DonorsChoose.org gives us a way to help teachers get the job done. A bunch of us at ScienceBlogs have set up Bloggers Challenges which will let us (and that includes you) contribute to worthy school projects in need of financial assistance...
'WHAT WILL they do to us if there is another attack? Will they intern us like they interned the Japanese?"
That is the single most common question I get when speaking about counter-terrorism policies and civil liberties to Arab and Muslim audiences. Until Wednesday, I assured them that such a response was unthinkable. The Japanese internment during World War II is now so widely recognized as morally, legally and ethically wrong, I told them, that it could not possibly be repeated.
But after a decision by a federal judge in New York, I'm no longer confident that I can be so reassuring. Dismissing a case challenging the detention of Arab and Muslim foreign nationals in the weeks after 9/11, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson ruled that it is constitutionally permissible to round up foreign nationals on immigration charges based solely on their race, religion or country of origin. What's more, he said that they can be detained indefinitely, even after they have agreed to be removed to their home countries.
In essence, he authorized a repeat of the Japanese internment - as long as the internment is limited to foreign nationals charged with visa violations (a group that at last count numbered about 11 million people).
WHEN THE Supreme Court in Korematsu vs. United States upheld the legality of the Japanese internment, Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent that the precedent would "lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."
Until Wednesday, I thought history had proved Jackson wrong. Virtually every living Supreme Court justice has condemned Korematsu as wrongly decided - Justice Antonin Scalia has compared it to the Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which the court refused to recognize that slaves were "persons." Congress has formally apologized to the survivors of the internment and paid reparations for their injuries.
Yet the Turkmen decision has taken the loaded weapon out of the closet, dusted it off and handed it to federal authorities, giving them explicit permission to let prejudice and fear run roughshod over the most basic of human rights - the rights to equal treatment and liberty.
This Lieberman-Lamont race is becoming exceptionally important, because it's the most high-profile of a series of clashes between two different ways of doing politics. The bear ad, and the ad man named Carter Eskew who is the consultant behind it, unwittingly reveals a lot about what's going on in both DC and in Connecticut.
Which brings me to Carter Eskew's bear ad (at the link - G). The ad is a judgment failure on Eskew's part. The ad works on one level - it would convince Joe Lieberman to vote for Joe Lieberman, for instance. But for normal non-machine people who don't see Lowell Weicker's 1988 loss through the same earth-shattering lens, it doesn't make any sense.
For Lieberman, however, and Carter Eskew, Weicker is the opponent. Lieberman is a machine politician, and Carter Eskew is a DC machine lobbyist. Their memory is long, sharp, and out of sync. Lieberman's last real Senate race was in 1988, but that's how he won it, so that's how he'll win this one. Now, I'm not from Connecticut, so I can't pretend to know a great deal about lingering feelings about Lowell Weicker and whether the ad stings in some non-obvious Connecticut-specific way. My guess is that it doesn't, because people don't really care that much about someone who hasn't been in office for many years. Political machines, though, have long memories, and are always fighting the last war.
These K-Street Democrats have a lot of power, and they are angry at the Lamont challenge because it's a direct threat to their revenue stream. And in Carter Eskew, you can see how tied together these machine people and lobbyists really are. I know it's hip to say that Lamont is not a single-issue candidate, but it's true in a deeply fundamental way. The Lamont challenge is a direct attack on how DC does business.
...
Why does the richest Republicans and Democrats get to retain their tax cuts while Katrina victims remain homeless? Why does John Aravosis become entitled to shop for orchids while elderly people like my mother (or someone else's mother, father, or grandparent) isn't entitled to shop around for cheap medicine? Why do A-List liberal bloggers continue to use their power to repeat the same loop-de-loop over and over (e.g. Embarrass The Media, Own Republicans, Smack Democrats, Shill Shirts/Books, Cash The Check At End Of Month, Repeat From Top) when the entire edifice of the Republicans' corruption and the Democrats' complacency would crumble within a week -- a month, tops -- if the A-List liberal bloggers decided to instead post, "I can't do this in good conscience anymore so I'm going to surprise everyone by saying NO to power, shutting the blog down for a while, and take my activism to the MSM and the politicians' own front fuckin' porch and I hope you do the same"?!?
...
...
The 11th is a crisp fall morning with the sun glinting off the East River from a spotless hard-blue sky and a brisk nor'wester whistling through the concrete canyons, raising everyone's spirits and somehow conveying a sense of promise.
Rather like another crisp fall morning a few years back.
The UN Headquarters, one of New York's best-known national icons, is packed. Ditto the General Assembly, in session to debate a set of ultra-draconian sanctions on Iran, the only way it has left to hold back the dogs of war aka John Bolton.
Bolton and the American delegation however are in DC in 'urgent consultation' with the White House.
At 9.01.24 am, the UN Building, which has received no anti-terror funding whatsoever from city, state or DHS, explodes from four massive bombs set at its base corners - in much the same way conspiracy buffs maintain that the Twin Towers were actually brought low. Severed from its foundations the glass and concrete structure abruptly collapses. Before the 39th floor has hit the ground, the General Assembly next door, explodes also.
...
...
Lamont had publicly promised for weeks to accept any invitation to debate, but the Lieberman campaign issued a press release Friday afternoon asking, "Will Ned agree to a debate and answer questions on issues that matter to real voters?"
Swan said the press release was cheap posturing, since Lamont had accepted Channel 30's invitation on Wednesday.
...
...
Interestingly enough, it doesn't appear that Gohmert is your usual GOP Chickenhawk, having served as an officer in the U.S. Army. But once again, we see that those who have served in combat tend to be against war and those who haven't are almost always the most Rambo-like. [my em]
WASHINGTON Jun 16, 2006 (AP) - North Korea is accelerating preparations for testing a missile that has the potential to strike the United States, a U.S. government official said Friday. A test of the Taepodong-2 long-range missile may be imminent, the official said.
...
WASHINGTON - Add political banishment to the list of problems confronting Rep. William Jefferson, ensnared in a bribery scandal that fellow Democrats hope to turn to their election-year advantage.
"Democrats are determined to hold a high ethical standard," the party's leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, said Thursday night after engineering a 99-58 vote of the rank and file that stripped Jefferson of his seat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
...
Documents purportedly discovered in al-Zarqawi's hideout are seen to gain credibility because they outline "the same exact strategy and goal embraced by the Bush administration itself," [...]
I Wake Up Screaming: Al Qaeda in the White House
This is a joke, right? Normally, I wouldn't believe anything that comes from the U.S. government or U.S. military, or from the Iraqi National Security Adviser (which is about the same thing). The Bush administration started its endless campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and lies on the afternoon of 9/11, and it's never stopped. At this point, no one has grounds to lend credence to a single word they utter on any subject -- and that is especially true in connection with matters of war and national security.
But in this case, I can believe that this branch of the insurgency in Iraq sought to increase tensions between the U.S. and Iran, simply because it's entirely ludicrous to present this as "proof" of some dastardly, evil plan hatched by our enemies. Why do I say it's ludicrous? The answer is very simple: because this is the same exact strategy and goal embraced by the Bush administration itself.
What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was the United States' long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a "defensive" jihad that has galvanized jihad-minded Muslims around the world. It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism.
The benefits of Iran-hysteria to the Bush administration are obvious. Of greatest importance is the fact that, to the extent the administration can once again create an atmosphere of danger and even panic, it serves to distract attention from the calamitous consequences of their past and present actions. Interestingly, much of the American public doesn't seem to be buying the Iran propaganda -- at least, not yet. And I would find the public's infinitely more sensible and accurate assessment of the danger a cause for hope, except for the fact that the administration doesn't give a damn what the public thinks in that sense. Moreover, our criminally incompetent media have learned next to nothing from their numerous errors during the propaganda onslaught about Iraq, and they still unthinkingly parrot administration talking points. So when the administration decides to ratchet up the Iran propaganda, the media will transmit and amplify the lies just as they did before.
All in all, it is quite a spectacle: we are supposed to be horrified at the depths of evil revealed by the insurgents' plans "to escalate the tension between America and Iran" -- when that is precisely what our own government is and has been doing with absolute consistency. And at this point, and after the record of the last several years and the constantly repeated lies from the administration on every imaginable subject, I trust no one will be heard to say: "Oh, but they would never do that! How can you even think that the administration would launch an attack on Iran, when that might be the start of a global nuclear conflict that would destroy life on a scale never seen before?"
If you had even the glimmer of such a thought, I have but a single response: You cannot be serious.
And I have only these questions: Why aren't more people screaming? Why isn't everyone screaming?
Funny, we simply "must" punish "law-breakers" when they're Mexican immigrants because "it would send a bad message" showing law-breakers any mercy. But when the law-breakers are reputed Al Qaeda terrorists who have murdered American soldiers, suddenly the Republican party becomes all warm and fuzzy. So the message for Mexicans seeking amnesty is what? Go to Iraq and pick up a gun first?
Why did Bush just fight a 3 year war in Iraq again? To let everybody go after they killed 2,500 American soldiers?
"It does not require many words to speak the truth." -- Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)
"One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." -- Charles A. Beard, historian (1874-1948)
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them." -- Dave Barry, author and columnist (1947-)
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." -- Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)
"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause. A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." -- Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)
"True religion is the life we lead, not the creed we profess." -- Louis Nizer, lawyer (1902-1994)
"The most tyrannical of governments are those which make crimes of opinions, for everyone has an inalienable right to his thoughts." -- Baruch Spinoza, philosopher (1632-1677)
"There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience." -- French proverb
"As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place." - Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
"Nature can provide for the needs of people; [she] can't provide for the greed of people." - Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell." - William Tecumseh Sherman, Union General in the American Civil War (1820-1891)
"A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves." - German proverb
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, British philosopher
...
Let's set one thing straight about counterinsurgency operations. There are better and worse ways to conduct them, but there is no good way to conduct them. And you can't design a military that specializes in counterinsurgency because then it wouldn't be good at doing what it's supposed to do, which is fight and defeat other military forces.
...
A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday.
The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaida policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening.
...
...
cut to just a few minutes ago. we were accepting a new slate of ads, when we noticed one about "the future of the internet." this time we watched the whole ad. yep. it was against net neutrality. so we rejected it.
we bring it up, because some other bloggers who will remain nameless have gone ahead and accepted the ad, with explanations to their readers that go something along the lines of, well, you readers are smart enough to know b.s. when you see it, and their money is as good as anyone's.
sorry, that rationalization doesn't hold water, at least not for skippy international. it's one thing to allow for all sides of a debate to be heard on your blog, it's another to enable destructive behavior.
...
...
the blogs we speak of are some of our favorites, and daily visits for us. we don't plan on boycotting them. and we are a little afraid they'll be pissed at us for taking this stand.
...
Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism.
As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world," Boehner wrote.
"This is nothing more or less than really a charade," said Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), who made headlines in the run-up to the Iraq invasion by changing french fries to "freedom fries" in the House dining room but has since turned strongly against the war.
There is going to be a debate today on the floor of the House of Representatives regarding Iraq. Is it within the realm of possibility to categorize a debate on the floor of the House as a war crime? Is that too much of a stretch? Leveling a war crime accusation is deadly serious business after all, and not to be bandied about like some meager political football. Given what is expected to take place today in Washington, unfortunately, such a categorization is worth considering.
What is a war crime anyway? Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as, "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
How many of these definitions have been met by the United States during our ill-fated adventure in Iraq and during this so-called "War on Terror" as a whole?
But all this happened during the invasion and occupation, and many of these despicable activities have been papered over by dubious legal findings generated by Attorney General Gonzales. How does a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives rise to the level of a war crime?
Simple. Awareness that war crimes are being committed, combined with a lack of action to stop those war crimes by an individual or entity holding a position of leadership, is as bad as the crime itself.
It is possible that the House debate today will break new ground, that sober minds will be able to elbow the snarling partisans into the periphery, that hard facts and real solutions will be presented, that a crack of dawn sunlight may be found in this long, terrible night, and that a step towards ending all the death and destruction and sorrow and woe may actually be taken.
Don't count on it, though. Thanks to the Republican majority and its leader, this debate will be yet another dog-and-pony show designed to do little more than frighten and divide the populace. In the process, this debate will ensure that the war goes on, and will further ensure that George W. Bush and his people are insulated from accountability, culpability and the basic need to chart a new course.
The Republicans in the House know what is happening, and know how bad things are. By framing this important debate in such simplistic, venal terms, they are absolutely guaranteeing more of the same. And that, friends, is a war crime, and you can watch it happen today on television.