I added a new section over on the right-hand of the page called "Of Interest." Here I will post links that I find and think are interesting. Maybe there's someting you think is interesting, too? Maybe not. I don't know.

special thanks to Jacob for making everything work!

The U.S. handed over power to the interim Iraqi government in June. U.S. troops remain in Iraq "at the request of the new government."

Yesterday the Hindustani Times reported that

US troops arrested the deputy head of Iraq's interim Parliament Nassir Ayef in a dawn operation at his Baghdad home on Tuesday, a spokesman from his party said.

Remember, this is not an occupation. Everything is just fine.

The intelligence problems leading up to 9/11? Iraq WMD? What was the CIA failure? Apparently it was a failure to keep quiet and toe the party line. Enjoy your new one party system, people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/politics/17intel.html?oref=login

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.

"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."

As we all know, I'm sure, Yasser Arafat died early this morning. I spent too much time today reading commentary on Arafat and his life written by people who know nothing about the man or his history. After a while I could tell who read what propaganda, where each person's political sympathies lie. There are two main storylines surrounding Arafat - he was a saint, he was the devil. Somewhere, I suspect, in the wide gulf inbetween, is the truth. What exactly that truth is, I do not know.

My initial reaction to today's discourse on Arafat was "I can't wait for this to blow over." Americans (I can only speak of those whom I know) love to pontificate on world affairs - the less we actually know of any particular situation, the stronger our opinions seem to be. Some will argue that this is a result of our insecurity in being a young nation. I disagree - I think it's just arrogance.

From what little I have read about the Israeli/Palestinian history and conflict, I can only say that I think Arafat did some good, and some bad. In this, I suppose, is reflected his humanity. Today, though, I read more than one person write, "Arafat did [some act X] and this is so bad that it nullifys anything good he ever did!" Really?!? How unfortunate! (This was usually followed by de-contextualized or ahistorical evidence and racist invective).

It's interesting to me that an act can be so bad that it nullifies any worth in a man's life. Are there, I wonder, any acts that are so good that they outweigh any crimes one committed? Personally, I have no use for such Manichean duality. The world, and each of us in it, is far more complicated than such a simple formula allows.

Arafat was, like all of us, human. He stumbled and struggled through life. He did some good, some bad. It is not for me to judge him - I have neither the knowledge, the wisdom, nor the moral authority. That he had an impact in the world is not debatable. How that impact will bear out in time remains to be seen.

The truth is, I don't really know anything about Arafat. Chances are excellent that neither do you. I say we let him rest now. He had a long and full life, and now it is over. Besides, we've much too much work to do ourselves.

ACTION ALERT

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped in Rome by members of the Mossad - the Israeli secret police. He was taken to Israel and put in prison for 18 years. Vanunu spent over 11 years in solitary confinement. His crime? Revealing to the world a secret and illegal nuclear WMD program. Vanunu was released from prison in April or 2004.

Today, Mordechai Vanunu was re-arrested:

On Thursday morning, about 20 police commandos wearing bulletproof vests and wielding machine guns burst into the walled compound of St. George's Anglican church where Vanunu took sanctuary in a guesthouse after his release, arresting him as he ate breakfast.

Mordechai Vanunu is being accused, again, of revealing state secrets. The charges are ludicrous, as Vanunu revealed what he knew long ago. Vanunu is being persecuted for continuing to work to eradicate the world of nuclear weapons, for fighting for peace.

Contact the Israeli Embassy and demand the Mordechai Vanunu be released immediately:

Israeli Embassy: (202) 364-5500
email: ambassador_sec@israelemb.org
fax: 202-364-5607
Public & Interreligious Affairs: (202) 364-5542
Political Department: (202)364-5581/2
Press Office: (202) 364-5538

If you are not in the United States, contact Israeli ambassador in your country: http://www.embassyworld.com/embassy/israel1.html.

Call your Congressman, write your local paper - demand that this story be covered and that Vanunu be released before he is forced to suffer any further.

via under the same sun

I'm sure they've got a great excuse. They always do.

The AP is reporting that Bush's friends fund terror.

Nineteen executives of companies fined by OFAC for dealing with state sponsors of terrorism were top campaign fundraisers for Bush.

One example is Joseph J. Grano Jr., chair of the federal Homeland Security Advisory Council, which the president created by executive order and whose members he selected. Grano formerly headed the U.S. subsidiary of the Swiss bank UBS AG. It paid more than $100 million in fines for trading U.S. currency to Iran and other nations and for transferring funds to Iraq during Saddam's rule.

So, let me get this straight. Until Bush was elected (sic) in 2000, his friends and colleagues - including the sitting Vice President - were happily doing business with the so-called "axis of evil", the people who supposedly "hate our freedom" and want to kill us. And what price do they have to pay?

The average penalty for a company doing business with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan or Libya dropped nearly threefold, from more than $50,000 in the five years before the 2001 attacks to about $18,700 afterward, according to a computer-assisted analysis of federal records.

Those "fines" are not large enough to be considered punitive. They are little more than a wink and a nod.

For all the vile threats against people who speak out against terrorism - accusations of "hating freedom" and treason - where are the cries against these men? Do they not directly violate the so-called "Bush doctrine"? Do they not "provide aid and comfort to the enemy"?

The Bush cartel, the AEI, PNAC - none of them are interested in freedom or democracy; they are interested in power. You are dispensable. If you think otherwise, please contact me as soon as possible - there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

The Telegraph has a disturbing article about the attitudes of some soldiers in Iraq.

Capt Kirk Mayfield, commander of the Phantoms, called for fire from his task force's mortar team. But Sgt Anyett didn't want to wait. "Dude, give me the sniper rifle. I can take them out - I'm from Alabama."

Two minutes tick by. "They're moving deep," shouted Sgt Anyett with disappointment. A dozen loud booms rattle the sky and smoke rose as mortars rained down on the co-ordinates the sergeant had given.

"Yeah," he yelled. "Battle Damage Assessment - nothing. Building's gone. I got my kills, I'm coming down. I just love my job."

...

Lt Jack Farley, a US Marines officer, sauntered over to compare notes with the Phantoms. "You guys get to do all the fun stuff," he said. "It's like a video game. We've taken small arms fire here all day. It just sounds like popcorn going off."

At least one person at National Review Online's "Corner" says of the Telegraph article,

"I'm not sure the author intended this to be wholly flattering, but this is the sort of attitude I think many of us want for the tip of the foremost spear in the arsenal of democracy."

As usual, it seems, the folks at NRO are very, very wrong. Relying on sophmoric apologetics rather than reason, they become the very thing they claim they are fighting against - nihilist apologists for murder.

Garry Wills asks in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books, What is a Just War? It's an interesting look at the history of Just War Theory and and an application of Michael Walzer's ideas about Just War to the current war in Iraq. I highly recommend taking the time to read it.

One thing in Wills's article that really struck me was the Augustinian idea that

Anyone who looks with anguish on evils so great, so repulsive, so savage, must acknowledge the tragedy of it all; and if anyone experiences them or even looks on at them without anguish, his condition is even more tragic, since he remains serene by losing his humanity.

Wills refers also to Abraham Lincoln's Fast Day proclamation:

And whereas, when our own beloved Country, once, by the blessing of God, united, prosperous and happy, is now afflicted with faction and civil war, it is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation, and in sorrowful remembrance of our own faults and crimes as a nation and as individuals, to humble ourselves before Him, and to pray for His mercy, -- to pray that we may be spared further punishment, though most justly deserved...

Lincoln believed that the Civil War was justified. He believed that the violence was justified. But he never believed that the violence was good or "fun." He never reveled in death and destruction; rather, it tore at his very soul.

Reports of soldiers who love killing, who think war is "fun", should deeply disturb everyone, regardless of their views on the justification for the war. Whether or not you believe that the violence in Iraq is justified, there can be no justification for the glorification of violence and killing. We should live in anguish over choosing to commit violent acts; we should never be proud of it.

If the United States revels in violence, if we find joy in the killing of others, then the great American experiment is a failure, and may God have mercy on us all.

George Monbiot argues in The Guardian that the Bush cartel are not quasi-fascists, as many are coming to believe, but, rather, an outgrowth of 17th Century Puritanism

Puritanism was primarily the religion of the new commercial classes. It attracted traders, money lenders, bankers and industrialists. Calvin had given them what the old order could not: a theological justification of commerce. Capitalism, in his teachings, was not unchristian, but could be used for the glorification of God. From his doctrine of individual purification, the late Puritans forged a new theology.

At its heart was an "idealisation of personal responsibility" before God. This rapidly turned into "a theory of individual rights" in which "the traditional scheme of Christian virtues was almost exactly reversed". By the mid-17th century, most English Puritans saw in poverty "not a misfortune to be pitied and relieved, but a moral failing to be condemned, and in riches, not an object of suspicion ... but the blessing which rewards the triumph of energy and will".

Greetings from the Holy Evangelical Empire of Jesusland, may God Bless Our Fearless Leader.

Zeynep is concerned about U.S. military raids on Hospitals in Iraq:

Hospitals spread the news of civilian casualties so they must be targeted as part of the "information war."

I think this is a great idea. If there are no reports from hospitals of civilian casualties, then there are no civilian casualties. This way, the Iraqi people (a) will not die and (b) will not know that their families, friends, and neighbors are dead since there's not a hospital to compile official statistics! Seriously, who are we trying to convince here? Maybe it's the frightening number of people who think that Saddam Hussein was working with Osama Bin Laden to plan the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon in 2001.

In related news, The Holy Secretary of Defending Righteousness from Evildoers, Donald Rumsfeld, has assured us that, regarding the current assault on Falluja, "there aren't going be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces."

Certainly not. What would U.S. forces be doing killing anyone? With that assurance, we can all sleep better. After all, Rumsfeld has never mislead us before. He's a good, honest man.

Who do they think they're fooling? You.

The Center for Economic and Social Rights released a report in June titled: Beyond Torture: U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq.

The student is gone; the master has arrived.

– popular Iraqi saying after the U.S. ousted Saddam Hussein

The Bush Administration is committing war crimes and other serious violations of international law in Iraq as a matter of routine policy. Beyond the now-infamous examples of torture, rape, and murder at Abu Ghraib prison, the United States has ignored international law governing military occupation and violated the full range of Iraqis’ national and human rights—economic, social, civil and political rights.

The systematic nature of these violations provides compelling evidence of a policy that is rotten at its core and requires fundamental change. The occupation of Iraq is not leading to greater respect for rights and democracy, as promised by the Bush Administration, but rather entrenching a climate of lawlessness and feeding an increasing spiral of violent conflict that will not end until the occupation ends and underlying issues of justice are addressed. The question is: how long will it take, and how many lives will be lost, before Iraqis are able to exercise genuine self-determination and control their own destiny?

The Center for Economic and Social Rights released a report in June titled: Beyond Torture: U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq.

The student is gone; the master has arrived.

– popular Iraqi saying after the U.S. ousted Saddam Hussein

The Bush Administration is committing war crimes and other serious violations of international law in Iraq as a matter of routine policy. Beyond the now-infamous examples of torture, rape, and murder at Abu Ghraib prison, the United States has ignored international law governing military occupation and violated the full range of Iraqis’ national and human rights—economic, social, civil and political rights.

The systematic nature of these violations provides compelling evidence of a policy that is rotten at its core and requires fundamental change. The occupation of Iraq is not leading to greater respect for rights and democracy, as promised by the Bush Administration, but rather entrenching a climate of lawlessness and feeding an increasing spiral of violent conflict that will not end until the occupation ends and underlying issues of justice are addressed. The question is: how long will it take, and how many lives will be lost, before Iraqis are able to exercise genuine self-determination and control their own destiny?

Slavoj Zizek writes in In These Times that Bush's election may not be as bad as we think - in fact, it may be a good thing.

The New Waterloo

I am beginning to think that Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, may be prescient. Though later weapons inspector (and Bush lackey) David Kay offered his pathetic testimony that "we were all wrong" about Iraqi weapons capabilities, prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq Ritter wrote that Iraq was not in possession of the fabled WMD and that there was no evidence that the weapons existed. His attempts at truth-telling fell, unfortunately, on mostly deaf ears.

Ritter is not done trying to expose the crimes of the Bush cartel. On 1 November he wrote, with uncanny foresight, that We are All Moral Cowards. With the results of the following day's election now squarely behind us, his words ring more true than he probably intended.

Here is my concession speech. Though, technically, the election has not been declared, it seems to be all but over.

Prior to the election I told many people my opinion that, regardless of the outcome of the election, it is pretty clear that it is not a free and fair election, and it is certainly not democratic. This is not necessarily due to voter suppression or intimidation or fraud, rather it is due to the fact that our electoral system is fundamentally, structurally flawed. The electoral college, the winner-take-all spoils, partisan gerrymandering, single party districts, campaign finance, absence of equal time, barriers to ballot access, etc. - all of these things and more ensure not that elections are a reflection of the mood or will of the people, but that incumbents are protected, the status quo is maintained, and that the tyranny of the majority goes safely uncontested.

Unfortunately, as in years past (though it seems to be getting much more blatant) there is growing evidence of massive programs of voter intimidation, suppression, misinformation, and manipulation. Political operatives approach elections not as a process of determining the will of the people, but as a highly technical game played to win at all costs - the ultimate goal not being democracy, but consolidation and control of unprecedented power. This election was illegitimate not because Bush will (in all likelihood) be deemed the winner, but because we do not live in a democracy. Perhaps we should stop pretending like we do, take our collective head out of the sand, and fight to reclaim what is ours - the right to determine our own lives and our own government.

That said, I am more than a little disturbed by the reported outcome of yesterday's election. Many have made the case that there is little fundamental difference between many of the policy positions advocated by either Bush or Kerry. I am inclined, for the most part, to agree. But I think, still, that this election was vitally important. I think that we, the American people, have been given a free ride by the world community for the past few years. Yes, our government is committing atrocious and barbaric acts - but that is the result of the government being hijacked by the Bush cartel; once given the opportunity, the American people will surely replace him. Yesterday's election represented for much of the world a referendum on the policies and philosophy of the Bush cartel. With a Bush re-election, our free-ride is over. We are now complicit in the crimes against humanity being perpetrated by this government and its people. No more excuses, no more complaints that "he doesn't represent me!" - we had our chance, and we failed.

Furthermore, all 10 of the ridiculous, hateful, anti-gay ballot propositions passed by huge margins. 80% of those who voted for Bush said that "moral values" was the dominant motivator for their vote. Moral values? Are Bushites suddenly an army of Kantians? Of course not. When they say "moral values" they are referring not to any coherent philosophy, but to the same vicious, knee-jerk "values" promoted by their so-called enemies in fundamentalist theocracies. What is the difference between American fundamentalist law making and Taliban Sharia? Degree? Perhaps. But only because there has been a viable opposition to keep the forces of hateful, apocalyptic fundamentalism at bay in the U.S. Make no mistake - there are in this country well organized cabals of fundamentalist religious zealots who plan to drag this nation down into the cultural and social cesspools created by the most repressive regimes. Yesterday, we voted to remove that much more of the crumbling barrier separating church and state. The Roy Moores and Khomenis of the world are winning.

Where is the opposition? The Democratic party has proven yet again to be a soulless, spineless machine. The Kerry campain pandered to fundamentalists (gay marriage bad!) and promised an increase in carnage (more troops! more war!). Decades ago the Democratic party made the strategic decision to run on the platform of the Republican party - one of law & order, militarization, and neoliberal economics. That allowed far-right, antidemocratic forces to shift the Republican party platform to the extremist position that we see today. The Democrats have made themselves irrelevant, and now, I fear, there is no viable opposition to the powerful Republican machine.

All of this I will concede. I am not convinced that it is untrue, and so I make this my concession. But with my concession comes a promise - a promise to fight this violent machine fueled by greed and hate; a promise to look to the past to learn its weaknesses and to exploit them; a promise to struggle to protect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the people, not of the United States - a figment of our imagination - but of the world. I pledge allegiance to my humanity, nothing more and nothing less.

Who's in?

I get letters...

Dear Seth:

Thank you for your communication regarding H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" and for expressing your opposition to Sections 3032 and 3033 regarding torture. Because I share your reservations about many of the bill's provisions, I opposed it.

Particularly offensive were sections that would permit removing certain asylum-seekers to nations whose governments are known to engage in torture. You may be pleased to know that I have already joined my colleagues in urging the conferees for H.R. 10, who are currently resolving differences between House and Senate versions of the bill, to exclude the provisions that would permit the
outsourcing of torture. Because H.R. 10 failed to address the majority of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations while it included extraneous provisions that deny basic fairness to immigrants, I opposed it. However, I remain hopeful that the
conference committee can produce an improved bill.

I share your support for efforts to protect our civil liberties and to oppose misguided policies that scapegoat immigrants. We must not sacrifice our democracy in a misguided attempt to save it. You may be interested to know that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and
human rights coalition, scored my voting record in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses as 100%.

Please keep me advised of any federal matters with which I may be of assistance.


Sincerely,
Lloyd Doggett

In other election news...

Uruguay elected a new president

Uruguay's first leftwing president in its 170-year history yesterday celebrated his election victory, consolidating a political swing to the left across South America.

Tabare Vazquez, 64, the leader of a coalition of former extreme leftwing guerrillas, socialists, communists and social democrats called the Broad Front-Progressive Encounter, won in the first round.

I will be very interested to watch developments in Uruguay over the next few years.

Navy SEAL testifies to CIA torture tactics in Iraq

A member of an elite Navy SEAL team pleaded guilty Friday to brutalizing prisoners in Iraq. The member, whose name was not released, said he and other SEALs punched, kicked and broke the fingers of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison.

More details are here.

via under the same sun

Rest assured, fellow Americans, the State is working to protect you from terrorists, to secure "the homeland." In Oregon, Dept. of Homeland Security agents raided Pufferbelly Toys. Was it a terrorist front? Well, they were suspected of selling the toy Magic Cube - and the government thought the makers of Magic Cube might be an illegal copy of the Rubic's Cube. Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said:

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications."

In other counterterrorism news, the FBI raided the home of 23-year-old Nick Cooney, member of a group called Hugs for Puppies, who has participated in protests against Huntingdon Life Sciences, an animal-testing company.

Don't you feel safer? I know I do. Now, just turn on the television and relax - everything is under control.

Charles Kuffner has an interesting post today on Ray Allen's, the Republican chairman of the Texas House Corrections committee, signs of a willingness to consider that the so-called "war on drugs" and "get tough on crime" policies are not exactly as effective and just as people may have been led to think.

I'm encouraged that there is at least a beginning of a discussion about sensible and rational criminal justice policies, even if it's only the admission that a discussion is worth having.

I do have to disagree with Kuffner's notion that

Given the budget crunches at all levels of government, it makes sense to me to tie criminal justice reform to fiscal responsibility.

I do not think we should make the case against mass incarceration on economics. With the vultures of prison privatization waiting around the corner to offer a cheaper, more efficient solution - one that puts individuals and justice itself at much greater risk of harm - I'm afraid it's a strategy that may backfire. I think that if we can bring to light the real impacts of current crime policies, the majority of people will see that we must do something else.

For an introduction to the growing human rights problem of mass incarceration, I highly recommend Angela Davis's new book Are Prisons Obsolete? as well as the organizations The Sentencing Project and Critical Resistance.