Dismembering Justice

In my last article on the torture conducted by the Bush administration, I may have left out another important reason for a full and complete reckoning for all involved at every level of government. It was in my last article I explained why I understand that Obama won't prosecute the agents that carried out the torture. To reiterate, we need our agents in the field to be able to do their jobs without worrying about the outcome of the next election and whether their actions will become unpopular.

However, of course that was the plan of the Bush administration all along. It now appears that from the beginning they planned on denying any responsibility for the torture by arguing that they had only asked how far they could go legally and it was the nefarious Department of Justice that told them to torture. Though, the new information seems to indicate that those lawyers were pressured to produce opinions that indicated torture was legal.

Given the amount the DOJ was politicized by the Bush administration it is highly unlikely that any advisory opinion that emanated from that DOJ was free of undue influence. Also, why would the DOJ have generated this opinion if it werent asked? And why would the question have been asked if it werent abundantly clear what the "correct" answer was?

Though if you believe the story being sold to us by the former administration through MSM is true, that every lawyer "consulted" by the Bush administration agreed that the techniques were legal, that does not make it so. The DOJ does not make the law. Congress makes the law. And Congress has made torture illegal. As I have explained in my previous article, waterboarding and the other techniques used were and still are torture.

Spc. Zachary Boyd

This photo has made the rounds in the MSM and blogosphere by now, and has become iconic. I just wanted to point out something that has not been explicit in all the media attention. Spc. Boyd, seen here fighting in Afghanistan, was 11 years old on September 11th, 2001.

Those of us who have been adults for the entirety of the intervening time span can easily forget how long it has been. But the people entering the military now were children when this all started and their world has been shaped by this conflict.

Tortured Logic

As Daniel Schorr indicates, it is absurd that the current dialogue regarding torture is focused on whether and when it is OK instead of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.

I should probably start out with the basics and define torture. Especially since ambiguity over what is and is not torture is abused by armchair nationalists to cloud the debate.

"torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Art I, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Or if you prefer U.S. law:

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

18 U.S.C. §2340. The definitions are substantially similar in the act that constitutes torture is the infliction of severe suffering, though the U.N. treaty requires a particular goal in mind they both define torture as the act of a government. So clearly, any argument based around the ambiguity inherent in the word "suffering" designed to imply that imprisonment qualifies as torture is disingenuous at best. Any reasonable person would agree that water boarding fits under this definition as torture. The argument that the presence of a doctor during waterboarding changes it into something other than torture because the victim is less likely to die cuts decency to the quick. The blatant disregard for both the legal definition of torture and the suffering of the victim lays bare that anyone making such an argument has no respect for those the argument is being made to.

One might raise the argument that such legal protections only extend to uniformed soldiers captured on the battlefield. This ignores the clear intention of the above convention which indicates that it is the goal of the person performing the torture that makes the act illegal, not the identity of the tortured subject. It's simple common sense to say that if we have the jurisdiction to hold a person then they are under the jurisdiction and protection of our laws regardless of whether we find it convenient. Further, though the United States Supreme Court has not decided this narrow issue yet, it has decided a line of cases that a rational person would think extends to cover this situation (a rational person being one who has not set out with the goal of achieving an end result where torture is justified). In a line of cases from Ex parte Milligan to Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court has held that even the detainees at Guantanamo Bay fall under the protection of U.S. law and that they can not be deprived of fundamental rights like Habeas corpus. Also, that Congress and the President, even working together cannot simply declare certain people and places to be without those protections.

Though it is yet to be determined if the prohibitions against torture apply to non-uniformed foreign national enemy combatants captured in a foreign country, we have frequently tried to make a clear argument on this blog that the protections of the law should apply to these people. I have tried to make this argument by making the implication that any innocent American citizen could be taken to Gitmo. Of course, any time someone implies that the government could wrongfully imprison an innocent person the notion is labeled as X-Files type conspiracy lunacy. Which is why I have tried to be careful and point to situations that show how easy it is to be mistakenly labeled as a terrorist. Where the no-fly list includes the names of innocent people, or where police label nuns and peace activists, that they admit are innocent of any crime, as terrorists.

If you combine the fact of how easy it is to become labeled a terrorist or an enemy combatant with the fact of how difficult it has been for those in Gitmo to even contest that label, even when they have been found innocent by their own government, you see that torture is being used on people merely for being accused of being a terrorist, having not been found guilty in any court, merely because there is the possibility that they may have some information that could be obtained through torture that could not be obtained as quickly through more conventional interrogation. Even when good old fashioned investigation still works. I am not so foolish as to believe that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent victim of circumstance or that there aren't dangerous terrorists being held there that can never be released without representing a serious threat to the American people. I am just worried about the labels being used and logic being applied to justify locking people up for an indefinite period of time punishing them without the accusations against them(and their accusers) seeing the light of day and I am particularly uneasy about the U.S. torturing anyone, especially in such suspicious circumstances.

Still Cheney is making the political talk show rounds insisting that torture produced valuable intelligence that saved lives. This argument is being picked up and repeated as if anything Cheney says about intelligence to the media can be trusted after the fiasco that was the run up to Iraq and the Valerie Plame scandal. It has even been revealed recently that torture was even used to produce some of that bad intelligence that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. security council.

This is exactly the worst case scenario that comes to mind whenever there is mention of torture. There was no ticking time bomb and the poor sap being tortured didn't know anything and only gave the people committing the torture what they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. That bad information was relied on to put us in an unnecessary war and thousands of people have died. Yet the idea that torture produces effective intelligence continues to be tossed around like it is a valid argument. Even if torture produces good intelligence some of the time, the risk that bad information will be relied on because it is what is politically expedient at the time is far too great a risk for us as a nation to be throwing our morality to the wind.

Even if torture works it is still morally wrong. Unfortunately I don't have any arguments here, just a bald assertion of a moral absolute.

I could argue that Alberto Gonzales was clearly wrong at his confirmation hearing when he said we can never be like our enemy's. Or I could parrot the refrain that being seen as abandoning our collective principles encourages extremist anti-Americanism. Or I could point to the damage this does to our international relations. Friendly nations wonder why we have fallen from being Regan's shining beacon of freedom on a hill, and antagonistic nations like Russia and Iran point to our abuses when we criticize them for kangaroo trials or oppressive measures. I could point to truly oppressive regimes across the globe that now simply label as terrorists those they wish to abuse. However all those are pragmatic reasons, and I don't think that is the best foundation for a moral absolute. I know torture is always wrong because I have human compassion. And you know it too.

All that is beside the point. Torture is illegal and water boarding is torture. The only reason I can think of that the MSM has allowed itself to be hijacked by Cheney again is that Obama has decided that the people who committed acts of torture under color of law will not be prosecuted. So that ends that story. Only vague questions of conspiracy remain and the question still appears to be open as to whether those that wrote the torture memos and the members of Congress and the Executive branch who were complicit in authorizing torture will face any kind of consequences.

It is vitally important that we zealously prosecute everyone responsible for the use of torture from the interrogators and their commanders and guards at the camp that knew it was happening to those that wrote the memos and everyone in power who knew it was happening and did nothing to stop it. even if that means throwing half of Congress in prison. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, a full and complete prosecution of everyone responsible will correct many of the above mentioned pragmatic reasons that torture is wrong. Clearly extremists will continue to hate America for irrational reasons. However, by taking pains to correct our misdeeds we will show to friends and enemies internationally and future leaders of America that we are a nation committed to the rule of law and that we can bravely face our own misdeeds and see justice done.

The next reason is that only a full prosecution of everyone that could possibly be complicit is the only way to actually see justice done in this situation. Where the government at all levels and in multiple branches participates in enacting a broad policy that is illegal and immoral and actually produces negative consequences simply rooting out a sacrificial lamb like "Scooter" Libby only perpetuates the sense that those in power who are ultimately responsible for the crime are beyond justice. A full prosecution is also important to avoid domestic political wrangling. If we put Cheney on trial Pelosi needs to go on trial as well. So does every member of Congress that was briefed on the use of torture and everyone in the various agencies that used them, both political appointees and career agents. I am not saying that we need to imprison half the government and military, but in the interests of justice there needs to be a full and impartial investigation that brings charges against those who appear to be guilty of serious crimes against U.S. law.

I understand Obama's order that the interrogators not be prosecuted. Spies and agents in the field are not legal experts and have to be able to rely on the orders of their superiors. Unquestioning reliance on the command structure is vital to successful military operations. Still, there is a point where the guy who has boots on the ground knows something is wrong. That an order is wrong. It is that person's responsibility to say "no." I know it is a hard and cold and frankly unrealistic rule but that is the very same thing we say to accused former Nazi prison camp guards as they are extradited and prosecuted for simply guarding the camp. (No I didn't just fall prey to Godwin's Law)

I further understand Obama's decision not to prosecute the interrogators because doing so would turn our agents in the field into political paws by using them as a sacrificial lamb. An agent in the field has to be able not only to rely on his orders but also to believe that he can effectively carry out his mission even when there is an election coming. They need to know that they won't be hung out to dry just to appease the public when the party in power changes.

Because prosecuting the interrogators is off the table and it is highly unlikely that Congress will enact legislation that could put their own members in prison, and because there is a current sentiment that we need to move on with current troubles and not be concerned with the egregious acts of the prior administration it is highly unlikely that we will see any kind of full and non-partisan investigation that results in justice being done. The most we will see is someone like John Yoo getting a slap on the wrist. I am still too cynical to believe even that will happen.

The Ongoing Torture Debate

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

It is unfortunate that the most complete and honest debate regarding the current state of affairs as it surrounds the use of torture by America was on The Daily Show.

Coming Home

The DOD recently decided to continue not awarding the Purple Heart to solders with post traumatic stress disorder. The blogosphere has been set aflame with the debate over the issue with one side arguing that this would make a substantial step toward acknowledgment, reducing stigma, and treatment of the disease within the military, and the other side trying hard to find new ways to say that PTSD doesn't exist while not overtly saying that.

This was followed the next day with the revelation that military suicides have reached a new record and have surpassed the rate of suicide in the general population. The close timing gave me pause to think about the significance of the two stories in relation to each other. I am not saying that awarding a medal for having PTSD would reduce suicide among military veterans. I just think that there needs to be a better way of serving those who have done their service to protect us. Having veterans among my family, friends, and co-workers, I have found that many of the combat vets are too proud too seek help even when they need it. You would think that psychologists could find a way to communicate directly with a soldier's experience and explain that getting treatment doesn't detract from their valor or self reliance. But I am not a soldier and I don't have any answers. I just don't like the toll that the psychological wounds of war are taking.

Weaseling Out of Things

With the new year and the change of administration in Washington there has been a tendency lately for retrospective looks at the outgoing Bush administration which has reminded us of all that has gone wrong in the last eight years and all that the Bush administration and its collaborators have to answer for. This tendency has in turn provoked the apologists for the Bush regime who are now using the unitary executive theory as a shield rather than a spear. The result is conversations like the one on the Diane Rehm show this morning where lawyers acting as apologists for the nefarious acts of Bush policy sound like panicky weasels trying to slip out of anyone having to take responsibility for the wrongs they have done. These pundits try to appear to be centrists, but the way they use arguments regarding pragmatic politics to evade moral accusations that there has been wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration paints these men as the worst caricature of the sleazy lawyer.

Spying On The Innocent

This article details some of the absurdity of the Maryland terrorism list wherein peaceful people who never committed any crime and never planed to do so were labeled as terrorists. Remember, people still claim that the president has the power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen living in the United States after merely labeling them an enemy combatant. A term the government was unable to define even at the Supreme Court. Also remember that the people detained as enemy combatants are tortured prior to determination of guilt or complicity in any criminal act.

We don't have any examples yet of someone being detained and tortured merely for exercising their First Amendment rights by expressing a liberal opinion and hopefully we will never see any. This is still the danger we have to be aware of when a government takes these kinds of powers for itself. The above article details how intelligence that repeatedly says these people were not dangerous leads to them being labeled as terrorists and in many cases misidentifies what these people were involved with and where they were. If these cops really thought these people were terrorists and a danger to the country I would hope that they would be more careful with the information they gather so as to actually know where someone was on a certain day rather then place them on the opposite side of the continent. Here we are seven years after 9/11 and we still haven't learned the lessons about putting quality people between us and the enemy and not wasting time and taxpayer dollars on witch hunts.

Property Rights = Civil Rights

Some months ago I discovered that my wife keeps a large supply of cash in a secret location. She does this to be prepared for emergency's. One of those emergency's is the possibility of leaving me and having to leave immediately. I was not particularly threatened by this revelation and jokingly acted hurt that she might abandon me in some tragedy or that she thought I would transform into some raging monster after we have been together for almost 10 years. I also was not threatened because it is a sensible plan and I wholly endorse this for all women. Not that I need to, because as I look around and ask women I know and my female relatives they all have an escape fund. It seems like most modern western women have the good sense to be financially independent from their men or to preserve the ability to sever the financial connection on short notice.

It seems related to some of the conclusions reached by the UN Commission on the Status of Women. I paraphrase; they found that due to the vast imbalance in earning power and property ownership of women relative to their percentage of the world population and the percentage of the worlds labor performed by women that efforts should be taken to improve the equality of women's property rights worldwide as that inequality tends to multiply the terrible consequences of tragedy's like war and natural disaster, leading to increase in HIV infection among other things.

To spell out what that means, after a mudslide or tornado or flood damages a village some of the women might be left without their husbands due to deaths in the tragedy. Because they cannot earn as much from their labor or perhaps because they cannot claim ownership of their dead husband's property they are forced into prostitution in order to make enough money to survive or to keep their children alive. This would be bad enough if it didn't also obviously increase the spread of STDs and increase violence against these women, amplifying the personal tragedy set in motion by a natural disaster.

If the personal tragedy of each individual were not enough there is the social cost. With property rights or equal earning potential, these women could continue to be productive members of society, producing value through their labor through farming, or producing other tangible goods. Instead they end their lives destitute, in medical care funded by charity, government spending, and privately subsidized medicine. This cost is shifted to some degree on to western persons through government aid and pharmaceutical companies selling novelty lifestyle drugs for erections and sleep aids at overinflated prices to recoup the costs of the discount AIDS medication they sell to African countries and charities.

In this way, the very real costs of human tragedies on the other side of the world financially impact the life of every American such that even the most cynical and selfish should care for real equality. Even if just out of concern for the cost of their next 4 hour erection.

The Urban Shaman

In days long past and in parts of the world untouched by the corporate monoculture there are psychopomps and shamen who know the spiritual secrets of the Earth and can walk between the worlds. These men and women gain access to a spiritual dimension through chanting, ritual, drugs, or raw spiritual power. They walk in a dangerous world in between life and death where they are alive, yet not. Where they walk among the dead and the not-yet born. They are able to pass through this liminal state of not-being without loosing their soul because of their wisdom and spiritual power.

It occurs to me that airline travel has become one such a dangerous liminal state in this post 9/11 world. In a world where one can be apprehended and shipped off to a foreign country or secret prison to be tortured based on faulty intelligence, mistaken identity, or no evidence at all, airline travelers face a very real danger. When one enters an airport they pass within a barrier that the public cannot penetrate. The traveler only enters into this parallel land by performing arcane rituals and by passing the arbitrary and ever changing tests of the gate keepers. They pass into a world where names and shapes are familiar but strange. The worst part is that no one knows whether you will come out on the other side.

The difference is that air travel isn't like this because of the immutable laws of nature and of the spirit but because of the actions of wicked men.

The Department of Defense: We Deliver Weapons to the World

[Note: This posting was authored by TheRedKap, who is currently behind the Great Fire Wall, and is unable to post directly.]

For those of you at home who are worried that the American economy is crumbling beyond repair, take heart in the fact that the United States is still the arms supplier to the world. All of the usual types of equipment are involved, namely the M-16 assault rifle, the F-16 in various configurations, and the C-17 military transport plane. However, there are a few new surprises. For instance, the United Arab Emirates is reportedly considering purchasing Black Hawk helicopters and Hellfire anti-tank missiles.

Details of the record $32 billion year enjoyed by the Pentagon include a package of various weapons systems to countries in the Persian Gulf region. But, don't worry, all of these weapons are going to our friends, such as an advanced missile defense system for the aforementioned U.A.E., helicopters and tanks for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, , and most interestingly technology to help Jordan secure its border with Iraq. Iraq, soon to be flush with billions of dollars in oil revenue is in the market for modern military equipment, including F-16s, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, and mortar systems. An upgrade to the PAC-3 and munitions for Israel is also in the works, along with at least 25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, with options for up to 50 more, with an eye to getting the planes to the IDF "as quickly as we possibly can."

Meanwhile, Russia's 21% of global arms sales, which partly go to Iran and Syria, were recently characterized by the Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Sallai Meridor as "dangerous and destabilizing to Israel and for peace in the region." Sure, the US and Israel were cooperating with the Georgian military prior to the recent 5 Day War, to the tune of $300 million dollars last year alone, but clearly the Russians were unjustified in their reaction to the Georgian offensive into South Ossetia and Abkahzia. The ambassador, for his part, couldn't understand why anyone would see these arms supplies as threatening or destabilizing. Looking through the old crystalline prism of spheres of influence, the Russians are very concerned about the threat upon its borders.

Do not be confused into thinking that these arms sales are entirely funded by the recipients of these weapons systems. The U.S. government, according to numbers from the BEA, spent approximately $3.8 billion dollars in the first quarter of 2008 financing foreign military sales. While this may be a drop in the bucket compared to the monthly deficit our government is currently running, such as the $111.91 billion dollar deficit for the month of August, arms sales are the classic example of foreign diplomacy that has the biggest potential for unintended catastrophic results.

Blood Diamonds

It may be beating a dead horse to talk about blood diamonds except people are still buying them, the artifical custom of the diamond engagement ring persists, and the average person does not feel blinded by rage when they see a commercial for diamonds. Also, you may be wondering what sparked this posting. I didn't just see the movie Blood Diamond and have my eyes opened to this tragedy and rush out to tell the ten people who accidentally come to this blog every day. I have been pissed about this injustice since I was a little high school hoodlum but I recently stumbled on my notes from last summer regarding this topic and I stumbled on this article on Fark.

That article recounts an older story regarding how the value of diamonds was artificially inflated and bullshit symbolism was imbued into the diamond. It recounts how a common stone with little intrinsic value was kept from the market in order to artificially create a low supply while some clever advertisers associated the diamond with eternity and love and forced every man in western society from then on to spend two months salary on a worthless crystal of carbon for fear of sending the wrong message to the woman he loves. Fortunately, for their trouble, those advertisers will have to crouch in the desert of sodomites for all eternity. Unfortunately love isn't enough to overcome the demands of consumerism in our culture, or informed women who truly loved their future husbands would insist on not wearing murder on their hands. They would not be able to look at their enggement ring and see the love of their husband but would instead witness blood flowing from the stone on their ring, the blood of the children who died in the mines and the men and women who were murdered when a new militia came and took over the mine.

Remember those anti-drug adds just after 9-11 where the Bush administration and John Ashcroft were trying to capitalize on nationalism in the war on drugs? They implied a connection within the drugs trade wherein money American teenagers spent on pot went into the coffers of the terrorists who had attacked us. The same is true of the diamond trade. If you buy diamonds, you are putting money into Osama Bin Laden's pockets.

What about the Kimberly process you ask? What are you some lobbyist for the diamond industry? For the rest of you, the Kimberly process is the method the diamond industry created to pretend they were doing something about blood diamonds as a public relations scheme. The process is entirely voluntary, completely self-administered with no accountability, and there are large financial disincentives to poor african countries to conform rigorously to the process's own loose guidelines. Given the fact that emeralds and rubies come from conflict ridden regions in Colombia and Burma respectively, and the gem industry turns a blind eye to the suffering inflicted on people in those areas, it is unsuprising that their own method of self monitoring the origins of diamonds is far from robust. This is what it looks like when evil people try to do good but can't stop thinking of their own greed.

We're gonna' shove our aid up your river delta!

I just read the most insane article regarding humanitarian aid I have ever seen. At first I thought that this must be from the Onion but it turns out this is not satire, this is from Time. Its from fucking Time! Christ on a fucking unicycle!



First paragraph; "How dare a foreign government exercise its sovereignty and refuse our great aid?"

Second paragraph; "If they won't accept our paltry hand-out we shall force it on them with violence!"




I sent them a little feedback. You have to believe me that I was trying my damndest not to sound like a crazy person but if you have read anything on this blog you already know how hard a time I have with that. Here is my editorial reply.





"The entire premise of this article seems like a thought that isn't even reasonable enough to rise to the surface of an intelligent person's mind. How did it become a Time article? The very idea that the U.S. should invade a country because they won't let us provide disaster relief to them is completely absurd. This is the kind of juvenile warmongering that one would expect from the far right of the blogosphere because it is too insane for Fox News. Just because a country is governed by evil men does not give us the right to violate their sovereignty."

The Legal Front of the War on Us All

Remember Jose Padilla? Or John Yoo? Apparently Jose is none too happy about being tortured while in the Naval Consolidated Brig at Charleston, South Carolina, and feels as though John is liable for said treatment.

Don't Know What to Make of This; Another Big Suprise

Congress knew the tapes of the CIA torturing terrorists would be destroyed. They planed to destroy them a few years ago. They were told not to destroy the tapes by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. The CIA was ordered not to destroy the tapes by a federal judge. The CIA did destroy the tapes. Now there is a criminal investigation into the destruction of the tapes.



Article



Its too fucking bad the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby thing showed us that a criminal investigation will only net a mid level conspirator and if that person is well connected they will only get a slap on the wrist.



It will take a long time to repair the justice system in America and this would be a good start.

Beer prices rise on revelations that the CIA destroyed potential evidence

The rising price of hops is increasing the cost of craft beers.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5beer.6174490dec09,0,3091573.story?coll=all_tab01_layout

In a reaction by hops farmers to a story by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/washington/09zubaydah.html?ref=us

"A Papercut"

Consider this as indicative of the overall situation of the military, the war in Iraq, and the unfortunate enlisted volunteers.

Clearly, the military is almost desperate for people if they are speaking of individual soldiers and their skill sets as "investments." Not to say that every single soldier isn't expensive, but they are having problems recruiting and retaining people and those who have already suffered are suffering more "papercuts."

Around 700 people have gone through just Walter Reed to be treated for serious injuries involving the loss of a limb, not to mention thousands of others who have suffered severe burns and traumatic head injuries. The War in Iraq, due to the nature of the weapons involved has become one of the most brutal bloodbaths in history, and with each side continuously re-inventing the bomb, the death toll stands to climb higher. But, as some may say, the insurgents are fighting a guerrilla war, trying to best us through ten thousand papercuts.

Despite the fact that many of these injuries have cost these men and women their lives livelihoods, they are not especially cared for in the manner that most Americans would expect. The individual Army of One is not particularly significant in and of him or herself, indeed to the impersonal military bureaucracy that is the Department of Defense, their losses are only so many papercuts.

The Numbers of Iraq

In the course of investigating this report about the most recent attempt to gauge the death toll in Iraq, I stumbled into a twisted web of public opinion companies. The organization responsible for the report, the ORB, is a member of the British Polling Council, which in turn is modeled on the National Council on Public Polls, an American organization. Thankfully, to help navigate this heady mix of numbers, acronyms, and propaganda, the NCPP on its homepage was nice enough to publish this list of 20 Questions That A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results. The most significant question on the list for determining whether the poll is strong or not is #11, dealing with the notion of margin of error. According to the pollsters at the ORB, the aforementioned report on Iraq had a very strange +2%. I say strange in that normally, this measurement would be a plus or minus type of operation, but thankfully for the people of Iraq or the propagandists who will publish these data for their own ends, the results are only positive.

The Continuing Atrocities in Lebanon

There have been some interesting developments in regards to the situation in Lebanon.

Firstly, as of this posting, there is no mention of Lebanon on Reuter's home page or international page. Because of the latest terrorist fiasco, suddenly what merely a week ago was a humanitarian disaster is now a marginal issue of little interest. Your point of view has been subsumed to the major media corporations.

Secondly, although the draft text of the resolution under consideration before the UN Security Council isn't available on-line (if you find, please e-mail me), there are some interesting statements that have come out in opposition. Dan Gillekin, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, has come out against the 72-hour ceasefire proposed by Russia saying, ">a ceasefire of this type would serve only one purpose, to allow Hezbollah to regroup and recover." In the same article, John Bolton said of the Russian proposal, "I don't think it is helpful to divert attention, we are seeking to get a permanent, sustainable solution based on the approach that we and the French have been taking." The Arab League is so vociferous in its opposition to the draft resolution that the body's foreign minsters took the journey to New York to directly address the Security Council. Perhaps the most interesting part of this discussion is the way that Israel tries to characterize its target as "terror," rather than protecting its sovereignty, which can lead one to believe that their true objectives are much broader than simply eliminating Hezbollah as a threat.