Suspension of disbelief

Joe Klein of Time, normally a very clever and insightful guy -- with a strong grasp of international politics -- seems to have momentarily misplaced his skepticism and powers of critical thinking. He premises this Swampland post on

the appalling news that Iran seems to have brought espionage charges against three American hikers who wandered across the Kurdish border

It would be one thing if Joe were to back that assertion with some evidence, but as it stands it looks like Mr. Klein swallowed a whopper (intentionally or not) and is trying to feed it to us, too.

I mean sure *nudge nudge, wink wink* it's possible these 3 young Americans were just enjoying a lovely hiking holiday in Iraq of all places, and just happened to innocently mosey into Iran. But upon reflection, how likely does that seem?

Roughly as likely as, a few months prior, 2 American journalists just naively crossing a desolate frozen river into North Korea, again totally by accident. We know by their own admission that America deploys spies into these countries, so how do we suppose they get there, exactly? Of course these spies have a cover story, but that doesn't make it true.

Really, when was the last time you heard about a young American being arrested for accidentally wandering into, say, Canada? Mexico? Turkey? When Americans get caught sneaking across remote borders on foot, crossing from a war zone into a bleeding "Axis of Evil" country, they work for the CIA until proven otherwise, yeah?

He's betting we forget

Can you spot what's missing in the following quote from Dick Cheney, defending his torture regime?:

Now, if you'd look at it from the perspective of a senior government official, somebody like myself, who stood up and took the oath of office on January 20th of ‘01 and raised their right hand and said we're going to protect and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, this was exactly, exactly what was needed to do it.

Gosh, either Mr. Cheney forgets what he actually swore to defend (unlikely) or he's betting that you forget. He swore to protect and defend the US constitution -- not the US itself. And it was, ironically, the constitution Dick Cheney and George W Bush kicked to the curb along with the Geneva Conventions these last 8 years. Apparently the best he can do to defend himself now is to retroactively redefine his oath of office.

Quote of the day

"Marriage is good. There is something special about unions of husband and wife. Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers."

- Carrie Prejean, Miss California

Erotic interrogation

It would be interesting to ask torture advocates if they also think it should be OK to rape terror suspects, as long as it is done under strict legal guidelines, no more than X number of times per day, gently, with plenty of lubricant, etc.

If you think about it, it's no worse morally than other forms of torture, should not leave any physical scars, and has an obvious advantage over waterboarding: the prisoner's mouth is left unobstructed should they choose to 'break' and start talking.

After all, it happens to regular prison inmates all the time. Heck, some guys even do it to each other for fun, right? Where's the harm in it if it saves lives? We can even give it a nice name; since "enhanced interrogation" is already taken, how about "erotic interrogation"?

Calm down dear, it's only an election

After the election of Barack Obama in America, I confess to feeling a certain amount of schadenfreude, watching the fear and loathing of the hardcore right-wingers (or in Rumsfeldian parlance, the Bush/Cheney dead-enders) gnashing their teeth and forming proverbial "circular firing squads". [For my Republican readers, schadenfreude is a German word meaning "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others"].

For a while it was interesting and entertaining, but latterly the debate seems to have been taken over by the certified, Kool-Aid-drinking moonbats. I find myself clicking on links to right-wing articles and blogs, or beginning to watch YouTube video clips of Fox News commentators, only to click the 'back' button moments later. What was once (gratifyingly!) bitter disappointment at their 'side' being out of power, has descended into pure unadulterated rancor and malice. It's not clever any more. I can feel the hatred coming through my laptop screen like radiation.

All of which is slightly difficult to understand, since president Obama has been in office fewer than three months, and hasn't really had much time to do anything truly controversial. Sure, there are legitimate debates to be had about the economics of bailouts and stimulus packages. Frankly, there is probably no single correct answer. Obama inherited a financial crisis, and he's doing his best to fix it, but any reasonable person should be able to debate these things without getting too emotional.

That's why I find all the "tea party" stuff so disturbing (except for the unintentionally funny stuff about "tea-bagging"). There's no theme there. "Burn the books"? What do they actually want, specifically? No one seems to know; It's just an increasingly angry mob making decreasingly veiled references to violent revolution. They're supposedly angry about the budget deficit? Why were these same people so silent while Republicans were spending like drunken sailors these past 8 years?

The hatred and vitriol coming from the rump of the Republican party has long ceased being logically coherent. They're throwing every epithet in the book at their president -- terrorist, wimp, socialist, communist, fascist dictator -- except for the one I suspect many of them wish they could say in public (perhaps prefaced with "uppity").

It seems as if a lot of right-wing true believers in America right now, for example the followers of Rush Limbaugh, would rather see their country fail than see a fellow the likes of Barack Obama succeed. Something has snapped inside of these people. The political wilderness will be a good place for them to spend the next few years having a 'time out'.

Plumbing the depths of despair

Shimon Perez, Israel's president, states, "Israel's aim was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel."

The "people of Gaza"? Mr. Perez, did you mean to include those hundreds of dead children in your 'lesson'? I think the answer can only be yes, when you bombard neighbourhoods and schools. In other words: collective punishment, just like Lebanon in 2006. Last I checked, that is still a war crime.

I think Israel is a wonderful place, and I hope they do achieve peace with all their neighbours -- including a revived, independent, and sovereign Palestine. But I also think Israel's military and political leadership have demonstrated the worst kind of brutality in recent years.

I don't assume it's because they're bad people, though some of them may well be. I suspect it comes much more from genuine emotion, and well-considered strategy, but also from the fundamental laziness made possible by having such an overwhelming military advantage over your enemies.

Faced with terrorism and insurgency, and difficult choices and compromises, it probably seems very tempting, when diplomacy fails, to simply bomb the hell out of your adversaries. But we all know violence is a downward spiral. More succinctly: Israel have just created the next generation of Hamas militants in Gaza -- i.e. all the young survivors who just lost their homes, schools, siblings, parents, or friends. I imagine Israel will be hearing from many of those young victims in a few years' time.

This is probably a vain hope, but perhaps with an adult in the white house, Israel won't be given a blank cheque when it comes to violence. Perhaps Israel's leaders will be obliged to take a more progressive and humane path for the next few years. I'm sure it's no coincidence that they are winding down their Gaza operation on the eve of Barack Obama's inauguration. As one frequently sees spray-painted on utility boxes and walls in Tel Aviv: "know hope"

Come and see the violence inherent in the system

In what has to be some kind of record, American Republican congressman Paul Broun is warning of an incipient Obama dictatorship just 1 week after his election -- 71 days before Obama is to take office:

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Evidently, Broun thinks Marxism, Soviet communism, socialism, fascism, and National Socialism are all equivalent (well, they're all bad, right?) Evidently he thinks Barack Obama's liberal jackboot squads are already being covertly assembled in secret Massachusetts training camps. Evidently, being an ignorant hysterical boob is still a virtue -- for the remaining Republicans in the US congress anyway.

You know, I had a funny feeling 'conservatives' would suddenly remember their distaste for executive power, as soon as it was time for a liberal to be the executive. I do believe this was the first ironic squawk.

Preview of next week's issues: Oh, you mean you don't want the liberal government listening to your phone calls? What's that? You don't believe in torture, and secret prisons, and imprisonment without trial, and foreign military adventures? Gosh, we must have misunderstood you, all along.

Whadda ya know, Eskimo?

From Juliet Lapidos, of Slate's XX Factor, rubbishing reports that Sarah Palin thought that Africa is a country:

I don't believe for a second that Sarah Palin wasn't aware of the fact that Africa is a continent ... I'd also like to point out that none other than George W. Bush once referred to Africa as a "nation."

So, class, to recap: No way it's true, no one could be that dumb. And even if it is true, it's a mistake anyone could make -- even someone as scholarly and worldly as George W. Bush.

BWAHAHA! *Wipes eyes*. Juliet, you slay me babe.

Pedantic, me

It's a pet peeve of mine: when people pronounce Iraq as "eye rack". Do you also pronounce the name of that boot-shaped country as "eye tally"? Listen, it's "ih rock" or "ee rock". If you're going to invade and occupy it, and can't be bothered to learn where it is on the map, at least pronounce the name correctly, alright?

All your privacy are belong to US

New anti-terrorism rules 'allow US to spy on British motorists'

Routine journeys carried out by millions of British motorists can be monitored by authorities in the United States and other enforcement agencies across the world under anti-terrorism rules introduced discreetly by Jacqui Smith.

The discovery that images of cars captured on road-side cameras, and "personal data" derived from them, including number plates, can be sent overseas, has angered MPs and civil liberties groups concerned by the increasing use of "Big Brother" surveillance tactics.

This is depressingly familiar, and I'm sorry to say, totally expected. That the British government allows its citizens to be arbitrarily spied upon by foreign authorities on the streets of London is nothing new. The American eavesdropping agency, the NSA, has at least one listening post on British soil, at Menwith Hill, Yorkshire. It is claimed that their ECHELON system intercepts nearly every electronic communication in the world. It's more than a little disturbing that they can use our baby monitors, or our mobile phones (even when they're 'off' see also: this) to record the daily, offline conversations of any person. It's a pet peeve of mine that, not only does the US monitor my communications, the British government helps them do it. I'm a British citizen. Is it quaint that I expect my government to be on my side?

Last year I wrote about the police being given blanket, real-time surveillance power over every vehicle in London, and their assurances about its limited scope:

But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed.

I replied:

Yes, I trust them on that score, because it's so believable. Obvious prediction: In a year or two, the system will be hailed as a great success in stopping terrorism, and the government will be pushing a 'scheme' to have the cameras used fight "ordinary crime".

Well, it's been less than a year since then. They haven't admitted to using the cameras to investigate petty crime yet, but in some ways, this is even worse. At the time of writing, last year, the government had already, secretly, given authorization for foreign governments to use the system. They used their usual tactic of 'selling' it to us one way, whilst planning to use it in another.

Whenever the government tells us that some new invasion of privacy is strictly for one thing (usually, protecting us from terrorist bogeymen), remember that they have their fingers crossed behind their backs, OK?

If a capability exists, it will be abused. You can take that to the bank. Just don't deviate from your usual route -- it might look suspicious.

[ Edit: the post title may require some explanation for those who aren't familiar with the "all your base are belong to us" joke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base ]

Shameful

...And no, I'm not referring to putting Madonna on the cover.

If you missed this Vanity Fair article earlier in the month, and you care at all about the issue of torturing prisoners, be sure to give it a read. It is a detailed storyline of how the Bush administration's torture regime came to its shameful fruition:

The fingerprints of the most senior lawyers in the administration were all over the design and implementation of the abusive interrogation policies. Addington, Bybee, Gonzales, Haynes, and Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse.

Nazi lawyers were executed as war criminals following WWII, for exactly the same sort of behaviour. Was it victor's justice? Or do the same standards apply to Americans? War crimes trials are the only just resolution in this case. But as I predicted here, I'll say it again: it'll never happen. Welcome to the new world order.

Iraq the place: everyone's loss

Just wanted to link to this excellent piece by George Packer, author of "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq" which I also highly recommend. Key quotes:

The American invasion of Iraq was, above all else, a revolution in the lives of Iraqis. Their institutions, their everyday routines, their futures, their sense of order were all turned upside down. This revolution, which is still ongoing and will play out for years to come, was the opening of a prison. When they staggered out into the light, most Iraqis didn’t know where they were, what they wanted, even who they were, and the Americans who had so quickly and casually broken down the gate were standing around as if they had never even considered what to do next.

And:

“I can never blame the Americans alone,” an Iraqi refugee named Firas told me in early 2007. “It’s the Iraqis who destroyed their country, with the help of the Americans, under the American eye.” To gain this wisdom, Firas had to lose almost everything. What would it take for Americans to understand what Firas already does? A recognition that Iraq was everyone’s loss, whichever side you were on.

Amen.

Mi casa no es su casa

Just catching up here on a couple of things I'd wanted to blog about. This is several days old:

Kenya warned by U.S. over Cabinet row

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged Kenya's government and opposition party to agree on the composition of their coalition Cabinet after the two sides suspended talks on power-sharing.

"Should the accord not be implemented, however, the United States will form its own judgments regarding responsibility for lack of implementation of the accord, and act accordingly."

Am I reading this correctly? Is the US threatening another sovereign country over an internal political matter? Can you imagine if China or Russia had made such ominous statements during America's last electoral crisis in 2000? What howls of outrage there would have been, and rightly so. America's moments of internal political turmoil are America's business, and no one else's. So should the same standard not apply to other nations? If Kenyan politicians want to haggle over the composition of the cabinet, is that not their own concern?

I know that I'm being slightly obtuse here, in that the US seems to merely be seeking to help stabilize Kenya in the wake of the post-election violence. That's a fine, laudable, and even noble thing. In what remains a mostly uni-polar world, perhaps the lone superpower needs to be able to push other nations in the right direction, on occasion. What bothers me is the (what spin-meisters refer to as) 'optics' of the situation. This is rather indelicate diplomacy -- unfortunately a hallmark of the Bush II administration.

If the US is, at times, resented by people in other countries, look no further than this sort of exceptionalism for an explanation. America would never stand for overt foreign meddling in its political affairs, or intrusions on its borders. For that matter, the US would not look kindly on, say, overt Russian meddling in the Ukraine's internal politics. However, the American government doesn't seem to apply the same standard to itself when it unilaterally sends drones flying into Pakistan or Yemen to fire missiles at its enemies, or threaten Kenyans to form a cabinet. America's sovereignty is sacrosanct. Others' -- not so much.

Can you imagine what would happen if China sent a drone to the coast of California to shoot a missile at Richard Gere?

What we need is a little justice

CIA destroyed interrogation tapes:

The New York Times, which broke the story, quotes current and former government officials as saying the CIA destroyed the tapes in 2005 as it faced Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program.

Officials feared the tapes could have raised doubts about the legality of the CIA's techniques, the newspaper says.

Well of course they did. And we are expected to believe that the government "lost" the interrogation video of Jose Padilla, too. No one likes a war crimes trial.

America's honour will be restored when they a) stop torturing; and b) put those responsible on trial -- and I don't mean the individuals who carried it out, a la Abu Ghraib. The men responsible for the policies need to explain themselves to a jury.

Nothing less will make it right. I'm not holding my breath.

I'll show you a big head, Todd

News from the Clinton campaign:

in recent days the Clinton presidential campaign's "official" song -- You And I sung by the Canadian diva [Celine] Dion -- has been replaced at campaign events by Blue Sky, from the Colorado-based band Big Head Todd and the Monsters.

Well, at least they stuck with a big head theme.

When your American friends are bullies

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

Presumably the US won't make much of a fuss then, if a foreign country abducts Americans from the States. For example, Americans who name their teddy bears Mohammad, could be kidnapped and taken back to Iran or Saudi Arabia for trial, yes?

No? This wouldn't be the umpteenth example of American exceptionalism, would it?

When people like Karen Hughes try to tackle the problem of America's negative image abroad, it's an uphill struggle. No wonder she's giving up. Because, spin it all you want -- it's the substance of America's behaviour in the world that stinks. A good starting point might be showing respect for other countries' sovereignty, just as America expects for its own.

Oh, is that so?

Bush to the president of Pakistan:

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," Bush said, describing a telephone call with Musharraf. "I had a very frank discussion with him."

Good point, Mr. commander-in-chief.

Good for the goose

Well, I guess everyone gets to waterboard everyone now. The US seems to have deemed it an acceptable practice, even when the victims are American:

The top legal adviser within the US state department, who counsels the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on international law, has declined to rule out the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding even if it were applied by foreign intelligence services on US citizens. John Bellinger refused to denounce the technique, which has been condemned by human rights groups as a form of torture, during a debate on the Bush administration's stance on international law held by Guardian America

Strange, given that the US operated and participated in the trials and executions of Nazis for using such techniques. How about we make this simple, and all just go back to not torturing, hmm?

Textbook future

The Canadian dollar is about to equal the value of the US dollar for the first time in my memory:

TORONTO — The Canadian dollar moved decisively above 99 cents US Thursday, flirting with parity with the American dollar for the first time since November 1976.

I'm no economist, and I don't know whether that's a net positive or negative for Canada, and I know it has more to do with the US dollar tanking recently, but it sort of makes me a little bit proud.

Back when I was in high school, I remember a textbook that predicted this would happen by the year 2000. When I thought ahead to 2000 and imagined my 28-year-old self, it seemed a long way off. I thought perhaps I'd be married with children, all settled-down and responsible.

Well, the dollar prediction eventually came true, 7 years late (though as of 2002, it looked like a very wrong prediction). My own expectations about my life haven't come true, though; Settled-down and responsible I'm probably not. Thank goodness for that!

Sweet neo-con, light of humanity

Well I just love this, posted by Jamie Kirchick on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Today, it seems that a "neo-con" (at least in the fevered imaginations of the net-left) is someone who frequently calls attention to the unprovoked aggression of despotic regimes (e.g. Iran and Syria), the violation of human rights in other countries, and advocates the moral superiority of democratic countries in international affairs. A "neo-con" is now anyone who dares make an issue out of the aggressions and inhumanity of despotisms without explaining them away, and for advocating America do something about these aggressions and inhumanities.

That's it! The 'fevered' people who label the neo-conservatives (as juxtaposed with the sensible, pragmatic, and serene neo-cons themselves) are using the term as a way to denigrate those who see injustice in the world and have the nobility and good-heartedness to want to "do something" about it. The neo-conservatives are the champions of international human rights; With pure hearts, they advocate for the moral superiority of the correct political system, American-style democracy, and stand up for non-aggression and humanity. And yet all they ask is that we "do something" instead of explaining away.

Clearly, people who disparage these latter-day saints as neo-conservatives, in their fevered and addled liberal way, oppose human rights, democracy, peace and humanity. The neo-cons are like Clark Kent in a phone booth. The collective "net-left" are like the Axis of Dr. Evil.

Poor Jamie.

The disingenuousness of this should be self-evident, but I feel like responding so here goes: The neo-conservatives, people who founded organizations like the Project for the New American Century, are self labelled. That's what they call themselves. So, you'll have to excuse everyone else who uses the term. They advocate for the use and projection of American military power to remake the world in America's image. The purpose being to benefit America and American commerce, and to perpetrate a "new American century". All this guff about human rights and peace is packaged on the premise that it will come to pass if necessary through force, intimidation, and (if necessary) torture -- a form of "soft empire".

They are mainly ex-liberals. They support liberal-style interventionism. They called themselves neo-conservatives. They were the 'intellectual' force behind the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and are still pushing for a ludicrous military confrontation with Iran. And they are largely discredited. Think Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Think Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. For the fact that some people use that label as an insult, they have only themselves to blame.

Countdown to disaster

According to this piece in the Guardian, the Cheney/Bush white house is planning to attack Iran militarily, with Cheney (as always) playing the role of warmonger in chief:

"The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.

Well, isn't that good news for civilization? Dick Cheney still has the clout to start another war, and apparently has the good judgement to decide what kind of situation the next president should face.

Since common sense dictates that America cannot accomplish some kind of ground invasion/occupation of Iran (a la Iraq), then the options would appear to be a) aerial bombardment with conventional weapons; and b) nuclear attack. Previously I've asked the rhetorical question:

What makes Mr. Lieberman think that Iran -- militant, confrontational Iran -- will respond to a military attack by cowering? By surrendering and backing down?

What makes Dick Cheney think he has the option of "deal[ing] with Iran decisively", short of the nuclear option 'b'? That question scares me, because I don't imagine for one minute that some kind of conventional bombing campaign will defeat Iran, case closed.

Here's a nice nightmare scenario: What if, in response, Iran were to invade Iraq? They've got ~160,000 American soldiers hostage in Iraq, who already have their hands full just dealing with the locals. How big a disaster would it be? How would America hope to repel Iran's half-million-strong army under the circumstances? What would Cheney and Bush do then? Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I can think of only one answer: Option 'b'. In that case, ladies and gents, we're all screwed.

How to cook an occupation

How bad is it when they stop taking you seriously? In Bob Woodward's book "State Of Denial: Bush At War Part III" there is an anecdote relating America's attempt to set up a TV channel promoting America's perspective in Iraq "so that the coalition message could get on the air":

Eventually there was a U.S.-sponsored television network set up. To fill out its schedule, it broadcast Arabic-language reruns from elsewhere in the Middle East. As a result, some Iraqis took to calling it the "Lebanese Cooking Channel," especially after one day when most other major networks, like Qatar-based Al Jazeera, covered a significant news event live but the U.S.-sponsored network ran a foreign program on how to cook a rabbit.

Definitionally speaking

Referring to new revelations about Dick Cheney's role in promoting the use of torture, Andrew Sullivan writes today:

The only defense by Bush and Cheney against charges of war crimes is that a president definitionally cannot commit war crimes, if he's acting as he sees fit in the defense of the nation.

A president cannot commit war crimes by definition? I think I'm missing something here. So, for example, a president Hussein, or president Milosevic cannot be guilty of war crimes? Oh no, I know what he means. An American president cannot be guilty of war crimes.

Okay, to be fair, it would seem that Andrew is writing from a purely American context. He's talking about war crimes as defined under US law and in relation to the president's constitutional commander-in-chief role.

But come on. Enough with the exceptionalism already.

The new US "Detainee Treatment Act" and its amendments, which by consensus effectively allows the president -- but nobody else, honest -- to authorize "torture light", and which retroactively exempts government personnel (i.e. the CIA) from war crimes charges, should be regarded with contempt.

Let's imagine hypothetically that General E.L. Presidente, of the Great Bananian Republic, orders up a law that authorizes his intelligence service to torture prisoners of war. Does anyone suppose that this law would make the resulting atrocities legal, in the eyes of the world? Do war crimes stop being war crimes, just because the laws of the 'GBR', the offending nation, say they aren't? How about the laws of the USA? Is it different then?

Torture is evil. If the "good guys" use it, it doesn't make the torture good; it makes the "good guys" evil. And if Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld commanded or authorized torture or other war crimes, they should stand trial in the Hague just like anyone else.

I know, I'm dreaming. Not gonna happen.

Such a tool Pt. II

Lieberman doesn't seem to understand, by the way, that Iraqi Shiites would mind the US bombing their coreligionists and would probably massacre the entire British garrison in Basra as well as interdict US fuel convoys to the north from Kuwait and Basra. His irresponsible warmongering would get a lot of US troops killed for no good reason.

Lieberman comments from Juan Cole here and 'stilwell' here.

Such a tool

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN)– The United States should consider possible military action against Iran, Senator Joseph Lieberman said Sunday.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.”

So, Mr. Lieberman thinks that a "strike into — over the border into Iran" would frighten those Iranians silly, does he, so that they would cease and desist all naughty activity?

Foolish, foolish man.

If somebody pushes you, your natural instinct is to push them back, but harder. If they then slap you, your natural instinct is to punch them in return. Escalation like this is how simple disputes turn into serious violence. Or war.

What makes Mr. Lieberman think that Iran -- militant, confrontational Iran -- will respond to a military attack by cowering? By surrendering and backing down? A military strike to "stop them from killing Americans in Iraq" would result in the killing of more Americans in Iraq and elsewhere. Even a little nobody like me can predict that, without mental effort.

Foolish, foolish little man.

This is nearly enough to make me glad Cheney's running things. I mean, Cheney would like to start a war with Iran, but I think he at least knows that if you're going to start one, you start one. And that means taking it very seriously (I never doubt Cheney's seriousness, which makes him that much scarier to me). Mr. Lieberman seems to think that just tossing a couple of bombs at Iran will sort everything out.

Or else he knows better, and he's just pandering to the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters and armchair generals in America. Which wouldn't surprise me at all, either.

And the cycle continues

There goes America again, arming people in the Middle East:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- Military aid began arriving Friday after the United States said it will rush supplies to the Lebanese army fighting al Qaeda-inspired Islamic militants barricaded inside a Palestinian refugee camp in the country's north.

Hey, now they're arming the Lebanese government, after arming the Israelis so they could bomb the whole of Lebanon last Summer. Whatever the US is trying to accomplish here, it isn't peace.

"I certainly hope that the Lebanese government will be able to deal with these extremists," Rice said. "It's just another example of extremists in the Middle East who are trying to destabilize democratic governments."

Rigghht, and the US didn't destabilize the same government by letting Israel pound the crap out of the country (whose government is democratic and US-friendly) all within the last year? Of course they did, and moreover they knew they were doing so. Israel didn't just bomb Hezbollah guys in foxholes, they took out most of the major infrastructure -- and America supported that. Now this. What kind of careless games are they playing with peoples' lives?

And furthermore, the next time America is attacked (whether a military attack like the Cole or a terrorist attack like 9/11) maybe people in the US would be so good as to refrain from pleading "why do they hate us so much?". Given the years of "involvement" in the region's conflicts, perhaps Americans should consider that allowing their government to arm factions, take sides, and invade countries in the Arab/Muslim world is bound to result in a few enemies -- ones who don't hate you for your freedom fries, or because you're beautiful, but because you destroyed their lives. Just something to think about really.

[ I visited Lebanon in November, 2005 ]

The national hankie

There's an article by Christopher Hitchens on Slate about last week's shootings at Virginia Tech in America. It's a little hardhearted, but I agree with the general point. The point is to question the need everyone seems to feel to "whip out the national hankie" (in America and elsewhere) when strangers die tragically:

The grisly events at Virginia Tech involved no struggle, no sacrifice, no great principle. They were random and pointless. Those who died were not soldiers in any cause. They were not murdered by our enemies. They were not martyrs.

And getting to the point:

It was my friend Adolph Reed who first pointed out this tendency to what he called "vicarious identification." At the time of the murder of Lisa Steinberg in New York in 1987, he was struck by the tendency of crowds to show up for funerals of people they didn't know, often throwing teddy bears over the railings and in other ways showing that (as well as needing to get a life) they in some bizarre way seemed to need to get a death. The hysteria that followed a traffic accident in Paris involving a disco princess—surely the most hyped non-event of all time—seemed to suggest an even wider surrender to the overwhelming need to emote: The less at stake, the greater the grieving.

Back in 1997 I marvelled at the over-the-top grieving for Diana (even while -- I sheepishly admit -- I stayed up late to watch the funeral back in Canada). I wondered for the first time why people seemed to need these triggers; these moments of spontaneous national emotion. Watching the film The Queen recently, I wondered if poor old Elizabeth II didn't get a raw deal, at the time, being pilloried for attempting to demonstrate the famous British stiff upper lip.

Why do we find events like Diana's accident, or the Virgina tech massacre, so much more emotional than other, equally tragic deaths? How many people are murdered each day in America? How many soldiers and civilians die in Iraq each week? (U.S. soldiers dying in by ones-and-twos in Iraq and Afghanistan barely makes the U.S. headlines any more). How many people die in road accidents each day? Do we stop paying attention when the deaths stop being sensational? Since these less famous deaths are no less tragic or senseless, why are they so much less important to the public? Or, more to the point of Chris Hitchens, why are the Virginia Tech murders so much more important?

Is it simply because they're sensational and unusual? I really don't want to be insensitive, but maybe we should ask ourselves: Is it that, deep down, we all love a good tragedy now and then?

Watch what you say

From an editorial in the Calgary Herald:

No-fly list - Re: "Canada to launch no-fly list in spring," Jan. 14.

My name is on that international list, and I'm not a Muslim terrorist or an Irish Republican. Every time I attempt to check in for an international flight (which I do frequently), I'm challenged and made to feel like a criminal until I get clearance.

At the moment, my visa to enter Australia is held up while the consulate checks me out.

(The Calgary Herald is my hometown newspaper).

Overall, sounds like a pretty typical story: Innocent person's name ends up on some no-fly list or international "watch list" and gets hassled every time he tries to board a flight.

No doubt there is a scoundrel out there by the name of James McLaughlin, but if the data base were to include other details such as date of birth, passport number or other unique identifiers, surely they could identify me as the harmless wimp I've worked so hard to be.

James McLaughlin... Hey, that's my name! (James is my first name). The guy who wrote that editorial is my Dad, and since we have the same name, I'm on the list too. My Dad has joked before about my CIA file, since I started writing politically-oriented stuff on this blog. But seriously, I have this feeling that the "scoundrel out there" is probably me.

Isn't it coincidental that I/we have ended up on this list since I've started publishing stuff here? I was put through extra scrutiny the last time I went to the States, though the Virgin checkin clerk wouldn't say exactly why; Just that I'm "on a list". I can't do online checkin any more either. It couldn't be that having occasionally-contrarian political opinions gets you on a watch list, could it?

Sure it could:

Meet Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. He's a former Marine, with five years of active service and 19 years in the reserve, and a legal critic of Roe vs Wade and supporter of the Alito confirmation. He's also on the Terrorist No-Fly List:

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said."

I guess we all have to be careful what we say. Particularly if we're not American citizens.

I leave tomorrow morning to spend the week in California, for work. Those INS cats at SFO in San Francisco are a joy at the best of times. Wish me luck.

Dastardly Iranians

A quote:

“Don’t hold your breath waiting for liberals to condemn Iran for their treatment of the captured British marines.” Exhale, everybody! The marines are reporting that they were subjected to false execution, a well-known form of psychological torture and one which I condemn unreservedly. I have this rule of thumb, which I recommend to everyone: if Solzhenitsyn recounts some practice as one employed in coercive interrogations at Lubyanka, it’s torture. So, false execution: definitely torture. Also torture: long-time standing; exposure to extremes of heat and cold; forcing prisoners to kneel or stand in painful positions; putting prisoners in cells so small they cannot stand or lie down; keeping them awake for days at a time. These practices were the meat and drink of the NKVD, who preferred them to fingernail extraction for the same reason certain American torture advocates do: they can be made to seem as if they are not torture, even though they are, in fact, actually torture. FYI.

Cheney's flying circus

Remember how, back in 2000, Dick Cheney was supposed to be the pragmatic, experienced 'adult' in the Bush-Cheney partnership?

That's kind of laughable now, isn't it?

Today in the news we have Cheney reasserting the thoroughly-discredited theory that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in league with Al Qaida:

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Why does Cheney continue to insist upon this? Well, keep in mind he's trying to defend the indefensible (the tattered case for the Iraq invasion). Logic theory tells us that when we start with a flawed assumption, we can come to any conclusion we like. That's why it's so important to get your facts straight before you begin using them to test your hypotheses. When you think about how many flawed assumptions underpinned the argument for war in Iraq (WMDs, Al Qaida links, being greeted as liberators, and a quick, cheap war with minimal troops) it's pretty easy to understand why the whole adventure has turned into such a disaster.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Al Qaida may well have been operating in Iraq, but then they were (are?) operating in the US and lots of other countries besides. That doesn't mean they had the government's blessing to be there. As a secular, socialist, cult-of-personality dictatorship, Saddam's government had no love for the Islamists who wanted to see him deposed. America was Al Qaida's "far enemy". Regimes like those of Mubarak and Saddam were the "near enemy".

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

Cheney is deliberately fudging the timelines here: Anyone who has read The Looming Tower (a detailed history of Al Qaida before September 11) or indeed, anyone who simply has a good memory, knows that Zarqawi was not a member of the terrorist group before the US invasion of Iraq -- on the contrary, he was a rival.

The vice president is either mendacious to his core, or thoroughly delusional. Maybe it's both. Thankfully, even given the best medical care, we have to suffer at most 21 more months of Cheney's flying circus.

A unified Iraq 'surge' theory

I had a thought the other day, about a possible deal that might have been struck between Bush and Maliki and Sadr. It sort of makes sense, since it's a nominal win-win for all the major players. There have been bits and pieces of this floating around but I haven't seen anyone else put them together in a suitably cynical way:

Since Bush's 2 most attractive remaining options are: a) pacify Iraq enough to declare victory and get out; or b) stay the course long enough to hand the problem (and thus a share of the historical blame) to the next president -- with a) being obviously preferable --

And since the Shia government, who have previously been opposed to more troops (because they apparently want to get on with it and crush the Sunni insurgency militarily), are suddenly so agreeable on the subject --

And since things have suddenly gotten much quieter in Baghdad, despite only the first 'surge' troops being in place, with Sadr and his militia having been been remarkably well-behaved (some say melted away to Iran or Sadr City to "wait out" the surge) --

What if all of the above is part of a grand deal? What if the Mahdi army really have 'disappeared' to wait out the end of the surge, with the agreement of Bush and Maliki? Think about what would follow: Bush's "give the surge a chance" miraculously works (the surge being necessary to demonstrate an assertive action). The Americans stick around for a few months of peace and prosperity, declare victory, and finish the mission. After which, Sadr and Maliki get on with the business of ethnic cleansing. The Shia crush the Sunnis and take full control. From afar, Bush cheerleaders and neoconservatives back home in America get to work writing their "we gave them freedom and they chose civil war" history books as the US administration and the military, looking reasonably clever after finally pacifying Baghdad, decide to wash their hands of the whole affair. The official story: America won the Iraq war, but the Iraqis were intent on civil war and that was none of America's business.

A bit messy, but sort of a win-win, no?

The trouble with Rudy

Generally speaking, I like Rudy Giuliani. One of the reasons is that he seems competent. Another is that he's not a pure partisan, and I think American politics could use a good helping of people like Rudy and Obama, who at least seem to be able to talk civilly about their opponents. Unfortunately, I don't think he has a chance in a presidential race, even if he can get the Republican nomination. Andrew Sullivan has a Sunday Times column, "They wrote off resilient Rudy a little too soon", discussing the merits of his potential candidacy. It's a fairly positive assessment, but there's one small thing in the article that got me thinking:

He has also dressed in drag on several occasions. You can YouTube a clip of him in full drag being courted by Donald Trump in a department store. New Yorkers loved it. But it doesn’t go down too well in South Carolina.

I'd seen that clip before and not thought much about it, other than Rudy makes a pretty awful-looking woman. But now, upon reflection, I think the problem goes far beyond South Carolina. I don't personally have a problem with it at all; as a fellow straight man who has, for charity, appeared in -- if not drag, then something akin to it -- I too have been photographed in attire that one might call 'non-presidential'. I think it's silly in principle, but there is something to the idea of seeming presidential. Will Rudy's drag appearances hurt him in seeking the nomination? Probably, he will be mocked. We'll probably all get tired of seeing the replays. So can he possibly be taken seriously as a president? Think about all the times you've seen protesters, whether in America or elsewhere, demonstrating against Bush. Or Clinton. Think about all the caricatures and effigies you've seen. Now imagine they were wearing dresses and horrible makeup. I just think Rudy, and America, would never see the end of it.

Deferred success

Last year educators in the UK proposed the idea that no child should be allowed to think they'd failed something, but were instead experiencing "deferred success".

Luckily, common sense prevailed over the educators' amateur child psychology, and the "deferred success" initiative [ insert obvious joke here ] failed:

Ian Pringle, from Canvey Island, Essex, said: "We'll be ridiculed. Please do not vote for this motion."

So was Tony was having a little fun at George's expense here, by not stopping him from saying this about Iraq?:

With chief war ally Tony Blair of Britain by his side, Bush declared he's "disappointed by the pace of success"

The blame game

The time for feeling smug about my vociferous pre-war opposition to George Bush's Iraq adventure has long since passed, if there ever was such a time. It became apparent some time ago that not only is America going to 'lose' in Iraq (due to the persistent insurgency) but that barring unforseen miracles, Iraq is going to tear itself apart. A lot of people are going to die, and even after the dust has settled it will take a generation to fully recover. I saw that in Lebanon last November (before America decided to let Israel have another go at them, too). A lot of things in Lebanon still had bullet holes in them, 15 years after the fact.

This descent into civil war in Iraq is much more serious to me than America's (or my own) pride, and despite my antipathy toward the current American government, I truly, honestly never wanted to see this project fail so disasterously -- indeed, I wouldn't have thought it possible. The indifference to the magnitude of the task at hand, the ineptitude, and the incompetence, are staggering. I highly recommend the book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" by Thomas E. Ricks. It will set your blood boiling, if it doesn't make you weep in despair. Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that warmongering cabal are callous, criminal, and inhuman. They have only slightly more concern for the thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers than they do for the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis. These men are little better than Saddam himself.

As it has become apparent that America wants to "get out" of Iraq -- besides a dozen or so permanent military bases, that is -- I've come to disagree with the Cindy Sheehans and John Murthas on the anti-war side in America. Morally, America cannot simply walk away just as the slaughter begins in earnest. America created this situation, and it falls to America to put it right, or at least mitigate the disaster. The only moral thing America can do in Iraq is persist. Personally, I don't care if it pains them to do so; Maybe they'll think twice before starting their next war.

So this morning comes an article on MSNBC about how the new game in town, in Washington, is the blame game. Everyone sees the Iraq project is a failure, and they know that history will record it as such. So now they're casting about for a way to make it someone else's fault. This is quite aside from the fact that the Bush crew are flailingly trying to discourage people from using the term "civil war" to describe what's happening. We know why this is so; it's all about the history books. The President most certainly does not want his legacy to be summed up with the sentence, "Following Bush's half-baked invasion, and ignominious withdrawal, Iraq descended into civil war". It will be difficult to leave and declare victory while everyone thinks there's a civil war going on.

Back to the blame game: Whose fault will it be? Why, the Iraqis' fault of course. They just weren't good enough to live up to America's lofty vision. From the article:

From troops on the ground to members of Congress, Americans increasingly blame the continuing violence and destruction in Iraq on the people most affected by it: the Iraqis.

And another quote:

"It is the first manifestation of a 'Who lost Iraq?' argument that will likely rage for years to come," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism who has worked as a U.S. government consultant in Iraq.

I don't think the history books will say that this was the Iraqis' fault. Just in case anyone needed reminding, the Iraqi people didn't ask to be invaded, have their government, army, police, ministries, and institutions dismantled. Let's say someone came along and effectively removed all functioning government in Detroit, increased unemployment to 50% (would that be an increase in Detroit?), cut the power supply to 4 hours per day, and made day-long queues for a tank of gasoline at several times the current price. I'm sure, in such a situation, Detroit would be the model of civility. And if things were to go pear-shaped after 4 years of this? Well, blame it on the citizens.

Never mind, install a few military bases behind high walls, strong-arm a few oil deals, declare victory, and hang Saddam on your way out of town, George Bush. Those things are all you ever really cared about anyway. Mission nearly accomplished. That other democracy stuff was just supposed to be frosting.

Following President George W. Bush's half-baked invasion, failure to find weapons of mass destruction, failure to install democracy, and ignominious withdrawal, Iraq descended into civil war. Iraqis just didn't do enough to help themselves.

E-voting silliness

In America people are determined to fix the voting shenanigans that gave the world the term "hanging chads". Apparently they've been using these mechanical devices to punch holes in a card.

It seems the solution is really complex electronic machines (gee, I wonder if tech-industry lobbyists had anything to do with that decision?). The problem, of course, is that really complex electronic voting machines have lots of potential ways they can disenfranchise people and screw up election results. There have already been cases of suspect results in isolated pockets, suggesting tampering (in which a population that had historically voted for one party, suddenly defied all the latest polling data and voted overwhelmingly for the other party).

Wired News has an article about ways to secure the e-voting machines and make the results verifiable. They include securing the machine's memory card, auditable paper records, and recording hash keys of the software that runs on the machine (to ensure that it's exactly the same software that was approved for the election). Here's the bit that made me laugh:

Combine the best features of touch-screen and optical-scan machines in a single device. Touch-screens are easy to use and are flexible enough to accommodate disabled voters and multiple languages. Optical-scan devices provide reliable paper trails.

We recommend a third alternative that combines the best attributes of both -- a ballot marking machine, such as one made by Election Systems and Software.

These devices let voters make their choices on a touch-screen. But instead of directly recording the votes digitally onto a memory card, the machine prints the votes onto a full-size paper ballot. Voters or election officials then place the completed ballots onto an optical-scan reader (.pdf), where the votes are recorded digitally.

So. This complex, heavily vetted and secured e-voting machine will.... produce a marked ballot paper? Can I suggest another option?:


I have voted in both Canada and Britain, and used this simple voting device to mark a paper ballot. It's relatively tamper-resistant and produces an auditable paper record. When I'm finished, my ballot goes in a box. When the polls close, representatives of each party/candidate get together and count all the paper ballots, and phone in the results. Within hours (or, at most, a day or two) we know the results.

Maybe the US could consider using such a system? It probably worked for them many many years ago, but then they didn't have tech-industry lobbyists to contend with.

Lebanon and Israel and America Pt. 2

So today, the leader of Hezbollah threatened to attack Tel Aviv:

"If you hit Beirut, the Islamic resistance will hit Tel Aviv and is able to do that with God's help," Nasrallah said in a televised address.

He justified it this way:

"You attack our cities, our villages, our civilians, our capital, we will react," he said. "At any time you decide to stop your aggressions on our villages and towns and cities and our civilians, we will not hit any settlement or any Israeli city."

Trying not to sound too biased, I guess I'd have to say that sounds reasonable. Notice that when Israel temporarily suspended airstrikes, Hezbollah stopped firing rockets? And that when Israel resumed airstrikes, Hezbollah fired more rockets than ever before?

While it's true that Hezbollah provoked the whole mess, it was a minor provocation compared to what has followed; they attacked an Israeli military patrol, not civilians. Israel has responded by punishing the whole country of Lebanon and killing civilians (and don't say it isn't deliberate -- if you level apartment buildings, you at least don't care if you kill civilians). In return, of course, Hezbollah has done likewise, firing rockets at Israeli cities. This is the nature of warfare. Both sides try to inflict pain on the other.

Now, why has Israel responded so drastically to a minor provocation? After all, the two sides have been skirmishing at the border for a long time now. So, why? Because new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert needs to show he's a tough guy. He wasn't seen by the Israeli public as being a strong military leader, the way Sharon was. He views this as his opportunity to beat his chest and establish his bona fides.

By most accounts, Israel has been waiting for the right provocation to justify this operation. Notice everyone seems to have mostly forgotten about those 2 abducted soldiers. And besides, Israel now has 30 or 40 more dead soldiers, plus a couple of dozen dead civilians. Worth it? Not to save 2 soldiers it isn't, especially when Hezbollah offered a prisoner exchange. They've exchanged prisoners with Israel before.

Now, here's Condoleezza Rice's response to Hezbollah's latest threat:

"The international community needs to say to Hezbollah that these kinds of threats are also not helpful at a time when the international community, the Lebanese people, the Israeli people, all want an end to the hostility," she told "Larry King Live" in a taped interview to be broadcast Thursday night.

So, it's okay if Israel makes threats, and targets civilians and infrastructure. It's not okay when Hezbollah does it. Got it. And America is trying to pretend to be a moderating force here? They arm one side, and make excuses for one side. They are on Israel's side, and everyone in the World knows it, so let's not try to pretend otherwise. For Lebanese people, that must hurt; Lebanon has been the most pro-western and pro-American country in the Middle East, not to mention the only natural Arab democracy.

By the way, opinion polls do not support Rice's assertion that the Israeli people want an end to the hostility.

America allows Israel to continue its offensive, ostensibly to give it time to weaken Hezbollah, but can't abide Hezbollah fighting back? Got it. And who really suffers here anyway? Israeli civilians, and much more so, Lebanese civilians. Sounds like a plan.

Punishing all of Lebanon, of course, is the point. Israel wants to punish the Lebanese people until they decide that supporting Hezbollah isn't worth it. On the contrary, I think Hezbollah is going to come out of this with more popularity than ever.

I hope Israel and America end up with a big black eye over this. I don't approve of Hezbollah's continuing fight with Israel (after Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon a few years ago), but at this stage, I hope they have the last laugh. And I bet they will.

Lebanon and Israel and America Pt. 1

This article describes a mass burial of Lebanese bombing victims in the city of Tyre:

A Shiite sheik arrives and begins talking to members of the media. I pull him aside and ask him one question: "What message would you send to the people of America?" "Israel?" he asks. "No," I reply. "America."

"I love the people of America. It's the government I hate. Tell the American people that we received their gift. The missile that they gave to Israel - we have received it, and this is the result," he says, motioning to the coffins.

Lebanon Pt. I

I think some people who know me are probably wondering why I haven't commented about the current situation in Lebanon, given the fantastic trip I had there a few months ago, and given my already negative feelings about Israel. I think really, I'm just so sad and pessimistic about the whole thing that I can't really come up with anything appropriate to say. I'm in a state of disbelief about the pointless destruction and the punishment of innocent people, both in Lebanon and Gaza, by a supposedly enlightened country, with the unflinching support by the US. The mind just boggles. What are they thinking? That this will contribute to peace in the middle east? That Hamas and Hezbollah will just give up and go home? That Lebanese and Palestinians and Syrians and Iranians will just eventually bow down and give in to Israeli/American will? Or, just maybe, will this radicalize more people and spawn a new generation of Jihadis? What seems like the most likely outcome to you?

A blow against Guantanamo

A bit of good news in the "global war on terror"

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.

Good news, that is, for democracy, the rule of law, due process, human rights, and all those sorts of things we've come to expect from free societies. All of those things the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan believe they're fighting for.

If you have evidence against them, charge them in either a criminal court or a court martial, so that the defendants can know and challenge the evidence against them and defend themselves properly.

How can Bush and co. be afraid of that, if these really are "cold blooded killers"? Because the evidence against most of them is flimsy to non-existent, and much of what there is was "confessed" under duress -- we won't say the 't' word.

Maybe now they will close Guantanamo. It is a stain on the honour of America. It's a shameful thing that it took the US Supreme Court to force the issue, but at least it shows the system works, eventually.

Act of war

Apparently, according to the US military, killing yourself can be an "act of war":

The suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amount to acts of war, the US military says. The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were "committed" and had killed themselves in "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us".

A more ridiculous thing I have not heard all day (mind you, I've been out in the garden washing the motorcycle). According to this theory, the inmates did this to make the US look bad, and therefore it was an attack. I'm surprised he stopped short of calling it a terrorist attack.

I have another theory that might be worth exploring: perhaps they killed themselves out of despair at being imprisoned without due process for years on end, possibly tortured, and with no real prospect of a resolution in the near future?

Perhaps it's not these inmates who are making the US look bad? Perhaps Guantanamo Bay makes the US look bad? Perhaps the US has a knack for making itself look bad nowadays? What if maybe it's not merely a case of "looking bad"?

Oh lovely, this is back?

Americans and Canadians are booing one onothers' anthems at sporting events again?:

"booing started from the opening notes of singer Annmarie Martin's rendition of O Canada. While other fans attempted to drown it out by singing along, the boos were audible until the final notes."

Classy. Well, everyone remember that American fans started it this time. And, BTW, Sharks fans, how many of your team's players are Canadian? By my count, nearly half: 12 of 25, including both big stars, Jonathan Cheechoo and Joe Thornton. Oh well, nobody ever said Sharks fans know anything about Hockey (I've been to games at the Tank).

They're Building Empires

The U.S. military has "702 overseas bases in about 130 countries".

How many foreign military bases exist in the U.S.?

(This question is rhetorical. The answer is obviously zero.)

If there's a U.S. military base in your country (there is in mine), how do you feel about the sovereignty of your country? Do you think the relationship is reciprocal?

Exceptionalism Pt. I

This is a little out-of-date, but here goes:

For Americans, I ask you to consider a hypothetical scenario.

For many years, a number of Americans, particularly some Irish-Americans, sympathized with the IRA and its cause. This was in the years shortly before America discovered terrorism. But, make no mistake, the IRA were terrorists. And in this case at least, a not-insignificant number of Americans identified not with "civilization" (Rudy "You're either with civilization or with terrorists" Giuliani), but with the terrorists.

So, let's imagine a scenario: It's 199X. Boston, a stronghold of the Irish-American community is attacked in an unmanned airstrike by the British armed forces, attacking a "safe house" for IRA terrorists and/or sympathizers. 18 Americans are killed, including women and children. Some of them may or may not have been IRA terrorists or sympathizers.

What do you think the reaction would be? From the government? From the American public? It would be an act of war, obviously. The British would no longer be considered an ally, but an enemy (even if there were rumours that the American government had secretly sanctioned the act -- but of course denied it).

Now we've established the scenario, tell me why this was okay with most Americans?

I think I know why, actually: Because the 18 dead were a bunch of Pakistanis.