sitting president. Weee.

Is that your tarot cards, your crystal ball, or your attitude problem that enlightens you so?

Meanwhile the rest of us, those who are *actually* interested in world peace, *ahead* of political concerns, are stymied by politics as usual.

So you sit back and complain and look for someone genuine to follow? I tell you, it will be a hard search as long as you hold the availability of medical care for Americans alongside Halliburton's profits in moral comparison of special interests.

I mean, how can you claim to be interested in world peace when you're unwilling to take part in the process? Such cynicism seems rather a stumbling block for your bloc.

Round and round and round we go. Where it stops, nobody knows.

So hop off the carousel and eat something more substantial than cotton candy before wandering off along the midway.

Lastly, Pangloss, a note on something Undecided mentioned:

Tiassa in the past has readily acknowledge he’s far left

Much of your attitude problem, Pangloss, seems to reflect the presumption that "liberal" according to the American political system, is desirable. My endorsement of John Kerry is, in fact, a concession to the moderate middle: they're not ideologically capable of the leaps required to achieve their desires. I mean, really--look at how the middle of the American bell curve manifests itself: politically confused, fans of Britney Spears and Andrew Lloyd Weber, in love with SUV's.

I have great faith in the people of the United States of America. One day they will shake themselves awake and do great things again. In the meantime, greatness as an accident of circumstance is enough to satisfy them. Well, at least, as long as the economy does well.

Did you not hear about the great muddling, middling compromise of the Democratic Party platform this year? We can't blame special interests entirely.

Asguard

08-17-04, 11:41 AM

This is the kind of backwards reasoning that really makes Americans feel like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

how are you damed if you dont?

your president squanded the sympathy that other people had for america when he used it to get more oil. i have nothing against americans but if you seriously think that you can do whatever you want then so can THEY. Fairs fair. But if on the other hand you surported the international court, surported the UN, didnt go after "WMD" while having the biggest stock pile in the world yourselves, didnt have an atitude that says "i can do what i want and the world can go to hell" then you WOULDNT be damed

think about this for a second. Would so many people be against you if you, as the world "leaders" lead the world by example? If you didnt try to make tretises that aplie to everyone BUT you? (LIKE the world court, LIKE the ban on nukes, LIKE you pulling out of the balistic missiles tretie, the chemical weapond tretie and the bio weapons tretie). Just think how you would react if say china acted like this? or better yet what about NK? you call them evil because they MIGHT be building nukes but what about all these treites YOU have pulled out of?

the world looks at you and coughs "hipocrits". No i dont hate you, but i hate the atitude that we can do what we want and stuff you. It makes me a little more on the other side of the fence

I will give you an example from my own county. The howard goverment blindly followed bush everytime he wanted surport and we were surposed to get a really good trade agreement as a thank-you. Yet when this reward came around you know what happened? the industries who were hoping to benifit from it got nothing and the US wanted us to remove the phamasutical benifits scheme which is designed to help people pay for medicine so not only the ritch can aford to live, is that a reward?

im not blaming YOU for your goverments actions but i am saying that unless you change atitudes like his then why should I care? and even further why do you REALLY think they do it in the first place? its not because they "hate your freedom" as many have tried to state unless that is the freedom to opress other countries

Pangloss

08-17-04, 11:53 AM

Well, just to kinda address your question without rehashing old ground, one thing that might be useful looking ahead to the future is to try and find ways to put things more fully into perspective for the general public. I think if people could measure the *level* of objections to policies then they would have a greater understanding of which policies are objectionable. Because even the most benign policies always generate *some* kind of objections from extremists, which is why frustration starts to creep in.

Just to give an example of that, I think one of the reasons why Americans favored the war in Iraq (and the majority of Americans did) is because of a general sense of frustration with the world's inability to deal with the problems over there. The case for NOT going into Iraq was not well made, and the consequences of going in were not well-examined by the achievement-oriented American media. In short, we opted for an "easy answer", even though it should have been very clear at the time that it was NOT an easy answer at all.

So what we saw here in the states is a lot of protest and objection to the war, but it really didn't look any different from all the protests and objections we always get from the world, on everything from world trade to who we elect as president to how we treat our poor. A protester screaming into a microphone about one thing looks pretty much the same as a protester screaming into a microphone about another. There's no level of measure in this. When the media focuses on a tiny crowd, it looks just like a massive crowd.

There WERE levels of measure being applied, of course. Opinion polls in Europe for example were painting a very clear picture before the war. They just weren't being passed on to the American public. It wasn't getting stuck in our faces where it needed to be.

I'm not making excuses, mind you. Just doing a little analysis. I think we have a big problem in this country with stopping at superficial solutions and answers when more complex reasoning is required. As I think is true with humans all over the planet, most people really just want to go about their lives and take care of their business. But as Undecided points out, we have a lot of power, and if we're going to wield it on the world stage, we have a higher obligation to do so only after careful consideration.

Anyway, that's what I mean by "damned if we don't". I think a lot of Americans feel that way, and if we can find a way to show them that there are *levels* of objection, and that a very low level of objection means that what we're doing is probably a good thing, then we might make some progress.

Asguard

08-17-04, 12:07 PM

but you havent changed

you think that people like the redcross, Amnestie international, the peace movememt ect wouldnt be over joyed if you came out and said "look we fucked up and from now we will try to change it starting with joining the ICC, declaring ALL prisonors POW's and giving them the protections they are intitled to, resigning the balistic, chem and bio treities, begining to destory our OWN WMD before complaining about otheres" the problem isnt with what happened in the past but what is happerning NOW

Asguard

08-17-04, 12:12 PM

one more thing

if GWB was the CEO of a companie in australia and did what he did he would be expected to reigne or be fired

well as the "leader of the free world" he should be held to a HIGHER standard. well the free world is waiting for the board to do what MUST be done, he might be a great guy but that doesnt mean that he shouldnt be held accountable for lying to the american people and if he honestly belived it too bad, the buck stops with him

Undecided

08-17-04, 03:15 PM

This administration in the US has put the US in a permanent downward spiral. I am telling NK, Iran, and the gang don’t worry America has degraded her power so much that she can’t do much against you. America is becoming a true pariah, and it is literally not worth its weight in Fort Knox Gold, America better reform or die. This is a NWO and America needs a new mission, and new leader not Kerry not Bush something better.

towards

08-17-04, 03:57 PM

"look we fucked up and from now we will try to change it starting with joining the ICC, declaring ALL prisonors POW's and giving them the protections they are intitled to, resigning the balistic, chem and bio treities, begining to destory our OWN WMD before complaining about otheres",Asguard

"Just think how you would react if say china acted like this? or better yet what about NK? you call them evil because they MIGHT be building nukes but what about all these treites YOU have pulled out of?", Asguard

Are we now going to attempt to compare the U.S. government to that of North Korea? This rationalization of "if you have them, why can't we" sounds wonderfully fair, but it does not take into account the complexities of the real world. North Korea would starve its own population rather then reduce the size of its army. It sells weapons technology to whomever without regards to who's hands that information may fall into. Their foreign policy is basically to threaten a war. Would it have been safe to allow Afghanistan to acquire WMD's if Omar Mohammad was still in control of that country? There are still many nations as unstable and careless attempting to gain access to such weapons. We do not call NK evil because it is trying to build nuclear weapons, I assure you. And yes, China's foreign policy is similar to that of the U.S., but on more of a regional scale. China dominates politics of other nations, especially to the south of it. It also agrees with much of the U.S. policy on North Korea.

As for the POW's, most of them are treated with Geneva Convention rights. Those who deliberately target innocent civilians are not issued this courtesy and do not deserve those rights. If you want to go into the letter of the law, Iraq is not even a signer of the Geneva Convention. As for an International Court and its effectiveness, just take a look at the U.N. It has called on 12 special sessions regarding Israel and Palestine, the last being permanent, regarding a conflict resulting in the deaths of 3000 people. There has never been a special session dedicated to either Sudan, leading to the deaths of 2 million, or of Central Africa, which led to the deaths of half a million. These international institutions are hopelessly corrupted by politics to be even remotely effective. Do you not think that many countries will use this as a tool to promote their grudges against the U.S.?

Finally, the ballistic missle treaty is a relic of the cold war and pointless now. It was only a deterrant for the U.S. since Russia could no longer even afford to keep its full arsenal of nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, the U.S. even paid Russia billions to reduce its ballistic missles, and then paid to reduce its own. Does this sound like a treaty relevant to the present situation? The U.S. does continue to greatly reduce all of its arsenals of WMD's including ballistic missles, chemical, and biological weapons. Is this not what you want Asguard?

Undecided

08-17-04, 04:10 PM

It sells weapons technology to whomever without regards to who's hands that information may fall into.

This is an exclusive NK trait? Are you serious?

Their foreign policy is basically to threaten a war.

The Korean War never ended, so what do you expect from NK really? Consider that NK has built herself up to be a true threat to the region and now the world. It would folly for Kim not to use his power to get what he wants the US does it all the time.

Would it have been safe to allow Afghanistan to acquire WMD's if Omar Mohammad was still in control of that country?

I’m not sure who Omar Mohammad is, the US allowed the Afghani’s to get advanced hi tech weaponry back in the 80’s even to good ole Osama. Also the situation in Afghanistan is partially due to the US like the USSR leaving the country to her own devices after the Soviet withdrawal.

We do not call NK evil because it is trying to build nuclear weapons, I assure you.

You call it evil because its easy for Bush to say, the “Axis of Evil” is one of histories greatest intellectual defeats, and has only emboldened NK and Iran to build their weapons. The US up-ed the ante here not NK.

It also agrees with much of the U.S. policy on North Korea.

But it will not allow that policy to go too far…

As for an International Court and its effectiveness, just take a look at the U.N. It has called on 12 special sessions regarding Israel and Palestine, the last being permanent, regarding a conflict resulting in the deaths of 3000 people.

Oh surely more then 3000, 4000+ in this last intifada alone.

These international institutions are hopelessly corrupted by politics to be even remotely effective. Do you not think that many countries will use this as a tool to promote their grudges against the U.S.?

That’s why there is preliminary hearings to discern if there is enough evidence, and to see if the charges are valid ones. I think that argument is a copout for the US, Abu Gharib and other incidents proved without a shadow of a doubt the US cannot control herself, and for such a powerful country to do things unimpeded is dangerous.

Finally, the ballistic missle treaty is a relic of the cold war and pointless now.

Not when China is building hundreds of ICBM’s, not virtually unimpeded.

towards

08-17-04, 04:32 PM

"This is an exclusive NK trait? Are you serious?" Undecided

The only one who sells ballistic missle technology while millions go hungry, yes.

"I’m not sure who Omar Mohammad is, the US allowed the Afghani’s to get advanced hi tech weaponry back in the 80’s even to good ole Osama. Also the situation in Afghanistan is partially due to the US like the USSR leaving the country to her own devices after the Soviet withdrawal. "Undecided

Mohammad Omar.... oh forgive me. The U.S., by the way did not sell ballistic technology or chemical weapons to Afghanistan. THe chemical weapons were sold to Iraq, it this only proves the mistake of the "if they have them, why cant we policy"

"Oh surely more then 3000, 4000+ in this last intifada alone", Undecided

Ok, you got the point. Its not 2 million.

"Not when China is building hundreds of ICBM’s, not virtually unimpeded." Undecided

Ok heres the point. This is why we dropped the old one. Make a new one with China, who was never a member of the old treaty and developed its current arsenal during that time. China, obviously, will not be cutting back on their ballistics. Thanks for making my point so clear.

Tiassa

08-17-04, 06:39 PM

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (AP) (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/)
Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Guantanamo%20Commissions
Title: "Prisoners to challenge interrogations"
Date: August 17, 2004

Two Yemeni men, an Australian, and a Sudanese man are going before the military tribunals intended to convict enemy combatants netted in the United States' War on Terror.

John Altenburg Jr., the appointing authority for the Office of Military Commissions, said the early hearings will probably involve discussions of trial dates and pretrial motions. No evidence will be presented, nor will any witnesses testify, he said.

But he acknowledged that defense attorneys are expected to mount a number of challenges throughout the course of the tribunals.

He said it is likely they will dispute the credibility of information obtained from interrogations at Guantanamo, suggesting that interrogation techniques used there forced involuntary confessions from prisoners, which, under American legal systems, are not admissible in court . . . .

. . . . The commissions are one of four procedures that affect the fate of the detainees. The military will also conduct annual reviews to decide whether each detainee is still a threat to the United States.

In addition, it is conducting one-time tribunals to review whether each detainee is properly held as an "enemy combatant."

Twenty-seven people have already gone before the tribunals, with the rest expected to do so in the coming months. Four of those 27 have been determined to be enemy combatants. Decisions on the other 23 are pending.

Comment:

This is your War on Terror.

After nearly three years, 15 of the 585 prisoners at Guantanamo have been declared eligible for trial by commission; of those, only four have been charged.

Can justice be swift or sure in this Age of Terror?
____________________

• Lumpkin, John J. "Prisoners to challenge interrogations." Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Associated Press), August 17, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Guantanamo%20Commissions

Undecided

08-17-04, 07:11 PM

The only one who sells ballistic missle technology while millions go hungry, yes.

Well honestly how else in NK supposed to make money? Granted the regime in NK cares about one thing over all other things, regime survival. But the NK’s haven’t really been given a chance to get money from many other sources of legal trade. The US gave up on the Sunshine policy which SK had successfully tried to woo the NK’s into co-option with the south and eventual peaceful relations, and who knows even reunification without a war. The failure of the Sunshine policy and the Bush administration’s tact with the Koreans have made them into the threat are now. Because prior to Bush the situation was getting much better with North Korea. NK does export ballistic missile technology…so what? It has a right to export those missiles, it has a military industrial complex too. If you don’t like it then do something about it, but don’t expect NK not to react. If you are ready to speak Bluster get ready to make sure its more.

The U.S., by the way did not sell ballistic technology or chemical weapons to Afghanistan. THe chemical weapons were sold to Iraq, it this only proves the mistake of the "if they have them, why cant we policy"

It’s not a policy; the policy should be that no one should have them, period so other nations are enticed to develop these weapons. I support nuclear weapons believe it or not, why? Because the chances of war happening are effectively nullified. You won’t see the US touching NK anytime soon, America has been one up-ed.

Ok, you got the point. Its not 2 million.

It’s not two million I’ll give you that, it’s actually 3 million that have died in Congo and I share your disgust with the apathy that the international community has given the region. Although we mustn’t forget that a UN force is in place in Congo. It’s not like the world has completely forgotten them. But the difference btwn Isr/Pal, and Congo is that one has the potential to engulf the world into a conflict of truly biblical proportions.

Ok heres the point. This is why we dropped the old one. Make a new one with China, who was never a member of the old treaty and developed its current arsenal during that time.

Bull Shit…the Chinese could have been amended in the ABM treaty, there are no plans for such a treaty with China, and it’s wishful thinking on your part. Thanks to the US getting rid of the ABM treaty SALT III I believe was not ratified.

China, obviously, will not be cutting back on their ballistics. Thanks for making my point so clear.

Actually the principal reason why is increasing her ICBM stocks is because of NMD, your point is unsubstantiated and is largely based on emotion not intellect…I mean who with any self-respect uses “evil” when discussing international relations. This isn’t Billy Graham’s sermons.

towards

08-17-04, 08:43 PM

"Actually the principal reason why is increasing her ICBM stocks is because of NMD" , Undecided

Here is two websites about China's nuclear capabilities in 1999, when NMD was still in star wars stage. At this time it is predicted that China had over 400 warheads, one can only conclude its abilities have substantially increased since then...

http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/nuc/nstock.htm

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/brief28.htm

China has an intention of increasing that arsenal with or without NMD. Why would they not want to? It is only a benefit to China in becoming a full blown nuclear power, when the only downside is expense.

"your point is unsubstantiated and is largely based on emotion not intellect", Undecided

"I mean who with any self-respect uses “evil” when discussing international relations. This isn’t Billy Graham’s sermons.", Undecided

I responded to Asguard's use of "evil" in his post: this was the reason I included it in my response. As to getting emotional, I have yet to refer to you as Billy Graham or described one of your responses as bullshit.

"Because prior to Bush the situation was getting much better with North Korea. NK does export ballistic missile technology…so what? It has a right to export those missiles, it has a military industrial complex too." Undecided

"I support nuclear weapons believe it or not, why? Because the chances of war happening are effectively nullified", Undecided

Actually the "sunshine" policy was used based on a false belief. That false belief was that NK was not continuing its Nuclear program. I am not a big fan of Bush at all, but in this point he was correct. Clinton already began to slow production of two nuclear power plants in NK because he too knew they continued to defy the treaty. What was the point of the U.S. continuing to support a treaty that no longer existed? The NK did not need a nuclear program to prevent the U.S. invading simply because it had a plethora of artillery. Seoul would be destroyed during any outbreak of war, since it stands so near its border.

I would not be so excited about the proliferation of nuclear weapons if I were you. One day a unstable country will produce one that falls into a terrorists groups hands.... and that will be the day it ends up blowing up a U.S. city. Hope that you wont be in that city.

Pangloss

08-17-04, 09:13 PM

Well honestly how else in NK supposed to make money?

I'm actually pretty comfortable with the world telling North Korea that it won't be allowed to sell ballistic missile technology. But it should also be mentioned that the real problem was not so much that it was selling BM tech, but whom it was selling it to.

(Who? Whom? Damn, I never get those right.)

Undecided

08-17-04, 09:25 PM

Here is two websites about China's nuclear capabilities in 1999, when NMD was still in star wars stage. At this time it is predicted that China had over 400 warheads, one can only conclude its abilities have substantially increased since then...

As quoted by the Chinese and Russians themselves:

To undermine the ABM Treaty will trigger off another round of arms race and subsequently reverse the positive trend emerged in world politics after the end of the Cold War. This will undoubtedly not be in the fundamental interest of any country in the world. The country which press for amending this fundamental treaty on the disarmament front will have to bear the full responsibility for undermining international stability and security, and for all the consequences that may arise therefrom.

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/russiachinamissiledefstatement.htm

This is their official stance…there’s a reason for real worry here and NMD is the main impetus for it.

China has an intention of increasing that arsenal with or without NMD.

True, but the problem is China will now feel it necessary to make her missiles that much more deadly, and more numerous. Russian already has developed maneuverable warheads to defeat the system, and who knows one day maybe one of those “rogue states” may get that technology as well. Already if the news out of NK is true, she can defeat NMD as well.

I have yet to refer to you as Billy Graham or described one of your responses as bullshit.

It’s all rhetoric’s man, don’t get angry I could have used “emotive-intellectual complex” and “lies” or “that’s wrong instead” it all means the same thing.

Actually the "sunshine" policy was used based on a false belief. That false belief was that NK was not continuing its Nuclear program.

That is questionable, the questions are not if NK was breaking the accord but the real question is when NK broke the accord before or after the lack of US investment, I’ll have to review my books on that.

Clinton already began to slow production of two nuclear power plants in NK because he too knew they continued to defy the treaty.

Substantiation please…I am not aware of this, the decision to stop building the nuclear power plant was decided on in ’03.

The NK did not need a nuclear program to prevent the U.S. invading simply because it had a plethora of artillery. Seoul would be destroyed during any outbreak of war, since it stands so near its border.

Tell that to NK, I fully understand why Kim would want his nukes. NK is a country on the verge and its great trump card is nuclear weapons. Before Bush it was not widely regarded that NK actually posed a threat to the US proper, thus war imo for the US was an option. The US was seriously discussing pre-emptive and targeted attacks against NK nuclear facilities that was only last year. Talking about attacking Yongbyon, etc. Now that NK has missiles that can attack the US, you won’t see the US blustering at all. In 1994 the US almost went to war with NK so the artillery for the US is a “concern” but not enough to prevent war.

I would not be so excited about the proliferation of nuclear weapons if I were you.

I’m excited?

One day a unstable country will produce one that falls into a terrorists groups hands.... and that will be the day it ends up blowing up a U.S. city. Hope that you wont be in that city.

Trust me I won’t, I wouldn’t go the US unless I have too. If anything a much more realistic and much greater worry is the loose nukes and poorly secured fmr. Soviet stockpiles.

towards

08-17-04, 09:54 PM

As quoted by the Chinese and Russians themselves:

“ To undermine the ABM Treaty will trigger off another round of arms race and subsequently reverse the positive trend emerged in world politics after the end of the Cold War. This will undoubtedly not be in the fundamental interest of any country in the world. The country which press for amending this fundamental treaty on the disarmament front will have to bear the full responsibility for undermining international stability and security, and for all the consequences that may arise therefrom."

Of course the Russians and Chinese will say that, it is against their intrests to see NMD. Certaintly Russia will not be increasing their arsenal. China's largest concern at the moment is the fast pace of development of nulcear weapons right at its own border. Pakistan and India now present a serious threat, and China cannot let those countries become its equal. NMD is just China's rhetoric, but they do not have a genuine concern about a missle defense that does not even work.

"Substantiation please…I am not aware of this, the decision to stop building the nuclear power plant was decided on in ’03.", Undecided

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/2/4/63631

Best I can do for the moment. It mentions the delay that I speak of in 1998, still in the Clinton presidency. The official reason given was NK's launching of a ballistic missle over Japan, but the project began to be hopelessly delayed. The real reason was CIA intelligence of NK's development of nuclear weapons. It is going to be very difficult for me to find an article on this, but I remember reading about it so ill keep looking. I mean it was obvious as to NK's intent when it was shooting missles over the Pacific.

"If anything a much more realistic and much greater worry is the loose nukes and poorly secured fmr. Soviet stockpiles." Undecided

I agree with this, there are still reports of some missing warheads in Russia.

towards

08-17-04, 09:59 PM

much better article on the point....

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4131

Mr. G

08-18-04, 12:29 AM

tiassa,
Did you not hear about the great muddling,...

"A man who uses a great many words to express his meaning is like a bad marksman who, instead of aiming a single stone at an object, takes up a handful and throws at it in hopes he may hit." - Samuel Johnson

Yes. Yes, I have.

Tiassa

08-18-04, 01:35 AM

"A man who uses a great many words to express his meaning is like a bad marksman who, instead of aiming a single stone at an object, takes up a handful and throws at it in hopes he may hit." - Samuel Johnson

Interesting quote. I'll even bite: What has it to do with anything?

Asguard

08-18-04, 11:12 AM

what has ANY of this got to do with anything

NK may stave its own people but have you SEEN what american companies do to third world countries?

this is STILL continuing

hell they started a WAR so that the oil companies could get ritch, not to mention how Nike treats the workers it employes. Ever herd the term "sweatshop"?

and you accuse the international comuntity of "picking on the US"

how many "illegal combatants" are you holding in contervention of ALL laws, oh they atacked civillans so its ok if we torcher them (in violation of the Geniva convention, the international treties on the banning of torcher, the international decleration of human rights and the US constitution), hold them without trial (in violation of the US constitution, and the international decleration of human rights), ignore there rights as captured solders (violation of the geniva convention

we are the good guys

well let me ask you this, if i invaded your country and you have all the weapons lying around that you do would you fight back?

if the answer is yes then i can do what i like to you because your not a person, and the HIPOCRASY of bush coming out and saying "oh please treat our captured solders with respect", well if it was me and i knew what i would face if I was captured i would be slicing pieces off my prisioners too, and sending every piece to you in a box

and so WHAT if the balistic missile tretie was aimed at russa, it was aimed at you too and because mad is no longer there is MORE reason to stick to the LETTER of all your treties not less

Power corupts and apsolute power corupts apsolutly
how true is that statement
your county in genral has acted like nothing than the school yard bully, and STILL DOES. your companys rape and pillage, when they dont get there way they loby surport for your goverment to FORCE the countrys to let them rape and pillage. You think that everyone isnt as good as you are. HELL the bloody KKK has more sence of justice than you do half the time. Everything is about ME and there is nothing about the good of all, be that internally or in international politics

well people you can do what you want for the moment because have the big stick but dont go around thinking you have the high ground and dont be surprised when "terriousim" increases. After all when your forces are smaller than the other side you dont stand in lines and charge, you fight in ambush

towards

08-18-04, 12:39 PM

"NK may stave its own people but have you SEEN what american companies do to third world countries?", Asguard

Yes, there are many examples of U.S. interference that has gone terribly wrong. Central Africa and Iran are prime examples. You do, however, tend to forget how American investment has also helped change the world for the better.
1) South Korea: Strong economically, strong democracy. Never would have existed without the U.S. fighting the Korean war. American investment has done wonders for this country.
2) Taiwan: Would be a part of mainland China a long time ago if not for American investments, and weapons support. Strong economy strong democracy.
3) Kosovo: humanitarian crisis avoided for Albanian MUSLIMS (the ones we supposedly hate). Albania would have been flooded with refugees. Europe would have stood by and watched while possible genocide took place
4) China: A tremendous amount of American investment and U.S. interest in Chinese goods has helped stimulate its economy. Interest in capitalism has broken down communism in the country and helped bring about many reforms. May end up as a democracy in time. American companies like Nike have indeed paid workers there ridiculous wages, but you have to remember those are CHINA'S laws and these are international companies. These companies do not do it in the U.S. because they simply are not allowed.
5) Eastern Europe: the collapse of communism, due to no small part Americas policy towards Russia, is now beginning to improve the lives of those living there. The European union has allowed many of these countries to join. Things have improved in these countries considerably, I know first hand. Businesses have opened, and a wealth of once unavailable products and services have flooded their markets. Unemployment and corruption are still a difficult factor, but the Europeon union and its standards in time will change this. My wife can attest to this fact,.... shes from there and described life living under communism. American investment is growing stronger in these countries.
6) Saudi Arabia: One can only imagine the poverty that would be there now if the U.S. did not purchase its oil. The downside is the money helps keep the House of Saud in power, but the U.S. did not place that government. It has been there for two centuries.
I can continue.... but you get the point. The U.S. is not always bad, it does considerable good, as well.

"well if it was me and i knew what i would face if I was captured i would be slicing pieces off my prisioners too, and sending every piece to you in a box",Asguard

Please, the vast majority of the prisoners in Iraq are treated well and under the Geneva Convention. As for the problems of Abu Ghurayb Prison, they were mainly isolated to that facility. Unlike other nations, this problem came to light because an AMERICAN reported it to the press. I think standing naked in front of woman or being subjected to a dog pile is a far cry from being cut into pieces as you suggest. Guantanamo bay has had rumors of torture, but this is all simply speculation. Many who have been removed so far have not claimed torture at all. The biggest argument here is wether they were detained unfairly for to long of a period. Again, they were not cut into pieces and sent home in a box, LIKE YOU SUGGESTED. Please do not forget, that this is 500 of hundreds of thousands of prisoners the U.S. has handled.

"oh they atacked civillans so its ok if we torcher them (in violation of the Geniva convention, the international treties on the banning of torcher, the international decleration of human rights and the US constitution)", Asguard/I]

Again, a naked dog pile is far different then blowing up innocent civilians, especially members of your own country.

[I]"well let me ask you this, if i invaded your country and you have all the weapons lying around that you do would you fight back?", Asguard

Yes, but I would not be blowing up my neighbors. Then again, I did not have Sadam Hussein as my government either. I can speak my mind about Bush without getting shot for it.

"After all when your forces are smaller than the other side you dont stand in lines and charge, you fight in ambush ", Asguard

You see.. again, I would be ambushing the soldiers, not innocent people. Many nations in the world like to contribute their own countries failures to the United States' foreign policy. Most of the worlds problems, I hate to tell you, have to do with the rest of the world and its own behavior.

Undecided

08-18-04, 03:15 PM

Of course the Russians and Chinese will say that, it is against their intrests to see NMD. Certaintly Russia will not be increasing their arsenal.

Russia isn’t going to increase her arsenal thanks to an agreement with Bush, but Russia’s arsenal will become significantly more deadly, more accurate, and more sopshicated warheads to combat NMD. But Russia isn’t the problem, Russia with her sheer numbers can overwhelm NMD, the problem is China.

China's largest concern at the moment is the fast pace of development of nulcear weapons right at its own border. Pakistan and India now present a serious threat, and China cannot let those countries become its equal.

I don’t think China fears Pakistan, China gives Pakistan technology. India is a threat but China is still way ahead of India, this is a game of numbers and China wants to achieve second strike, and to achieve true ICBM status along with the Russians and the US. India is secondary in the minds of the Chinese establishment, China’s future is not the Indian ocean it’s the Orient.

NMD is just China's rhetoric, but they do not have a genuine concern about a missle defense that does not even work.

That’s not true, NMD is a threat to Chinese security in the sense that assuming it does work (which it doesn’t no) Japan, even Taiwan may become part of the system. China’s nuclear forces will have to modernize and increase numerically which creates an arms race. Already the Chinese were angry that Taiwan may get Aegis capabilities.

It mentions the delay that I speak of in 1998, still in the Clinton presidency. The official reason given was NK's launching of a ballistic missle over Japan, but the project began to be hopelessly delayed. The real reason was CIA intelligence of NK's development of nuclear weapons. It is going to be very difficult for me to find an article on this, but I remember reading about it so ill keep looking. I mean it was obvious as to NK's intent when it was shooting missles over the Pacific.

NK according to the Clinton Administration did not break the treaty with the US, the missile launches were not a violation of the accord btwn NK and the USA, the NK’s have stuck to their agreement to stop all missile launches until 2004. The US on the other hand did not build the LWR in time; they were supposed to be finished by 2003, to my knowledge only the foundations are laid. North Korea thought that she had been be betrayed, and started to reconstitute a nuclear program. The crux of the agreement for NK was the LWR, it was never a serious attempt by the US.

towards

08-18-04, 03:48 PM

"China’s nuclear forces will have to modernize and increase numerically which creates an arms race", Undecided

I think the question you simply have to ask yourself is this. China had 400 nuclear warheads before NMD was ever a threat, and were already modernizing their ballistics technology. Answer this question truthfully: If NMD never existed at all do you think China would stop modernizing their nuclear arsenal? With India already developing ballistics with the capability of reaching China, would it not be in their best interests (why would they want their neighbors to catch up)? Ask yourself another question: Why would China be against developing its nuclear program? Other than cost (which obviously is becoming less and less a problem), what would be a "negative" to them having a larger arsenal? China, dont forget, is following their best interests, as well. The only argument you may be able to make is that NMD may accelerate the pace of that development, but is that development not inevitable anyway?

"The crux of the agreement for NK was the LWR, it was never a serious attempt by the US.", Undecided

The entire treaty was a sham in the first place, as the previous article I posted suggested. The U.S. delayed that development, because the CIA knew NK was developing nuclear weapons anyway. They even announced that they had nuclear weapons. How were those developed when they denied having any during the treaty? They confirmed the U.S.'s suspicions themselves, only because it allows them to threaten South Korea again. For all of those years, NK was the third largest recipient of American "bribes" behind Israel and Egypt. Was this the economic stanglehold that NK claims? If the U.S. doesn not supply them food and oil this is the act of war they speak of?

Undecided

08-18-04, 05:21 PM

China had 400 nuclear warheads before NMD was ever a threat, and were already modernizing their ballistics technology. Answer this question truthfully: If NMD never existed at all do you think China would stop modernizing their nuclear arsenal?

Of course she would, I never asserted that China stopped her modernization programs. But now emphasis has been placed on China to make sure it’s more, better, and stronger then before. You don’t mention (rather conveniently) that China only has 25 warheads that can attack internationally; she has only 25 ICBM’s. Now China is increasing the size and scope of her ICBM capabilities which creates the stage for a new arms race not only with the US but Russia, India, and possibly a future Japanese force.

With India already developing ballistics with the capability of reaching China, would it not be in their best interests (why would they want their neighbors to catch up)?

What would not be in their best interests? That was a incomplete sentence.

Why would China be against developing its nuclear program?

Why are you wasting my time with inane questions?

China, dont forget, is following their best interests, as well.

Of which you have not articulated…

The only argument you may be able to make is that NMD may accelerate the pace of that development, but is that development not inevitable anyway?

It’s more the precedent that is being set that is the problem. The US abandoning a crucial arms control treaty shows to China and to Russia, even NK that she is not serious about arms control. The problem this creates in the capitals of these nations is urgency, and a need to one-up the US and make the US in the long run much less safe. For China, America’s unilateralist stance, can virtually be justification for her future actions. This breeds fear not trust among states, I suggest you think outside the box.

The entire treaty was a sham in the first place, as the previous article I posted suggested. The U.S. delayed that development, because the CIA knew NK was developing nuclear weapons anyway.

That’s revisionist, yesterday night here in Canada we had a special about NK. The analyst said that the reason the US delayed the development of the LWR was because they believed that NK wouldn’t last until 2003 thus what’s the point. Its all revisionist, the status quo is that the US didn’t believe NK was breaking the treaty, until 2003.

For all of those years, NK was the third largest recipient of American "bribes" behind Israel and Egypt. Was this the economic stanglehold that NK claims?

NK in the 90’s was a different NK that exists today, you are confused.

If the U.S. doesn not supply them food and oil this is the act of war they speak of?

The US supplies of food and oil have fallen off dramatically, NK is getting desperate.

towards

08-18-04, 08:02 PM

"You don’t mention (rather conveniently) that China only has 25 warheads that can attack internationally; she has only 25 ICBM’s. Now China is increasing the size and scope of her ICBM capabilities which creates the stage for a new arms race not only with the US but Russia, India, and possibly a future Japanese force.", Undecided

38 actually, with almost 100 by 2010... here is the proof, a website dated for january 2004

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/wrjp164-04.html

Intercontinental ballistic technology takes decades do develop, so obviously China had plans for this years ago.

"Why would China be against developing its nuclear program?

Why are you wasting my time with inane questions? "

I am asking you to develop a theory explaining why China would slow down its nuclear program if the U.S. decided to scrap NMD entirely. What purpose does it serve their foreign policy not to modernize as quickly as possible? Can you think of one motive?

"The US abandoning a crucial arms control treaty shows to China and to Russia, even NK that she is not serious about arms control.", Undecided

Crucial? A cold era arms treaty with the SOVIET UNION agreed upon before the U.S. had to pay for Russia's own arm reduction. How could you possibly refer to that as crucial. A useful treaty would be to develop arms control with China, who is actually dramatically increasing their nuclear arsenal rather than asking another country to clean it up for them. If the U.S. did indeed scrap NWD, China would simply demand a ridiculously high point for both America and itself to meet in number of ICBMs. In this scenario, I just cannot see how scrapping NWD would serve the U.S. at all.

"The US supplies of food and oil have fallen off dramatically, NK is getting desperate", Undecided

May I remind you that the U.S. did not cut off these supplies until NK announced that it had created a nuclear weapon.

Undecided

08-18-04, 08:24 PM

38 actually, with almost 100 by 2010... here is the proof, a website dated for january 2004

Oh thanks for the update…38 is still ridiculously small. The US what 846, and the Russians 859 missiles (we aren’t even talking about MIRV’s here). 100 by 2010 is still small especially for a aspiring world power.

Intercontinental ballistic technology takes decades do develop, so obviously China had plans for this years ago.

So? The point is that China has a reason to build more, and those are estimates we don’t know the real numbers until 2010. Fact remains that NMD has been around since the 80’s in many different forms so these decisions could still have been influenced by such measures. The official stance of the Chinese and Russian governments are simple and logical:

NMD= greater arms race, and greater instability.

That’s why ABM treaty happened, what makes us think that this era is really all that different?

I am asking you to develop a theory explaining why China would slow down its nuclear program if the U.S. decided to scrap NMD entirely.

It’s too late to ask that question, China now has invested large sums in her programs. China would not slow down her program, the real question is why did she increase it in the first place.

What purpose does it serve their foreign policy not to modernize as quickly as possible? Can you think of one motive?

That's not a valid question, because there is no instance here in which NMD doesn't play a factor in China's current stance on ICBM's.

Crucial? A cold era arms treaty with the SOVIET UNION agreed upon before the U.S. had to pay for Russia's own arm reduction. How could you possibly refer to that as crucial.

Let’s see although the USSR does not exist anymore, Russia does and she can still increase her missile forces dramatically if there is a real reason. The treaty was the corner stone of the Russian-US nuclear relationship, and now that is defeated, and you don’t see an issue? I’m speechless…

A useful treaty would be to develop arms control with China, who is actually dramatically increasing their nuclear arsenal rather than asking another country to clean it up for them.

A better treaty would have been to amend the SALT and ABM treaties to include China, that accomplishes two things:

- It makes China feel significant, that she is now a real power enpar with the US and the Russians.
- It does the job, China would follow the mandates of those treaties.

But now that those treaties are in the garbage in essence China can do whatever it wants unabated. That’s the problem, why would China get into a treaty with the US if the US can just as easily pull out in 30 years?

If the U.S. did indeed scrap NWD, China would simply demand a ridiculously high point for both America and itself to meet in number of ICBMs. In this scenario, I just cannot see how scrapping NWD would serve the U.S. at all.

I don’t see the point in wasting $60 billion for a system that cannot work…even if China has more ICBM’s its not like the NMD is going to do shit all against it. NMD is a waste of American funds and resources, even some in the military are angry at NMD for taking away much needed funds from real programs.

May I remind you that the U.S. did not cut off these supplies until NK announced that it had created a nuclear weapon.

Little comfort when the amount of aid is precious little, NK feels betrayed and you don’t want to get them to the point of desperation.

Mr. G

08-18-04, 11:32 PM

tiassa,
What has it to do with anything?
Fish in barrels.

Tiassa

08-19-04, 04:59 AM

Fish in barrels

And they probably think themselves fortunate compared to the ones already in the cans, don't they?

Mr. G

08-19-04, 09:46 PM

You tell me.

Tiassa

08-20-04, 01:47 AM

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html
Title: "Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List"
Date: August 20, 2004

U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.

Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed.

A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html)

The Post also reports that FBI documents obtained by the ACLU under FOIA indicate that more than 350 Americans have been delayed or denied boarding according to the no-fly list. In all of that, there have been no arrests. The ACLU has already filed suit on behalf of six Americans who have been similarly troubled by the list.

• • •

This is your War on Terror.
____________________

• Kehaulani Goo, Sara. "Sen Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List." Washington Post, August 20, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

Tiassa

08-20-04, 08:44 PM

Source: CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/)
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/
Title: "Kennedy has company on airline watch list"
Date: August 20, 2004

A second prominent lawmaker said Friday that he's been subjected to extra security at airports because his name appears on a list designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.

Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.

Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/)

According to CNN, Lewis has thus far been unable to have his name removed from the watch list, and the TSA has issued a letter that he can present to ticket agents saying he is cleared to fly. He may, however, still be subject to extra security procedures. The letter is not uncommon; other airline passengers have received similar letters from the TSA.

In one incident, security officials took "every single item" out of his luggage, she said. Another time, after he was allowed to board, security officials questioned him at his seat.

Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/)

• • •

I wonder what's going through the airline employees' minds at such times:

• "I'm actually denying a member of Congress the right to board the plane ...."

Kennedy, I know, would be recognized. Lewis? He represents the Fifth District (http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/district.html), which includes "most of Atlanta" and also the airport, so ... yeah. The guy's a nine-term representative and ... well, you'd think he'd be recognizable.

This is ... er ... yeah.
___________________________

• CNN.com. "Kennedy has company on airline watch list." August 20, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/

See Also -

• Congressman John Lewis. See http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/index.htm

Mr. G

08-20-04, 11:20 PM

If Repub's are such dumb f'ks, they couldn't possibly be the IT professionals in charge of the computer data-based, no-fly watch lists.

Therefore, there must be tacit acknowledgement confirming that folks can fly more safely without Teddy than if they were in the same car.

RIP, Mary Jo.

QED

LMAO

Tiassa

08-20-04, 11:34 PM

If Repub's are such dumb f'ks, they couldn't possibly be the IT professionals in charge of the computer data-based, no-fly watch lists.

Let's hope not, for the sake of your argument. After all, the no-fly watch lists have been administrated as if by complete and utter ... uh, yeah--dumbfucks.

Therefore, there must be tacit acknowledgement confirming that folks can fly more safely without Teddy than if they were in the same car.

What an odd argument. Traveling by air is safer than by car any day.

Mr. G

08-21-04, 12:01 AM

tiassa,
What an odd argument. Traveling by air is safer than by car any day
Odd only to the patently humor-challenged.

Nature is infinitely wise to prefer you isolated at home most of the time.

You'll not be seeing the humor in that, either...no doubt.

Tiassa

08-21-04, 01:20 AM

Odd only to the patently humor-challenged.

Most of what passes for "humor" these days relies on the stupidity of the audience. As you are no exception, thank you.

You'll not be seeing the humor in that, either...no doubt.

Not sharing your sense of self-superiority, I admit I don't. Life is. Also, see above.

Mr. G

08-21-04, 10:43 PM

Most of what passes for "humor" these days relies on the stupidity of the audience.
Um, more like ignorance.

The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that after one hears the joke's punchline the joke is ruined for the ignorant, but not for the stupid.

Education.

Sitting Bull was ignorant; Custer was stupid.

As you are no exception, thank you.
Laughing at your own joke doesn't make you a professional comedian.

Not sharing your sense of self-superiority,...
Nor should you. You have your very own -- obviously quite well-honed -- to tuck you in at night.

Nevertheless, you're free to complain that I habitually question your public preference, or anyone else's here, to converse only with stupid people who'll willingly believe all that you, and the willing, local demographic say is gospel.

As I'm currently free to periodically interject myself into this community -- as sufficient demonstration that outside of this place there exists equally reasoned skepticism not dependent on this demographic's preferences for particular definitions of reality.

Tiassa

08-22-04, 04:21 PM

The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that after one hears the joke's punchline the joke is ruined for the ignorant, but not for the stupid.

People still find Seinfeld funny.

My current media-audience test is Peter Griffin; it's hard to get a read on whether or not people actually get the joke.

Sitting Bull was ignorant; Custer was stupid.

I'll smoke to that. I won't speculate Larry Verne's opinion (http://www.lyricsdownload.com/larry-verne-mr-custer-lyrics.html).

Laughing at your own joke doesn't make you a professional comedian.

I agree. Getting paid to laugh at your own joke--now that makes one a professional comedian.

I may smoke dope, but not enough to make me want to get up in front of the brick wall.

Nevertheless, you're free to complain that I habitually question your public preference, or anyone else's here, to converse only with stupid people who'll willingly believe all that you, and the willing, local demographic say is gospel.

I do admit it seems strange the role of authority you'll assign folks here at Sciforums in order to have something you feel you can tear down. It would most likely be easier for you to make a point--any point--if you weren't so busy feeling left out because you refuse to join in.

As I'm currently free to periodically interject myself into this community -- as sufficient demonstration that outside of this place there exists equally reasoned skepticism not dependent on this demographic's preferences for particular definitions of reality.

I do that too; sometimes it takes until a random viewing of a post two years after the fact to realize it. At any rate, I'm curious: how is that sentence really supposed to end?

Without sarcasm, that's a hell of a pitch to leave us with no hook.

Mr. G

08-22-04, 10:21 PM

I may smoke dope,...
Your greatest virtue.
...but not enough to make me want to get up in front of the brick wall.
And this place is not a "brick wall" against which you've invested your "standing"?

Of course it is.

The only difference is that most here haven't paid for access to you -- thankfully releaving you of the corresponding obligation to provide equivalent value in return.
I do admit it seems strange the role of authority you'll assign folks here at Sciforums...
No strangely different an allusion to authority as the community presumes to assign to itself for being just another pedestrian gathering.
...in order to have something you feel you can tear down.
Cute. The assault of logic as emotional diatribe: Can't defend against the former, pretend it's the latter.
It would most likely be easier for you to make a point--any point--if you weren't so busy feeling left out because you refuse to join in.
Reality check: feeling left out = refusing to join in?

How about: Willfully not subscribing = not needing to "join in"?

I'm not you. I'm not most of you. I'm the diversity you only claim to enlightenedly accommodate. Grudging tolerance is the minimum value of accomodation here.
“
At any rate, I'm curious: how is that sentence really supposed to end?
With a period.

Without sarcasm, that's a hell of a pitch to leave us with no hook.
What is beauty?

Tiassa

08-23-04, 12:04 AM

What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

Mr. G

08-23-04, 01:08 AM

What is truth...?
Who has claim? Oink.

Tiassa

08-30-04, 09:28 PM

Source: MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/)
Link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/
Title: "Bush sees war against terror that never ends"
Date: August 30, 2004

(Note: See the Today (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/) show website for a transcript of the interview.)

As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week,* President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.

"I don't think you can win it," the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

"I have a two-pronged strategy," he said. "On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us. ... The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty."

He added later, “You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”

Source: MSNBC News (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/)

You heard it here, or, rather, on NBC, and not for the first time. But this is the latest affirmation by Bush that the War on Terror is perpetual. While it's not exactly news, it seems rather ominous to raise this discussion as the GOP convention opens in New York City.

White House Chief of Staff Andy Card appeared on cable news today and described the President's remarks as referring to the statelessness of terrorism, the practicality of the fact that you cannot sit down on an aircraft carrier or in a tent in the desert and negotiate a settlement or surrender. This aspect, admittedly, does require explanation, for it doesn't seem particularly apparent:

"I don't think you can win it . . . . But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Source: MSNBC News (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/)

The notion bears a specific mark of realism: there will always be someone somewhere in the world willing to use violence to make or prove a point; there will always be people to denounce as terrorists. The War on Terrorism is much like the War on Drugs in this sense; you can't "win" it without some form of extinction. In the War on Drugs there have been plans to eradicate marijuana and opium through "biological warfare", and "chemical warfare" has been used against coca plants. In the War on Terror, though, that required extinction is essentially the human species. Evolutionarily speaking, as nature abhors a vacuum, a trimming of the ends of the human bell curve will not establish a permanent new condition; people will deviate, and fill in those low ends. The War on Terror is the actualization of a new form of "King of the Hill" long whispered among the paranoid, and, as those portions of the bell curve have been annexed into the mainstream, the new prominent voices on the fringes are even more paranoid than the generation that preceded them.

I find the difference between the president's remarks and Andy Card's explanation problematic. Card plays away from the concession to perpetual warfare, yet President Bush can always point back to the occasions that he told the American people he was taking them into a war without end.

The common phrase is "sleight of hand"; onstage it's called "misdirection".

Bush's remarks may seem at odds with his earlier stance on the issue--

The Second Calvary is now deployed in Iraq. So is the mighty Warrior Brigade from Fort Polk. This post has long been vital to the defense of America. And today, the men and women of Fort Polk are serving with skill and bravery in the war on terror. Since our nation was attacked on September the 11th, 2001, this post has trained and deployed more than 10,000 troops to fight the terrorist enemy.

The JRTC Operations Group is providing superb training for America's soldiers. And with people like you -- people like you in the fight against terror, there is no doubt that the enemy will be defeated and freedom will prevail . . . .

. . . . Our servicemen and women today follow in a great tradition of achievement and courage. You're living up to that tradition in hard missions and decisive victories. This generation of our military has been called to duty, to fight and to win the first war of the 21st century.

The struggle began on a September morning, when terrorists murdered thousands of our fellow citizens. We saw the violence and grief that terrorists can inflict. We had a glimpse of a far worse harm that the terrorists intend for us. And on behalf of this nation, I made a pledge: Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

Life in America in many ways has returned to normal, and that's a good thing. And I want every American to know that I understand my job as your President. I have a duty to protect the American people, and my resolve is the same today as it was on the morning of September the 12th, 2001. My resolve is the same as it was on the day when I walked in the rubble of the Twin Towers. I will not relent until this threat to America is removed. And neither will you.

Source: Whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040217-5.html)

--but we certainly can't call it a flip-flop. The perpetuity of such an enterprise as the War on Terror occurred to Bush well before February, '04. Some of it is bravado, some of it is politics, but the truth is that George W. Bush is very much aware of what he has done in calling down the authority of God to drag the United States into an ill-conceived, poorly-defined War on Terror.

I will not fault the president at a basic level for such rhetoric, but in all honesty we might consider whether or not is best reserved for those not holding the highest office in the land; there's only so much cheerleading an executive can do, given the pseudo-literalist bender that passes for journalism these days.° So even though it seems like a decent enough thing to tell folks in order to boost morale, Bush has certainly seeded history with stymies aplenty: his jingoistic optimism contrasts starkly with the reality he acknowledges. Politically speaking, I think Card may have fumbled in watering down the president's remarks, but I may never be able to find a transcript; it may have been Woodruff, it may have been something on another network.

People need to realize that "winning" the war on terror only constitutes in any practical sense the holding of the barbarians at the gates. Only a present impossibility--e.g. utopia--can "win the war on terror". In any political discussion, sure, I'm willing to look generations into the future in order to define goals, but why start with this? We kill more of our own by proxy of our commercial and industrial needs than terrorists can kill without a full-blown nuke attack on Los Angeles via the faultlines.

Well, okay, start with something small: what kills more people in the United States, cigarettes or terrorists? What costs American society more in terms of lost labor and resources, mortality, and dollars--diet or terrorism? What is the greater threat to the prosperity of future generations of Americans? (That is, to the prosperity of our posterity?) Debt or terrorism? What is more important, profit today or health tomorrow?

Fighting terrorism can be compared to the debt in a particular sense: certain methods can have the effect of alleviating the threat of today by displacing it to a future period. Stale but relevant rhetoric from the Iraqi Bush Adventure--and, as the Taleban, Al Qaeda, and their sympathizers remind us, Afghanistan as well--suggests that American policy decisions regarding Arab and Muslim worlds (as well as other spheres of society) inspire at least as many terrorists as the War on Terror removes from operation. Our present actions are raising new legions, and somebody will have to deal with them sometime, whether by the gun or exchequer.

And the president knows this; he claims:

"To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it.* I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it."

Source: MSNBC Today (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/)

And this is the only context in which we can win the War on Terrorism: by holding the barbarians at the gates. Yes, we can look decades down the road and see a conceivable end to this phase of the War on Terror, the visiting of a "Pax Americana" on the Muslim world. The president is correct when he says it can't be won. "Not losing", in this case, constitutes "victory".

This is your War on Terror. Brought to you by MSNBC's Softball, er--I mean--Today.
_____________________

Notes:

° the pseudo-literalist bender that passes for journalism these days - It seems ... seems ... easy enough to point to right-wing radio and call it even; after all, even FOX News is a symptom of that malignant lump on the fundament of journalism. But this answer would be too simple. As with sports, its easy to back a winner if that's all it's worth to a person. As with money, right is whatever makes the most money--regardless of whether it's for a diverse range of people or a limited group. With something so personal as opinions and beliefs, "journalism" has largely met the demands of its audience, a necessity in the commercial world of modern society. While there is no real liberal media bias, liberals are just as guilty, and in some cases even moreso (and, incidentally, in more clumsy a fashion) of selling out to the "money bias". For instance, while it's nice to think folks at MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are "just doing their jobs" in hounding down the facts of the devastating Swift Boat controversy, there are also the conveniences to consider that (A) the press has just about had it with the Bush administration, anyway, and (B) it's an easy headline. More than a liberal media bias, more than the personal bias of being fed up with being spoonfed bullpucky at an alarming rate, the ease of the headline and the ratings it brings keep the story front and center. (Personal bias can only carry so far if it doesn't bring ratings.) Likewise, it is the "ease" of war headlines in general--Abu Ghraib is easier to report from Washington, D.C., than Najaf was at street level--is what keeps certain Iraq-related stories afloat. We cannot blame the right-wing gasbags and drudgemeisters when everybody prances merrily into that shadowed valley. (Ten points for anyone who can tell us what Monty Python sketch I'm thinking of at this moment; it's relevant according to an aspect most peculiar.)

Reference Links:

• Bush, George W. "President Meets with US Military Personnel at Fort Polk, Louisiana". Whitehouse.gov, February 17, 2004. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040217-5.html
• NBC et al. "Bush sees war against terror that never ends". MSNBC.com, August 30, 2004. See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/
• NBC. "Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world". Today, MSNBC.com, August 30, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/

Mr. G

08-30-04, 11:31 PM

The power of the Left is inadequate to the challenge of eliminating the Right from existence; so as the Right is unable to rid itself of the Left.
The notion bears a specific mark of realism.
Many notions do.

static76

08-30-04, 11:49 PM

The power of the Left is inadequate to the challenge of eliminating the Right from existence; so as the Right is unable to rid itself of the Left.

One would think the "Left" and the "Right" would seek balance between their views. Instead, America is stuck in the shitfest of propaganda politics that does nothing but serve the interest of political "parties", not the people.

Tiassa

08-31-04, 03:02 PM

The power of the Left is inadequate to the challenge of eliminating the Right from existence; so as the Right is unable to rid itself of the Left.

As long as it's about Left and Right, I agree entirely. Of course, making it about left and right--that's the problem in the first place. Americans care more about representing representations of themselves than they do actually representing themselves.

Tiassa

09-17-04, 07:43 PM

Port of Seattle - Your War on Terror
Port CEO Dinsmore sounds off on shipping

M.R. Dinsmore, the chief executive of the Port of Seattle, puts in an opinion piece for the Washington Times:

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge met with a group of Seattle officials recently and told us he's sleeping better at night because our country is better prepared than before to defend against a terrorist attack.

When I spoke with him later, I said, "I'm glad you're sleeping better, Mr. Secretary, because I'm not."

I meant no disrespect. I have tremendous regard for Ridge and for the difficult job he is doing. But here's what keeps me awake at night . . . .

. . . . In the United States we have 361 river ports and seaports. Every year we get 50,000 visits from 8,100 foreign ships. Every day 21,000 containers enter the United States. We can verify the contents of only about 4 to 6 percent of those containers. And it would require only one rogue container to bring commerce to its knees . . . .

. . . . Retailers such as Target and Wal-Mart don't have giant warehouses brimming with inventory that can keep the American public supplied if trade is shut down. Even major manufacturers such as General Motors obtain some of their components overseas. Their inventory arrives daily in shipping containers, just in time to replenish stock or enter the manufacturing process.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27546-2004Sep16.html)

Dinsmore asserts that the U.S. may have "overreacted" to 9/11 and the threat of future terrorism in its air-travel response, and that maritime security has been overlooked: ". . . we haven't done nearly enough".

However, the article reads in part like an advertisement, pointing to the Port of Seattle as a leader in maritime security and Senator Patty Murary (D) as the "champion" of Operation Safe Commerce, which program Dinsmore admits is merely a "demonstration project" because of "frugality".

For the most part, there is little here that one cannot glean from a reasonably-careful running perusal of the news media. However, Dinsmore makes one note that, while it is somewhat off the main theme, disturbs me. Of airport security, Dinsmore notes, "Nationally, we are spending $5 billion to $7 billion a year without adding much in the way of value".

There is a curious symptom that came to a head during the Clinton administration, when more than usual was measured in such terms. One should not take from Dinsmore's note the idea that we are somehow wasting money by spending without adding value. This spending goes to holes and gaps ignored in the past; we never spent on security because it was hard to show the effect in a ledger. The added value of such spending is only seen in its absence, when something important is on fire and body parts lay strewn over the street. We have, in a sense, been harvesting unnatural returns, and as nature abhors a vacuum, filling in those necessary gaps will not necessarily add anything in the way of value. The benefits of prevention don't show up in red or black ink, but in the difference between breath taken and blood spilled.

It takes money to make money, and we've traditionally sought to minimize investment while maximizing returns. (Consider the note about Wal-Mart; goods in a warehouse either lose value or remain neutral, and only require further investment while not adding much to the value of the return.) Playing catch-up will not necessarily add commercial value, but rather protect it.

Dinsmore will most likely not be the last port chief to tell such a story, put forth such an opinion. And despite what can be taken as a plug for Senator Murray, and despite what can be taken as "typical" advertising buried within an allegedly necessary article, we should neither reduce nor exaggerate the threat. We know there's a gaping hole in our maritime shipping security, and it's a tall investment to make without adding significant value to the commerce it supports, But it is also a necessary investment, one we cannot afford to ignore.
___________________

• Dinsmore, M.R. "Make Our Ports Safer". Washington Post, September 17, 2004; page A27. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27546-2004Sep16.html

Tiassa

09-24-04, 11:07 PM

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45796-2004Sep23.html
Title: "Freeing Mr. Hamdi"
Date: September 24, 2004

I defer all commentary at this time to the Editorial Board of the Washington Post, who phrase it neatly:

NEARLY THREE YEARS after his capture, the government has agreed to release Yaser Esam Hamdi, the American-born Saudi it has been holding as an "enemy combatant" at a naval brig in South Carolina. In and of itself, the deal is unobjectionable. Mr. Hamdi, even accepting the worst of the government's allegations against him, was nothing more than a Taliban foot soldier, neither a major national security threat nor a likely intelligence asset of ongoing consequence . . . .

. . . . What remains objectionable -- what looms as more objectionable than ever, now that the government has acknowledged Mr. Hamdi's unimportance -- is the unnecessary assault on civil liberties that the administration led in his case. For three years the administration insisted that Mr. Hamdi be held incommunicado and without any semblance of normal legal process or rights despite his citizenship . . . .

. . . . The government insisted that the courts authorize Mr. Hamdi's detention purely on the basis of a two-page affidavit from a mid-level Defense Department bureaucrat who claimed no personal knowledge of the case. An American citizen could be plucked out of all of the protections of the civilian justice system with no significant judicial review and no opportunity to rebut the facts behind the decision, the administration argued -- and it pushed this view all the way to the Supreme Court, where it received the rebuke it deserved . . . .

. . . . It is unpardonable to have staked out such ground over someone whom, it turns out, the government considers so unthreatening. Had the military allowed Mr. Hamdi to meet with his lawyer in a timely fashion and not acted so aggressively to prevent him from presenting his own account of his behavior, it might have had credibility to reserve the right to act otherwise in a truly exceptional situation. But its behavior toward Mr. Hamdi -- even assuming he is an enemy combatant, which he denies -- makes it difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to such claims of necessity.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45796-2004Sep23.html)

This is your War on Terror.
______________________

• Washington Post. "Freeing Mr. Hamdi". September 24, 2003; page A24. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45796-2004Sep23.html

Tiassa

09-28-04, 02:30 AM

Source: USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/)
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-27-fbi-translation_x.htm
Title: "Justice Dept. audit finds large FBI translation backlog"
Date: September 27, 2004

The AP reports that the FBI has a backlog of untranslated audio recordings from terrorism and espionage investigations amounting to "hundreds of thousands of hours".

In addition, the audit by Glenn A. Fine, the agency's inspector general, found that more than one-third of al-Qaeda intercepts authorized by a secret federal court were not reviewed with 12 hours of collection as required by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

"Our audit highlighted the significant challenges facing the FBI to ensure that translation of key information is performed timely and accurately," Fine said.

The audit was completed in July in classified form. The version released Monday was edited to remove sections classified as "secret" by the FBI.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-27-fbi-translation_x.htm)

At some point we must start considering "The Ponds". After September 11, 2001, the working assumption--and properly so--was that oceans were not enough to protect us from this enemy.

However, as the Bush administration touts its anti-terrorism record, voters should bear in mind that his success in the War on Terror rests upon the notion that nobody has successfully attacked us since that day in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

Yet we know that our ports are naked; terrorism can drift in with the tides; our land borders are a source of concern for many; and here we find that the FBI is behind in its investigations by as much as "hundreds of thousands of hours".

This isn't so much like the coin toss on the midway where your coin bounces out of the glass dish, but rather a matter of repeatedly throwing "airballs" that miss the dishes completely.

We must consider that the reason for no attacks over the last three years might actually have something to do with The Ponds. While it was a proper notion to say, "All assumptions are off," it does not seem nearly so wise to re-establish assumptions without deeper consideration. It could be that between slow planning and the effort required to get the agents in place to pull off a grand strike, the enemies are taking their time. It could be that we've simply gotten very lucky.

So much for the twelve-hour directive.

This is your War on Terror. Has Bush done a good job? Some will say yes, but what in addition to the lack of any significant and successful attack against American interests at home testifies to that good job? In the meantime, we're nearly as undefended as we were on September 10, 2001.

Perhaps the threat has been overstated? I don't think so. It may be misrepresented, however. There is no reason to question that there are those who would murder Americans by the thousands and call it a legitimate act of war, but what of the capability of carrying out that threat? There is no doubt that the Afghani Bush War was successful at disrupting certain operations, but are Americans supposed to be frightened of Osama bin Laden, or are we looking for him in Iraq?

Hey, we can take time out from our War on Terror to devote so many resources for a petrol adventure?

Don't be deceived: Your War on Terror is only successful at this point for not having gotten burned since 9/11. How that "success" is accomplished is considerably less clear.
____________________

• Associated Press. "Justice Dept. audit finds large FBI translation backlog". USA Today, September 27. 2004. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-27-fbi-translation_x.htm

Tiassa

11-30-04, 01:49 AM

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18880-2004Nov28.html
Title: "Duct Tape Won't Cover This"
Date: November 29, 2004

Time is a wonderful, magical thing. It heals all wounds, gives perfect vision.° With the passing of time comes age and guile°, or, more applicably, reconsideration.

The esteemed William Raspberry reconsiders the War on Terror:

Last week would have been a good time to start working on a plan. My children were home for Thanksgiving, and we surely could have set aside a few minutes between turkey and football to make at least a rudimentary one.

But this is as far as we got: If we're separated when the terrorists strike, and if the local phone service is not working, we'll all call Aunt Jackie in Fort Wayne, Ind. She doesn't know this yet, but her job will be to relay messages, reassuring each of us that the others are okay. Or not. The assumptions are (1) that while we might not be able to phone each other, even on our cell phones, we will be able to get long-distance, and (2) the terrorists won't hit Fort Wayne.

I'm sure I should have a better, more detailed plan than that. But, may the secretary forgive me, I cling to my old-fashioned notion that there are some things you can't get ready for.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18880-2004Nov28.html)

Mr. Raspberry recalls the Cold War, The Day After, and the nuclear threat in general. Are the recommended preparations in the modern day adequate? Is the fear rational?

These and other questions, to be sure, and some of them don't have simple answers, such as "No, and no."

We're three years into the War on Terror, and while the tragedy of what happened on September 11, 2001, is readily exploited for politics and reminisced as a social-bonding exercise, what of the War on Terror itself?

Americans, has it changed the way you live?

Internationals, how ridiculous do we look?

In the mid-90s, a friend of mine spent a couple summers in the UK, where he now lives and studies. Until 9/11, going through airports was a reasonably interesting experience. I've known since high school how "bad" airport security was. In those days my friend was stunned by the number of unattended bags at Sea-Tac; it would have sent an Englishman into fits, or at the very least a Hugh Grant-like stutter.

Of course, I don't travel every day, and the last time I went through a post-terror airport, the experience wasn't much different than before. Both Sea-Tac and McCarron operated smoothly. The greatest impact I've seen from the War on Terror actually came when we had to wait an additional five minutes to rent a bloody U-Haul.

Life isn't much different for me except that the background noise has grown even more stupid than it was before. Maybe I'll take the War on Terror more seriously when my American neighbors do, but for now myopic hysteria doesn't seem to cut it.
____________________

Notes:

° gives perfect vision - Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

° age and guile - And also a new sense of fashion, as readers of P. J. O'Rourke are aware.

• Raspberry, William. "Duct Tape Won't Cover This". Washington Post, November 29, 2004; page A19. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18880-2004Nov28.html

Tiassa

11-30-04, 04:18 PM

Source: CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/)
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/30/airport.patdowns.ap/index.html
Title: "Airport patdowns too intrusive?"
Date: November 30, 2004

Rhonda Gaynier, a New York real-estate lawyer, was flying home from Tampa, Florida, and passing through airport security when she was asked to step aside for additional screening.

What happened next shocked her: Using an open hand, a security agent touched her on her shoulders, under her arms, around her waist, across her bra strap, and between her breasts, Gaynier said -- all in front of other passengers.

"I was almost in tears," she said. "I've never been so humiliated in my life. It's one of the worst experiences I've ever had to endure" . . . .

CNN.com (AP) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/30/airport.patdowns.ap/index.html)

When I first read the description of the search, it struck me that the answer is to simply stop teaching young girls to protect their bodies from "bad touching".

Yes, this is what our country has become in the War on Terror.

The pat-down searches came into effect in September, a TSA response to the simultaneous crashes of two Russian jets.

Sommer Gentry, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate student who commutes twice a month from her home in Baltimore, said she now takes Amtrak, rather than submit herself to the intrusive airport search.

Gentry said she has had several upsetting encounters with the screeners, and calls the way she was touched "humiliating and deeply offensive."

"I will go to great lengths to avoid flying now, because patdowns make me feel dirty and ashamed," she said. "It just gets worse every time. Now I'm afraid."

CNN.com (AP) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/30/airport.patdowns.ap/index.html)

As with many TSA rules, however, the criteria for patdown are vague. Visual observations including a person's shape, method of ticket purchase, and ticket purchased are among the individual crteria that will earn a patdown.

The rules stress that passengers can ask to be checked in private and by a screener of their same gender -- Gentry and Gaynier say their patdowns were conducted by women -- and that screeners must only use the backs of their hands when touching sensitive places.

But legal groups who are monitoring the women's complaints say those rules are not always followed.

"What these women are complaining about is being groped," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty project, which is tracking the complaints and hopes to meet with the TSA soon.

CNN.com (AP) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/30/airport.patdowns.ap/index.html)

So what it comes down to, then, is that you are free to travel unmolested as long as you look and act like everybody else. Look at the result: You want to pay for your ticket with cash? Patdown. You want to extend your debt with interest and service charges on a credit card? You're safe. Do you carry your life in your pockets, e.g. a leather jacket? Patdown. Do you spend large amounts of money on a leather briefcase? You're safe.

Gaynier, 46, has filed a complaint with the TSA and is exploring legal action against it. She said she has heard from women around the country who object to the searches, many of whom say they are afraid or embarrassed to complain.

"Post-9/11, we have all come to accept a certain level of inconvenience and intrusion," she said. "I will tolerate that. But you want to touch my body, you better have a damn good reason, and they don't."

Ms. Gaynier is wrong; the government does not need a damn good reason.

Parents, teach your daughters now: if someone in a uniform wants to touch their bodies, it is their duty to let that contact happen.

Welcome to America.
____________________

Notes:
Associated Press. "Lava lamp left on hot stovetop explodes, killing man". CNN.com, November 30, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/30/lava.lamp.death.ap/index.html

Tiassa

12-16-04, 06:39 AM

Blown!
Newark screeners lose fake bomb; recovered in Amsterdam

Baggage screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport spotted -- and then lost -- a fake bomb planted in luggage by a supervisor during a training exercise.

Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock, made it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight. It was recovered by airport security officials in Amsterdam when the flight landed several hours later.

CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/15/fake.bomb.lost.ap/index.html)

Transportation Security Administration officials, responding to reports that screeners in Newark lost track of a fake bomb during a security exercise, were quick to point out that the bag did not actually pose a threat, and at no time was anyone in danger.

Newark screeners also missed one in four fake explosives and weapons in tests conducted over the summer of 2004. Newark Liberty International airport was one of the airports from which 9/11 hijackers took off.

Of course, the folks in Newark are still doing better than the French, who lost a bag containing real explosives earlier this month while training search dogs.

Nonetheless, this is your War on Terror.
_____________________

Notes:
Associated Press. "Airport screeners lose fake bomb during training". CNN.com, December 15, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/15/fake.bomb.lost.ap/index.html

mouse

12-16-04, 07:23 AM

Baggage screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport spotted -- and then lost -- a fake bomb planted in luggage by a supervisor during a training exercise. [...] It was recovered by airport security officials in Amsterdam when the flight landed several hours later.

Ironically, the Netherlands (traditionally an US ally) is required to upgrade passports to include biometric data if Dutch citizens are to travel to the U.S. without visa. Such demands meet reluctant sympathy if Amsterdam is so easily targeted from within the US.

Tiassa

12-16-04, 08:06 AM

There is no shortage of irony in the War on Terror. In fact, we have such a surplus that the value of irony is collapsing.

As an American, and even though I am thoroughly unqualified to speak on behalf of our society in such a manner, let me offer my apologies to any Dutch travelers who would not have made it home if that bomb was real.

I mean, nobody's perfect, but this is just unsettling. Maybe lightning can strike twice in the same airport.

Tiassa

12-18-04, 05:54 AM

Fear and Loathing in America
Cornell University: 44% of Americans would restrict Muslims' rights

Work with me here.

Do you think, maybe, just possibly, that the gap between the red and blue states, or at least the red and blue voters, might have to do with something other than mere identity politics?

• • •

Cornell University has released results of a nationwide poll indicating that 44% of Americans believe the civil liberties of Muslims should be restricted.

Correlations within the study suggest that people who receive their news primarily from television were more likely to favor restrictions. Furthermore, the study suggests that Republicans or people describing themselves as highly religious were more willing to support civil liberties restrictions against Muslims than Democrats or the less-religious.

To the other, 48% said the civil liberties of Muslim Americans should not be restricted in any way.

The poll questioned 715 people, and Cornell figures its margin of error at 3.6%.

Researchers were startled at the correlations to television and religion. James Shanahan, a poll organizer and associate professor of communications, noted, "We need to explore why these two very important channels of discourse may nurture fear rather than understanding."

"The more attention paid to television news, the more you fear terrorism, and you are more likely to favor restrictions on civil liberties," said Erik Nisbet, a senior research associate for the survey.

• • •

On the one hand, the 37% of respondents surveyed who believe a terrorist attack is still likely within the next twelve months is down from 90% in November, 2002.

Rather than suggesting that the United States is winning its War on Terror, though, I think there might be a trickle of reality seeping in. When the terrorists hit us, they hit us hard. But where the Bush administration that refuses to assist overseas prosecutions of Al Qaeda--and in at least one case helped acquit a suspect instead of letting German prosecutors talk to a detained terrorist in the U.S.--wishes us to believe that the lack of any terrorist attack is directly a result of the War on Terror, it seems that many people recognize that the comparative threat of another 9/11 wasn't really so severe.

Because the terrorists themselves are having a great deal of success. To suggest that nearly half of this country would throw out the Constitution also suggests that the people are, indeed, terrorized.

The solution is to stand strongly for "America", not to take it away. If we take away those principles often held as examples of our strength and propriety, what will we have left?

And this is a fundamental question between the red and blue voters.

Conservative and religious politics have laid siege against the U.S. Constitution; eleven states voted to toss the Fourteenth Amendment in response to conservative fears about sexual partners. What they think America is can only be protected by taking it away from people who are, in their opinion, the wrong gender.

And here we see the same: conservatives and religious folks are more likely to support the suspension of the Constitution in order to harass Muslims because they think it will somehow make them safer. Preserve America, they say, by taking it away from Muslims.

I must admit that this pattern is actually a long-standing one. Twenty years ago it was just about music and books and magazines. Now it's people's lives and livelihoods. The conservative scourge is never satiated, and this, my neighbors, is your War on Terror.
____________________

Notes:
Kates, William. "In U.S., 44 percent say restrict Muslims". SeattlePI.com, December 17, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Muslims%20Civil%20Liberties

Cornell University. "Fear factor: 44 percent of Americans queried in Cornell national poll favor curtailing some liberties for Muslim Americans". December 17, 2004. See http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html

Clockwood

12-18-04, 09:13 AM

Damn... talk about smamming. I think tiassa's latest posting rampage made me bleed out of my eyes...

Couldn't you have -just- left the links or something?

Tiassa

12-27-04, 12:26 AM

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html
Title: "Jet Is an Open Secret in Terror War"
Date: December 27, 2004

The airplane is a Gulfstream V turbojet, the sort favored by CEOs and celebrities. But since 2001 it has been seen at military airports from Pakistan to Indonesia to Jordan, sometimes being boarded by hooded and handcuffed passengers.

The plane's owner of record, Premier Executive Transport Services Inc., lists directors and officers who appear to exist only on paper. And each one of those directors and officers has a recently issued Social Security number and an address consisting only of a post office box, according to an extensive search of state, federal and commercial records.

Bryan P. Dyess, Steven E. Kent, Timothy R. Sperling and Audrey M. Tailor are names without residential, work, telephone or corporate histories -- just the kind of "sterile identities," said current and former intelligence officials, that the CIA uses to conceal involvement in clandestine operations. In this case, the agency is flying captured terrorist suspects from one country to another for detention and interrogation.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html)

The practice is referred to as "rendition", and according to CIA officials testifying before Congress, not only has the practice grown more common, but it has become so commonplace that the agency cannot seem to keep the process a secret.

According to airport officials, public documents and hobbyist plane spotters, the Gulfstream V, with tail number N379P, has been used to whisk detainees into or out of Jakarta, Indonesia; Pakistan; Egypt; and Sweden, usually at night, and has landed at well-known U.S. government refueling stops.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html)

Agency authority to perform renditions came about under the Clinton administration in the form of a presidential directive that the Bush administration has reviewed and renewed.

The story of the Gulfstream V offers a rare glimpse into the CIA's secret operations, a world that current and former CIA officers said should not have been so easy to document.

Not only have the plane's movements been tracked around the world, but the on-paper officers of Premier Executive Transport Services are also connected to a larger roster of false identities.

Each of the officers of Premier Executive is linked in public records to one of five post office box numbers in Arlington, Oakton, Chevy Chase and the District. A total of 325 names are registered to the five post office boxes.

An extensive database search of a sample of 44 of those names turned up none of the information that usually emerges in such a search: no previous addresses, no past or current telephone numbers, no business or corporate records. In addition, although most names were attached to dates of birth in the 1940s, '50s or '60s, all were given Social Security numbers between 1998 and 2003.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html)

The CIA, shown the information acquired by Post investigators, complete with charts and visual aids to outline what is known, refused comment.

While the Agency might treat the plane as a secret, it's not particularly well-kept. Talk about the jet has been swirling at least since an October, 2001 story broken by Pakistani journalist Masood Anwar asserting that Pakistani officials had handed over to the U.S. a Yemeni microbiologist wanted in connection with the Cole bombing.

The internet plays a role, including "Free Republic". An article posted at the conservative news forum stamped 19:54.04 (EST?) on October 26, 2001, raised the issue of Anwar's story. According to the Post, it took only 13 minutes for someone to come up with the registered owners, Premier Executive Transport Services Inc.

In December, 2001, two Egyptians in shackles and red overalls were allegedly brought to the plane at Bramma Airport, Stockholm.

In January, 2002, a U.S.-registered Gulfstream V allegedly removed Muhammad Saad Iqbal Madni, an Egyptian on a Pakistani passport, from Jakarta. The Post notes that Madni's whereabouts and status are unknown, and that the tail number on the jet was not noted at the time.

Over the past year, the Gulfstream V's flights have been tracked by plane spotters standing at the end of runways with high-powered binoculars and cameras to record the flights of military and private aircraft.

These hobbyists list their findings on specialized Web pages. According to them, since October 2001 the plane has landed in Islamabad; Karachi; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Dubai; Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Baghdad; Kuwait City; Baku, Azerbaijan; and Rabat, Morocco. It has stopped frequently at Dulles International Airport, at Jordan's military airport in Amman and at airports in Frankfurt, Germany; Glasglow, Scotland, and Larnaca, Cyprus ....

.... According to public documents, Premier Executive ordered a new Gulfstream V in 1998. It was delivered in November 1999 with tail number N581GA, and reregistered for unknown reasons on March 2000 with a new tail number, N379P. It began flights in June 2000, and changed the tail number again in December 2003.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html)

In the meantime, people associated with the plane are tight-lipped. One PETS, Inc. attorney--Dean Plakias of Hill & Plakias of Dedham, Mass.--claimed ignorance (and not privilege) in refusing questions by the Boston Globe about PETS' doings, and gave a general answer when asked if PETS actually exists as a company: "Millions of companies are set up in Massachusetts that are just paper companies."

A Washington, D.C. attorney listed on a 1996 IRS form simply hung up the phone when asked about the question.

The plane was transferred, on December 1, 2004, to Bayard Foreign Marketing of Portland, Oregon. The plane has a new tail number, and its registered agent, Scott Caplan, did not return phone calls. And yes, like PETS, BFM is a questionable entity, too. Its sole listed corporate officer, one Leonard T. Bayard, has no residential or telephone history, and does not appear in other public records.

Comment:

See? Conspiracy theorists work too hard. The Washington Post is, after all, the newspaper that finally figured out that the bin Ladens were whisked out of the U.S. after 9/11 aboard a jet routinely chartered to carry the White House press corps. Perhaps the Danas (Priest and Milbank) crossed paths on this story.

And while we might join Michael Moore in chiding the press for taking three years to figure it out, well, it wasn't the conspiracy theorists who normally look for this kind of thing. Of course, those I have in mind might also be prone to declare that the War on Terror is a front, and the jet is really transporting EBE ambassadors from Zeta Reticuli on a tour of world leaders.

More to the point, though, all this article really tells me is that the CIA is not vigilant about renditions. The real questions, of course, surround the oft-repeated Scheuer chorus of, "Let someone else do the 'dirty' work". And even then I'm not sure how substantial things are. Let someone else do the dirty work? The story so far suggests we're picking people up to bring into our jurisdiction. If ____ nation gets hold of a terrorist first and does some dirty work, we would still have to prove the U.S. helped make it so.

Nonetheless, this is your CIA--behind the times, it would seem--in your War on Terror.
____________________

Notes:

Priest, Dana. "Jet is an Open Secret in Terror War". Washington Post, December 27, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html

Tiassa

12-29-04, 12:46 AM

Rumsfeld Gaffe Fuels Conspiracy Theorists
Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke when he said Flight 93 was shot down

A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html)

From a CNN transcript:

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.

CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html)

Well, the sentence is a grammatical train wreck, which always helps in the aftermath if you wish to claim misinterpretation or poor choice of words. As I read it, there are two problematic interpretations. One is that I might replace a comma with the word "or" in order to see what the conspiracy theorists see, or else I might take the clause about, "shot the plane down over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon," and all subsequent clauses to indicate a separation between the people who attacked New York. This, of course, relies on the transcriber's punctuation, which is very unreliable in this sense. That comma could represent the Secretary taking a breath.

Nonetheless, did he somehow confuse "crashed a plane" with "shot down a plane"? Are they essentially the same thing to him? Because even as a slip of truth, it makes no sense that the terrorists would have "shot down" a plane they believed themselves to be in control of. What, did they happen to have someone with a missile in just the right place when the passengers decided to roll?

How did the war get so boring that this is going on? The most important lesson to learn is for the administration: certainly the charm of incompetent speech might endear the candidate to the people enough to overcome other deficiencies, but that doesn't make up for the confusion it causes. Politics has made it dangerous to concede, "We know what he meant," even when such a concession is wise.

Conspiracy theorists need to ease off until they can fit this into a coherent theory. And given the lack of coherent conspiracy theories thus far, I'm not holding my breath.

Nonetheless, "Don, check yourself, man. That was ugly."

As for CNN's Jamie McIntyre ... what, was it a slow news day? Nothing else going on? Sure, 'tis the season, but ...?
____________________

Notes:

McIntyre, Jamie. "Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash". CNN.com, December 27, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html

Transcript. "News From CNN". CNN.com, December 24, 2004. See http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html

Tiassa

12-29-04, 07:10 AM

Another CIA Resignation
Opinions differ regarding the decision

The CIA's deputy director for intelligence, Jami Miscik, announced on Tuesday her resignation, effective February 4.

"Every [director of central intelligence] has a desire to have his own team in place to implement his vision and to offer him counsel," Miscik said in the e-mail. "This is a natural evolution of the leadership of our intelligence profession."

Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia29dec29,1,5697315.story)

According to the Los Angeles Times, the message sent by Miscik indicates that she is being forced out. The New York Times notes that "a former intelligence official" said that Miscik knew before Christmas that she was out, and the decision was not hers. The Washington Post plays down the notion, including language from the e-mail, and noting that its contact, a "U.S. official speaking on the condition of anonymity", did not comment on her reasons.

We in the civilian culture hear of rough relations, bruised egos, and there seems to be an itching desire to cast Porter Goss as a reckless Bushocrat. And while that may be true or not, it may also be beside the point. Regardless of who runs the agency, a few toes need to be stepped on and a few egos devastated. The CIA is a scapegoat right now for 9/11 and the Iraq war; that changes are occurring is expected and perhaps demanded. Only time will tell whether the changes made are proper or not. In the meantime, the critics will wail and gnash their teeth, but much like economic theory, the lamentations may merely be sentimental clinging to a comfortable way of doing things that is not necessarily the best.

Certainly, there is some concern that the agency might lose its most qualified personnel, but if that qualification comes according to the standard that allowed a smoking hole in Pennsylvania and another in New York, as well as denting the Pentagon, well, perhaps they're qualified according to an inappropriate standard. Just because one is an expert in an inefficient system does not qualify him as an efficiency expert.

We'll see. In the meantime, it's a battle of the nameless contacts.
____________________

Notes:

Miller, Greg. "Another Shoe Drops at CIA". LATimes.com, December 29, 2004. See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia29dec29,1,5697315.story

See Also

Jehl, Douglas. "Director of Analysis Branch at C.I.A. Is Being Removed". NYTimes.com, December 29, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/national/29intel.html

Guggenheim, Ken. "Head of Intelligence Analysis Latest to Resign at CIA". WashingtonPost.com, December 29, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32811-2004Dec29.html

Tiassa

12-31-04, 07:27 PM

Dept. of Justice Expands Definition of Torture
New statement comes a week before Gonzales confirmation hearing; former Clinton DoJ official suggests move could be genuine

A week before the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to consider the confirmation of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as Attorney General, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has released a statement redefining the government's stance on what constitutes torture.

The expanded definition may come in response to the political uproar caused by an August, 2002 memo overseen by Gonzales that drew international criticism for its licentious boundaries of torture.

"Clearly the release of this now is backfilling for Gonzales's confirmation hearing," said I. Michael Greenberger, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now heads the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "These memos have been a tremendous source of embarrassment to both Gonzales and the administration."

Greenberger said that recent accounts of widespread abuse at U.S. detention facilities -- including disclosures that military interrogation practices were sharply criticized over the past two years by FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel in the field -- have given ammunition to those within the administration who favor adherence to international norms against torture.

"It could be that this is not just a cynical ploy but a real sign of change," Greenberger said.

WashingtonPost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html)

The new standard will defuse a certain amount of criticism against Gonzales' association with the earlier memo, and deflect any need to examine the implications of that memo in terms of "current" guvernment policy.

A critic of the new policy is John Yoo, a contributing author to the 2002 memo whose contributions have been described as "shocking incompetence or criminal intent (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/07/MNGKP721F21.DTL)". A self-described "conservative professor", Yoo complained that the new standard "muddies the water", and makes it more difficult to figure out how the torture statute applies to interrogation methods. Seeing no connection between his work and the widespread prisoner abuses that transferred from Guantanamo to Iraq, Yoo said the 2002 memo was an attempt to "interpret the statute clearly".
___________________

Notes:

Smith, R. Jeffrey, and Dan Eggen. "Justice Expands 'Torture' Definition". Washington Post, December 31, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html