The White House has come out with teeth bared and guns blazing against the New York Times for letting the public know about a secret government program that involves domestic collection and surveillance of private banking information without court supervision. President Bush alleges that the publication of the news story was irresponsible and that it undermined his ‘war of terror.” The far right wing faction of the House of Representatives pushed through a “sense of the house” resolution publicly rebuking the New York Times for publishing the story. These actions reflect that the critics of the press may be operating in a different reality than the rest of us.
Historically, of course, the constitutional principle of freedom of the press has severely limited any government or political attempts to muffle news stories or suppress publication of important information. When the press has agreed to delay publication in the past, it has been based upon some demonstration that the publication would harm a public or governmental interests override the public’s right to know, at least temporarily. Disclosure of military offensives planned is a good example.
In an era when corporate management influence colored by close political ties and the power of influence peddlers has invaded the editorial offices of major media companies, the standards for suppressing news or burying coverage has shifted from demonstrated substantive harm toward political expediency. In some cases, politicians and their spinmeisters have brokered “access” to government officials in exchange for publishing or withholding stories based upon whether they are favorable to the government. Thus, in any such dispute, it would be fair to assume that the press would bend toward the Bush administration when the question is a close one. This instance was not even a close call.
Despite all the public condemnation and allegations, the Bush administration has yet to explain precisely how the publication of the story has caused any harm to any US citizen or legitimate governmental interest. The US government policy of interdiction of financial backing for individuals or organizations suspected of terrorist activities is hardly a secret or news event. The implicit assumption of that policy is that processes used to discover and interdict funding would be in compliance with US and international laws. The only “newsworthy” aspect of the story published by the New York Times was that the processes and methods used by the Bush administration in its secret surveillance program may be in violation of laws prohibiting domestic spying and requiring court supervision and oversight of searches and seizure of bank accounts.
If the information has been gathered legally, the Bush administration has a right to continue the program. The public still has a right to know about the types of governmental actions that are undertaken in its name and purportedly in its best interests. On the other hand, if the program and gathering of information is not in compliance with laws, the only harm to the Bush administration is that its illegal activities have been exposed. In all these atmospherics, no explanation has been advanced to show how the public awareness of the program could cause harm to any US citizen or promote any terrorist activity. The talismanic phrase, “damage to the war on terror,” rings more and more hollow. There is no substance to the claim. It sounds more like the Bush government is crying foul when caught with hand in the cookie jar. Embarrassing the government for violating the law is not a threat to national security; indeed it may represent the fulfillment of the constitutionally protected responsibility of the press to expose government activities that undermine principles of democracy. Once again, the New York Times has called attention to the question: Can you uphold and protect the "rule of law" by acting above the law and claiming the right to act in a lawless manner?
Friday, June 30, 2006
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Gerrymander and Quail Hunting in Texas
One thing that quail and gerrymandered voting districts have in common in the great state of Texas is that neither is very likely to get shot down, but there may be a few innocent human victims that suffer in the process.
“We the people, in order to form a less perfect union, dedicated to the proposition that some people are more equal that others, that to the victors go the spoils and that the pursuit of power is an end justifiable by any means. We are committed that said power be increased, consolidated and wielded for the purposed of preserving and growing the wealth of the few at the expense of the many. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall be available to those who can afford it and who are compliant with the will of those who wield said power.”
The foregoing is not the actual language of the Preamble to the United States Constitution, but it represents the “original intent” as construed by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. It is remarkably similar to the political platform of the Bush administration and the GOP that controls Congress.
Justice Scalia would have completely shut the door on any suits to challenge suppression or infringement of voting rights. However, the plurality of the Court found one instance in which the Voting Rights Act may still have some force and effect. When one Texas GOP controlled voting district boundaries were redrawn to excise about 100,000 Hispanic voters, the Court ruled that the Texas legislature had gone a bit too far. The Supreme Court also ruled, however, that states can redraw voting districts as frequently as they like, rather than every ten years based upon demographic changes reflected in the census.
What the ruling effectively means, by logical extension, is that if the Democrats [or any party other than the GOP] should take control of the Texas legislature, they could immediately turn around and redraw the voting district boundaries to reinforce their majority and prevent any other party from electing representatives to challenge their incumbent majority status. Entrenchment of power will be the order of the day, absent a virtual invasion in a short space of time that upsets the majority before the legislature has time to redraft the voting districts.
The unfortunate abdication of principle by the Supreme Court demonstrates a lessening of respect for the democratic principles upon which the country was founded. Since the structure of Congress was set up based upon stated principles, population in the House of Representatives and equal representation in the Senate, it would follow that the justification for revising and redrawing voting districts should be limited. Changes driven by political party agendas should not be allowed to justify extraordinary measures designed to prop up incumbents or achieve victories for one party or another. The framers of the US Constitution anticipated that voting districts would logically reflect demographic and geographic realities and protect voting integrity. At the inception, large voting districts existed because of population dispersion or density. Obviously if a community were to grow substantially larger, the concentration of population would call for splitting the area into more than one district so that the voice of each voter would carry roughly the same weight. But that presumptive equality or weight of each person’s vote was not supposed to reflect which political party they supported.
The subsequent distortion of the founder’s principles has been the target of the Voting Rights Act. Political opportunists found that if you carved up a Black community and put parts of it in several different voting districts, no district would wind up electing a Black candidate. That trick was called “dilution.” Another tactic was to take a pencil and use freehand to draw a line around areas whose residents tended to vote for a particular party, or what was known as “consolidation.” By combining these tactics, you could effectively splinter any opposition groups and aggregate supporters into separate districts whose elections results you could virtually guarantee. The Supreme Court now seems to be saying that it is now open season on voting district revisions. No need to wait for census data to show actual shifts in population or any other traditionally recognized limitation. Just carve those districts up to consolidate power in the majority party of the legislature. And you had better hurry, there is a mid term election coming up and the incumbents are facing serious trouble.
“We the people, in order to form a less perfect union, dedicated to the proposition that some people are more equal that others, that to the victors go the spoils and that the pursuit of power is an end justifiable by any means. We are committed that said power be increased, consolidated and wielded for the purposed of preserving and growing the wealth of the few at the expense of the many. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall be available to those who can afford it and who are compliant with the will of those who wield said power.”
The foregoing is not the actual language of the Preamble to the United States Constitution, but it represents the “original intent” as construed by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. It is remarkably similar to the political platform of the Bush administration and the GOP that controls Congress.
Justice Scalia would have completely shut the door on any suits to challenge suppression or infringement of voting rights. However, the plurality of the Court found one instance in which the Voting Rights Act may still have some force and effect. When one Texas GOP controlled voting district boundaries were redrawn to excise about 100,000 Hispanic voters, the Court ruled that the Texas legislature had gone a bit too far. The Supreme Court also ruled, however, that states can redraw voting districts as frequently as they like, rather than every ten years based upon demographic changes reflected in the census.
What the ruling effectively means, by logical extension, is that if the Democrats [or any party other than the GOP] should take control of the Texas legislature, they could immediately turn around and redraw the voting district boundaries to reinforce their majority and prevent any other party from electing representatives to challenge their incumbent majority status. Entrenchment of power will be the order of the day, absent a virtual invasion in a short space of time that upsets the majority before the legislature has time to redraft the voting districts.
The unfortunate abdication of principle by the Supreme Court demonstrates a lessening of respect for the democratic principles upon which the country was founded. Since the structure of Congress was set up based upon stated principles, population in the House of Representatives and equal representation in the Senate, it would follow that the justification for revising and redrawing voting districts should be limited. Changes driven by political party agendas should not be allowed to justify extraordinary measures designed to prop up incumbents or achieve victories for one party or another. The framers of the US Constitution anticipated that voting districts would logically reflect demographic and geographic realities and protect voting integrity. At the inception, large voting districts existed because of population dispersion or density. Obviously if a community were to grow substantially larger, the concentration of population would call for splitting the area into more than one district so that the voice of each voter would carry roughly the same weight. But that presumptive equality or weight of each person’s vote was not supposed to reflect which political party they supported.
The subsequent distortion of the founder’s principles has been the target of the Voting Rights Act. Political opportunists found that if you carved up a Black community and put parts of it in several different voting districts, no district would wind up electing a Black candidate. That trick was called “dilution.” Another tactic was to take a pencil and use freehand to draw a line around areas whose residents tended to vote for a particular party, or what was known as “consolidation.” By combining these tactics, you could effectively splinter any opposition groups and aggregate supporters into separate districts whose elections results you could virtually guarantee. The Supreme Court now seems to be saying that it is now open season on voting district revisions. No need to wait for census data to show actual shifts in population or any other traditionally recognized limitation. Just carve those districts up to consolidate power in the majority party of the legislature. And you had better hurry, there is a mid term election coming up and the incumbents are facing serious trouble.
No "High Road" For Bombing Your Way to Peace
Let’s see.....the Israeli military forces have occupied Palestinian territory for years, killed thousands of Palestinians suspected of being terrorists [including half a dozen innocent women and children in the past couple of weeks], caused severe deprivation for tens of thousands, conducted air strikes that bombed homes, and deliberately crippled the Palestinian self government efforts. The label of “suspected terrorist” includes anyone who is related to or may be acquainted with someone who may have engaged in a violent action against an Israeli civilian or military person. The Israelis have today launched air strikes in Gaza that resulted in shutting off power to most of the Gaza Strip [which deprives many of water that can only be supplied by electric pumps. We are supposed to accept that such actions are “purely defensive” measures and not hostile indiscriminate acts of an oppressive occupying regime. The Israeli actions are purportedly justified as measures to obtain the release of an abducted Israeli soldier, although it is difficult to understand how large scale air strikes are tailored to that purpose.
Palestinian militant forces conduct a strategic raid against a clearly defined military target and abduct a soldier. Israeli official spokesmen and US media call this raid a “terrorist” act by the Palestinians. The raid by factions allied with the Hamas military wing were unwise and ill timed, but it is difficult to rationally label the raid as “terrorist,” or anything but a counter action in resistance to military aggression that the Palestinian people have endured at the hands of the Israeli military. This strategic raid is to be distinguished from suicide bombers who infiltrate public markets and transit facilities to blow up civilian targets with the purpose and effect of causing terror and undermining any sense of public safety. Cowardly sending rocket propelled grenades into civilian neighborhoods is also a very different and reprehensible activity. The latter actions are clearly understood as “terrorist,” and are not justified under any set of laws or ethics. While Palestinian officials publicly renounce such activities, it is not evident taht they do much to stop the activities oe punish the wrongdoers.
The public duplicity and prevarication by both parties also hinders the peace process. A military raid by a group claiming to be part of the Hamas governing party was wrong, particularly in the face of a declared truce and efforts to adopt a formal resolution that could push the peace process forward through an acknowledgement by Hamas of an Israeli state. Large scale military incursions by Israeli forces based upon the thin subterfuge that it is trying to free an abducted soldier was wrong and ill-suited to achieving the stated objective or promoting the peace process. Actions on both sides are indicative of a desire to undermine rather than advance the cause of peace between the neighbors.
Killing and violence on both sides is wrong, and it will only end when both sides are able to step back and commit openly and honestly to a peace process that eschews immediate reaction and retaliation for every perceived grievance. This temperance is particularly important in an environment when each side tends to adopt a self-serving definition of the opponents’ actions while rationalizing their own misconduct and inappropriate actions.
The relatively recent Israeli “withdrawal” from the West Bank is a positive step forward, but it does not erase or absolve responsibility for past actions. Palestinian leaders have also taken some steps to support conditions for peace. None of these actions occurs in isolation or in a vacuum. Much depends upon one’s point of view. If Israelis have the unilateral right to exercise control over the lives, including the democratic self governing process and access to food, power and employment of Palestinians, then it makes sense that any act of resistance or “disobedience” by the controlled group would be viewed as wrong. If the Palestinians are a sovereign people who are being threatened with enslavement and possible elimination as a result of aggression by oppressive and illegal Israeli occupational forces, then any act of resistance to such enslavement can be seen as justified rebellion by “freedom fighters.” Neither view is entirely valid, nor entirely without historical foundation based upon years of conflict.
No amount of Palestinian resistance is likely to overcome the overwhelming resources and force the Israel military can bring to bear upon the Palestinian people and community. No amount of shelling, bombing and attacks upon Israeli targets, military or civilian, will bring peaceful co-existence or prosperity for the Palestinian people. Similarly, no amount of “retaliation” in the form of massive raids, bombing of civilian targets that result in what Israel calls “regrettable collateral casualties” will bring peace to Israeli citizens or lessen the anger and resentment against Israeli occupation and killing of Palestinians caused over the past decades [however the Israeli government attempts to euphemistically describe the actions]. The only thing that has a remote chance of changing the future is to change the present. If Israel wants peace, then it must begin to act in a peaceful manner, adopting diplomatic strategies and using force as a last, rather than first resort. If Palestinians seek justice and the end of oppression, they must begin to act in a just and humane manner befitting a sovereign people.
Hamas must find a way to act in a disciplined and constructive manner that justifies the trust Palestinian voters placed in the party in the latest election. The apparent split between the “diplomatic” and “military” Hamas wings is ineffective and unacceptable. If Hamas wishes to be viewed as a genuine “governing” authority, it must truly “govern” the Palestinian people, factions, territory and institutions. To be sure, the process of obtaining discipline among the highly splintered factions among Palestinians is a difficult and demanding one. As we see in Iraq, the existence of a formal military or police force does not immediately stop individual parties from attempting to exact vengeance and settle old scores. The mission of restraining such “vigilante” actions becomes a local peacekeeping matter.
Israel should acknowledge that this problem exists. Israel experienced similar problems attempting to confine the actions of the Jewish Defense League, whose militant factions engaged in violent and terrorist actions. If Israel wants to encourage peace, it should determine ways to support the local peacekeeping efforts instead of treating each incident as if it were a deliberate provocation by the central Palestinian government upon the state of Israel.
Israel must find a way to step back from the role of an irresponsible, arrogant bully that claims a prerogative to take any action it desires simply because it has superior military and economic resources. For every Israeli family that has been hurt or injured by Palestinian actions, there are at least five times as many Palestinians who could claim equal or greater injury. As a result, Israel should acknowledge that a break in the cycle of aggression and retaliation is required. Israel, with the greater power and resources, is in a better position to take the initiative to break that cycle. Denigration and public disparagement of the Palestinian fledgling government, including Hamas, does nothing to support a peace objective. At the same time that Israel must act with maturity, Hamas and the Palestinian leadership need to “grow up” and strive to act like responsible and mature leaders.
Israel claims that Hamas must acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence. [Israel refuses to renounce violence against Palestinian civilians, however.] Moreover, a recent move by Hamas and Fatah [the primary parties representing the Palestinian people] to formally adopt a resolution calling for a two state solution is being brushed aside by Israeli government spokesmen. Does it make sense for Israel to demand a concrete step toward peace and then reject the other side’s effort to take that step? Despite skepticism by some Israeli factions about the sincerity or effectiveness of the Hamas public change of position, to reject the move out of hand indicates that Israel is not acting in good faith in the so-called demands that it would impose upon Palestinians for progress toward peace. In other words, are the Israeli demands/ conditions phony?
The USA is particularly weak and ineffectual at this stage because the Bush administration policies have destroyed most of its credibility and international stature. Condoleeza Rice called for the Israeli government to exercise restraint and give diplomacy a chance in resolving the issue of the abducted Israeli soldier. That plea was promptly ignored, if it was even listened to at all, as Israel; launched massive raids in the Gaza Strip. Israel knows that it has the US virtually in its pocket and that the US government will back it in any action it chooses to take. Invasion, torture and killing of civilians may not be deliberate policy action by Israeli troops, but Israel knows that the USA has no moral authority to challenge such actions in light of US policies and activities in Iraq.
The solution, as is often the case, must come from within the hearts and minds of the parties directly involved. Outside influences can be helpful at times, but cannot control the result. If the Israeli people truly want peace, then they must send that mandate to their government. The courage demonstrated by Ariel Sharon when he almost completely changed his philosophy and attitudes toward achieving peace will be required. Firm resolve to acknowledge excesses and the lasting scars of past injuries, and a commitment to going forward despite past atrocities must be taken up by the Israeli people. Having survived the Holocaust, the leaders of the Jewish State should be in a particularly advantageous position to understand and empathize with the suffering of the Palestinian people. When Israel can step back and choose not to act as the oppressor, the change of direction I believe Sharon was headed, the fuel for Palestinian extremism is shut off.
Similar courage must be exercised by the leaders of Hamas and Fatah. We have seen few if any examples of Palestinian leadership taking aggressive and disciplinary action against individuals who have engaged in violence against Israeli civilians. How many Palestinians truly believe that the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is prepared to step up to the genuine role of a negotiating party equal to Israel in working toward a peace solution? We have seen Hamas declare a truce in order to allow negotiations to proceed, but it appears that individual incidents of rockets fired into Israeli communities near the border continued without serious repercussions from Palestinian police forces. The value of a promise comes from a commitment to honor it, and the will to act in accordance with assurances that the promise will be kept. Israel has a legitimate basis for skepticism about the commitment and the ability of the Palestinian government to police Palestinians. However, interfering with the Palestinian government’s ability to enforce discipline and undermining the reasons for Palestinian extremists to lay down arms is not in Israel’s long term interest.
Palestinian militant forces conduct a strategic raid against a clearly defined military target and abduct a soldier. Israeli official spokesmen and US media call this raid a “terrorist” act by the Palestinians. The raid by factions allied with the Hamas military wing were unwise and ill timed, but it is difficult to rationally label the raid as “terrorist,” or anything but a counter action in resistance to military aggression that the Palestinian people have endured at the hands of the Israeli military. This strategic raid is to be distinguished from suicide bombers who infiltrate public markets and transit facilities to blow up civilian targets with the purpose and effect of causing terror and undermining any sense of public safety. Cowardly sending rocket propelled grenades into civilian neighborhoods is also a very different and reprehensible activity. The latter actions are clearly understood as “terrorist,” and are not justified under any set of laws or ethics. While Palestinian officials publicly renounce such activities, it is not evident taht they do much to stop the activities oe punish the wrongdoers.
The public duplicity and prevarication by both parties also hinders the peace process. A military raid by a group claiming to be part of the Hamas governing party was wrong, particularly in the face of a declared truce and efforts to adopt a formal resolution that could push the peace process forward through an acknowledgement by Hamas of an Israeli state. Large scale military incursions by Israeli forces based upon the thin subterfuge that it is trying to free an abducted soldier was wrong and ill-suited to achieving the stated objective or promoting the peace process. Actions on both sides are indicative of a desire to undermine rather than advance the cause of peace between the neighbors.
Killing and violence on both sides is wrong, and it will only end when both sides are able to step back and commit openly and honestly to a peace process that eschews immediate reaction and retaliation for every perceived grievance. This temperance is particularly important in an environment when each side tends to adopt a self-serving definition of the opponents’ actions while rationalizing their own misconduct and inappropriate actions.
The relatively recent Israeli “withdrawal” from the West Bank is a positive step forward, but it does not erase or absolve responsibility for past actions. Palestinian leaders have also taken some steps to support conditions for peace. None of these actions occurs in isolation or in a vacuum. Much depends upon one’s point of view. If Israelis have the unilateral right to exercise control over the lives, including the democratic self governing process and access to food, power and employment of Palestinians, then it makes sense that any act of resistance or “disobedience” by the controlled group would be viewed as wrong. If the Palestinians are a sovereign people who are being threatened with enslavement and possible elimination as a result of aggression by oppressive and illegal Israeli occupational forces, then any act of resistance to such enslavement can be seen as justified rebellion by “freedom fighters.” Neither view is entirely valid, nor entirely without historical foundation based upon years of conflict.
No amount of Palestinian resistance is likely to overcome the overwhelming resources and force the Israel military can bring to bear upon the Palestinian people and community. No amount of shelling, bombing and attacks upon Israeli targets, military or civilian, will bring peaceful co-existence or prosperity for the Palestinian people. Similarly, no amount of “retaliation” in the form of massive raids, bombing of civilian targets that result in what Israel calls “regrettable collateral casualties” will bring peace to Israeli citizens or lessen the anger and resentment against Israeli occupation and killing of Palestinians caused over the past decades [however the Israeli government attempts to euphemistically describe the actions]. The only thing that has a remote chance of changing the future is to change the present. If Israel wants peace, then it must begin to act in a peaceful manner, adopting diplomatic strategies and using force as a last, rather than first resort. If Palestinians seek justice and the end of oppression, they must begin to act in a just and humane manner befitting a sovereign people.
Hamas must find a way to act in a disciplined and constructive manner that justifies the trust Palestinian voters placed in the party in the latest election. The apparent split between the “diplomatic” and “military” Hamas wings is ineffective and unacceptable. If Hamas wishes to be viewed as a genuine “governing” authority, it must truly “govern” the Palestinian people, factions, territory and institutions. To be sure, the process of obtaining discipline among the highly splintered factions among Palestinians is a difficult and demanding one. As we see in Iraq, the existence of a formal military or police force does not immediately stop individual parties from attempting to exact vengeance and settle old scores. The mission of restraining such “vigilante” actions becomes a local peacekeeping matter.
Israel should acknowledge that this problem exists. Israel experienced similar problems attempting to confine the actions of the Jewish Defense League, whose militant factions engaged in violent and terrorist actions. If Israel wants to encourage peace, it should determine ways to support the local peacekeeping efforts instead of treating each incident as if it were a deliberate provocation by the central Palestinian government upon the state of Israel.
Israel must find a way to step back from the role of an irresponsible, arrogant bully that claims a prerogative to take any action it desires simply because it has superior military and economic resources. For every Israeli family that has been hurt or injured by Palestinian actions, there are at least five times as many Palestinians who could claim equal or greater injury. As a result, Israel should acknowledge that a break in the cycle of aggression and retaliation is required. Israel, with the greater power and resources, is in a better position to take the initiative to break that cycle. Denigration and public disparagement of the Palestinian fledgling government, including Hamas, does nothing to support a peace objective. At the same time that Israel must act with maturity, Hamas and the Palestinian leadership need to “grow up” and strive to act like responsible and mature leaders.
Israel claims that Hamas must acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence. [Israel refuses to renounce violence against Palestinian civilians, however.] Moreover, a recent move by Hamas and Fatah [the primary parties representing the Palestinian people] to formally adopt a resolution calling for a two state solution is being brushed aside by Israeli government spokesmen. Does it make sense for Israel to demand a concrete step toward peace and then reject the other side’s effort to take that step? Despite skepticism by some Israeli factions about the sincerity or effectiveness of the Hamas public change of position, to reject the move out of hand indicates that Israel is not acting in good faith in the so-called demands that it would impose upon Palestinians for progress toward peace. In other words, are the Israeli demands/ conditions phony?
The USA is particularly weak and ineffectual at this stage because the Bush administration policies have destroyed most of its credibility and international stature. Condoleeza Rice called for the Israeli government to exercise restraint and give diplomacy a chance in resolving the issue of the abducted Israeli soldier. That plea was promptly ignored, if it was even listened to at all, as Israel; launched massive raids in the Gaza Strip. Israel knows that it has the US virtually in its pocket and that the US government will back it in any action it chooses to take. Invasion, torture and killing of civilians may not be deliberate policy action by Israeli troops, but Israel knows that the USA has no moral authority to challenge such actions in light of US policies and activities in Iraq.
The solution, as is often the case, must come from within the hearts and minds of the parties directly involved. Outside influences can be helpful at times, but cannot control the result. If the Israeli people truly want peace, then they must send that mandate to their government. The courage demonstrated by Ariel Sharon when he almost completely changed his philosophy and attitudes toward achieving peace will be required. Firm resolve to acknowledge excesses and the lasting scars of past injuries, and a commitment to going forward despite past atrocities must be taken up by the Israeli people. Having survived the Holocaust, the leaders of the Jewish State should be in a particularly advantageous position to understand and empathize with the suffering of the Palestinian people. When Israel can step back and choose not to act as the oppressor, the change of direction I believe Sharon was headed, the fuel for Palestinian extremism is shut off.
Similar courage must be exercised by the leaders of Hamas and Fatah. We have seen few if any examples of Palestinian leadership taking aggressive and disciplinary action against individuals who have engaged in violence against Israeli civilians. How many Palestinians truly believe that the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is prepared to step up to the genuine role of a negotiating party equal to Israel in working toward a peace solution? We have seen Hamas declare a truce in order to allow negotiations to proceed, but it appears that individual incidents of rockets fired into Israeli communities near the border continued without serious repercussions from Palestinian police forces. The value of a promise comes from a commitment to honor it, and the will to act in accordance with assurances that the promise will be kept. Israel has a legitimate basis for skepticism about the commitment and the ability of the Palestinian government to police Palestinians. However, interfering with the Palestinian government’s ability to enforce discipline and undermining the reasons for Palestinian extremists to lay down arms is not in Israel’s long term interest.
Friday, June 23, 2006
"Homegrown Terrorists"
Oh how we would like to believe that the exposure of the fledgling “plot” of “Homegrown Terrorists” is actually a product of a successful criminal justice and anti-terrorist investigation. As odd as it may sound, we should be hopeful that the men charged actually posed a potential threat to homeland security.
The federal authorities, led by a public appearance of no less than the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, announced the indictment of seven men who convened in a warehouse in South Miami and allegedly conspired to bomb key sites and “kill as many devils” as they could. The group was infiltrated by a government informant who posed as an Al Qaeda operative and offered the group assistance and potential affiliation with the highly publicized terrorist group. Most of the quotes used from the indictment are from the informant, including hearsay statements from an alleged leader of the Miami group. When captured and arrested, the group had no weapons or any explosives in their possession, the only photographic material they were reported to have was from equipment that was given to them by the government informant who asked them to make the videos and photos.
Again, it is impossible to look into the minds and hearts of these men accused of the nefarious plot of terror. There were apparently no detailed plans or evidence of communications setting up any terrorist activity, other than communications with the government informant. Perhaps these men intended, at some time in the future to hatch a plot to actually bomb the Sears tower and the Miami FBI Building. If we are to have any faith in the integrity of our government, we can only hope that is the case. One can fairly predict that the legal case for these alleged “terrorists” will not be decided before November of this year. It would be disheartening to find out that the government case was weak or without merit and that the case of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts pursued against these men must be thrown out of court. So we can only hope that there is some validity to the case.
From external appearances, however, this seems to be more oriented toward creating publicity and the appearance of a successful event. As late as May 24, according to the indictment, the government informant was in contact with the group and aware that they were not progressing toward any concrete activity that posed a threat. Even at the time of arrest, the government concedes that they posed no imminent threat. The public hoopla thus reminds us of the “yellow alerts” that were issued during the GOP Convention in New York, designed to manipulate the media and public hysteria, but having no basis in any credible or tangible threat to public safety.
The timing of the spectacular arrest is also a bit disconcerting. The activities of the group were known since the beginning of the year. Yet only after the announcement that Karl Rove was off the hook for federal indictment in the Plamegate matter, and public announcement that he is back in the driver’s seat to direct GOP public strategy, do we see this event. What would normally be a small time bust of low level wannabe terrorists, similar to the many busts of gangs and criminal theft rings in Miami, has been blown up into a national news event warranting an appearance by the Attorney General. One will have to forgive a mild bit of skepticism. Clearly, Rove needs to do "something" to try to prop up the abysmal ratings clinging to President Bush for months. We also know that Rove is capable of anything in pursuit of that mission, no matter how illegal or or unethical the tactic may be. And, after all, Gonzalez is about to be called on the carpet by the Senate Judiciary Committee so he can again refuse to answer questions about the administration's policy of ignoring civil rights, statutory protections and even specific statutes enacted by congress [through the President's use of "signing statements"]. So a bit of positive PR is needed at this point.
To demonstrate how warped our sensibilities have become, however, this small group of seven unarmed individuals, who authorities concede did not pose any "imminent threat," did pose more of an actual threat to the US and its citizens than did Saddam Hussein and his regime. At least they were located in the Unites States and there appears to be some credible evidence that they may have been attempting to secure a weapon of mass destruction [ie materials to bomb a federal building]. In the case of Saddam Hussein, neither factor was evident or proved to be true. But for the fact that his brother is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, the Bush administration may have sought an invasion of Florida and regime change. In the “war on terror” we seem to be seriously divorced from reality and to have lost all rational sense of proportionality. But all we can do now is grasp at straws, and hope that there is some basis for convicting the Florida "Homegrown Terrorists" of criminal conspiracy. If that is not possible, maybe we can convict them of something, even if it is only trespassing in an industrial warehouse or spitting on the sidewalk.
The federal authorities, led by a public appearance of no less than the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, announced the indictment of seven men who convened in a warehouse in South Miami and allegedly conspired to bomb key sites and “kill as many devils” as they could. The group was infiltrated by a government informant who posed as an Al Qaeda operative and offered the group assistance and potential affiliation with the highly publicized terrorist group. Most of the quotes used from the indictment are from the informant, including hearsay statements from an alleged leader of the Miami group. When captured and arrested, the group had no weapons or any explosives in their possession, the only photographic material they were reported to have was from equipment that was given to them by the government informant who asked them to make the videos and photos.
Again, it is impossible to look into the minds and hearts of these men accused of the nefarious plot of terror. There were apparently no detailed plans or evidence of communications setting up any terrorist activity, other than communications with the government informant. Perhaps these men intended, at some time in the future to hatch a plot to actually bomb the Sears tower and the Miami FBI Building. If we are to have any faith in the integrity of our government, we can only hope that is the case. One can fairly predict that the legal case for these alleged “terrorists” will not be decided before November of this year. It would be disheartening to find out that the government case was weak or without merit and that the case of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts pursued against these men must be thrown out of court. So we can only hope that there is some validity to the case.
From external appearances, however, this seems to be more oriented toward creating publicity and the appearance of a successful event. As late as May 24, according to the indictment, the government informant was in contact with the group and aware that they were not progressing toward any concrete activity that posed a threat. Even at the time of arrest, the government concedes that they posed no imminent threat. The public hoopla thus reminds us of the “yellow alerts” that were issued during the GOP Convention in New York, designed to manipulate the media and public hysteria, but having no basis in any credible or tangible threat to public safety.
The timing of the spectacular arrest is also a bit disconcerting. The activities of the group were known since the beginning of the year. Yet only after the announcement that Karl Rove was off the hook for federal indictment in the Plamegate matter, and public announcement that he is back in the driver’s seat to direct GOP public strategy, do we see this event. What would normally be a small time bust of low level wannabe terrorists, similar to the many busts of gangs and criminal theft rings in Miami, has been blown up into a national news event warranting an appearance by the Attorney General. One will have to forgive a mild bit of skepticism. Clearly, Rove needs to do "something" to try to prop up the abysmal ratings clinging to President Bush for months. We also know that Rove is capable of anything in pursuit of that mission, no matter how illegal or or unethical the tactic may be. And, after all, Gonzalez is about to be called on the carpet by the Senate Judiciary Committee so he can again refuse to answer questions about the administration's policy of ignoring civil rights, statutory protections and even specific statutes enacted by congress [through the President's use of "signing statements"]. So a bit of positive PR is needed at this point.
To demonstrate how warped our sensibilities have become, however, this small group of seven unarmed individuals, who authorities concede did not pose any "imminent threat," did pose more of an actual threat to the US and its citizens than did Saddam Hussein and his regime. At least they were located in the Unites States and there appears to be some credible evidence that they may have been attempting to secure a weapon of mass destruction [ie materials to bomb a federal building]. In the case of Saddam Hussein, neither factor was evident or proved to be true. But for the fact that his brother is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, the Bush administration may have sought an invasion of Florida and regime change. In the “war on terror” we seem to be seriously divorced from reality and to have lost all rational sense of proportionality. But all we can do now is grasp at straws, and hope that there is some basis for convicting the Florida "Homegrown Terrorists" of criminal conspiracy. If that is not possible, maybe we can convict them of something, even if it is only trespassing in an industrial warehouse or spitting on the sidewalk.
A “Nastier, Meaner and More Intolerant” Nation
Several pieces of recent news information came together that struck me as both interesting and instructive. Many will recall how the “American People” [a term that is frequently tossed about as if it had some ascertainable definition] were promised a “Kinder, Gentler and More Compassionate” kind of conservatism in government. That was the marketing message of the GOP at election time to obtain votes from citizens who were cautious about the tendency of past GOP initiatives to cut social and educational programs in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy and favoritism in the award of government contracts to large GOP campaign contributors.
Flash forward to the most recent announcements of the GOP controlled Congress regarding their activities and priorities. A group of GOP Representatives have derailed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, a measure that was to have received bipartisan support from House and Senate leaders. The Voting Rights Act was passed in the wake of strong and concerted efforts in some states to intimidate, exclude and suppress voter turnout [particularly among voters of color] and to restrict voting and ballot access. Unfortunately, more than three decades later we find the urgent need for continuation and extension of such legislation because the political machines of the electoral process require enforced morality in the absence of any internal moral compass. Witness the recent criminal conviction of New Hampshire GOP political operatives for dirty tricks including jamming voter registration and get out the vote phone operations in connection with the 2004 primary for the national election. This sizeable cadre of GOP representatives seeks to block passage of the Voting Rights Act because it would provide ballot and voting assistance to eligible voters who lack english language proficiency. An obvious ethnic targeting device, the move is an attempt to exploit sentiment being stirred in this country against immigrants.
The failure of the Immigration Reform compromise legislation that was apparently supported by the White House can also be traced to this racist and ethnic bias sentiment that is being fostered and stoked by the GOP. The compromise sought to address the real world circumstances of millions of undocumented persons already in this country who are technically “illegal” and who are working and paying taxes into the system. The overwhelming majority of these “illegal aliens” are otherwise law abiding [probably moreso than the public at large because of their fear of drawing attention to themselves] and are providing labor to employers eager to hire them. The right wing GOP zealots contend that any measure that would allow these immigrants the chance of becoming citizens would constitute “amnesty” and would be unacceptable. They say nothing about enforcement of laws against companies and employers who provide jobs and wages to the same immigrants, ignoring the fact that if there were no prospect of employment, most of the immigrants would not come to the US in the first place. So the hostility toward illegal immigrants is not really based upon any rational “law and order” argument or any anti terrorist safety rationale, but rather upon simple ethnic and racial bias. This conclusion is confirmed by the nearly complete absence of similar border control and anti immigrant hostility respecting visitors from Canada, almost all of whom are white.
The GOP controlled House was able, however, to push forward a couple of measures that also demonstrate their priorities in this election year. They passed a measure that would allow the President an effective line item veto respecting spending measures. The idea is to allow the President to select out spending authorization measures that may have been introduced into legislation to obtain Democratic compromise for the Bill and cut those measures. The primary expected targets would be social and education measures such as college loans, medical program support for the elderly and indigent and other “safety net” types of measures. This legislation that the House is sending to the Senate is touted as a measure to help control spending. This excuse prompted Rep. Miller from California to remark that in a GOP controlled Congress, with a GOP President, to suggest that such help was needed to “control spending” sounded like a bit from Comedy Central.
On the flip side, the House passed a measure to remove the Estate tax from a large segment of eligible transactions passing large estates through probate. The Senate had balked at eliminating the Estate tax completely, in the face of strong and vocal nationwide opposition to this measure intended to benefit the super wealthy. However, the House views the current measure as an attempt to make good, at least partially, on their promise and commitment to their right wing elite contributors as they go into campaign contribution solicitations for the upcoming fall elections.
The shift of the government and the people of this country toward a meaner, nastier and more intolerant nation seems to have gathered substantial momentum as we head for the fall elections. This momentum can only be countered by active participation in the voting booth by eligible voters who reject that philosophy. The GOP Congress and the President are fond of justifying their actions by stating publicly that they are doing what the “American People” want. The plebiscite in the fall of 2006 will go a long way toward clarifying what kind of nation and what kinds of priorities the people of this nation truly desire. We can only hope that the electoral process has not been so corrupted that the actual people of American can get to the polls and be allowed to vote so that their voice will actually reflect the will of the “American People.”
Flash forward to the most recent announcements of the GOP controlled Congress regarding their activities and priorities. A group of GOP Representatives have derailed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, a measure that was to have received bipartisan support from House and Senate leaders. The Voting Rights Act was passed in the wake of strong and concerted efforts in some states to intimidate, exclude and suppress voter turnout [particularly among voters of color] and to restrict voting and ballot access. Unfortunately, more than three decades later we find the urgent need for continuation and extension of such legislation because the political machines of the electoral process require enforced morality in the absence of any internal moral compass. Witness the recent criminal conviction of New Hampshire GOP political operatives for dirty tricks including jamming voter registration and get out the vote phone operations in connection with the 2004 primary for the national election. This sizeable cadre of GOP representatives seeks to block passage of the Voting Rights Act because it would provide ballot and voting assistance to eligible voters who lack english language proficiency. An obvious ethnic targeting device, the move is an attempt to exploit sentiment being stirred in this country against immigrants.
The failure of the Immigration Reform compromise legislation that was apparently supported by the White House can also be traced to this racist and ethnic bias sentiment that is being fostered and stoked by the GOP. The compromise sought to address the real world circumstances of millions of undocumented persons already in this country who are technically “illegal” and who are working and paying taxes into the system. The overwhelming majority of these “illegal aliens” are otherwise law abiding [probably moreso than the public at large because of their fear of drawing attention to themselves] and are providing labor to employers eager to hire them. The right wing GOP zealots contend that any measure that would allow these immigrants the chance of becoming citizens would constitute “amnesty” and would be unacceptable. They say nothing about enforcement of laws against companies and employers who provide jobs and wages to the same immigrants, ignoring the fact that if there were no prospect of employment, most of the immigrants would not come to the US in the first place. So the hostility toward illegal immigrants is not really based upon any rational “law and order” argument or any anti terrorist safety rationale, but rather upon simple ethnic and racial bias. This conclusion is confirmed by the nearly complete absence of similar border control and anti immigrant hostility respecting visitors from Canada, almost all of whom are white.
The GOP controlled House was able, however, to push forward a couple of measures that also demonstrate their priorities in this election year. They passed a measure that would allow the President an effective line item veto respecting spending measures. The idea is to allow the President to select out spending authorization measures that may have been introduced into legislation to obtain Democratic compromise for the Bill and cut those measures. The primary expected targets would be social and education measures such as college loans, medical program support for the elderly and indigent and other “safety net” types of measures. This legislation that the House is sending to the Senate is touted as a measure to help control spending. This excuse prompted Rep. Miller from California to remark that in a GOP controlled Congress, with a GOP President, to suggest that such help was needed to “control spending” sounded like a bit from Comedy Central.
On the flip side, the House passed a measure to remove the Estate tax from a large segment of eligible transactions passing large estates through probate. The Senate had balked at eliminating the Estate tax completely, in the face of strong and vocal nationwide opposition to this measure intended to benefit the super wealthy. However, the House views the current measure as an attempt to make good, at least partially, on their promise and commitment to their right wing elite contributors as they go into campaign contribution solicitations for the upcoming fall elections.
The shift of the government and the people of this country toward a meaner, nastier and more intolerant nation seems to have gathered substantial momentum as we head for the fall elections. This momentum can only be countered by active participation in the voting booth by eligible voters who reject that philosophy. The GOP Congress and the President are fond of justifying their actions by stating publicly that they are doing what the “American People” want. The plebiscite in the fall of 2006 will go a long way toward clarifying what kind of nation and what kinds of priorities the people of this nation truly desire. We can only hope that the electoral process has not been so corrupted that the actual people of American can get to the polls and be allowed to vote so that their voice will actually reflect the will of the “American People.”
Monday, June 19, 2006
Wind in The Willows - a Democratic Platform?
"Why is a Democrat like a windmill?" the man asked his little son. The boy thought a moment and replied: "because no matter which way the wind is blowing, they just keep going around in circles." Out of the mouths of babes, they say.
With the House GOP leadership indicted or under investigation for unethical or fraudulent conduct, the Senate Majority Leader under investigation for securities fraud and the approval rating of the White house trying to climb to a subterranean level of 35%, why are the Democrats unable to articulate a clear message and vision to capitalize on the current situation and seize the initiative that could regain leadership? One begins to wonder whether the very spirit of elected Democratic representatives has been broken by the GOP regime, and that they too buy into the notion that the function of government is corruption, distribution of spoils and aggregation of power at the expense of civil rights and liberties.
Hillary Clinton, the putative front runner for Presidential candidate in 2008 backs off from a challenge to demand that the Bush administration establish a clear and definitive plan for bringing an end to US troop involvement in Iraq. John Kerry sponsors a motion to declare the sense of the Senate that troops should be withdrawn by the end of the year under a strategy publicly advances by Jack Murtha as an "over the horizon" deployment. However, only 5 other democratic senators have signed onto the measure.
Where is the Democratic outcry for a formal investigation into the domestic wiretapping program of the Bush administration? The thoroughly debated, amply documented and carefully written legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act, sets up specific procedures and minimal safeguards for the protection of civil rights of US citizens who may be targeted or ensnared in domestic surveillance and wiretapping. The White House has admitted that it has ignored these statutory safeguards and has no intention of abiding by the law passed by Congress. Where is the risk in exposing any legislator of any political strip who fails to call for holding violators of the law accountable? Yet Democrats seem absent with out leave.
The American people are slowly waking up to the substantial loss of their rights and liberties. Despite the gross failures of the media to act as watchdogs and uncompromising spotlights on the shadowy activities of government, the American people are beginning to realize that something, many things in fact, are seriously wrong with the way this country is being run and the direction in which it is headed.
But as Thomas Jefferson once noted, "the People, sir, is a beast." The public must be led in order to achieve anything substantial. That leadership may be venal and corrupt, or it could be principled and devoted to the public good. The job of a democratic government is to give the people an opportunity to choose which type of leadership they prefer. If the voting and electoral process has not already been too corrupted to reflect the actual choice of the people, a question not entirely free from doubt if one reads the detailed accounts of election fraud in Ohio and Florida, then two things are necessary.
First, candidates must be identified and supported who are truly more interested in public service for the benefit of the people rather than to reward friends and cash in personally at the expense of the government and the people. Those candidates must then be armed with an articulate and consisted principled message that demonstrates the direction and vision of this nation toward which they would lead the People as a beast. Simply waiting to see which way the wind blows and spinning wheels is not leadership and will not assist the People in any meaningful way.
With the House GOP leadership indicted or under investigation for unethical or fraudulent conduct, the Senate Majority Leader under investigation for securities fraud and the approval rating of the White house trying to climb to a subterranean level of 35%, why are the Democrats unable to articulate a clear message and vision to capitalize on the current situation and seize the initiative that could regain leadership? One begins to wonder whether the very spirit of elected Democratic representatives has been broken by the GOP regime, and that they too buy into the notion that the function of government is corruption, distribution of spoils and aggregation of power at the expense of civil rights and liberties.
Hillary Clinton, the putative front runner for Presidential candidate in 2008 backs off from a challenge to demand that the Bush administration establish a clear and definitive plan for bringing an end to US troop involvement in Iraq. John Kerry sponsors a motion to declare the sense of the Senate that troops should be withdrawn by the end of the year under a strategy publicly advances by Jack Murtha as an "over the horizon" deployment. However, only 5 other democratic senators have signed onto the measure.
Where is the Democratic outcry for a formal investigation into the domestic wiretapping program of the Bush administration? The thoroughly debated, amply documented and carefully written legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act, sets up specific procedures and minimal safeguards for the protection of civil rights of US citizens who may be targeted or ensnared in domestic surveillance and wiretapping. The White House has admitted that it has ignored these statutory safeguards and has no intention of abiding by the law passed by Congress. Where is the risk in exposing any legislator of any political strip who fails to call for holding violators of the law accountable? Yet Democrats seem absent with out leave.
The American people are slowly waking up to the substantial loss of their rights and liberties. Despite the gross failures of the media to act as watchdogs and uncompromising spotlights on the shadowy activities of government, the American people are beginning to realize that something, many things in fact, are seriously wrong with the way this country is being run and the direction in which it is headed.
But as Thomas Jefferson once noted, "the People, sir, is a beast." The public must be led in order to achieve anything substantial. That leadership may be venal and corrupt, or it could be principled and devoted to the public good. The job of a democratic government is to give the people an opportunity to choose which type of leadership they prefer. If the voting and electoral process has not already been too corrupted to reflect the actual choice of the people, a question not entirely free from doubt if one reads the detailed accounts of election fraud in Ohio and Florida, then two things are necessary.
First, candidates must be identified and supported who are truly more interested in public service for the benefit of the people rather than to reward friends and cash in personally at the expense of the government and the people. Those candidates must then be armed with an articulate and consisted principled message that demonstrates the direction and vision of this nation toward which they would lead the People as a beast. Simply waiting to see which way the wind blows and spinning wheels is not leadership and will not assist the People in any meaningful way.
"Credibility Gap" the news and information bureau in Baghdad
There is a new name that aptly describes that area formerly referred to as the "Green Zone" or "International Zone" in central Baghdad. It is now more appropriately called "Credibility Gap" referring to the piece of real estate that connects the official status of activities in Iraq with the rest of the world. You will recall that President Bush returned from a suprise visit and "photo of" trip to Baghdad to smile for the cameras and tell the public and media how much things are improving in his mission to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and win the global war on terror. Perhaps, we should take a moment to read a little background information on how the American Embassy personnel who actually serve in Baghdad assessed the current circumstances. It would be futile to ask the reader to reconcile the two. But the striking differences raise anew the question whether our President is deceitful or delusional. Either the public is being deliberately lied to, or the President actually believes what he is saying. Neither options presents much hope for the US or Iraq, or for the next 2500 American soldiers who will die in Iraq and the thousands who will be injured as the Bush administration pursues its "stay the course" mentality.
Consider the following news report published in Editor & publisher" and in the "Washington Post."
"Wash Post" Obtains Shocking Memo from US Embassy in Baghdad, Details Increasing Danger and Hardship
By Greg Mitchell
Editor & Publisher
Sunday 18 June 2006
New York - The Washington Post has obtained a cable, marked "sensitive," that it says show that just before President Bush left on a surprise trip last Monday to the Green Zone in Baghdad for an upbeat assessment of the situation there, "the U.S. Embassy in Iraq painted a starkly different portrait of increasing danger and hardship faced by its Iraqi employees."
This cable outlines, the Post reported Sunday, "the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees' constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government."
It's actually far worse than that, as the details published below indicate, which include references to abductions, threats to women's rights, and "ethnic cleansing."
A PDF copy of the cable shows that it was sent to the SecState in Washington, D.C. from "AMEmbassy Baghdad" on June 6. The typed name at the very bottom is Khalilzad - the name of the U.S. Ambassador, though it is not known if this means he wrote the memo or merely approved it.
The subject of the memo is: "Snapshots from the Office - Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord."
As a footnote in one of the 23 sections, the embassy relates, "An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militiast are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq."
Among the other troubling reports:
"Personal safety depends on good relations with the 'neighborhood' governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."
One embassy employee had a brother-in-law kidnapped. Another received a death threat, and then fled the country with her family.
Iraqi staff at the embassy, beginning in March and picking up in May, report "pervasive" harassment from Islamic and/or militia groups. Cuts in power and rising fuel prices "have diminished the quality of life." Conditions vary but even upscale neighborhoods "have visibly deteriorated" and one of them is now described as a "ghost town."
Two of the three female Iraqis in the public affairs office reported stepped-up harassment since mid-May.... "Some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative." One of the women is now wearing a full ABA after receiving direct threats.
It has also become "dangerous" for men to wear shorts in public and "they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts." People who wear jeans in public have also come under attack.
Embassy employees are held in such low esteem their work must remain a secret and they live with constant fear that their cover will be blown. Of nine staffers, only four have told their families where they work. They all plan for their possible abductions. No one takes home their cell phones as this gives them away. One employee said criticism of the U.S. had grown so severe that most of her family believes the U.S. "Is punishing populations as Saddam did."
Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials.
"For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff members for translation at on-camera press events.... We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their 'cover.'"
"More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate."
The overall environment is one of "frayed social networks," with frequent actual or perceived insults. None of this is helped by lack of electricity. "One colleague told us he feels 'defeated' by circumstances, citing his example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in stifling heat," which is now reaching 115 degrees.
"Another employee tell us that life outside the Green Zone has become 'emotionally draining.' He lives in a mostly Shiite area and claims to attend a funeral 'every evening.'"
Fuel lines have grown so long that one staffer spent 12 hours in line on his day off. "Employees all confirm that by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without.... One staff member reported that a friend lives in a building that houses a new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day."
The cable concludes that employees' "personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels, despite talk of reconciliation by officials."
The final line of the Cable is:
Consider the following news report published in Editor & publisher" and in the "Washington Post."
"Wash Post" Obtains Shocking Memo from US Embassy in Baghdad, Details Increasing Danger and Hardship
By Greg Mitchell
Editor & Publisher
Sunday 18 June 2006
New York - The Washington Post has obtained a cable, marked "sensitive," that it says show that just before President Bush left on a surprise trip last Monday to the Green Zone in Baghdad for an upbeat assessment of the situation there, "the U.S. Embassy in Iraq painted a starkly different portrait of increasing danger and hardship faced by its Iraqi employees."
This cable outlines, the Post reported Sunday, "the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees' constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government."
It's actually far worse than that, as the details published below indicate, which include references to abductions, threats to women's rights, and "ethnic cleansing."
A PDF copy of the cable shows that it was sent to the SecState in Washington, D.C. from "AMEmbassy Baghdad" on June 6. The typed name at the very bottom is Khalilzad - the name of the U.S. Ambassador, though it is not known if this means he wrote the memo or merely approved it.
The subject of the memo is: "Snapshots from the Office - Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord."
As a footnote in one of the 23 sections, the embassy relates, "An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militiast are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq."
Among the other troubling reports:
"Personal safety depends on good relations with the 'neighborhood' governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."
One embassy employee had a brother-in-law kidnapped. Another received a death threat, and then fled the country with her family.
Iraqi staff at the embassy, beginning in March and picking up in May, report "pervasive" harassment from Islamic and/or militia groups. Cuts in power and rising fuel prices "have diminished the quality of life." Conditions vary but even upscale neighborhoods "have visibly deteriorated" and one of them is now described as a "ghost town."
Two of the three female Iraqis in the public affairs office reported stepped-up harassment since mid-May.... "Some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative." One of the women is now wearing a full ABA after receiving direct threats.
It has also become "dangerous" for men to wear shorts in public and "they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts." People who wear jeans in public have also come under attack.
Embassy employees are held in such low esteem their work must remain a secret and they live with constant fear that their cover will be blown. Of nine staffers, only four have told their families where they work. They all plan for their possible abductions. No one takes home their cell phones as this gives them away. One employee said criticism of the U.S. had grown so severe that most of her family believes the U.S. "Is punishing populations as Saddam did."
Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials.
"For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff members for translation at on-camera press events.... We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their 'cover.'"
"More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate."
The overall environment is one of "frayed social networks," with frequent actual or perceived insults. None of this is helped by lack of electricity. "One colleague told us he feels 'defeated' by circumstances, citing his example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in stifling heat," which is now reaching 115 degrees.
"Another employee tell us that life outside the Green Zone has become 'emotionally draining.' He lives in a mostly Shiite area and claims to attend a funeral 'every evening.'"
Fuel lines have grown so long that one staffer spent 12 hours in line on his day off. "Employees all confirm that by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without.... One staff member reported that a friend lives in a building that houses a new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day."
The cable concludes that employees' "personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels, despite talk of reconciliation by officials."
The final line of the Cable is:
Saturday, June 17, 2006
"Squandering" in Iraq
Pundits and spinmeisters are fond of tossing around rhetoric about the United States’ “mission” in Iraq. Setting aside for the moment the problem of defining precisely what that “mission” is in light of developments and present circumstances, the rhetoric obscures some more fundamental issues. The term “squandered” is a prime example. Supporters of the Bush administration in Congress argue that the lives of more than 2500 US military personnel would be “squandered” if the US were to adopt a strategy and plan to exit Iraq before the “mission” is accomplished. Such use of the term is neither apposite nor useful.
In the first instance, no loss of life in an unnecessary military intervention is justified. Whether or not the US invasion of Iraq is deemed “illegal” in the context of international law, there is consensus that it was not essential or necessary. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq presented no imminent threat to the United States or any of its allies. If the term “squandered” is intended to suggest that the loss of lives of US military personnel has been trivialized, then the responsibility for that act of squandering must be laid at the doorstep of the White House, where the order to place them in harm’s way was issued. The argument that more lives must be sacrificed in a dubious and unfocused mission in order to validate the lives lost is absurd and disrespectful. If there is a defined objective that is vital to the US interests and requires military force to achieve, then continuing to place soldiers in harms way may be justified. But the use of precious lives that have already been lost to justify the loss of still more lives is cynical and reprehensible.
In contrast, an appropriate use of the term “squandered” would be in connection with the irresponsible and unnecessary waste of US stature and credibility as a result of the administration and US military handling of reports of incidents of misconduct by US forces. Events that would otherwise be viewed as positive developments in Iraq are marred by questions that continually arise about the conduct of coalition forces. More importantly, the US is powerless to put those questions to rest because it lacks any credibility. The death of Zarqawi is a good example. Initial reports that he was killed in a bombing raid represented a positive development that a major leader in the Al Qaida led forces in Iraq has been taken out or “eliminated.” Later eyewitness reports revealed that Zarqawi did not die immediately from the bomb blasts. An eyewitness reported that he saw US and coalition forces beating a man that closely resembled Zarqawi by stomping on his chest and striking him with rifle butts until blood came out of his nose and ears. The US was required to backtrack and disclose that the Al Qaida leader did not in fact die immediately from the bomb blast, but that he had in fact been in custody and alive. Revised reports from US military spokesmen stated that the coalition forces were trying to “provide medical attention” to Zarqawi and to clear a breathing passage when he expired. The US military promptly dispatched a medical team to perform a US controlled autopsy of the body to “determine the cause of death.”
The subsequent autopsy did little to resolve the cloud of suspicion surrounding the final minutes of Zarqawi’s life. The US officials declared that he died of “massive trauma to his lungs.” That analysis is equally consistent with trauma from the bomb blast as with blunt force trauma of the type described by the eyewitness. Which version is accurate will probably never be known, absent an independent investigation involving sworn testimony by the coalition personnel present at the scene. That is extremely unlikely to happen. One would hope that the coalition forces acted humanely and made sincere attempts to take Zarqawi prisoner, rather than “finish him off.” In any event, this confusion derives from the many instances in which the US military forces and US led coalition forces have been involved in abusive and inhumane conduct, including executions, torture and mistreatment of detainees and civilians. More to the point, the repeated attempt to cover up and failure to hold commanding officers accountable for misconduct that has been established leaves the US with no credibility in responding to or defending the actions of its forces.
If there is any truth to the professed “mission” of the Bush administration, or at least one version of that mission, that the invasion was necessary to deliver the Iraqi people from a brutal and inhumane regime of Saddam Hussein and install a democratic government that would provide stability and progress for the Iraqi people, that “mission” is seriously undermined by the failure of top US military leaders to control and discipline its forces. That mission would be dependent upon garnering the trust and support of the Iraqi people in the objectives. What we now see is a large majority [reportedly in excess of 70%] of Iraqi people who want the US out of Iraq as soon as possible. The frequently stated reason is that the present chaos and civil war is worse for the Iraqi people than their condition under the Saddam Hussein regime. Many in the US, particularly hard-core Bush supporters firmly believe that Iraq is better off after the regime change. However, the critical factor is whether Iraqis believe that to be the case. The only realistic prospect of winning that belief and confidence is to begin to address the situation in Iraq honestly and responsibly, rather than through propaganda, rhetoric and dissembling. Whether the Bush administration and its cadre of media apologists are capable of this task remains an open question.
In the first instance, no loss of life in an unnecessary military intervention is justified. Whether or not the US invasion of Iraq is deemed “illegal” in the context of international law, there is consensus that it was not essential or necessary. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq presented no imminent threat to the United States or any of its allies. If the term “squandered” is intended to suggest that the loss of lives of US military personnel has been trivialized, then the responsibility for that act of squandering must be laid at the doorstep of the White House, where the order to place them in harm’s way was issued. The argument that more lives must be sacrificed in a dubious and unfocused mission in order to validate the lives lost is absurd and disrespectful. If there is a defined objective that is vital to the US interests and requires military force to achieve, then continuing to place soldiers in harms way may be justified. But the use of precious lives that have already been lost to justify the loss of still more lives is cynical and reprehensible.
In contrast, an appropriate use of the term “squandered” would be in connection with the irresponsible and unnecessary waste of US stature and credibility as a result of the administration and US military handling of reports of incidents of misconduct by US forces. Events that would otherwise be viewed as positive developments in Iraq are marred by questions that continually arise about the conduct of coalition forces. More importantly, the US is powerless to put those questions to rest because it lacks any credibility. The death of Zarqawi is a good example. Initial reports that he was killed in a bombing raid represented a positive development that a major leader in the Al Qaida led forces in Iraq has been taken out or “eliminated.” Later eyewitness reports revealed that Zarqawi did not die immediately from the bomb blasts. An eyewitness reported that he saw US and coalition forces beating a man that closely resembled Zarqawi by stomping on his chest and striking him with rifle butts until blood came out of his nose and ears. The US was required to backtrack and disclose that the Al Qaida leader did not in fact die immediately from the bomb blast, but that he had in fact been in custody and alive. Revised reports from US military spokesmen stated that the coalition forces were trying to “provide medical attention” to Zarqawi and to clear a breathing passage when he expired. The US military promptly dispatched a medical team to perform a US controlled autopsy of the body to “determine the cause of death.”
The subsequent autopsy did little to resolve the cloud of suspicion surrounding the final minutes of Zarqawi’s life. The US officials declared that he died of “massive trauma to his lungs.” That analysis is equally consistent with trauma from the bomb blast as with blunt force trauma of the type described by the eyewitness. Which version is accurate will probably never be known, absent an independent investigation involving sworn testimony by the coalition personnel present at the scene. That is extremely unlikely to happen. One would hope that the coalition forces acted humanely and made sincere attempts to take Zarqawi prisoner, rather than “finish him off.” In any event, this confusion derives from the many instances in which the US military forces and US led coalition forces have been involved in abusive and inhumane conduct, including executions, torture and mistreatment of detainees and civilians. More to the point, the repeated attempt to cover up and failure to hold commanding officers accountable for misconduct that has been established leaves the US with no credibility in responding to or defending the actions of its forces.
If there is any truth to the professed “mission” of the Bush administration, or at least one version of that mission, that the invasion was necessary to deliver the Iraqi people from a brutal and inhumane regime of Saddam Hussein and install a democratic government that would provide stability and progress for the Iraqi people, that “mission” is seriously undermined by the failure of top US military leaders to control and discipline its forces. That mission would be dependent upon garnering the trust and support of the Iraqi people in the objectives. What we now see is a large majority [reportedly in excess of 70%] of Iraqi people who want the US out of Iraq as soon as possible. The frequently stated reason is that the present chaos and civil war is worse for the Iraqi people than their condition under the Saddam Hussein regime. Many in the US, particularly hard-core Bush supporters firmly believe that Iraq is better off after the regime change. However, the critical factor is whether Iraqis believe that to be the case. The only realistic prospect of winning that belief and confidence is to begin to address the situation in Iraq honestly and responsibly, rather than through propaganda, rhetoric and dissembling. Whether the Bush administration and its cadre of media apologists are capable of this task remains an open question.
Friday, June 09, 2006
GOP says: No Bad News About Poverty, or Don't Ask and Don't Tell
The GOP and Bush administration have found a new application for the cliché that “what we don’t know can’t hurt us.” Despite the fact that the cliché is a proven fallacy, it does have its uses in political strategy, which we know often diverges from truth and logic. The new initiative is to eliminate, by cutting its funding, the official Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation. The survey is a repeated assessment of public information and attitudes on how income changes affect poverty status, health coverage and use of government services. The survey results provide the only longitudinal data routinely used by Congress in developing and reshaping legislation regarding poverty and social service programs. The survey acts kind of like headlights for a legislative vehicle driving in the dark. Unfortunately, the same survey results also provide a picture of the status of poverty in this country and the effectiveness or failure of economic and social service policies. This is where the GOP stratagem comes into play.
They reason that we should stop collecting reliable information that shows: that poverty is increasing, that there are millions of families and children without health care, that senior citizens are having increasing difficulty surviving on social security and that Medicare is failing to service its intended constituency. If the public and Congress do not have reliable information that evidences failures of the Bush administration and the GOP controlled Congress in addressing the basic needs and concerns of the American people, then they cannot hold the GOP accountable for those failures. The Bush administration will be free to claim that “all is well” and that poverty is declining and that senior citizens are pleased with the changes in Medicare and prescription drug regulations. After all, it is arguably true that when Bush and his colleagues examine their well stocked larders, sumptuous dinners on their silver bedecked tables and their on call private physicians and access to prescriptions for free, all paid for by the public, life is "very good" from their perspective.
When critics challenge those rosy elitist assessments, the GOP can simply reply that there is no “reliable evidence” to prove that they are lying to the public. So what ["they"] the public does not know won’t hurt ["us"] the GOP come the November 2006 elections. Besides, those critics are just "sore losers" because Bush "won" the presidency and the GOP captured control of Congress. This has become a very pressing issue when repeated polling results show that about 24% of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing, and the Bush approval rating has stagnated around 33% of the public. If you cannot or refuse to actually adopt beneficial economic policies that promote the well being of the populace, you can always turn to the maxim that "perception is reality." After all, it has worked for the Bush folks before in the face of blatant falsehoods, you know, "we do not engage in or condone torture" and "we do not engage in spying or eavesdropping on American citizens." So why not take another run from the same old playbook.
Although you can fool some of the people all of the time, it is very difficult to fool all of the people all of the time. Remember that dwindling but very diehard GOP "base" of 33% that will swallow as gospel anything the White House dishes out. Truthful information has a way of leaking out and causing embarrassment to those who are spreading convenient lies. But Vice President Dick Cheney has a solution for that contingency. He is prepared to declare all factual data showing that Americans are experiencing increased pressure from the ravages of poverty and the lack of health care to be “classified secret” government information. Public disclosure of such information would threaten "national security." Then if members of the media attempt to disclose such information to the public, they can be arrested and jailed under the new laws adopted to protect "Homeland Security". It is all very neat and tidy, and it is always good to have a backup plan. It makes sense too, if "national security" is defined as a delusional sense of well being and complacency, even if generated by deceit and misinformation. Indeed the White House spokesman is prepared to announce that this new initiative is a beneficial conservation program involving recycling. They are reusing the old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That should get rid of those pesky poverty and health care issues.
They reason that we should stop collecting reliable information that shows: that poverty is increasing, that there are millions of families and children without health care, that senior citizens are having increasing difficulty surviving on social security and that Medicare is failing to service its intended constituency. If the public and Congress do not have reliable information that evidences failures of the Bush administration and the GOP controlled Congress in addressing the basic needs and concerns of the American people, then they cannot hold the GOP accountable for those failures. The Bush administration will be free to claim that “all is well” and that poverty is declining and that senior citizens are pleased with the changes in Medicare and prescription drug regulations. After all, it is arguably true that when Bush and his colleagues examine their well stocked larders, sumptuous dinners on their silver bedecked tables and their on call private physicians and access to prescriptions for free, all paid for by the public, life is "very good" from their perspective.
When critics challenge those rosy elitist assessments, the GOP can simply reply that there is no “reliable evidence” to prove that they are lying to the public. So what ["they"] the public does not know won’t hurt ["us"] the GOP come the November 2006 elections. Besides, those critics are just "sore losers" because Bush "won" the presidency and the GOP captured control of Congress. This has become a very pressing issue when repeated polling results show that about 24% of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing, and the Bush approval rating has stagnated around 33% of the public. If you cannot or refuse to actually adopt beneficial economic policies that promote the well being of the populace, you can always turn to the maxim that "perception is reality." After all, it has worked for the Bush folks before in the face of blatant falsehoods, you know, "we do not engage in or condone torture" and "we do not engage in spying or eavesdropping on American citizens." So why not take another run from the same old playbook.
Although you can fool some of the people all of the time, it is very difficult to fool all of the people all of the time. Remember that dwindling but very diehard GOP "base" of 33% that will swallow as gospel anything the White House dishes out. Truthful information has a way of leaking out and causing embarrassment to those who are spreading convenient lies. But Vice President Dick Cheney has a solution for that contingency. He is prepared to declare all factual data showing that Americans are experiencing increased pressure from the ravages of poverty and the lack of health care to be “classified secret” government information. Public disclosure of such information would threaten "national security." Then if members of the media attempt to disclose such information to the public, they can be arrested and jailed under the new laws adopted to protect "Homeland Security". It is all very neat and tidy, and it is always good to have a backup plan. It makes sense too, if "national security" is defined as a delusional sense of well being and complacency, even if generated by deceit and misinformation. Indeed the White House spokesman is prepared to announce that this new initiative is a beneficial conservation program involving recycling. They are reusing the old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That should get rid of those pesky poverty and health care issues.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Bush Call For "Assimilation"
President Bush, in a thinly veiled campaign whistle stop in Omaha, Nebraska, recently proclaimed that immigrants must learn to speak English and "assimilate" into this country by adopting "American values." The venue was chosen because of the local rumblings of discontent with the rise of Hispanic population [including immigrants]. The locals have expressed frustration about Hispanics who have taken meat packing jobs and farming jobs. The venue was also chosen to lend to support for a Republican challenger to Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson by exploiting a divisive issue.
That the speech was spoon fed to Bush is rather likely because he probably could not spell the word "assimilate" and almost certainly does not know the true meaning and implication of the term. Indeed, it could be argued that Bush should consider practicing what he preaches with regard to getting a solid command of the english language and a thorough understanding of American history. Often tongue tied and frequently off the mark when allowed to speak publicly, Bush could be a poster child for the policies he proclaims.
The more serious concern is that the "assimilation" campaign and policy is a step backward for America and an appeal to racist attitudes. In social and political circles, there has long been a continuing debate regarding the "assimilation" versus "melting pot" theories of social integration. Though this debate may be over the intellectual level of President Bush, it is important to understand in assessing policies advanced by his administration. Assimilation is a social strategy that requires new entrants into a society to suppress and submerge their heritage and ethnicity in order to adopt and mimic the culture and habits of the majority group in the new locale. The new entrants must act and try to look like the majority group in order to "fit in" and be "assimilated." The melting pot theory suggests that new entrants retain their ethnicity, heritage and cultural values while learning the mores and values of the locale. While conforming to the basic standards of conduct, laws and regulations of the new area they inhabit, they contribute to the mosaic of that community by introducing new ideas, customs and traditions. In addition, the melting pot theory encourages tolerance of other cultures while assimilation encourages conformity and intolerance for those who look and act differently from the majority or "norm."
This new proclamation represents an insidious and potentially dangerous call to intolerance and bigotry. It also directly conflicts with progress toward more universal public acceptance of globalism that this country needs in order to survive and compete in the future. There is no harm in promoting english language proficiency. English is one of the primary languages of business throughout the world. However, in virtually every other country of the world, students are raised to be bilingual and multilingual. This mindset of becoming proficient in multiple languages arms these young people with skills that will enable them to compete more effectively in business and social spheres throughout their lives. This culture of multilingualism is considered a positive value.
In contrast, the Bush policy suggests that a person in America who does not speak english well is to be looked down upon and not accepted as an equal person, not really an "American." Individuals raised in ethnic homes whose native tongue is not english, but who may have even sacrificed their children or loved ones in the service of this country are, under the Bush philosophy, only quasi Americans because of their failure to attain full command of the english language. Such a philosophy is not supportive of or representative of what many would consider "American values." Perhaps in the eye of the beholder we must concede that the country has not reached agreement on what "American values" really are. Are immigrants being encouraged to adopt bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and divisiveness? Or are they to be encouraged to adopt tolerance, inclusiveness and a sense of acceptance in a blended cultural community? These are the questions that should be raised in response to President Bush's call for "assimilation."
That the speech was spoon fed to Bush is rather likely because he probably could not spell the word "assimilate" and almost certainly does not know the true meaning and implication of the term. Indeed, it could be argued that Bush should consider practicing what he preaches with regard to getting a solid command of the english language and a thorough understanding of American history. Often tongue tied and frequently off the mark when allowed to speak publicly, Bush could be a poster child for the policies he proclaims.
The more serious concern is that the "assimilation" campaign and policy is a step backward for America and an appeal to racist attitudes. In social and political circles, there has long been a continuing debate regarding the "assimilation" versus "melting pot" theories of social integration. Though this debate may be over the intellectual level of President Bush, it is important to understand in assessing policies advanced by his administration. Assimilation is a social strategy that requires new entrants into a society to suppress and submerge their heritage and ethnicity in order to adopt and mimic the culture and habits of the majority group in the new locale. The new entrants must act and try to look like the majority group in order to "fit in" and be "assimilated." The melting pot theory suggests that new entrants retain their ethnicity, heritage and cultural values while learning the mores and values of the locale. While conforming to the basic standards of conduct, laws and regulations of the new area they inhabit, they contribute to the mosaic of that community by introducing new ideas, customs and traditions. In addition, the melting pot theory encourages tolerance of other cultures while assimilation encourages conformity and intolerance for those who look and act differently from the majority or "norm."
This new proclamation represents an insidious and potentially dangerous call to intolerance and bigotry. It also directly conflicts with progress toward more universal public acceptance of globalism that this country needs in order to survive and compete in the future. There is no harm in promoting english language proficiency. English is one of the primary languages of business throughout the world. However, in virtually every other country of the world, students are raised to be bilingual and multilingual. This mindset of becoming proficient in multiple languages arms these young people with skills that will enable them to compete more effectively in business and social spheres throughout their lives. This culture of multilingualism is considered a positive value.
In contrast, the Bush policy suggests that a person in America who does not speak english well is to be looked down upon and not accepted as an equal person, not really an "American." Individuals raised in ethnic homes whose native tongue is not english, but who may have even sacrificed their children or loved ones in the service of this country are, under the Bush philosophy, only quasi Americans because of their failure to attain full command of the english language. Such a philosophy is not supportive of or representative of what many would consider "American values." Perhaps in the eye of the beholder we must concede that the country has not reached agreement on what "American values" really are. Are immigrants being encouraged to adopt bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and divisiveness? Or are they to be encouraged to adopt tolerance, inclusiveness and a sense of acceptance in a blended cultural community? These are the questions that should be raised in response to President Bush's call for "assimilation."
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Poll: Tolerance Toward Immigrants Increasing
In a world and in times where so little of the reported news could be considered 'good" news, there comes a report of an apparent rise in the level of tolerance for immigrants, and the perception that immigrants are a positive influence in their adopted communities. This perception runs counter to the appeals and exhortations to bigotry and ethnocentricism of the GOP and the far right base of the GOP party faithful. The Bush Administration has painted immigrants a threat to the American workforce, a threat to national security, and even proclaimed that singing the National Anthem in a foreign language [so that an immigrant might express the same sentiment of patriotic loyalty in words that he or she fully understands] is a threat to the social fabric and history of this nation. Unfortunately, Bush was a low "C" student at Yale and probably learned little of the actual history and founding of this nation, built as it was upon the hopes and aspirations of immigrants who spoke different languages but were bound together by a common purpose.
Perhaps the news report is a signal of a popular backlash against the bigotry and intolerance that has permeated the White House and Congressional leadership offices. It is possible that the American people are beginning to feel that enough is enough. There is a simple truth that it is harder to hate someone that you know personally, than to hate and fear someone that you know little about. As Americans grow more acquainted with immigrants and experience personal relationships that belie the stereotypical aspersions, the public appeal to the baser negative emotions of Americans may be losing impact. We might even go so far as to project that the American people will reject leaders that play to hatred, bigotry and intolerance and select leaders who give more than lip service to the promise of uniting the people of this land. And these thoughts may be a pipe dream. But the value of good news is that it restores some measure of hope. And that is a resource in short supply after years of GOP control and corruption which has led to our current state of despair.
Perhaps the news report is a signal of a popular backlash against the bigotry and intolerance that has permeated the White House and Congressional leadership offices. It is possible that the American people are beginning to feel that enough is enough. There is a simple truth that it is harder to hate someone that you know personally, than to hate and fear someone that you know little about. As Americans grow more acquainted with immigrants and experience personal relationships that belie the stereotypical aspersions, the public appeal to the baser negative emotions of Americans may be losing impact. We might even go so far as to project that the American people will reject leaders that play to hatred, bigotry and intolerance and select leaders who give more than lip service to the promise of uniting the people of this land. And these thoughts may be a pipe dream. But the value of good news is that it restores some measure of hope. And that is a resource in short supply after years of GOP control and corruption which has led to our current state of despair.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Fiddling Around With Same Sex Marriage Amendment
I am prone to think in metaphors. Upon reading the news about George W. Bush publicly pronouncing his "policy initiative" of a proposed amendment to ban same sex marriages, I thought immediately of Nero, fiddling merrily as Rome burned to ashes about him. Nero, as the story goes, was so detached from reality and so mad with a sense of his own infallibility that he devoted his attention to amusing himself and his close circle of sycophants while the core of his empire was aflame and falling to destruction. Neglect of his responsibilities as the leader and steward of the Roman Empire led to both internal decay and vulnerability to external threats. Yet Nero, in his stubborn arrogance, refused to listen to advisors or respected critics and played on with his fiddle.
Our modern day American Emperor also fails to heed the serious warnings of deterioration of this country’s infrastructure, suffering of citizens not fortunate enough to live in the top 5% income bracket, and demise of respect for the country among leaders of other world powers and lesser players on the global stage. The fresh example of the Katrina disaster still has not been adequately addressed as we head into this year's hurricane season. The deficit is larger than ever in the history of the nation, yet Bush seeks to further bankrupt the country with tax cuts and continued resource drains in the Iraq conflict. Bush has no plan for resolving or ending US involvement, and says that such decisions will be left for his successor to clean up. One by one the "Coalition of the Willing" forces in Iraq are dwindling, as country after another abandons the US and withdraws their participation in the unpopular and unfocused conflict. The US cannot even muster the support of other superpowers over resolution to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. While the US empire may not currently be literally in flames, the heat of the embers of a coming conflagration are apparent to anyone with the awareness to see the signs and to feel the level of discomfort among the American people.
Looking back over the past 50 years, I have tried to recall or imagine an instance in which the issue of “gay marriage” has or could actually have affected my life in any concrete negative sense. Try as I might, I could not remember a single instance in which the existence or prohibition of same sex marriage would have altered the course of my life. I suspect that for the overwhelming majority of Americans, the same is true. For that portion who happen to be gay, the possibility of a civil union that enables them to participate in society on the same level as other committed relationships between heterosexuals probably would have been a plus, rather than a minus. And I am at a loss to understand precisely how permitting gays to wed would negatively affect my life. They consume goods, pay taxes, use health and education resources, contribute to the workforce and grow old, retire and die just like heterosexuals. And as for moral rectitude, I have heard far more appalling and offensive attitudes expressed by heterosexuals than from any gay person I have been acquainted with. Moreover, the level of divorce among heterosexuals has now exceeded 50%, while the stability of gay relationships [to the extent known] is no worse and appears to be greater than that of heterosexuals. I fail to see the dire threat to the public requiring amending the Constitution.
When I think of issues that I believe that the President should be paying attention to as the “leader” of this nation, health care, education, rational energy and environmental policies, concluding the US involvement in Iraq and restoring the stature of the US in the sphere of global leadership all come to mind long before any notion of same sex marriage could ever arise. These more immediate issues are ones that touch the lives of millions of Americans and are likely to impact each and every one of us. They are issues of the “common welfare” that the president is sworn to protect and promote. Instead, George W. Bush spends his time and energy fiddling around with non-essential issues and pandering for the amusement of his insular “base” of close-minded and equally oblivious sycophants.
Our modern day American Emperor also fails to heed the serious warnings of deterioration of this country’s infrastructure, suffering of citizens not fortunate enough to live in the top 5% income bracket, and demise of respect for the country among leaders of other world powers and lesser players on the global stage. The fresh example of the Katrina disaster still has not been adequately addressed as we head into this year's hurricane season. The deficit is larger than ever in the history of the nation, yet Bush seeks to further bankrupt the country with tax cuts and continued resource drains in the Iraq conflict. Bush has no plan for resolving or ending US involvement, and says that such decisions will be left for his successor to clean up. One by one the "Coalition of the Willing" forces in Iraq are dwindling, as country after another abandons the US and withdraws their participation in the unpopular and unfocused conflict. The US cannot even muster the support of other superpowers over resolution to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. While the US empire may not currently be literally in flames, the heat of the embers of a coming conflagration are apparent to anyone with the awareness to see the signs and to feel the level of discomfort among the American people.
Looking back over the past 50 years, I have tried to recall or imagine an instance in which the issue of “gay marriage” has or could actually have affected my life in any concrete negative sense. Try as I might, I could not remember a single instance in which the existence or prohibition of same sex marriage would have altered the course of my life. I suspect that for the overwhelming majority of Americans, the same is true. For that portion who happen to be gay, the possibility of a civil union that enables them to participate in society on the same level as other committed relationships between heterosexuals probably would have been a plus, rather than a minus. And I am at a loss to understand precisely how permitting gays to wed would negatively affect my life. They consume goods, pay taxes, use health and education resources, contribute to the workforce and grow old, retire and die just like heterosexuals. And as for moral rectitude, I have heard far more appalling and offensive attitudes expressed by heterosexuals than from any gay person I have been acquainted with. Moreover, the level of divorce among heterosexuals has now exceeded 50%, while the stability of gay relationships [to the extent known] is no worse and appears to be greater than that of heterosexuals. I fail to see the dire threat to the public requiring amending the Constitution.
When I think of issues that I believe that the President should be paying attention to as the “leader” of this nation, health care, education, rational energy and environmental policies, concluding the US involvement in Iraq and restoring the stature of the US in the sphere of global leadership all come to mind long before any notion of same sex marriage could ever arise. These more immediate issues are ones that touch the lives of millions of Americans and are likely to impact each and every one of us. They are issues of the “common welfare” that the president is sworn to protect and promote. Instead, George W. Bush spends his time and energy fiddling around with non-essential issues and pandering for the amusement of his insular “base” of close-minded and equally oblivious sycophants.
Friday, June 02, 2006
The Massacre of Truth and Civilians
Common sense seems to be a primary casualty of the conflict in Iraq. The US Government and military forces fail to grasp that when an event occurs in broad daylight, with multiple witnesses, publishing a bald faced lie as the “official” report of the event is a bad idea. No doubt, war is hell and there are plenty of examples of emergent situations that call for snap judgments with emotions running high and tempers flaring. Regrettable mistakes and unintended loss of life can occur and sometimes be forgiven. However, understanding and reconciliation becomes much more difficult when the mishap is followed by a deliberate attempt to suppress, distort or fabricate facts to cover up the occurrence and deflect responsibility. Moreover, the “official” version advanced by the US government is frequently so divergent from the actual events and lacking in internal logic, that one wonders whether the government spokesmen even take their media roles seriously.
The US forces were on a mission to Ishaqi, based upon a tip that an “al Qaida supporter” was visiting a house in the town. The resulting encounter left 11 Iraqis dead, most of whom were women and children, and a collapsed building. According to the American spokesman, as reported by BBC: “the building collapsed under heavy fire killing four people - a suspect, two women and a child.” However, video footage at the time of the event, which was cross checked against other photo sources, evidences a different story. Video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with clearly identified gunshot wounds, indicating that they did not perish from collapse of the building. Eyewitnesses reported that the US forces killed the civilians and then blew up the building, in an attack sounding more reminiscent of Israeli raids on Palestinian buildings believed to house suspected terrorists or just the family of a suspected terrorist.
In any event, more occurred in the town of Ishaqi than the collapse of a building on four innocent civilians. Beyond this, it is unclear how the surveillance of a suspected al Qaida supporter escalated to the destruction of an entire building and the many deaths of civilians. The US government has not made a clear delineation between the “enemy” that is al Qaida, and the “enemy” that is the insurgency. The official line is that they are synonymous. Logic would thus dictate that the more than 60% of Iraqis who support the insurgency could fall under the category of “suspected al Qaida supporters” in the current political climate. The US forces do not contend that they were attempting to capture an al Qaida leader or operative. So the level of force used immediately comes into question, even in a battlefield setting.
News of this possible massacre and attempted cover up comes in the wake of the alleged massacre in Haditha, where US marines are suspected of massacring up to 24 Iraqi civilians in November 2005. In addition, a recent riot in Kabul, Afghanistan, resulted in the deaths of several civilians at the hands of US forces. Conflicting reports and evidence call into question the “official” US government version that shots from the crowd precipitated return fire from the US forces.
The combined factors of an ill-defined “mission” and unclear objectives, together with reliance upon troops who have been forced to endure extended deployment in circumstances where their safety is under threat 24/7, and the reported redeployment to battlefield situations of soldiers who have been diagnosed with PTSD and exhibited other mental illnesses as a direct result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan, create a recipe for disastrous events like those described above. Indeed, it is surprising that similar events are not reported more often. The assaults upon journalists[including attacks by US military forces] and risks involved in attempting to report on the conflict may have bearing on the frequency of such reports. Behavior by official US government spokesmen [from Fallujah to Haditha to Ishaqi]shows little regard for whether and when objective reports and information may surface showing their version of such events to be a blatant misrepresentation. Yet if the US government is to maintain any credibility in its assertion that the mission in Iraq is an important albeit difficult one, the flagrant disregard for the truth and the blatant and clumsy attempts to cover up mishaps does little to instill faith in the integrity of the government’s motivations or mission.
The US forces were on a mission to Ishaqi, based upon a tip that an “al Qaida supporter” was visiting a house in the town. The resulting encounter left 11 Iraqis dead, most of whom were women and children, and a collapsed building. According to the American spokesman, as reported by BBC: “the building collapsed under heavy fire killing four people - a suspect, two women and a child.” However, video footage at the time of the event, which was cross checked against other photo sources, evidences a different story. Video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with clearly identified gunshot wounds, indicating that they did not perish from collapse of the building. Eyewitnesses reported that the US forces killed the civilians and then blew up the building, in an attack sounding more reminiscent of Israeli raids on Palestinian buildings believed to house suspected terrorists or just the family of a suspected terrorist.
In any event, more occurred in the town of Ishaqi than the collapse of a building on four innocent civilians. Beyond this, it is unclear how the surveillance of a suspected al Qaida supporter escalated to the destruction of an entire building and the many deaths of civilians. The US government has not made a clear delineation between the “enemy” that is al Qaida, and the “enemy” that is the insurgency. The official line is that they are synonymous. Logic would thus dictate that the more than 60% of Iraqis who support the insurgency could fall under the category of “suspected al Qaida supporters” in the current political climate. The US forces do not contend that they were attempting to capture an al Qaida leader or operative. So the level of force used immediately comes into question, even in a battlefield setting.
News of this possible massacre and attempted cover up comes in the wake of the alleged massacre in Haditha, where US marines are suspected of massacring up to 24 Iraqi civilians in November 2005. In addition, a recent riot in Kabul, Afghanistan, resulted in the deaths of several civilians at the hands of US forces. Conflicting reports and evidence call into question the “official” US government version that shots from the crowd precipitated return fire from the US forces.
The combined factors of an ill-defined “mission” and unclear objectives, together with reliance upon troops who have been forced to endure extended deployment in circumstances where their safety is under threat 24/7, and the reported redeployment to battlefield situations of soldiers who have been diagnosed with PTSD and exhibited other mental illnesses as a direct result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan, create a recipe for disastrous events like those described above. Indeed, it is surprising that similar events are not reported more often. The assaults upon journalists[including attacks by US military forces] and risks involved in attempting to report on the conflict may have bearing on the frequency of such reports. Behavior by official US government spokesmen [from Fallujah to Haditha to Ishaqi]shows little regard for whether and when objective reports and information may surface showing their version of such events to be a blatant misrepresentation. Yet if the US government is to maintain any credibility in its assertion that the mission in Iraq is an important albeit difficult one, the flagrant disregard for the truth and the blatant and clumsy attempts to cover up mishaps does little to instill faith in the integrity of the government’s motivations or mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)