"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
- Rich Cook
Peter Arnett - To Deceive And Betray by Norman Turner
"It is clear that within the United States there is growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war. So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces . . . help those who oppose the war. . . .
The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance.
Now they are trying to write another war plan"
Journalist and naturalized American citizen Peter Arnett on Iraq TV interview
Unlike the majority of native born American citizens, Peter Arnett chose to come to America and to become a naturalized citizen of this country in order to enjoy the many benefits and advantages of being such. As part of the process that all naturalized citizens undertake, Arnett swore an oath remarkably similar to the one taken by the young warriors fighting and dying for their country this very day. Both oaths require the person raising his hand to declare under penalty of perjury "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic SO HELP ME GOD."
The resemblance ends there. Young American men and women endure incredible hardship and danger, living in primitive conditions and subject to death, injury or capture to uphold the honor of that oath.
Voluntary "American" journalist Peter Arnett speaking in time of an ongoing war, on the Iraqi version of Tokyo Rose or Hanoi Hannah, will no doubt be given the has brought comfort and aid to the same enemy now killing his fellow Americans.He attempted to undermine the war effort of the United States by demeaning his President, falsely mischaracterizing the American war actions and complemented Iraqi conduct which is clearly in violation of established rules of warfare in many instances.
And he did this for the benefit of a network that within the last few days has gleefully paraded wounded American prisoners and displayed the bloody murdered corpses of American fighting men while a grinning Iraqi thug mugged for the camera. This is also the same network that, when not interviewing Arnett, spews a steady gush of blatant lies and anti-American war propaganda in the vague guise of news to enflame domestic and neighboring Arabs.
Arnett is reporting for National Geographic television and NBC news. The latter praised Arnett's "outstanding" reporting from Iraq and said he was trying nothing more than to give an analytical response to an interviewer's questions. It was reported that he did the interview as a "professional courtesy." Courtesy to whom is the obvious question.
Arnett is not a stranger to anti-American commentary in his cover as a journalist. He was fired from CNN for reporting the false "Tailwind" allegation of illegal sarin gas use, which demeaned and defamed American Special Forces during the Vietnam War. His reporting was criticized during the first Gulf War as being anti-American and biased.
Somewhere along the line, in the days since Ernie Pyle reported Word War Two and today, there has become the perception among some American journalists that they must be consistently hostile to the their own country. Arnett is not alone. He is merely the most obnoxious among them.
In interview such as the one given by Arnett would have resulted in a prison sentence during WW II. An Iraqi taking such a step would be summarily executed.
There must be a reappraisal of the perception of morality among journalists where it is seen to preclude loyalty to one's own country. Some are in fact stepping away from that point of view.
The presently embedded reporters now with the field units in Iraq are the most noble of these, and hopefully a leading edge of a trend back to reporting the way it used to be.
Arnett has taken the abominable action of treachery toward his own country beyond the pale now. His latest folly, in addition to his past anti-American presentations should make him a pariah among all Americans who have an ounce of patriotism and consideration for our troops now sacrificing so much for us.
He, and his employers NBC and National Geographic Television, should be shunned. Appropriate communications should be made to those networks that encourage such blatantly anti-American slanted reporting. It is time to make a stand.
NBC Fires Arnett over Iraqi Interview by Jeff Gannon
March 31, 2003
(GOPUSA News) -- NBC abruptly ended its association with journalist Peter Arnett Monday as the fallout from his weekend interview on Iraqi television continues. NBC News President Neal Shapiro said in a statement, "It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state controlled Iraqi TV - especially at a time of war - and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview." Arnett later apologized in an appearance on the Today show.
Arnett appeared Sunday on state-controlled Iraqi TV saying that the American war plan has "failed because of Iraqi resistance." During the interview that was broadcast throughout the country, Arnett said, "Clearly the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."
Arnett praised the citizens of Baghdad when he said, "Clearly this is a city that is disciplined. The population is responsive to the government's requirements of discipline." He added, "My Iraqi friends tell me there is a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain are doing."
Arnett took credit for aiding the American anti-war movement saying, "Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces are going back to the United States and helps those who oppose the war."
A naturalized American citizen born in New Zealand, Arnett is practically the only Western reporter left in Baghdad. Most journalists have been expelled, and several are missing.
In anticipation of a negative reaction, NBC issued a statement Sunday which stated: "His impromptu interview with Iraqi TV was done as a professional courtesy. His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more."
Last month, Dan Rather's interview with dictator Saddam Hussein was widely criticized except by like-minded colleagues.
Arnett's interview comes at a time when 11 days into the military action, journalists incessantly imply that the war is going badly and that there is disagreement among military leaders. Last week the White House expressed frustration with the media's presumption that the war effort was "bogged down."
The veteran journalist was criticized by the first Bush administration for similar acts of propaganda reporting during the Gulf War. It was Arnett, who was working for CNN in 1991, who reported the Iraqi claim that coalition forces had bombed a baby milk factory when the military believed it to be a biological weapons plant. In 1998, the Pulitzer Prize winner reported a story that accused American forces of using Sarin gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill U.S. defectors. Arnett was reprimanded, and CNN later retracted the story.
Reaction to Arnett's interview began to emerge on Sunday night. In a Fox News interview, former Republican Senator Alfonse D'Amato said that the reporter's comments verged on "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Colonel Buzz Kriesel, U.S. Army (Ret.) called the remarks "a new plateau for bias" during a Fox News interview.
The battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.
As the ground campaign against Saddam Hussein faltered last week, with attenuated supply lines and a lack of immediate reinforcements, there was anger in the Pentagon. Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of civilian advisers, who had been chiefly responsible for persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war’s operational details. Rumsfeld’s team took over crucial aspects of the day-to-day logistical planning—traditionally, an area in which the uniformed military excels—and Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “He thought he knew better,” one senior planner said. “He was the decision-maker at every turn.”
Which makes this claim by Rumsfeld even more ironic:
The plan we have is [Tommy Franks’]. I would be delighted to take credit for it...
…Every one of the chiefs has said it's executable and they support it. It's been looked at by all the combatant commanders…
…The people who are commenting on the war plan, I think, are probably people who have never seen it.
Happy Monday, or at least I hope it turns out that way. It won't for me, but that is no reason for you to suffer.
Last night I managed to gash my foot open by stepping on a toy that was left on the floor by Baby Terri. So it will be tetanus shots for me today. Did I mention I hate shots? I fear them like death! So I should have a good time.
And speaking of good times, we have two new songs for you to check out. The first is from supergroup (literally) The Compassionate Conservatives entitled "Another War" and sung to the tune of "Baby You Can Drive My Car". From the mouth of The CC themselves:
Set to the tune of the Beatles' "Drive My Car", Bush and Cheney are overjoyed at the prospect of -- you guessed it -- another war. Featuring a special excerpt from Bush's March 19th speech introducing the Iraqi war, with rebuttal by Warren Langley, 15-year Air Force veteran and former president of the Pacific Stock Exchange turned protestor.
Give it a listen. Spread the word. Get your copy today!
The second song is from me! It is an entry in the Oleander remix contest. You can listen to it by clicking on the Listen to My Stuff link to your left.
While I am at it, you will note a new addition to the blogroll. Lets give a big skeptical welcome to Shiny Blue Grasshopper. I find it impossible to believe I have overlooked adding it before this. Kelly Holmes has one of the more literate anti-war blogs out there, and I highly suggest making it a daily read.
Once again I find myself falling sadly behind in my additions to the blogroll. So if you link to me, and I am not linking to you, and you think that your blog will pass my stringent readership, drop me a line and I will see about getting you a link over here!
I hope to post some stuff later today, lots of interesting things happening that I want to comment on, but the panic over the shot is starting to set in. Did I mention I hate shots?
WASHINGTON -- The House passed a resolution Thursday calling for a national day of humility, prayer and fasting in a time of war and terrorism.
The resolution, passed 346-49, says Americans should use the day of prayer "to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities, and to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation."
Under the resolution, President Bush would issue a proclamation designating a specific day as a day of "humility, prayer and fasting."
So in honor of our National Day of Prayer allow me to offer this one from the pen of Mark Twain:
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our eloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
I have not found a counter to to keep track of the casualties on our side of the war, but I did find this:
Coalition Casualties, POWs, MIAs
U.S. and British casualties from the war. U.S. troops: 26 dead, seven captured, eight missing. British troops: 22 dead; some names not released.
Sources: U.S. and British military and family members.
DEATHS:
March 25: Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, Boise, Idaho, grenade attack
March 24: Marine Cpl. Evan James, 20, La Harpe, Ill., drowned in canal Marine Sgt. Bradley S. Korthaus, 29, Davenport, Iowa, drowned in canal Army Spc. Gregory P. Sanders, 19, Hobart, Ind., combat
March 23: Army Spc. Jamaal R. Addison, 22, Roswell, Ga., combat Marine Sgt. Michael E. Bitz, 31, Ventura, Calif., combat Marine Lance Cpl. Brian Rory Buesing, 20, Cedar Key, Fla., combat Marine Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley, 26, Fort Myers, Fla., combat Marine Cpl. Jose A. Garibay, 21, Costa Mesa, Calif., combat Marine Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez, 20, Los Angeles, combat Army Pfc. Howard Johnson II, 21, Mobile, Ala., combat Marine Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Jordan, 42, Enfield, Conn., combat Marine 2nd Lt. Frederick E. Pokorney Jr., 31, Tonopah, Nev., combat Marine Cpl. Randal Kent Rosacker, 21, San Diego, combat Marine Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Slocum, 22, Thornton, Colo., combat
March 22: Navy Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, La Mesa, Calif., helicopter collision Marine Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski, 26, Buffalo, N.Y., machine gun accident Army Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert, 27, Easton, Pa., grenade attack Army Reserve Spc. Brandon S. Tobler, 19, Portland, Ore., vehicle accident
March 21: Marine Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin, 36, Waterville, Maine, helicopter crash Marine Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, Bloomington, Ill., helicopter crash Marine 2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers, 30, Harrison County, Miss., combat Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, 22, Los Angeles, combat Marine Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy, 25, Houston, helicopter crash Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 29, Baltimore, helicopter crash
Date not given: Marine Sgt. Niclas M. Hodson, 22, Smithville, Mo., vehicle accident
CAPTURED:
March 24: Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Ronald D. Young Jr., 26, Lithia Springs, Ga. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 David S. Williams, 30, Orlando, Fla.
March 23: Army Spc. Edgar Hernandez, 21, Mission, Texas Army Spc. Joseph Hudson, 23, Alamogordo, N.M. Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson, 30, Fort Bliss, Texas Army Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, Park City, Kan. Army Sgt. James Riley, 31, Pennsauken; N.J.
MISSING:
March 23: Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, 19, Palestine, W.Va. Army Spc. James Kiehl, 22, Comfort, Texas Army Pvt. Brandon Sloan, 19, Bedford Heights, Ohio Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa, 22, Tuba City, Ariz. Army Sgt. Donald Walters, 33, Salem, Ore. Army Master Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy, 38, Cleveland Army Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto, 18, El Paso, Texas Army Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata, 35, El Paso, Texas
OTHER COALITION CASUALTIES:
British:
March 24: Cpl. Stephen John Allbutt, Stoke-on-Trent, England, tank hit by friendly fire. Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke, Littleworth, England, tank hit by friendly fire. Sgt. Steven Mark Roberts, Bradford, England, combat Lance Cpl. Barry Stephen, Perth, Scotland, combat
March 23: Flight Lt. Kevin Barry Main, jet shot down by friendly fire Flight Lt. David Rhys Williams, jet shot down by friendly fire
March 22: Lt. Antony King, Helston, England, helicopter collision Lt. Philip West, Budock Water, England, helicopter collision Lt. James Williams, Falmouth, England, helicopter collision
March 21: Color Sgt. John Cecil, Plymouth, England, helicopter crash
Remember, supporting the troops does not mean you have to support the war. My heart goes out to those family members that have lost loved ones.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a former Democratic senator, ambassador and presidential adviser known for his scholarly intellect, has died. He was 76.
"In many respects, Pat Moynihan was larger than life," said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, leading tributes on the Senate floor to the man who from 1977 to 2001 was one of the body's most beloved and respected members.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who two years ago succeeded Moynihan in the New York Senate seat, announced his death on the Senate floor. "We have lost a great American, an extraordinary senator, an intellectual and a man of passion and understanding for what really makes the country work," she said.
Moynihan died Wednesday at the Washington Hospital Center from complications stemming from a ruptured appendix.
Well how about this. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the California Energy market really was manipulated!
At the height of the power crisis, energy traders bragged of charging double the going rate, slowing down power plants and one urged colleagues to "stick-it to 'em" when selling to California, memos released by federal regulators showed.
The memos were part of the evidence California officials used to make their case for $9 billion in refunds at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The commissioners agreed with the state Wednesday, saying their investigation found widespread manipulation of natural gas and electricity prices and supplies in California.
Wow! And it only took them what....two years to discover this? Simply Amazing!
Back when I posted on sci.environmental Libertarians just loved to tell me that the California Energy Crisis was brought about by environmentalist who refused to allow the state to build more power plants.
Judge Denies Requests From 6 Execs To Also Be Released
HOUSTON -- A federal judge granted protection from civil lawsuits to Andrew Fastow, Enron Corp.'s former chief financial officer, pending resolution of a 78-count federal indictment alleging he masterminded financial schemes that fueled the bankrupt company's failure.
But eight other current or former Enron executives who also remain as defendants in the massive federal shareholder lawsuit in Houston must produce information as the case prepares for trial, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon has ruled. She has yet to rule on requests from former Chairman Kenneth Lay and former Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling to be released from the lawsuit.
Harmon ruled that Fastow would remain a defendant in the suit, but she agreed with his argument that any documents he was compelled to produce for the civil case could be used against him in his pending criminal case.
See I don't understand this. Most likely Fastow would be required to produce those documents in the criminal case anyway. Nor am I sure why the defendant's lawyer did not seek a delay till after the criminal trial.
So now the hundreds of people that lost their pension thanks to Andy Fastow will be able to recover none of it from him.
Well well well, I wake up this morning to find that Mac Diva, guest commentator on this very blog, went and got a blog for herself! Much to the disappointment of those of us that enjoyed posting her stuff.
So check out Mac-a-ro-nies and make it part of your daily read.
It has been a busy weekend for me. First I got some joyous news. My sister-in-law is heavy with a second child. We sped off to Waco on Friday to join in the happy celebration. Ah Waco. Once again I am reminded of exactly why I am so glad I no longer live in that area.
At a restaurant we were asked our opinion on the current War on Iraq. Since I was with family I demurred, but told them I would be in the bar later to smoke a cigar and have a drink, if they wanted to talk then....
Well, by George W. Bush, they did. The conversation quickly turned to the incursion of Turkey. One wise wag opined "We ought to bomb Turkey while we are over there".
Oh boy!
I pointed out to him that Turkey is a member of NATO, you know....one of our allies, and as such it was very unlikely that we would choose to bomb them. I mean, we are pretty busy destroying the U. N. right now...give us a few months at least! Then I felt it important to point out that Turkey is part of the Nuclear Bomb Club and that made it even more unlikely that we would bomb them. We have already shown that we are reluctant to take on people that really have nuclear bombs, such as N. Korea. No we would much rather take on people that we pretend have nuclear bombs. They are easier to fight.
At this point the obligatory accusation that I must hate America came down the pike. Why don't I support our troops? Do I want Saddam to win the war???
"Why yes, that is exactly it dumbass. I hate America, I hate the troops, and I can't wait for Saddam to come on over here and start ruling our sorry asses". Please. I told him that my reluctance to see our troops killed in a war with no other purpose than to provide a blood high to George W. Bush was hardly being against them. "In fact, I dare say I am more in support of the troops that you guys are. I don't want them to die. You seem absolutely eager to see them die and die in great number". They got a little quiet after that. One of the tried to point out that we are there to "liberate" Iraq. Was that not a worthy cause? Well no, for a great number of reasons, not in the least that this administration did not care one bit about civilians. "Tell me, how does one liberate a dead civilian"? Well even if we kill a few, won't it be better than the lots that Saddam will kill? This is an argument I saw on Atrios' comment section by a guy calling himself "The Fool" (I will try to resist the urge to comment on the aptness of that handle).
This is a totally bogus argument. Ok fine you are willing to kill x number of innocents because Saddam would have killed more! So how many? 10? 100? 1000? What if 25% of those innocents are women? Children? What about 50%? How about 100%. Is it ok for me to kill, oh say 100 children because in the same time period Saddam would have killed 150? Do you really think that? Then all I can say is your moral compass is sadly off. All you have done here is convince me you're no better than Saddam...even if you think the reason for killing those kids are as pure as the driven snow.
In fact, no civilian deaths are acceptable in this war. Why? Because it is an illegal war of aggression that is being waged without the support of the rest of the world. In honor of this very silly argument I put a counter on my page. You can find it under the Daily Quote. It lists the number of civilian casualties in this war. I would dearly love to have another counter showing how many casualties are on our side, and if anyone knows of such a counter, please let me know. I think any death on either side is totally unacceptable. Each dead body will be laid at the feet of the President of the United States and those that supported him. I hope y'all can cope with the stink!
Well after that they started leaving in twos and threes. Only one guy came up to me and ask me how I knew all this stuff. I told him that I was willing to bet the only news he got on this war was from the Waco Tribune. He admitted as much. I asked him if he has an internet account and he said he did. So I told him that there were a whole host of information sources that were not being spun by this government, like so many of our major media are. Hopefully I reached this one guy, he will now go and find out about this war, and perhaps even change his mind.
I got a letter from none other than Bruce Wayne of the Compassionate Conservatives. He wanted to let me know that if I was going to print articles from Clark Kent, then it was only fair that I allow him to post a few too. Well who is going to argue with either Clark or Bruce? Not me, I like my teeth! So without further ado, welcome Bruce Wayne!
March 20, 2003
Mr. Jay Parsons Editor in Chief The Diamondback Newsroom 3150 South Campus Dining Hall University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742
Dear Mr. Parsons,
This is in response to both Daniel Friedman's cartoon and your response thereto at the Diamondback web site.
First, thank you for denying reprint requests from other publications. Although Friedman's work is indeed protected by what remains of our tattered First Amendment, it is nonetheless incredibly callous. Also, it is worth pointing out that, unless Mr. Friedman was actually present at Gaza, he oversteps the reach of artistic license by suggesting that Ms. Corrie was protecting "terrorists". That was the purported reason behind the bulldozing, which as of this writing remains confirmed. Furthermore, according to the definition of "terrorist", anyone who supports the current Bush action against Iraq is "protecting terrorists".
On a related note, I call your attention to this story in the Guardian:
"Israeli forces fired teargas and stun grenades yesterday in an attempt to break up a memorial service for Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist killed by an army bulldozer in Gaza on Sunday. Witnesses including several dozen foreigners and Palestinian supporters say Israeli armoured vehicles tried to disperse the gathering at the spot in Rafah refugee camp where Ms Corrie was crushed to death."
If Ms. Corrie's tragic death was as a result of "stupidity", as Mr. Friedman clearly implies in his cartoon, what then would be the reason behind the Israeli disruption of her memorial service?
Finally, I call your readers' attention to the Electronic Intifada web site. This has been the best source of information concerning Rachel Corrie, not only with respect to this incident, but also her background. Although I never had the pleasure of meeting her, she sounds like a beautiful human being with her heart in the right place, which is more than can be said for the likes of Daniel Friedman.
I got this email on Friday. I have no idea who wrote it, they used the Vayu Anonymous Remailer to cc me a copy and since I have written about this very subject (which I will reprint later) I thought I would share it with y'all.
Congratulations to you for exercising your rights under the First Amendment. However, you seem to overlook that the "celebrity pundits" whom you oppose are also entitled to the same right of free speech.
Your petition contains two points which require clarification:
Point #1: "We elect a President who we can trust..."
This statement implies that George W. Bush was elected as President. Actually, he lost the popular vote by over half a million votes. The only reason he is sitting in the White House right now is because the U.S. Supreme Court squelched the Florida recount and decreed, by a vote of 5-4, that Bush was the "winner". There was also a fair amount of skullduggery involving the Florida eligible voter rolls, which played in Bush's favor. For more information about the Florida vote, see any of the following links:
Point #2: "This is one reason trustworthiness and character is important in the people we elect into office"
As mentioned above in response to Point #1, Bush was not elected. He was appointed by the United States Supreme Court. With respect to "trustworthiness and character", there are numerous examples which demonstrate that George W. Bush is not trustworthy, nor is his character particularly appealing. Please refer to any of the following links to learn more about the President to whom you have pledged your respect and devotion.
Last but not least, just beneath your petition you display an American flag along with the following definition of the word PATRIOT: "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests". You are evidently mistaking "dissent" for "anti-patriotism". Therefore, I suggest that you read and digest the following quotations on the subject of patriotism and dissent, so that you can learn that the two are not mutually exclusive.
"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually." -- James Baldwin
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
"In a democracy dissent is an act of faith." -- J. W. Fulbright
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -- Howard Zinn
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, the soul of America dies with it." -- Edward R. Murrow
"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots." -- Barbara Ehrenreich
"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it." -- Malcolm X
"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive." -- Henry Steele Commager
When did being a patriot become defined as a love of country no matter how wrong it's behavior is?
This morning we are lucky to have Clark Kent from the fabulous Compassionate Conservatives taking over as guest writer. He has a few snippets for you to consider.
If I get a chance I will add some stuff later this afternoon/evening.
Attention Spineless Democratic Elected Officials: This is what caving in to the GOP gets you... damned if you do and damned if you don't. Can the Dems actually field a candidate who stands up for what is morally right?
News Item #1(from Capitol Hill)
"I'm saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war" -- Democractic 'Leader' Tom Daschle (who was among the first to roll over with respect to 9/11 inquiries, Patriot Act, giving Bush war vote power, et cetera)
"Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (2004 nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize... NOT!)
"He's essentially blaming President Bush for the fact that we may be on the verge of war" -- Ari Fleischer (my respectful response: "D-UH!")
I won't be posting a whole lot this week because I am busy working with "The Compassionate Conservatives". No not with music they have better taste than that...but I am going to be working on some animation to go with their songs. Keep checking for updates.
Still this is a bad time to be this busy. The United States is on the brink of an unjust war. Soon young men and women will be sent to foreign shores to be killed for no good reason at all. Lord knows I have not written enough about this war, mostly because it breaks my heart. Here we are proving we learned nothing about out last unjust war, Vietnam. I realize that people don't really like the comparison, but I think the most striking is that they were both started with a lie. Well Vietnam started with a lie, Gulf War Redux started with a lot of lies.
This should be alarming, even to those that back this President. There is no credible evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. There is no credible evidence that he is on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons, certainly there is no evidence at all that he has the material or the means to build such a bomb. The chemical factories turned out to be something else, the rolling labs turned out to be something else, and the aluminum tubing turned out to be ill suited for the purposes that the White House claimed they were. to be put to. I realize people don't like to hear that this is a war about oil, but given all of the above, please give me some justification for the path we are now rushing down!
Please spare me the heartstring tugging "Well Saddam is horrible to his own people". Please, if we embark based on that nonsensical reason tell me where will it stop? Women are once again suffering in Afghanistan. What is Bush doing about that? Oh yeah, he was so concerned that he forgot to put aside any money to help rebuild what we so carefully destroyed. What about Saudi Arabia? Not to long ago the religious police allowed 15 young Saudi girls to burn to death when their school caught on fire. Why? Because they were not covered. Will we be visiting them next? Or how about Sierra Leon? The list can go on and on. This also ignores our own ignoble hands involved in making sure that Saddam had all the tools he needed to oppress his people. Or even Halliburton's help in rebuilding Iraq after Gulf War the First. I mean, if he is such a bad guy, why in the hell was an American Company doing business with him?
When those planes flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11/2002 I was on board. I still am, I believe that the biggest threat to the United States is Osama Ben Ladin. Why are we wasting time with a guy that has never done a single thing to this country, when the man that murdered three thousand of my fellow Americans is allowed to laugh at our puny efforts to capture him? Why are we dicking around with a guy that has never carried out a terrorist attack against this country? I don't know...do you?
One of the more sad sights that I saw was a woman who's husband was in the Gulf right now. She was upset at the anti-war protestors because she does not believe that they are with the soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I did not care about the young men and women of our armed forces, who will lose their life in a war that is totally unjustified, well then I would not have written this article.
Well I see my personal troll is back and he brought a friend along. How nice.
People when I say your insults have to be at least half way creative, I really mean at least half way. Calling me, my wife, any other member of my family, my dog, my cat, my rabbits or anyone else within my sphere of influence "fucking unattractive" is really not saying much, even if you yell it. First I am 43 years old, the days that I worried about being attractive are far behind me. My wife is the most beautiful creature to ever walk the earth, at least her husband thinks so, and really after that what else matters? Certainly the opinion of an anonymous coward on the internet will faze her not even a bit.
I realize that it is usually no big deal to delete such crapola, Atrios does it all the time. No I don't think this is censorship since last I checked, Eschaton is not run by the government. I can understand the frustration of seeing your comment section devolved into a pit of slime. Especially since he has so many people commenting there (including yours truly) However that is simply not my style. So far I have only deleted double posts and I always leave at least one copy.
It would also be nice if you at least objected to something I said as opposed to just a mindless insult. Really I am only thinking of you, since it makes you look pretty damn silly. I regret that the comments were attached to the "Compassionate Conservatives" Music article. But it hardly surprises me. Good taste seems to be something sadly lacking in the regular run of right wing wackos that leave such messages. Come to think of it, so is logic, knowledge, intelligence...well you get the idea.
So I am not going to delete this stuff. Actually I think it reflects much more on the person leaving the comment than it does on me.
As most of my regular readers know (and probably bored to death by) I am a musician. Oh I am not professional. For the most part, my stuff is craptacular. I have been playing guitar since high school, and in all that time I have managed to improve very little. I just started learning to play the piano a year ago and at the ripe old age of 43, it is the hight of arrogance I am sure. You can listen to my stuff by looking to the left, finding "My Music" and clicking "Give a Listen". But don't do it just yet.
Since I am such a musical hack, when I find people that are doing things right, I like to give them a bit of recognition. So allow me to indroduce the soon-to-be music sensation "The Compassionate Conservatives". And no, they are not that kind of compassionate conservative!
The Fab Four consists of Peter Parker, Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, and Alan Pratt, names that all true blue Americans should recognize at once (well all execpt that Pratt guy, but he is easy to overlook). They only have three songs but they are gems. In the words of the boys themselves:
1. "Midnight Confessions (of Emperor G.W. Bush)"
This is a remake of the Grass Roots' song circa 1968. Download the lyrics at our web site -- these include both our revamped words and a complete transcription of all soundbites. Featured commentator is, of course, George W. Bush, who comes off sounding every bit the buffoon that he is. Special guest commentary is provided by Sander Hicks (excerpted from the movie Horns and Halos) who debunks Bush's claims of having volunteered for overseas duty. Cameo appearances include Jon Voight, Werner Kemplerer, and Judy Garland.
2. "In The Garden of Eden (war crimes/DC rally mix)"
This is a remixed and remastered version of Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida", which we chose in light of Iraq's geographical location. We have added some commentary, including unintentional Bush irony from the State of the Union address, comments from Francis Boyle on how the Iraq war violates the Nuremberg Charter, and numerous commentators from the January 18th anti-war rally held in Washington DC. Cameo appearances include George Bush the elder, Donald Rumsfeld, and Greg Palast.
3. "In The Garden of Eden (Zinn/Fisk/Nader mix)"
Although this song is very similar to the previous mix, most of the soundbites have been replaced. Featured commentators include Robert Fisk, Ralph Nader, and Howard Zinn, with cameo appearances by Alec Guinness, Sessue Hayakawa, Terry Moran, and John Pilger.
So before you do anything else today, treat yourself to some good music. Don't panic, like most fine things in life, The Compassionate Conservatives' music is completely free!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Responding to doctors' complaints about soaring insurance costs, House Republicans pushed through legislation to limit jury awards in malpractice cases.
By a 229-196 vote, the House passed a bill Thursday that would cap noneconomic damages, such as compensation for loss of a limb or sight, at $250,000. The bill would not limit compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses and other economic damages.
Want an idea of what Bush considers malpractice reform?
BUSH MALPRACTICE REFORM POINTS
• Allow injured patients quicker, unlimited compensation for their economic losses, including provisions for unpaid services like care for children or parents
• Cap non-economic damages at $250,000
• Cap punitive damages at two times economic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater
• Provide for payments of judgments over time rather than in a single lump sum
• Establish limits on how long cases can be brought after an event
• Notify juries if a plaintiff has other sources of reimbursement for an injury
Climate change was largely to blame for the collapse of the Mayan civilisation in Central America more than 1,000 years ago, research suggests.
By the middle of the 8th Century there were up to 13 million people in the Mayan population but within 200 years their cities lay abandoned.
The Mayans built complex systems of canals and reservoirs to collect rainwater for drinking in the hot, dry summers.
Despite this there has long been speculation that the whole population was wiped out by drought, but there has not been enough evidence to support this theory.
Now research published in the journal Science suggests that climate change was indeed a major factor.
But that's no reason to worry about global warming...
A group that claims to have cloned the first human babies, and capsules that purport to combat old age, are recipients of tongue-in-cheek awards from three prominent aging experts.
The "Silver Fleece" awards announced Thursday were created by S. Jay Olshansky, a scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, aging expert Leonard Hayflick of the University of California at San Francisco, and Bruce Carnes, who studies the biology of aging at the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago.
The trio contend the anti-aging industry's claims aren't backed up by science.
The selection of Clonaid, the group whose recent cloning claims have been questioned by many scientists, was a "no-brainer," Hayflick said
A prominent Muslim cleric urged Iraqis around the world Friday to threaten U.S. interests and "set them ablaze" as Baghdad pressed its verbal assault against American efforts to win U.N. authorization for war.
"The entire world, Muslims and non-Muslims, is cursing the aggressive intentions of the American administration against Iraq which, God willing, will be frustrated," Abdel-Razzaq al-Saadi, the imam of Umm al-Maarek, or Mother of All Battles mosque, said in his sermon during Friday prayers.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Frustrated by a threatened French veto, the Bush administration has abandoned its demand for a quick U.N. vote on a resolution backing war against Iraq and raised the possibility that President Bush might travel overseas to consult with key allies. As the president decided whether to drop his bid for a U.N. endorsement entirely, the White House began planning for a possible meeting this weekend between the president and his two staunchest allies on Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.
So much for having everyone put their cards on the table. Perhaps someone pointed out to Bush that the hand he was holding was a busted flush!
The value of TV media continues it's decline. Here we sit in the brink of war. Our economy sucks. We have become the diplomatic laughingstock of the world. Unemployment is sky high, the government is broke, and for the past three days it has been Liz Sharp all the time.
Now don't get me wrong, I am very happy that she was found. I have two daughters myself and I can just barely glimpse at the unbelievable relief the Smart family must feel. My heart truly goes out to them.
But come on. She's been found. She is safe. We should have spent all of five minutes on this story and moved on. Instead we are being treated to a deep, complete, and rather silly analysis of every aspect of this crime. Right now I am being treated to Patty Hearst giving her opinion on Smart being "brainwashed". Why did she not call someone, why did she not ask for help? Hey maybe it was because she is a child and grown-ups (who are perceived as as all powerful by children) were telling her that everyone she knew and loved would die! Ya think?
*Sigh*
If only the media would do half the job on more important stories.
I am taking the day off but don't despair. We have a guest who has a particular bone to pick with a very disturbing trend in the bloggerverse. So welcome Mac Diva:
MORE CATS....My cat post on Friday prompted an outpouring of requests from one guy for more pictures. Good enough for me!
So here they are again. The big black and white one on the left is named Inkblot (for obvious reasons). He weighs in at nearly a full stone and has an IQ, even in cat terms, of about 10. The brown tabby on the right is Jasmine, named by one of our friends' kids, and she tends toward "small but clever." She keeps Inkblot on a leash through sheer force of will.
So, will I be posting more cat pictures in the future? Will I ever! Thanks to the miracle of digital photography, I can take literally endless pictures of my cats and it costs me absolutely nothing. You, of course, are the beneficiaries of this technological wizardry.
(Don't like it because you access CalPundit via a slow dial-up link? Hmmm, how can I put this politely? GET BROADBAND!)
POSTSCRIPT: On a slightly more sober note, I'd like to encourage other bloggers to post personal nonsense like this too. Maybe it will inspire Bill Sjostrom to post more pictures of his dog, for example.
As John Cole pointed out a few weeks ago, these kinds of things remind us all that while we mostly talk about politics in our blogs and therefore conclude that all the other guys are venal, smug, hypocritical idiots, we are actually fairly ordinary people in real life — you know, going to work, attending church, raising our kids, fixing the broken faucet, and so forth. I myself, for example, steal candy from babies only when there's simply no other choice, and I imagine my ideological opposites, misguided though they are, feel much the same way.
And now it's off to lunch. A chili burger at Tommy's sounds like it would hit the spot today. Yum yum!
At risk of being deemed a sourpuss, I disagree.
How can anyone take issue with requests for more pictures of cats and references to the wife and kids? Rather easily. I don't read blogs because I find their hosts nice guys and gals. I read them to get information and expose myself to informed opinion. To the extent that other content distracts bloggers from meeting those goals, I consider it surplusage. Does that mean that every reference to Atrios' cat, Oliver's dog or Kevin's wife annoys me? Of course not. However, I prefer that those references remain occasional. Furthermore, I can think of several kinds of mischief that might result from too much niceness in the blogosphere.
I know of a blogger who holds some very unsavory opinions. He has denied that the GOP's Southern Strategy exists, demanded all liberal bloggers apologize to him for an imagined insult and endorsed torture of terrorism suspects. After each of these episodes, and others like them, the blogger posted photographs of his young children. It is a pattern with him. Say something horrid. Post a photo of an adorable toddler or a precocious preschooler. If the offense is particularly bad, post photos of both kids. Readers are apparently supposed to look at the photos and think, 'Maybe X is not such a creep, after all.' I would rather not even know the blogger has children than see them used as bribes for acceptance in this way. If Kevin's well-intended suggestion catches on, it would encourage other bloggers to behave similarly. People would try to compensate for their dull content, bad personalities or low traffic by being 'nice.'
Placing a premium on niceness is unfair to acerbic bloggers. The fact that a blogger's personality is rather vinegary does not mean his opinions are less worthy of being read than those of the saacharine, but shallow. Indeed, in my opinion, some of the better bloggers do not suffer fools gladly or seek approval from other bloggers and readers. Their 'this is who I am and what I think' attitude does not offend me, though I know it rubs some people the wrong way. I want them to remain not particularly nice.
A focus on niceness would be unfair to single bloggers. Much of what is considered 'nice' is also domestic. Sure, I suppose single people can compete in regard to pictures of cats, dogs and tropical fish. However, they don't have spouses, or, in most cases, children. I can't think of any picture Oliver Willis can post that would compete with someone's picture of her baby for attention. (Though, Lord knows, I wish he would get rid of the cheesecake.)
In a blogosphere in which bloggers scored points for warmth and fuzziness, this kind of clever conversational piece would likely be overlooked. After all, it doesn't involve children, pets or even a spouse -- just two academics sitting 'round talking.
For these reasons, and any you think of, I hope you will join me in opposing more niceness in the blogosphere.
--Mac Diva
*Addendum - You know, I can't help but feel that this article is about me. Aside from having an ego big enough to think someone would bother to write about me, I also hold the opinion that I am one of the more rude bloggers in the bloggerverse. I blame it on my years on Usenet, where polite conversation became extinct around 1991. It makes me wonder if that is why my articles are not linked to more often. I seem to have no problem calling people stupid, fools, idiots, mental lightweights, shitheads, well you get the idea. If it is any comfort to Diva and in spite of the lack of links, I have no intention of changing my style. In spite of my tendency to insult it is not an example of ad hominem attack, I do address arguments, I try really hard not to duck any issue. I tend to do an extraordinary amount of research for online debates and I usually know my facts. Which is more than I can say for the regular run of idiots that have attempted to debate me over the years. I also believe that if someone makes a stupid or dishonest argument then they should be called on it. Perhaps they will change, though in truth I have seen no evidence that it works.
See, insults don't bother me, hell you can't survive on Usenet long if you have a thin skin. I always tell people to feel free to throw those insults right back and if they are halfway creative I will even laugh. I believe an ability to laugh at one's self is a sign of a healthy mind. In fact, my whole family pretty much communicate by insult, we consider a well placed put down the height of intelligent discourse (so much for my family eh?).
No it is not insults that bother me, it is dishonest, poorly thought out, inadequately sourced, stupid, hypocritical, bullshit arguments, of which the internet seems to be a never ending source. A good example of this is an debate I saw on a webboard about evidence that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11. The question was quite simple...what evidence exists to show such a link? At first the claim was that the evidence was self apparent. So the question was asked again, because it was not self evident to the person who asked for evidence. So flattery was tried, expressions of disbelief that this person would not know this self evident evidence because they were so smart, they seemed to know everything. What hurt was it worked, the question was lost in the flurry of complimentary fluff that followed.
So I for one will gladly join Mac Diva in opposing more niceness in the "blogosphere".
One more thing before I take my day off (sure seems to be a lot of writing for a day off). I really want to thank Mac Diva for sending this to me. I find the idea of allowing other people to post here rather exciting, so please feel free to do the same. If you have something to say, and no place to say it, send it along and I will be glad to post it. My rules are really simple. I promise not to change one word in what you send me, not to correct typos and not to make it more "readable" whatever that means. I believe people should pay for their mistakes. You don't have to agree with my politics either, I will gladly post opposing view. However I do reserve the right to add comments to the beginning and end of your article. Let's see how well this works, if it works at all.
On Monday Radley Balko of "The Agitator" (one of the bloggers mentioned) dropped by to assure me that torture does indeed work, at least it has twice in ten years. Wow with a track record like that, I simply don't see why we have not used it before now. You can catch the conversation so far by clicking on the comment link below the article. One thing that Radlley did accomplish was getting me to change the comment template, since it is impossible to read URLs. I did indeed miss the one he posted, but that is about the only thing he got right.
It is probably incorrect to call Radley a liberal, from his blog it appears he is libertarian, so the idea that he supports torture is not nearly as shocking to me as Hesiod supporting it (and support it he does, as I found much to my sorrow in the comment section of this article over at Ted Barlow's blog). Of course on this question it really does not seem to matter what side of the political fence you sit on. Some people react with horror at the thought that this country might engage in torture, some people seem to be resigned to it. Guess which camp I am in.
I have not been impressed by Radley's debating skills so far, he has ignored many problems with using torture as a intelligence tool, in fact, the only thing he has going for him is that it seems to have worked twice. In ten years. Don't forget that.
So is Radley right? Was there really two cases in which torture worked? He links to a this story "The US may use torture against terrorism" By Alasdair Palmer 15/12/2002:
Most of us are so appalled by the whole idea of torture that we are inclined to claim that it does not work. Unfortunately it does - at least sometimes. In 1995 al-Qaeda planned to hijack 11 airliners flying out of the Philippines, with a total of 4,000 people aboard, and to crash them into the Pacific.
The Philippine intelligence agencies, suspecting a plot, arrested and tortured a man they thought was one of the terrorists. They broke most of his ribs, burned his genitals with cigarettes and poured water into his mouth until he couldn't breathe. After 67 days, he came up with the information which enabled the Filipinos, together with the Americans - who were provided with the fruits of the interrogation - to frustrate the plot.
"In a sense, we already use torture anyway," one CIA officer told me. "When we arrest a foreign national who we think has important information, we hand him over to a foreign government such as the Egyptians. Its police will arrest the suspect's wife and children, put them at the other end of the same cell, and then produce a couple of pit bulls and say: 'Talk, or we let these dogs go at your wife and child.' That usually works."
It seems to have worked, for instance, on Mahmud Abouhalima, an al-Qaeda member involved in the first plot to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. Abouhalima unwisely fled to Egypt, where he was arrested. So was his mother. He was interrogated by the Egyptians and persuaded to name those involved in the plot. The CIA received a transcript.
Well this leaves a heck of a lot unsaid! I have found very little about Abouhalima on the web, using the search terms Mahmud Abouhalima and Torture so it is a claim I have no way of analyzing. If you check out the "Commemorate WTC Website" here and here you will see how the investigation and arrest came about for the first WTC bombers. At least the official account.
I had much better luck finding out about Abdul Hakim Murad the unnamed terrorist who's information gathered under brutal torture supposedly frustrated the plot known as "Bojinka". The only way you can conclude that torture worked in this case is if you have a vivid imagination.
The claim goes like this. Arrested and tortured by Philippine intelligence agents, Murad told the story of Bojinka, -- which means "big bang" in Serbo-Croatian -- the code name bin Laden operatives had given to an audacious plan to bomb 11 U.S. airliners simultaneously and fly an airplane into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. -- all after attempting to assassinate Pope John Paul II.
What is unmentioned is a laptop, a refusal to talk even after the most brutal torture, and just how well our intelligence agencies swallowed this information!
First things first. What got Murad arrested was a fire in the apartment his particular terrorist cell was using to make bombs. In fleeing the apartment they left behind a laptop computer containing the plans for "Bojinka". Murad was told to go back to the apartment to clear out any incriminating evidence and it was there he was arrested. So torturing Murad was not for the purpose of discovering this plot, the plot was already discovered via the laptop.
Nor did the brutal torture actually work. Murad kept his mouth firmly shut even after the Philippine intelligence agents "broke most of his ribs, burned his genitals with cigarettes and poured water into his mouth until he couldn't breathe". In fact, what made Murad talk was the threat of being turned over to the Mossad!
In 1995 Abdul Hakim Murad was arrested for planning to kill the pope and blow up 11 American airliners. Eager to learn more, the Philippine National Police Intelligence Group beat Murad, forced water into his mouth, crushed lighted cigarettes into his private parts, made him sit on ice cubes, threatened to rape him and told him that he’d never see the light of day in Manila. (Murad did not spill, however, until the Filipinos threatened to turn him over to Israel’s Mossad for further interrogation.)
Murad would not talk. Handed over to intelligence agents, he taunted them. That didn't last.
"For weeks, agents hit him with a chair and a long piece of wood, forced water into his mouth, and crushed lighted cigarettes into his private parts," wrote journalists Marites Vitug and Glenda Gloria in "Under the Crescent Moon," an acclaimed book on Abu Sayyaf. "His ribs were almost totally broken and his captors were surprised he survived."
An investigator intimately knowledgeable of the investigation confirmed the torture, but gloated that it was Murad's fears of Jews that finally broke him. "We impersonated the Mossad," he said, referring to the Israeli intelligence service. "He thought we were going to take him to Israel."
Clearly it was the threat of the Mossad, and not the torture that "broke" Murad. So how can one say that in this case, torture worked?
The last point must be how well the U. S. intelligence agencies treated the information from Murad. I think the events of 9/11 proved that the U. S. intelligence agencies pretty much ignored this information. Could it be that they knew how unreliable such information has proven to be?
Of course, it really does not matter in the long run. Where Radley makes his most profound mistake is in viewing torture as a single instant, when it is really a process
First lets do a bit of math. The Torture Survivors Network claims that "there are at least 123 countries which utilize torture as a means of controlling its citizens". We will be very conservative and say that one person in each country is tortured a day. So that's 123 people a day. Now we multiply that by 365 days. That's 44,895 people a year. Now multiply that by ten years. 448,950 people and the best that Radley can do is point to two examples where it supposedly worked. Oh yah, and the rather nebulous claim that Israel uses torture successfully all the time, but I have no evidence of this. Nor would I trust the Mossad to tell me truthfully that it worked, since they have a vested interest. I mean, how else are you going to justify torture but by claiming it works?
Radley, in pinning his hopes on two examples of torture "working" ignores all of the larger problems engaging in torture entails. So for his edification I will repeat:
In addition to being ineffective when it comes to getting information, once we employ torture we have opened a door. I like to believe that America sets the moral standard for the rest of the world (which in this day and age is damn scary). When we accede the necessity of torture we have only made it easier for our enemies to do the same.
I still claim that torture does not work, and Radley has offered nothing to enable me to change my mind. To put the final nail in the coffin allow me to extensively quote from "The Utility of Torture in the War Against Terrorism" by Mark Harrison, Professor of Economics University of Warwick:
First, the authorities do not know in advance whom they should torture. There are always many suspects relative to those that possess significant information. For example, the United States is today holding 1147 people in detention, but only some of them will turn out to have had guilty knowledge. A first group will have remained silent in order to conceal their guilty knowledge of terrorist conspiracies. A second group will have kept silent because they have something to hide but it is not what the authorities expect; perhaps they know nothing about terrorist conspiracies but they have other kinds of guilty knowledge concerning ordinary crimes which have given rise to an accidental association with terrorism. And a third group will have kept silent because they have no guilty knowledge, only a purely accidental association with no real foundation. But to the authorities these three groups all look alike. In particular they share one essential common feature,their failure to give the authorities information of value about September 11th. Thus a decision to implement a policy of torture is likely to be aimed at all suspects who remain silent.
In implementing a policy of torture it is important to understand that torture is not an act but a process. This process apparently goes through at least two stages. In the first stage the pain that is inflicted remains bearable so those who have something to hide continue to say nothing, and those who have nothing to say continue to say so. In the second stage the pain is no longer bearable and this damages the personality of the suspect to the point where normal loyalties to family, to associates, to the truth, or to a moral or intellectual cause, are broken down. Of course, everyone is different so each person enters this second stage on an individual time scale. Some may reach it almost immediately, while a few people are strong enough to die first. An important feature of the second stage of torture is that once it is reached the victim will say anything to halt the process. But what is now said will differ from case to case. Those in the first group that have guilty knowledge of terrorism will reveal it. Those in the second group with knowledge that is guilty but not about terrorism will also tell what they know. And those in the third group that have no guilty knowledge will lay claim to information that they do not possess and make it up. This creates a problem for the interrogator, who cannot tell truth from lies. The interrogator knows that as the torture proceeds some suspects who are guilty, but not necessarily of terrorism, will continue to lie; some who have guilty secrets will startto reveal them, but the truth will not necessarily help the interrogator if it does not concern terrorism; finally, some who are innocent will start to lie. The size of the interrogator's problem is increased if the new information provided by a suspect is in conflict with the expectations he has formed as the result of interrogating the previous batch of suspects. The veracity of the information revealed under torture cannot be taken for granted and must be tested through further interrogation. Someone is lying, but while evidence relies on selfincrimination alone the interrogator's only way to find out is to combine continued torture of the current suspects with renewed interrogation of the suspects from the previous round. Matching the interrogator's problem is therefore the problem of the suspect, who must find out the "truth" that the interrogator desires. The suspect wishes the torture to stop, but to achieve this it is not enough for her to tell the real truth. She must rather tell a version of facts that converges with and reinforces the interrogator's prior expectations. Since the interrogator will not reveal his expectations at the outset, she cannot establish a convincing confession immediately, but must find it out by trial and error during the second stage of torture. In other words the second stage cannot finish immediately when the suspect first confesses. Like the torture itself, confession involves protracted interaction between the suspect and the interrogator, during which the version of the truth that will finally satisfy the interrogator can be drafted and redrafted with literally painstaking care.
One consequence is that torture is a selfreinforcing process. It gives rise to a mixture of truths and lies, both of which may be used subsequently to justify the continued policy of torture. The truths that concern real terrorist conspiracies, such as those revealed by Abdul Hakim Murad, can be publicised as examples of the success of torture. The truths that concern other crimes can also be exploited in other ways. The lies that are woven in with the truths are also useful: they become the basis for implicating wider circles of suspects and propagating further investigations that will randomly generate more claimed successes, more suspects, and more investigations. A special twist to this selfreinforcing feedback is added when terrorist assocations are communally based and suspects are selected for torture by their membership of a community or ethnic group. Under these circumstances torture deepens the existing ethnic divisions in global society, and also creates an opportunity for the terrorist organisation to pose as a defender of the community.
A final and most important consequence is that the process of torture is corrupting. Torture creates employment for the interrogators, and privileges that stem from the capacity to instill fear. The practice of torture also attracts those who find it enjoyable and use it as an instrument of selfgratification rather than investigation. Thus it gives rise to vested interests in its continuation that do not wish to be held accountable for their actions. These interests are helped by secrecy. Torture takes place in secret. Most people find the subject distasteful and do not wish to know about it, and this further strengthens the wall of secrecy. The result is a part of the state that exercises a cruel and tyrannical power over society, one that grows inevitably with the extension of torture and has the power to resist subsequent attempts to curb it. To conclude, causing calculated pain to a single individual may well appear at first sight to be a lesser evil than permitting thousands to die horribly and in terror. The historical evidence shows, however, that the use of torture is incapable of being restricted to single individuals with guilty knowledge. It cannot give quick results, nor can it be a temporary measure. Rather, it is the start of a process that has no obvious limits. In short torture is part of the process of terror.
So the bottom line is that by using torture, we become what we fear.
On a more personal note (and at the risk of pissing some people off ) I must say that I view anyone that accedes to the necessity of torture as being nothing more than a moral coward. Ben Franklin said it best when he said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety". What you are telling me is that, in order to grab that little bit of temporary safety, you are willing to become a monster. What ever happened to the idea that sacrifice, even of your life, might be required in order to protect the freedom and liberty for which we are supposedly hated? Why is it acceptable to ask the young men and women of the armed forces to sacrifice their life for your freedom when you are so scared that you might lose your life to a terrorist that you are willing to engage in a practice that by any moral standard is horrid?
Sorry guys, I simply refuse to become that which I fear.
*A Note: Dr. James Rockford is not really a doctor nor James Rockford. He came up with the name as a tribute to "The Rockford Files". It hardly matters to me, I don't need to know who the person is in order to admire their arguments but to be fair, I thought I should mention his anonymous nature.
Mark Glaser of the University of California Annenberg's School for Communication proves to be a scholar and a gentleman.
Well this was totally unexpected:
Hi Dominion,
Thanks for your eloquent note on my mistakes in that column. You're right I obviously got it all wrong, and I apologize for it. I'll be running a correction in my next column.
As for weblogs I found in my search, I made a couple other errors regarding one of them. I misidentified one weblog run by James McLaughlin as being called "The Skeptical Blogger" and of a conservative bent, based on one post about a "conservative alert." Jim informed me of the double blunder, because it's really "A Skeptical Blog" and he's a diehard liberal. Thanks to interactivity and weblogs, McLaughlin got to get his say in spades on his weblog, even citing the OJR Style Guide along the way.
Well how about that. A very polite note in answer to some pretty harsh criticism. Mr. Glaser proves to be the type of journalist we should all admire.
Note that he did not try to blame it on me ("Well it's your own stupid fault for running a conservative alert"), and he did not try to explain things ("I thought that a person that ran a site called "A Skeptical Blog" would certainly be called "The Skeptical Blogger"). No he stepped up to the plate like a man and apologized, even though I wrote, even in my opinion, a very snarky letter. I am impressed.
I would say that Mr. Glaser has set a rather high standard for the rest of us, and I can only hope that the next time I get something factually wrong, that I can make a correction with half the class Mr. Glaser exhibits.
I ran across a great comment over at Eschaton. Written by Dr. James Rockford he asks just why there are people on the left that justify torture:
I am quite gratified that you mentioned the increased tolerance for torture in this post. I hope you see fit to devote a post (or more) to it.
I am quite disheartened to see several prominent bloggers -- ostensibly sane, liberal bloggers -- justify torture. Oliver Willis supports torture and so does Radley Balko. And Counterspin Central's Hesiod e-mailed me to declare as much.
This is very disheartening indeed. Our values are in far worse shape than I thought.
I don't know if Willis is trying to be cute or prove that he's a "tough" liberal so that he can get his much coveted radio show. Just like with his support of the death penalty, he does not offer any thoughtful reasons for supporting torture. He simply states he does because Al Qaeda is hateful. This is hardly an argument since nobody is suggesting torturing people whom we do not consider hateful, evil, etc. The challenge we face, as presumably civilized people, is to resist the temptation to torture horrid people -- because we do not want to become horrid ourselves.
But even more obscene is Balko's argument that it's ok to torture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed because, "He's not an American citizen. He wasn't born here..." This is the sort of jingoism that really justifies anti-Americanism. Does Balko think that being a natural-born American citizen endow one with basic rights that should be withheld from non-citizens? Doesn't he realize that the selective application of rights implies that not all people are equally human? Racism, sexism, and countless other bigotries have been justified on the idea that the protections of the U.S. Constitution should apply only to a privileged class worthy of citizenship by virtue of color or sex -- or in Balko's case, birth.
I'm certain many people -- myself included -- have had revenge fantasies after 9/11. The sadness and the fury all caring people felt is undeniable. If this was a movie I would have derived immense visceral pleasure seeing Bruce or Arnold cut Osama's testicles and stuff them in his ears. But this is not a movie. This much should be obvious.
Those who defend torture will often base it on the Alan Dershowitz "ticking nuclear bomb" scenario: There's a nuclear bomb ready to go off and kill thousands of people. The one person who knows where it is won't say. In this case, who wouldn't use torture to extract the information?
Well, it is only fair to ask the pro-torture people to explain how far they would go. Torture, after all, it's not really about causing physical pain; it's about applying unbearable pressure -- which may involve physical pain but always involves degradation.
Since this is inherently a very unpleasant subject I will be uncomfortably, gruesomely specific: What if a nuclear bomber won't respond to mere pain? After all terrorists like the 9/11 villains are prepared to die; I'm sure they can put up with a little pain. Now, the clock it ticking. Should we try sexual torture? Should we rape his child in front of his eyes to make him break? Cut the toddler up in pieces, a piece at a time?
Would Willis, Balko and Hesiod be willing to perform these services for their country?
It is only fair to ask those who support torture to provide a public answer. For the record, I'd rather go up in a mushroom cloud with my whole family and all my children and all my friends and pets and compatriots and acquaintances, and the whole country and the whole earth if need be than surrender my humanity. After all, in the long-term we'll all be dead. I'd rather die earlier and die a human.
I'm truly shocked that anyone left of Savage would ever advocate torture under any circumstances. Please give as much publicity as possible to this subject. Only a lot of light will illustrate it for what it is, a descent into barbarism, a surrender to our baser, reptilian impulses. If this attitude is as widespread as I fear, Al Qaeda won. It cost them a few terrorists and it cost us a country.
Dr. James Rockford
I wouldn't mind seeing the answer to that question myself. Torture does not work. Never has and never will. What people seem to fail to grasp is that a person being tortured will say anything to get the torture to stop. Is the information good? Maybe so, but maybe no. After all, the information we have been getting from those Al Qaeda prisoners of war has not been all that hot, and as far as I know, no one there has been tortured. Will torturing make them more willing to tell the truth? Or more willing to say what they think their interrogators want them to say?
In addition to being ineffective when it comes to getting information, once we employ torture we have opened a door. I like to believe that America sets the moral standard for the rest of the world (which in this day and age is damn scary). When we accede the necessity of torture we have only made it easier for our enemies to do the same.
Nor do I think the Alan Dershowitz "ticking nuclear bomb" scenario is all that valid. What he is trying to do here is reduce the question to one of personal alarm. Would I use torture to prevent someone from harming my family? I honestly don't know, and let's face it, the chances are I will never have the opportunity to find out, thankfully. However, I am not the government and to me, at least, that is an important distinction. Rather a better question would be would I willingly give up a fraction of my "safety" if doing so would prevent the U. S. from torturing prisoners. Do we not have better ways to gather intelligence? Don't you think that a full, open and complete investigation of 9/11 would go far to quieting fears that our intelligence agencies are not up to the task? Because I can't help but feel that the people that accept torture are afraid that other methods won't cut it.
Practical matters aside if America decides to torture people, what then sets us apart from any other two bit dictator? And please spare me the idea it is ok because we are America. That is simply an argument too stupid to answer.
So should we engage in something that will have no practical value other than to convince the rest of the world that we have gone rouge?
Think people. Just how effective was torture when it came to finding witches? If your answer is "not very" then why in the hell do you think it will be effective in finding a terrorist? If your answer is "very" then I suggest you head to your nearest library and do some reading!
Mark Glaser of the University of California Annenberg's School for Communication demonstrates the problem with the Media
I did not intend to write anything today, it has been a busy busy week. However, in going over my logs, I noticed I was getting referrals from this link. I had never seen it before so I decided to give it a quick check. The link lead to the article "Unearthing Dirt in Weblogs Still a Black Art" written by Mark Glaser. It was pretty exciting till I got to the one line that mentions my blog:
A conservative blog called "The Skeptical Blogger"? Never heard of it. Imagine my confusion when I clicked on the link and discovered that it was my blog!
Oops!
So many things wrong in one line of text simply begs a response. So I wrote one:
Good Morning Mark:
I can't tell you how flattered I was that you mentioned my blog in your article "Unearthing Dirt in Weblogs Still a Black Art" on Wednesday, March 5, 2003. Even though it was only one line, what really impressed me is just how much you managed to get wrong.
First the blog name is "A Skeptical Blog". I am called Dominion or James McLaughlin if you would rather use real names (I am not anonymous, having been outed (my real name exposed) on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology a number of years ago). I don't know how you managed to come up with "The Skeptical Blogger" but it was creative if not accurate.
Second, and more grievous to me, I am an unabashed liberal, so is my blog, and it pains me to no end to be identified as a conservative.
Perhaps if you had spent a few minutes actually reading the blog as opposed to running a search and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion we would not be discussing this now. It does not take a whole lot of digging to find out just what side of the political fence I am sitting on (on the very page you link to, I complain about the destruction of the FCC thanks to Michael Powell, I mention the California highway patrol lost a lawsuit over racial profiling, I express horror at the idea that TV media is itching for war (as evident from the link to the nifty new CNN "War Watch" flash animation page), hell I had a four day debate over the idea that there is some biological concept to the idea of "race" with a guy that is clearly identified as a conservative...does this sound like the blog of someone from the right wing????).
Now I understand the point of your article was being able to find blog subjects using search engines. And I realize you are probably a very busy guy. And truthfully if you were just a regular member of the media I would not have thought twice about this, accuracy is something I gave up on a long time ago. But your not. You are writing this article for "An Online Journalism Review" from the University of California Annenberg's School for Communication. Imagine my horror in realizing this. If there is no understanding of the importance of accuracy from a school, just where are students to get such an understanding? Certainly not in the field, hell all you have to do is cast your mind back to the trashing of Al Gore built on such stupid lies as he "discovered" Love Canal, he "invented" the internet, and my personal fav, that he was the real life inspiration for the male character in "Love Story".
At a time when journalist are trusted a tad less than used car salesmen, I would think that a "School of Communication" would at least attempt to "get it right". But what do I know? I am not (Thank God) a journalist.
