Thursday, September 28, 2006

"Detainee" Adoption Program

I think everybody who supports the torture bill (and that includes citizens) should be assigned an prisoner for whom they have the responsibility to torture.

My Letter to the Anchoress

(A conservative blogger who I have corresponded with in the past):

Dear Anchoress,

I must say I am extremely disappointed by your "agnosticism" on the question of torture.

When push came to shove, McCain et al voted AGAINST an amendment that would have put habeas protection back into the bill. Without habeas corpus, any rights are useless, because they can't be reviewed/vindicated in court (to even challenge the FACTUAL basis of the detention). There is a very sad and depressing article in last month's Harpers called American Gulag (it's not online, but I am sure you can find it in a library), which outlines the cases of dozens of people who were disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan, kept without charges for months, and tortured, ALL innocent. There was also the instance of a 12-year old boy who was detained with his father. Luckily, the little boy wasn't tortured.

The other odious thing about this bill is that it gives to the President and the Defense Department the right to declare as enemy combatants even US citizens who "materially support" enemies of ALLIES of the US.

So, theoretically, if you give money to a charity that, unbeknownst to you, passes that money on to enemies of the US or its allies, you could be declared an enemy combatant, a decision purportedly unreviewable by any court.

Marty Lederman's analysis:

"Most of the attention in the press has focused on subsection (i) of the definition, which would designate as an UEC any "person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces)." And that subsection is, indeed, broad, and fairly indeterminate, depending on how "materially supported hostilities" is interpreted (something that the Administration apparently could do without much or any judicial review).

But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all."

Here.

So EVERYONE, including you and I, are at risk.

And this is what water-boarding, which we have used, and may still be legal looks like:

Here.

As a fellow Christian and American, I must re-state that I am extremely disappointed by your agnosticism on torture and support of the bill that was passed today.

I pray for your and America's soul.

Respectfully,

Tom English
Jackson Heights
New York

More on Waterboarding

From HuffPost, David Corn:

The crux of the issue before Congress can be boiled down to a simple question: Is waterboarding torture? Anybody who considers this practice to be "torture lite" or merely a "tough technique" might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing "lite" about their methods. Incidentally, the waterboard in these photo wasn't merely one among many torture devices highlighted at the prison museum. It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting (the other was another form of water-torture--a tank that could be filled with water or other liquids; I have photos of that too.) There was an outdoor device as well, one the Khymer Rouge didn't have to construct: chin up bars. (The prison where the museum is located had been a school before the Khymer Rouge took over). These bars were used for "stress positions"-- another practice employed under current US guidelines. At the Khymer Rouge prison, there is a tank of water next to the bars. It was used to revive prisoners for more torture when they passed out after being placed in stress positions.

The similarity between practices used by the Khymer Rouge and those currently being debated by Congress isn't a coincidence. As has been amply documented ("The New Yorker" had an excellent piece, and there have been others), many of the "enhanced techniques" came to the CIA and military interrogators via the SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape]schools, where US military personnel are trained to resist torture if they are captured by the enemy. The specific types of abuse they're taught to withstand are those that were used by our Cold War adversaries. Why is this relevant to the current debate? Because the torture techniques of North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and its proxies--the states where US military personnel might have faced torture--were NOT designed to elicit truthful information. These techniques were designed to elicit CONFESSIONS. That's what the Khymer Rouge et al were after with their waterboarding, not truthful information.

The rest, with pictures.

Waterboarding

From Wikipedia:

The modern practice of waterboarding, characterized in 2005 by former CIA director Porter J. Goss as a "professional interrogation technique," involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. Journalists Brian Ross and Richard Esposito described the CIA's waterboarding technique as follows:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess.

In the United States, military personnel are taught this technique, to demonstrate how to resist enemy interrogations in the event of capture. According to Salon.com, SERE instructors shared their techniques with interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states:

[Dr. Keller] argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said.

On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual was adopted amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Ramble On

Led Zeppelin

The leaves are fallin' all around, time I was on my way
Thanks to you, I'm much obliged for such a pleasant stay
but now it's time for me to go, the autumn moon lights my way
for now I smell the rain, and with it, pain
and it's headin' my way
Aw, sometimes I grow so tired
but I know I've got one thing I got to do

A-ramble on, and now's the time, the time is now
Sing my song, I'm goin' 'round the world, I gotta find my girl
On my way, I've been this way ten years to the day
Ramble on, gotta find the queen of all my dreams

Got no time for spreadin' roots, the time has come to be gone
And though our health we drank a thousand times
it's time to ramble on

A-ramble on, and now's the time, the time is now
Sing my song, I'm goin' 'round the world
I've gotta find my girl
On my way, I've been this way ten years to the day
I gotta ramble on, I gotta find the queen of all my dreams
I tell you no lie

Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear
How years ago in days of old when magic filled the air
'twas in the darkest depths of Mordor, mm-I met a girl so fair
but Gollum and the evil one crept up and slipped away with her
her, her, yeah, yeah, and ain't nothin' I can do, no

I guess I'll keep on ramblin', I'm gonna
Sing my song/Sh-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah, I've gotta find my baby
I'm gonna ramble on, sing my song
Gonna work my way all around the world
Baby, baby/Ramble on, yeah

A-do-do-n-do-n-do-n-do, my baby/Baby
A-ramble on, baby
A-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-de-do-de-do-de-do-de-do-de, yeah, yeah/
I can't stop this feelin' in my heart
Everytime I feel I will leave, I really gotta part
Gotta keep searchin' for my baby/
Baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, babe
I've gotta keep a-searchin' for my baby
My, my, my, my, my, my, my baby/
Yeah-yeah, a-yeah-yeah, a-yeah-yeah
My, my, my, my, my, my baby/
Yeah-yeah, yeah-yeah, yeah-yeah, yeah-yeah, yeah-yeah
Ooh, my, my, my-my, my-my, my-my, yeah/
I can't find my bluebird, I'd listen to my bluebird sing
but I, I can't find my bluebird
I keep a-ramblin' baby/Ah, ah, yeah
I keep a-ramblin', baby/I keep, keep, keep, keep, keep
Babe, babe, babe, babe/
I keep a-ramblin', baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby/
My, my babe
Bay-ay-by/A-goodbye, goodbye, a-goodbye, baby
Well, something's wrong

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Fuck the Democrats

Pussies!!

Digby Nails It on American Torture

People and societies don't just wake up one morning to find they no longer recognize themselves. It's a process. And we are in the process in this country of "defining deviancy down" in ways I never thought possible. We are legitimizing torture and indefinite detention --- saying that we will only do this to the people who really deserve it. One cannot help but wonder what "really deserves it" will mean in the years to come as we fight our endless war against terror.

Sure, right now it's just a bunch of foreigners and I guess we don't feel foreigners are entitled to basic human rights. They must not be human --- or at least not as human as "we" are. In fact, it not even "we." Right wingers make millions of dollars writing books about how liberals are godless, death-loving, traitors within. Many people who read those books probably believe these liberals are only one step away from being sub-human too ---- they are, after all, godless traitors.

The rest.

Crossing the Rubicon

The new torture "compromise" represents our final slide into the category of rogue nation. We are now officially a nation that legalizes torture.

The "compromise" eliminates habeas review of "enemy combatant" detentions (who the President can determine very broadly), it amends and modifies the War Crimes Act so CIA officials are immune from prosecution from violations of Geneva from 1997 until now, and it also modifies the War Crimes Act so we could only prosecute "grave" violations of Geneva Common Article 3. Guess who determines what's grave??

The President.

And what did the Democrats do when our Nation's character was in the balance??

Nothing.

And the water-boarding continues...

Antonius describes exactly how I feel, other than kicking the gang of thugs in the balls.

I'm non-violent, after all.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today."

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Congratulations, New York Mets!!

2006 National League East Champions.

Chris, say Hi to Casey and Gil for me!!

Sunday, September 17, 2006

My Email to John Yoo

Dr. Yoo,

It is with great sadness that I read your Op-Ed in today's Times, "How the Presidency Regained Its Balance."

I am not even sure what Constitution you read in law school; it must have been missing a few pages.

Especially depressing was your gloss about official US torture: "It has detained terrorists without formal charges, interrogating some harshly."

Probably spending a lot of time in your office in Washington, and at Berkeley, you don't really know what that sentence means. It's not available online, but I suggest some good reading material for you this month is an article in this month's Harper's called "American Gulag." One of the specific cases it relates is of a man who was arrested (along with his 12-year old son), tortured, and released, because he (and presumably his son) hadn't done anything.

I am not going to rehearse the arguments against torture, but as one of the legal architects of our torture policy, I can only hope that some brave magistrate, in a country with universal jurisdiction over war crimes, serves you with process.

There is a direct line from your pen to water-boarding.

Tom English

Jackson Heights
New York

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
Winston Churchill

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Treadmills!

Monday, September 11, 2006

We have not forgotten, Mr. President. May this country forgive you.

Olbermann, again:

And lastly tonight a Special Comment on why we are here. Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space.

And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

And all the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and — as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul — two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me… this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft", or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here — is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante — and at worst, an idiot — whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However. Of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast — of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds… none of us could have predicted… this.

Five years later this space… is still empty.

Five years later there is no Memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country’s wound is still open.

Five years… later this country’s mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later… this is still… just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial — barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said "we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We can nto dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground." So we won’t.

Instead they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing — instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush… we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir — on these 16 empty acres, the terrorists… are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.

There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.

It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever "spin" 9/11.


Just as the terrorists have succeeded — are still succeeding — as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero…

So too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding — as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney’s continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm.

Suddenly his car — and only his car — starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man’s lights go on.

As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced.

An "alien" is shot — but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help.

The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials areseen, manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there’s no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it’s themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight.

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."


When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…

When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Video here.

The Rising

Bruce Springsteen

Can't see nothin' in front of me
Can't see nothin' coming up behind
I make my way through this darkness
I can't feel nothing but this chain that binds me
Lost track of how far I've gone
How far I've gone, how high I've climbed
On my back's a sixty pound stone
On my shoulder a half mile line

Come on up for the rising
Com on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

Left the house this morning
Bells ringing filled the air
Wearin' the cross of my calling
On wheels of fire I come rollin' down here

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

Li,li, li,li,li,li, li,li,li

Spirits above and behind me
Faces gone, black eyes burnin' bright
May their precious blood forever bind me
Lord as I stand before your fiery light

Li,li, li,li,li,li, li,li,li

I see you Mary in the garden
In the garden of a thousand sighs
There's holy pictures of our children
Dancin' in a sky filled with light
May I feel your arms around me
May I feel your blood mix with mine
A dream of life comes to me
Like a catfish dancin' on the end of the line

Sky of blackness and sorrow ( a dream of life)
Sky of love, sky of tears (a dream of life)
Sky of glory and sadness ( a dream of life)
Sky of mercy, sky of fear ( a dream of life)
Sky of memory and shadow ( a dream of life)
Your burnin' wind fills my arms tonight
Sky of longing and emptiness (a dream of life)
Sky of fullness, sky of blessed life ( a dream of life)

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

Li,li, li,li,li,li, li,li,li

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Led Zeppelin

So...it's been a VERY long time since I've posted any truly original content on this blog, and I know I can't skate by on reposting stuff I wrote almost five years ago.

The political situation has changed for the worse since I have actively blogged, and to be honest, I have had a real temptation to despair. Things just seem SO overwhelming, and it's not just politics, it's the killing and bloodshed my tax money pays for, the blood on my hands. I try to remain engaged, but sometimes I just get SO tired. (My personal life is fine--I just take the ideals of my country seriously.)

So--what have I been doing lately??

I have been rediscovering Led Zeppelin, the first band I was ever into. Back almost 30 years ago, I bought my first two rock albums. They were Led Zeppelin IV (Zoso, Untitled) and Love Gun, by Kiss (which had a cardboard "love gun" included). I was in seventh grade in Catholic school, and I remember my homeroom teacher, a 1970s nun, played Stairway to Heaven for us in class, and gave us a very Christian interpretation of the lyrics. As the lyrics are vaguely universalist, sure, that interpretation is plausible.

My parents did not give me a LOT of crap about my taste in music, yet, nonetheless, I felt a little embarrassed that the noise coming out of the speakers was mine, that I was ALLOWED to have my own tastes. (By the time I was in HS, I had gotten over that "fear" of "taste independence," and was confidently interested in what I was interested in.)

I got Physical Graffiti about the time it came out, and I think Houses of the Holy. I always thought it was weird that the song Houses of the Holy was on Physical Graffiti, and not on Houses of the Holy. My favorite song on Physical Graffiti was In the Light. Just WEIRD and cool stuff. And a week before I started HS, I bought In Through The Out Door, Zep's last studio album. In HS, though I didn't get into the rest of their catalog, it really was the background noise for many of those years.

Then, for a fairly long time, I just lost interest, and, I guess, in theory, I kind of hated them. They represent(ed) everything I don't like in music--long, long (sometimes bloated) songs. And I was never much for cock rock--I fancy myself a lover of power pop.

That changed earlier this year, when I picked up IV; it's always been their most accessible album. I was pleasantly surprised when I picked up Physical Graffiti--it still sounded STRANGE, but I remembered all the songs and liked most of them. On a friend's recommendation, I picked up How The West Was Won, and, yes, I know this is cliched, I was blown away, and, through the miracle of the same friend's MP3 collection, have been spending the past few days rediscovering their music.

Music always brings back strong memories, and I'm having fun reacquainting myself with my 15-year old self. With the benefit of 25 years of music listening, I can now see influences, and listen to things I've never listened to before in the recordings. Hammer of the Gods, indeed! And this time, I GET and LOVE Zep's presposterouness and occasional bloat. They are the kings of blooz!!

Valhalla, I am coming!!

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir??

Olbermann nails it again:

It is to our deep national shame—and ultimately it will be to the President’s deep personal regret—that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies—or even question their effectiveness or execution—to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.

Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 -- without ever actually saying so—the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, “a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.”

Make no mistake here—the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the “media.”

The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.

Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:

The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word—“media”—the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al-Qaeda propaganda.

That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.

Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.

We will not drink again.

And the President’s re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.

“In the 1920’s a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews,” President Bush said today, “the world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price.”

Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.

More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek—a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.

It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration’s recent Nazi “kick” is an awful and cynical thing.

And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:

“Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Monday, September 04, 2006

I Wrote This Four Years Ago...

...In response to a friend's email.

I wish I had been wrong.

August 22, 2002

<< Why would Iraq be concerned with justification one way
or another? Did Hussein wait for justification before
he took Kuwait? Or is Arab unification sufficient
justification? >>

Actually, it's not like Bush II is waiting for any justification to "take Saddam out." This has been a policy in search of a justification for the past ten years.

If it is a choice between ONE little Iraqi girl dying from American bombs or lower oil prices and the "honor" of the Bush family (which is what this has ALWAYS been about) I will choose the girl's life EVERY time.

Does anyone remember that Bush I's State Department essentially gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait (do an Internet search on April Glaspie)?

What is the evidence? We hear the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" every day. The argument, right now is this: "We know this Saddam guy is a really bad guy, and he is very keen to have weapons of mass destruction. We think he is probably doing a whole lot of research on them, though we are not sure how far along the research is or even if he has them. Did we mention that he
wants them? And there is that Osama guy. We haven't caught him yet, but (I know this is a long sentence, but bear with me, it's War!) he (if he is still alive) and Al-Quaeda would really love to have some anthrax, maybe a portable nuclear device, or some smallpox, or maybe even a Scud (or two). Once Saddam has completed creating his weapons of mass destruction which we are sure he
is making, he will get Osama on the horn (if he is still alive) and give Osama what he wants."

And when asked, how come we cannot bomb from the air, and why do we need an invasion force of 250,000, Rumsfeld chimes in: "these guys are so sneaky--even though we don't have complete evidence that Mr. Hussein has these weapons of mass destruction, it's because they are hidden and only a ground force will do."

All the above speculation and non-evidence neglects the fact that Saddam, a secular Persian dictator, wants nothing to do with Osama and the Islamists. (Though if we do invade, it actually makes it MORE likely Saddam and Osama will put their differences aside and become fast friends. It also makes it MORE likely that Saddam will use these weapons (if he has them).)

You might say, "But Tom, he has used gas on his own people." And I will say back at you that "he committed this war crime (which it was) when he was a U.S. client."

Where is the debate? Unfortunately I could not watch Mr. Senator Biden's hearings on Iraq this week, though I read a lot about them in the paper. On one hand, I am happy that at least some of this stuff is being talked about in public; on the other hand, the hearings seem to be a little bit of a charade. The only point of view that was represented was the one that had already decided that Saddam must be removed and that some sort of invasion
was inevitable. There was no-one there to refute that assumption. I really would have liked to have seen Scott Ritter (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/), the former UN weapons inspector testify. Instead, the hearings were just about means.

What does Bush and the Administration want out of this? Just Saddam dead? A pro-US (pro Big Oil) puppet? Parliamentary democracy? There is no sign that they have done any thinking about what a post-Saddam Iraq region would look like.

And there are many dangers. Turkey, a US ally (which just abolished the death penalty the other day) doesn't want the Iraqi Kurds getting too much freedom; their own Kurds might start getting some ideas. Not to worry--Mr. Cheney visited Turkey last month to give the Turkish government assurances that we don't really give a damn about the Kurds. But I though Mr. Bush was clear that one of the reasons for war is Saddam's treatment of the Kurds... . (I guess the only conclusion is that we'll use the Kurds to say Saddam killed a bunch of them, but when push comes to shove... .)

Other dangers--besides a likely collapse of the region into instability, there are other things to think about. What will Iran do? It's (at least rhetorically) part of the "Axis of Evil." At the very least, it might want some Iraqi territory. I do not know if that means it will enter what could very well become a general regional war, but I am sure the Administration knows, that's their job. What about Russia? Even though we won the Cold War, and are the only Hyper Power (I wish I had invented the term, but, alas, I did not! (http://www.wordspy.com/words/hyper-power.asp) left, Russia still has designs on the area. They have been building nuclear plants for Iran (though this week Putin said they might be stopping). What will they do? I am sure the Administration has figured that out.

All these things have to be discussed, IN PUBLIC, before we can even think about committing the country to a war like this. No-one in public life is asking or answering these questions. And whatever one thinks about the underlying issue(s), the Congress must not abdicate its power to declare war. We are not repelling an attack. Since the drumbeats of war have been beating at least since March, we have time, at the very least, for Congress to invoke the War Powers Act.

We (as citizens) have to ask: Is this war just? (Though I am not even sure if I buy just war theory anymore!!)

But it really all comes back to that girl and many like her who will die from bombs paid for by my tax dollars. I cannot, and I will never, support that.

If I am complaining, so be it. I could not live with myself if I didn't.