May 2005

May 31, 2005

Just Another Day In The Empire

Tuesday brought one of the more entertaining newsreading days in quite some time.

Remember Muhsin Abdul Hameed? ... For those who have forgotten, Abdul Hameed was chosen as one of the rotating presidents back in 2003. Mohsin was actually, er, Mr. February 2004, if you will. [...]

We woke up this morning to the interesting news that Muhsin Abdul Hameed had also been detained! [...]

The Americans are saying Muhsin was "detained and interviewed", which makes one think his car was gently pulled over and he was asked a few questions. What actually happened was that his house was raided early morning, doors broken down, windows shattered; and he and his three sons had bags placed over their heads, and were dragged away. They showed the house, and his wife, today on Arabiya; and the house was a disaster. The cabinets were broken, tables overturned, books and papers scattered, etc.. An outraged Muhsin was on TV a few minutes ago talking about how the troops pushed him to the floor, and how he had an American boot on his neck for twenty minutes.

The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.

"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

"Clearly"?! What the fuck "clearly"?! The only thing "clear", to me, is that I'm just about ready to put my shoe a little more than half-way up your fucking cornhole, Dick. And what the fuck kind of logic is he using? Two years in to the occupation, four years to go, and the resistance is in its "last throes". What is he, trying out for Monty Python or something?

The son of a bitch was on a roll, too:

One Guantanamo prisoner told a military panel that American troops beat him so badly he wets his pants now. Another detainee claimed U.S. troops stripped prisoners in Afghanistan and intimidated them with dogs so they would admit to militant activity. Tales of alleged abuse and forced confessions are among some 1,000 pages of tribunal transcripts the U.S. government released to The Associated Press under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit -- the second batch of documents the AP has received in 10 days.

But...

"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously."

And, well, Dick Cheney's track record is so much more reliable than Amnesty's... (Actually, it might be interesting to see how often Cheney has referenced Amnesty with regard to Saddam's crimes.) And, er, Amnesty didn't suggest that the U.S. is a human rights violator (perish the thought!). Rather, it suggested that Guantanamo is the "gulag of our time" -- rather a more damning suggestion than Cheney is even willing to acknowledge.

But, maybe ol' Dick had read an advance copy of to-day's Christian Science Monitor:

That decision is part of an increasingly strident joint U.S.-Iraqi effort to limit Iraqi abuse of detainees that -- amid the heat of a vicious insurgency -- threatens to undermine the rule of law.

But a generation of extrajudicial abuse under Saddam Hussein means that many street-level members of the Iraqi forces still resort to violence. [...]

"[Prisoner abuse] is not something we see every day, but [weekly] we see a prisoner come in, and someone has gone too far," says U.S. Army Col. Ronnie Johnson, deputy commander of the 256th Brigade Combat Team, which fields advisory teams for Iraqi units.

In the past two weeks, US forces have stepped up their intervention in such cases, and sought to make rudimentary detention centers more humane. [...]

"It's ingrained in this culture to be brutal to your enemy," says Colonel Johnson, from Baton Rouge, La. "They look at us and wonder why we worry about such things. At the soldier level, they just have a different concept. We tell them: 'There is no correlation between beating someone [hard], and getting good information.'"

What is he, trying out for the George Orwell Olympics? If so, he'll have to compete with this guy:

The International Committee of the Red Cross "has been at Guantanamo since day one," Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. "It is essentially a model facility."

Quoting letters of the fallen from the war in Iraq, President Bush vowed Monday to a Memorial Day audience of military families and soldiers in uniform that the nation will honor its dead by striving for peace and democracy, no matter the cost. [...]

Bush's nine-minute address was punctuated eight times by applause from a crowd of military families, some of whom were accompanied by soldiers in wheelchairs recovering from their wounds.

One can imagine that Dick Cheney, sitting at Mission Control, was whispering into Bush's earpiece something along the lines of the following: "And for God's sake, don't say the part about all the costs being borne by the niggers and the wetbacks...that part is just between you and me."

Two days after winning re-election last fall, President Bush declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital and now I intend to spend it." Six months later, according to Republicans and Democrats alike, his bank account has been significantly drained. [...]

"There is a growing sense of frustration with the president and the White House, quite frankly," said an influential GOP member of Congress. "The term I hear most often is, 'Tin ear,'" especially when it comes to pushing Social Security so aggressively at a time when the public is worried more about jobs and gas prices. "We could not have a worse message at a worse time." [...]

In recent meetings, House Republicans have discussed putting more pressure on the White House to move beyond Social Security and talk up different issues such as health care and tax reform, according to Republican officials who asked not to be named to avoid angering Bush's team. [Pace Condoleezza Rice: "It is a wonderful thing that people can speak their minds. Yes, ladies and gentlemen; in Baghdad and Kabul and soon in Beirut, they too will be able to speak their minds. What a wonderful thing democracy is."] [...]

Bush has had a hard time persuading Congress to go along with his agenda, in part, because surveys show much of the public has soured on him and his priorities. [...]

Such weakness has unleashed the first mutterings of those dreaded second-term words, lame duck, however premature it might be with 3½ years left in his tenure.

And that brings us to the most entertaining quote of this most entertaining newsday, from Reagan-era Chief-of-Staff Kenneth Duberstein: "The president needs to define victories in ways that he can achieve them."

Like, instead of "spreading freedom" to the entire world, we can maybe just start with one city (viz., Baghdad). Oops, even that is too much to ask:

"Getting control of a city of 5 million is not an easy proposition," said a senior U.S. official who asked not to be identified.

Perhaps, then, we could start with successfully eating a pretzel while watching Monday Night Football; and once we've mastered that task, move on to bigger and better things.

And that's the way it was.

May 23, 2005

Holy Shit! Another Axis Has Formed!

"Chávez sees Castro as a father figure," says Otto Reich, former undersecretary of State for Latin America in the Bush administration, "an anti-American precursor whose footsteps he can follow, and whose built-in network of supporters around the hemisphere he can take over when Castro passes on." Reich calls the Castro-Chávez relationship an "axis of subversion".

If we prefer our axes to be comprised of threesomes, maybe George Lucas could be added to the Axis Of Subversion.

May 18, 2005

Concentric Lies

Claims in a recently uncovered British memo that intelligence was "being fixed" to support the Iraq war as early as mid-2002 are "flat out wrong", White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday.

McClellan insisted the process leading up to the decision to go to war was "very public" -- and that the decision to invade in March 2003 was taken only after Iraq refused to comply with its "international obligations".

"The president of the United States, in a very public way, reached out to people across the world, went to the United Nations and tried to resolve this in a diplomatic manner," McClellan said.

"Saddam Hussein was the one, in the end, who chose continued defiance. And only then was the decision made, as a last resort, to go into Iraq."

Difficult to believe McClellan's insistence, given that:

• The official British reaction to the "Downing Street Memo" was that the its contents were "nothing new".

• The White House's initial response was to not comment. Apparently it expected the media's tepid response to the memo's leaking indicated that the story would die a quick death. Or, perhaps it -- much like the British government -- didn't see anything shocking or revealing in the memo's contents. There's some merit for this line of thinking, really: for those that've been paying attention, the memo is merely the confirmation of what we've known since Andy Card "rolled out" the Iraq War "product" in September of 2002 (or even, really, since Dubya declared the "Axis Of Evil" in early 2002).

• The memo corroborates similar revelations from Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.

• "...a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired'."

• A look at the Administration's actions leading up to the invasion are enough to confirm that what was patently obvious to everyone else (viz., that Iraq had no WMD or facilities in which to create them, and that any minimal stocks that it might have retained since 1998 would have long-since passed their shelf-life) was also patently obvious to the Bush Administration.

So, McClellan is lying. No news there: McClellan lies more frequently than he does any other thing. But it's kind of an interesting lie. Sort of.

In lying to cover his President's ass, he tells such a blatant whopper that no media outlet will probably even bother to comment. To wit, he claims that Saddam "chose continued defiance" -- months after the Administration has officially called off the search for any hint of a trace of WMD stocks, programmes, or facilities; coming up empty-handed, save for the assertion that it was Saddam's "intent" to at some future date re-start his banned weapons programmes.

So, in denying that the White House planned to "fix" reality around its goals, McClellan is, in essence, arguing that WMD actually were found in Iraq -- but if that were the case, there would, of course, be no need to deny the memo's contents.

And the sonofabitch is not going to be called upon it by a single reporter! Sometimes, you've got to hand it to the motherfucker.

May 15, 2005

Black Humor is Funny

We've caught a little grief at The Rational Enquirer for creating the Bomb-A-Tron™, but, see, the Iraqis are laughing too:

A dealer points out which vehicles are best for car bombs in a cartoon by Muayad Naama.

May 10, 2005

Same World, Different Universe

President Bush, right, takes the wheel yesterday as he and Russian President Vladimir Putin take a ride in a Soviet-era sedan, a 1956 Volga, at Putin's country estate outside Moscow.

Shiite family members grieve next to the coffin of their killed brother during a funeral ceremony in Sadr City, Baghdad, Monday.

May 02, 2005

The Politics Of Mass Murder

Lord Goldsmith's leaked March 7, 2003 advice to Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair regarding the legality of waging war upon Iraq, while interesting, is actually not so damning as the legal case put forth in the document made public one week later.

The leaked Goldsmith document summarily dispensed with arguments that the war could legally be waged based upon self-defense or "to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe"; following which Goldsmith spent near-to thirteen pages of pained wrangling in attempting to give Blair what he so desparately wanted: a legal excuse to lay waste to Iraq.

To begin with, Goldsmith notes that:

Notwithstanding the determination of material breach in OP1 of resolution 1441, it is clear that the Council did not intend that the authorisation in resolution 678 should revive immediately following the adoption of resolution 1441, since OP2 of the resolution affords Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations under previous resolutions by co-operating with the enhanced inspection regime described in OPs 3 and 5-9.

Goldsmith continues that it is up to UNMOVIC and the IAEA to report "any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including the obligations regarding inspections under resolution 1441"; but that whether the Security Council must then re-convene to determine whether such interferences amounted to a breach of 1441, and if so, what to do next, had been left ambiguous (so that there were circulating two contrasting interpretations).

Goldsmith then, in "discussion" of the merits of these two competing interpretations, concedes that:

It is clear from a comparison of the wording of paragraphs 4 and 11 that any Iraqi conduct which would be sufficient to trigger a report from the inspectors under OP11 would also amount to a failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution and would thus also be covered by OP4.

In addition, the reference to paragraph 11 in OP4 cannot be ignored. It is not entirely clear what this means, but the most convincing explanation seems to be that it is a recognition that an OP11 inspectors' report would also constitute a report of further material breach within the meaning of OP4 and would thus be assessed by the Council under OP12. [Emphases added.]

Moving right along, if the Security Council were to then "fail to act", "The clear U.S. view is that, whatever the reason for the Council's failure to act, the determination of material breach in OPs 1 and 4 would remain valid, thus authorising the use of force without a further decision."

Goldsmith's personal opinion was that "there would be good grounds for relying on the existing resolution as the legal basis for any subsequent military action," if the Council were more less unanimously in agreement that a serious breach had been committed, but that, "The more difficult scenario is if the views of Council members are divided and a further resolution is not adopted either because it fails to attract 9 votes or because it is vetoed."

After some more discussion Goldsmith concludes that "the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides," and that, "In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force."

Goldsmith further concedes, however, that a "reasonable case can be made" to the contrary, but that:

the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider extremely carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity. [Emphasis added.]

Goldsmith adds that "there are no grounds for arguing that an 'unreasonable veto' would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as 'unreasonable'," before setting forth some possible consequences of undertaking the war illegally, and finally noting that:

Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):

· must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
· be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
· must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.

That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

A week later, on the eve of war, came the public document, a condensation of the initial Goldsmith document's line of reasoning for the "good grounds" interpretation of going to war in the form of an easy-to-follow nine-step process. The new document, natch, left out not only Goldsmith's discussion of the counter-interpretation, but even mention that such a presentation existed. It also failed to notice Goldsmith's "proportionality" warning.

But here's the kicker, in Point 7:

It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

Uh, "plain" to whom (or, perhaps better stated, "plain" upon whose authority)?

(Bush, in announcing, on the same day, his intention to let fly the missiles, was equally matter of fact: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," and, "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed.")

Goldsmith, on three separate occasions, stressed that while the authority to hold Iraq in material breach was open for interpretation, that it could only be triggered pursuant to an IAEA or UNMOVIC report to the effect that Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors (or, of course, the turning up of a "smoking gun").

In fact (and as Goldsmith notes), the most recent reports from the inspectors had not only done nothing of the sort, they'd done completely the opposite. So not only was Iraq's "failure" to disarm not "plain" to the two bodies that had authority to rule on the matter, but no evidence demonstrating as much was ever offered by the Blair Administration (and the "evidence" offered by the Bush Administration, in the form of Colin Powell's "presentation" to the world's tee-vee viewing audience was roundly disputed, if not outright ridiculed). For those that may be interested, this blogger has taken up the matter of Iraq's supposed weapons programmes in a previous post -- arguing that Bush and Blair knew full-well that neither weapons nor programmes would be found.

So even on its own heavily skewed terms, Blair's March 17 document fails miserably -- which doesn't prevent it, in a final fuck-you to the World, from concluding in Point 9 that, "Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."

All of which should have been entirely meaningless. There should never have been any legal wrangling. It was well-known that Saddam had long-sinced disarmed (and conceded by Goldsmith at the outset of his March 7 document that Saddam did not pose any sort of imminent threat).

This blogger has argued on many occasions that we don't need the UN Charter, or the Geneva Conventions, or the Nuremberg Principles, or a host of Security Council Resolutions to determine when it is appropriate to wage aggressive war. We know -- if we know right from wrong, and if we choose not to hold double-standards -- that it is never appropriate.

The war was undertaken with the full knowledge that it was expected to create a humanitarian catastrophe (and did in fact do so -- a catastrophe which persists to this day). Among others, Medact, UNICEF, Oxfam, CARE, and the International Rescue Agency issued dire warnings regarding potential casualties, refugee flows, and outbreaks of hunger and disease -- which would fall most onerously upon women, children, and the elderly.

Tony Blair knew this before he saw Goldsmith's document -- yet proceeded to lean on his team of lawyers to produce the miserable nine-point justification for war which was released to the public on March 17.

Not only did Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair repeatedly lie through his teeth, he did so in the service of undertaking a war which he had every reason to believe would result in many thousands of casualties to a population which had already suffered under a decade of history's most punitive economic sanctions, and that would cause irreperable environmental damage.

That's your fucking legacy, Tony. Whether it lands you in hot water with international judicial bodies, or proves a "damp squib" come election day, is beside the point.