In addition to claims that American troops targeted hospitals, wounded captives, and unarmed women and children, we know have accusations that our forces used illegal weapons. I'm pretty sure that we can discount claims that we used poison gas, particularly since the military claims to have nothing stronger than CS tear gas in the arsenal. It would also be really embarassing to get caught using war gasses in Fallujah when President Bush's original justification for the invasion was Saddam's "possession" of chemical and biological weapons.
The issue of white phosphorous is something else entirely. WP grenades are only supposed to be used to mark targets for aerial bombardment. It is a violation of international law to use them against human targets. White Phosphorous sticks to surfaces and must be scraped off skin. It cannot be extinguished with water, although I bet it could be smothered. I would not want to try to put it out while it ate into a body part. Needless to say, there is a reason that this stuff is not supposed to be used on people - just like napalm.
As a society, we need to start looking very closely into the weapons and tactics employed in our name. Not only for the pragmatic reasons that this weakens our position in the world, fuels anti-Americanism, and creates more terrorists and Iraqi insurgents, but because of the moral and ethical issues. The Religious Right, which accepts Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's (bogus) claims that we are a Christian Nation, needs to think about the morality of these weapons in religious terms. Even if you accept St. Augustine's rationalization of Just War (which I do), you have to prosecute war in the most humane manner possible. That means not using weapons and tactics that increase suffering to no real purpose. Of course, I think that the Religious Right needs to examine President Bush's adventure in Iraq in the same way. Viewed objectively, I think they'll have a difficult time accepting the invasion as a Just War.
After the long history of the United States government's betrayal and abuse of Native American tribes, we have this new plan from the far right. The idea is to remove all traces of sovereignty that remain to the tribes on reservations, which can only be a step toward stripping them of their lands and mineral rights. So much for the vaunted conservative respect for civil rights, small government, ethics, and moral values.
These people are going to trot out both Arnold Schwarzenegger and the old lie about "Indian Thieves" to push through legislation and amendments to accomplish their goals. Just another reason the Governator has no business in elected office at any level.
My Oral Comprehensive Exam is scheduled for the afternoon of Dec. 1st, so most of my free time will be devoted to reviewing for that. We also have Thanksgiving and "regular" reading/homework to deal with this week.
I can't wait until December 15th and the end of classes (hopefully to be followed on the 18th by graduation).
I picked this link up on another blog, but I can no longer remember which. If anyone out there knows, please tell me so I can give proper credit.
The most interesting thing I see in this is an explicit connection of Pro-life with housing, medical care, jobs, education, and opposition to the death penalty. According to Sister Chittister, anything less is merely "pro-birth". I also like that she points to the Sermon on the Mount as the biblical inspiration for her beliefs.
Growing up Catholic and attending CCD every Sunday, the biggest thing that was taught were the beatitudes. Not Leviticus. Not the Old Testament. The Sermon on the Mount combines with the Resurrection to form the moral and mystical basis for Christianity. I'm not sure how people who ignore the connection can seriously call themselves "Christians".
More on election challenges in Ohio and San Diego (mayoral race). Also this on potential fraud and destruction of electoral records in Volusia County, Fla.
I hate that we have so much litigation over the results of our elections now. At best it shows a broken process, at worse it shows a broad pattern of electoral fraud. I'm beginning to wonder which of those is worse, because few people seem interested in fixing the problems with voting - fraudulent or otherwise. I am now at the point where I just want to identify the problems, fix them, and get ready for 2006.
Maybe the title of this one is a tad overblown. You decide.
On the one hand we have the Presidentially-ordered purge of serious minded dissenters from the CIA. These are the career spooks who didn't jump on the Iraq-Al Qaeda bandwagon and the Iraq-WMD bandwagon. They publicly disagreed with the boss, so out they go. This is one reason that the President chose a new toady for Director of Central intelligence. This episode reminds me of two things: old-style spoils system politics, and Soviet-style purges.
On the other hand, Spring, Texas, is requiring students to wear RFID tags so they can be tracked during the school day. Students swipe their badges when they get on and off the bus, and when they go into school. While I'm sure that this is great for reducing truancy and ensuring the kids aren't kidnapped on the way to school. But there's a problem here, too.
First, it gives teaches kids that the government has the right to track their whereabouts without justifiable cause or judicial oversight. This represents the proverbial slippery-slope. The government (at any level) has no right to track our every move as we go about our daily lives unless we are suspected of an actual crime. It's called probable cause. Illicit tracking by devices has to be specifically allowed or ordered by a judge. If we get our kids used to being tracked, they'll never place any value on the privacy and freedom we currently enjoy. At that point the government won't have to fight to follow us around, our children will just expect it.
This is the type of thing that used to be found in Cold War distopian novels or political rhetoric. Unfortunately, continuous government tracking of our whereabouts is being stealthily rolled out under the guise of "security" and "safety". What we need to do is stop this type of thing in its tracks, and come up with reasonable safety measures.
The future is at stake.
Listening to the radio and reading other blogs was a depressing experience, because even Air America was attempting to apologize for the Marines in the Fallujah mosque incident. The general theme was that we need to look at the overall environment and take the tactic of booby-trapping bodies into account.
I think that misses the point. I agree that our troops are in a high-stress environment, and that some of the tactics Iraqi insurgents are using are sneaky, underhanded, and vile, but the fact of the matter is that the Marines are not insurgents. Marines are highly trained and motivated soldiers. They are supposed to be above shooting helpless and unarmed enemies. These Marines are not the US Army draftees Lt. Calley was commanding at My Lai.
Just like there was no excuse for killing unarmed Vietnamese in My Lai, there is no excuse for killing disabled, unarmed insurgents in Fallujah. Booby-traps on dead bodies does not make killing unarmed prisoners an act of self-defense. Period. The incident in the mosque goes beyond a single Marine killing a wounded prisoner.
What seems to be ignored is the fact that a squad of Marines entered the Mosque and shot four unarmed Iraqis despite having orders not to shoot unarmed individuals. Combined with other events in Fallujah, this looks like a pattern of behavior by our military.
Aside from the loss of any respect accorded the honor of American servicemen in combat, these incidents have practical impacts: how likely is it that wounded Americans will survive contact with the enemy? How do we now condemn insurgents who kidnap and behead civilian hostages? How do we convince Iraqis (of any sort) to respect our forces?
By summarily executing a wounded prisoner (which is exactly what happened), our forces in Fallujah have lowered themselves to the morale plane of insurgents and terrorists who attack innocents. The question is how we recover from this incident and regain our national honor.
Looks like both sides are breaking the rules in Fallujah, which I sort of expect from insurgents who don't represent an actual government. The problem is that U.S. Marnies are also breaking the rules by shooting unarmed, wounded Iraqis. This is a big deal, because not only is it morally wrong, it's a war crime.
Of course, shooting a wounded and unarmed Iraqi covered by a blanket is just the tip of the iceberg, and the murder of a disarmed prisoner is a big tip. The initial squad of Marines apparently shot four unarmed Iraqis when entering the building, and there are reports of American helicopters shooting people attempting to swim across the Euphrates without verifying whether they were armed insurgents or civilians.
This has the same feel as No Gun Ri druing Korea, where Americans shot fleeing civilians indiscriminately because they couldn't tell friend from foe, and My Lai in Vietnam, which included the murder of wounded and unarmed Vietnamese civilians. It almost shows a pattern of behavior by American forces in confused and emotionall stressful combat environments against non-white enemies. Testimony before the Peers Commision, whch investigated the My Lai Massacre, indicated that because Vietnames looked different and spoke an incomprehensible language many of the GIs involved viewed the enemy as less than human.
The demonization of enemies extends through American history, particularly in the 20th century. A quick look at WWI propaganda posters, which depicted German soldiers as slavering, subhuman monsters is a particularly emphaitc example. Similarly, modern depictions of Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, regardless of the truth, in the United States encourage people to view them as less than normal.
On a pragmatic level, incidents like these encourage insurgents to fight to the death, and prevent us from convincing Iraqi civilians that we are not a despicable and implacable enemy of Islam. This will cause more casualies among both Americans and Iraqis, and prolong the war in Iraq.
Some of those high quality electronic voting machines gave Democratic votes to Libertarian candidates in Indiana...
So much for improved accuracy in voting.
Does anyone out there have a good explanation for the general lack of interest in the reliability and accuracy of voting machines?
This isn't exactly unexpected, and I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing for the Bush Administration and America. That may depend on who is tapped as the next Secretary of State.
Powell allowing Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz from the Pentagon has been an unmitigated disaster for the United States. Not only did we squander all of the worldwide pro-American feeling after Sept. 11, 2001, but we backed out of Kyoto, the 1972 ABM Treaty, and pretty much killed the International Criminal Court. The debacle in Iraq combines with the earlier mess to ensure that we are strategically isolated from our allies and neutral nations alike.
Needless to say, Powell's dedication to the party line and defense of the indefensible, even when we could tell he didn't like it, pretty much destroyed any credibility in my eyes. And that's without his spurious claims that Saddam had WMDs at the UN -- even when we knew he didn't.
Unfortunately, it looks like his replacement will be Condoleeza Rice, a toady of the President. Don't let Dr. Rice's academic credentials fool you: a critical review of her first book by Joseph Kalvoda in 1984, The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1983: Uncertain Allegiance, shows that she "frequently does not sift facts from propaganda and valid information from disinformation or misinformation", quotes questionable sources to support he arguments, and doesn't bother to learn enough about regional history and issues before passing judgement.
Interestingly, this a similar to a complaint Surgeon General C. Everett Koop made about the Reagan White House. He said that the President preferred to make decisions based on anecdotal evidence, rather than gathering all of the information available and analyzing it.
I guess thinsg haven't changed much at 1600 Pensylvania Avenue...
Mostly because they are trying to protect us from the excesses of the DOJ, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney.
Mr. Ashcroft seems to think that protecting the Constitution is an aid to terrorists. I have to disagree.
In order to quell criticism of Vioxx and drugs like it, the FDA excluded its own expert from a panel discussion regarding drug safety. I would like to think that they wanted the guy who knows the most about this class of drugs there, but because he questions the safety of all of these drugs, the Feds decided that he couldn't attend.
Your tax dollars at work.
Maybe I'm wrong, but forcing the airlines to give the Federal government private passenger data seems like illegal search and seizure. Given that they haven't shown that any of the passengers has committed an actual crime, the government is violating our expectation that private information is just that.
Let's see how did that go... "secure in his person, his property, and his papers..."
Hmmm....
My feeling is that ALberto Gonzales is actually a worse choice for Attorney General than John Ashcroft. I'll post more about this next week, but for starters, Gonzalez shows that he doesn't care about civil rights in any venue: he believes that the mentally retarded should be executed, he believes that the Geneva Onvention is a dead letter, and he thinks torturing prisoners/suspects is just fine.
Read more here.
Sean Gonsalves has an interesting article about how the Right has hi-jacked the evangelical tradition and the Bible.
The general theme: Jesus was more important about helping the poor and down-trodden than anything else, which means Christians should be working to address the issues of poverty and war above all else. He also says we need to get our Bibles and learn what is really in there in order to combat its abuse and misuse by the Resligious Right.
Check out Sam's post yesterday regarding how we can revitalize and reorganize the Democratic Party so it can effectively compete with the GOP without pandering to the center.
Also check out this great article on developing a Democratic/Progressive media infrastructure to counter the neo-con talking heads and corporate media.
Well, duh. The Supreme Court ruled back in 1947 that a military tribunal operating under the same basic guidelines as a Courts Martial had to designate people as "unlawful enemy combatants". The 3rd Geneva Convention (which we signed and ratified) also has the same requirement. And so does this Federal Judge.
This means that under the law, the President can't do it on his own authority despite the wishes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, or George W. Bush.
The Bush Administration like to talk about the "rule of law", but they sure as hell don't like to abide by it. They prefer illegal arrests, illegal deportations, and illegal designations of prisoners. They also seem to like illegal search and seizure (read the USA Patriot Act sometime and compare it the the Bill of Rights).
I can't believe people re-elected this crowd.
It looks like there are some significant problems related to this election's implementation of electronic voting, and it isn't just the touch-screen systems with no paper trail.
I don't have anything insightful to say regarding the issue, because I don't really have the time, but I present some links as food for thought. I also am not sure that the problems discussed are evidence of actual fraud, incompetence, or just bad luck. I leave that for you. For now I'm going to be my formerly idealistic self and paraphrase science fiction legend Robert Heinlein, "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence."
Polling Discrepencies.
Keith Olberman on voting problems and angst.
Republicans tallying votes in secret.
An Ohio Precinct with an extra 4,000 votes?
Palast on Exit Polls vs. actual votes.
An extra 10,000 votes in Nebraska?
I'm desparately trying to catch up on homework that got short shrift while studying for comps. I've read 270 of an approximate 900 pages, and expect to write between 30 and 60 pages by Sunday at midnight.
I think the end is in sight, though.
I take the written comprehensive final for my M.A. in History today at 1:00. That's less than five hours from now, so I am taking the day off to review and then test.
This thing covers ten classes over a two-year period, so I'm a bit nervous. If I pass the written test, I'll be taking the oral comprehensive test in about 3 weeks. With any luck at all I will graduate in December.
I'm appalled that more people in this country seem to agree with
John Winthrop than Roger Williams. The belief that this is a
Christian Nation combines with Bush Administration moves to limit
dissent through the use of "free speech" zones and arrests of
protesters at campaign events to make the 1st Amendment a dead letter.
Think about it: now the Rev. Roy Moores of the world have a new shot
to plaster the Ten Commandments all over the place, force prayer in
school, and make creationism (now labelled "Intelligent Design") part
of science classes. So much for liberty of conscience and government
not being concerned with enforcing the laws of the first table.
Lets be frank: the Christian Dominionists scare the crap out of
me. The whole idea that these people want to bring about the end of
the world is terrifying. It's also damn arrogant given their apparent
obsession with the Old Testament. What happened to the idea that only
144,000 of the chosen people would be saved? That sounds like the
Israelis go to heaven, while the rest of us are toast to me. No
happy, naked, flying Christians there. And how do these people really
know they are saved? Or that God will be happy that they trashed His
creation?
Of course we are talking about selective "Christians" here. They
ignore Jesus and Paul telling them to ignore Hebraic laws because what
is going into them will not condemn them: what comes out will. That
means the whole obsession with the portions of Leviticus dealing with
homosexuality is a pretty obvious violation of God's Word. Either
that or we need to start avoiding shellfish, pork, planting crops next
to each other, and wearing multi-fiber garments. And then there's the
bit about selling our daughters into slavery if they disobey us. How
do they accommodate that? Where does the hypcocrisy end?
I don't think we can simply lead informed lives anymore. It isn't
enough to stave of the impending darkness. Maybe the 51% that voted
for George W. Bush will come to their collective senses, but I doubt
it. In order to return to normalcy we'll have to become activists.
We have to re-fight the Enlightenment all over again, and this time
the forces of reaction are ready for us.
We need to learn to play the game like the neo-cons. We can't let
them control the news cycle. We must get out message out, and be
disciplined about staying with that message. Consistency may be the
hobgoblin of little minds, but that's what we're up against: a large
and growing segment of the population is not interested in nuanced
arguments. We need to show what we stand for in the simplest terms.
That's how the enemy operates.
The problem is that non-conservatives are willing to examine multiple
viewpoints, and tend to re-examine positions in the face of new data.
The challenge is to avoid the charges of "flip-flopping" John Kerry
faced during the election campaign. I'm not sure how to accomplish
both items.
We also need to show that we are not all secular humanists, but that
we are spiritual and pious people whose faith informs our view of the
world. We also have to truly show that we can combine that faith with
policy without forcing everyone else in the nation to our way of
thinking. We have to remind evangelicals about the New Testament
doctrine of Christian charity and tolerance. We have to remind them
that Winthrop's vision of the City on the Hill doesn't have to include
governmental dictation of matters of faith.
We also need new leadership, and it looks like the Democratic Party is
making another piss-poor selection for Senate Minority Leader by
choosing a Senator from a red state. Being from South Dakota is one
of the reasons Daschle was so ineffective. He couldn't stand up for
Democratic issues while appeasing the conservative voters at home. We
need leaders from blue states, who are already in line with their
constituents. That way they have a secure base to work from.
Our problems are easy to articulate, but difficult to address.
Finding a way to address these problems without becoming
indistinguishable from the enemy is going to be very difficult, but
necessary. Otherwise we're merely fighting a holding action. We need
to find a way to reclaim the initiative in political conflict. The
past few elections have demonstrated that merely reacting to attacks
is a losing strategy.
A guest post from Catlyn, who teaches Philosophy and Religious Studies:
RANT ON BUSH
Well, the American people have spoken. And what has been proven? America apparently has bought into their own stories about the boogie man. Michael Moore was not the first person to point out that our society is founded upon fear and continues to be afraid of its own shadow. Our pioneer foremothers fled Europe to avoid religious and social persecution and entered a world unlike any they had ever imagined. So, instead of embracing the natural landscape and the native peoples, our ancestors chopped down the trees and built walls to keep the boogie man at bay. Well, more specifically, the devil.
Our fledgling society then quickly figured out that fear sells products: guns, home security systems, fast cars, barred windows. In the infamous words of Marilyn Manson, "Sacred people buy more shit to make themselves forget that they're afraid." All we have accomplished in 500 years is replacing the devil with terrorists. Oh, wait. The Christians are telling me that the Devil IS terrorists. And women who want abortions. And same-sex couples who have the audacity to want to marry.
The newest topic of conversation moving around in my circle of peers centers on the religious persuasion of President Bush, Karl Rove, and others such as Condaleeza Rice. The conservative backlash against the Clinton era is very, very scary: conservative Christian folks, like our esteemed born-again president, believe in the Book of Revelation; most frightening of all, they believe that the end of the world is coming and that it will begin in the Middle East.
Now, instead of working to actively make sure that this DOESN'T happen, these lovely people actually WANT Armageddon to take place because Jesus will return to earth and usher in 1,000 years of peace in which all of the righteous will live together in happiness.
Is it just me, or does this sound like some sort of crazy cult message? (Those folks in Heaven's Gate out in California back in the 1990s killed their earthly bodies so that their souls could go live on the spaceship and be with Jesus.) Is this any different?
The overwhelming question in my mind this morning as I contemplate another four years with The Shrub in office: is now what? What is the responsibility of those Americans, some 48% of us, who DIDN'T vote for the psycho? This reelection is only going to reinforce Bush's belief that he is chosen by God. So again, what is our responsibility as citizens? Should we leave? New Zealand has great fishing my husband tells me. Should we storm Washington with picket signs?
Should we sit down in the middle of our hometown streets and refuse to move until the President concedes to some reasonable requests? (For example, showing us a viable exit strategy for Iraq.)
Or, should we simply continue living our informed lives, doing what we always do: teach, talk, write, contemplate. After all, the presidency is merely an office and there are lots of smart people in Washington doing what they can to restrict the power of that office to a reasonable degree, right?
Maybe now is the time for faith: not in the conservative Christian's God, but in the intellect of the 48% of us who voted to get Bush out of office. We are the minority, but not by much. We are capable of making a lot of noise if properly motivated. And I am feeling pretty damn motivated this morning.
I know its vogue to idolize former Arizona Cardinals player Pat Tillman for his sacrifices in Afghanistan, and he's a worthy role model. However, Kelvon Pritchett of the Detroit Lions is another kind of sports hero. When his absentee ballot didn't show up, Pritchett hopped ona plane and went home to Florida to vote, and paid at least $1,000 for the privilege.
Regardless of who people vote for, this is the kind of behavoir we need to encourage. Voting is not just the right of American citizens, it's a duty. This election may be over, but there are more coming.
I have two last minute good reasons to vote for John Kerry. The first comes from Charles Pierce, a regular contributer on MSNBC's Altercation. He writes:
It occurred to me over the weekend that I haven't given a good reason why I will vote for John Kerry, and why I would vote for him even if he were running against, say, John McCain. (And even if McCain still had a political soul, which I've come to doubt.) Once, in Iowa, Kerry dropped in on a group of Vietnam veterans. Some of them liked him. Some of them didn't, largely because of the whole VVAW thing. (And, trust me, this was my first beat at the Boston Phoenix, and I discovered that the politics within the various Vietnam veteran's groups were desperate and bloody.) Kerry dismissed the staff, locked the door, blew off the rest of the schedule, and sat there and talked and argued with these guys until they were all exhausted. He wanted to talk to the people who disliked him more than he wanted to talk to anyone else. He gave them the respect of open debate.Imagine the incumbent doing that. Imagine him sitting down in a room where half the people truly loathe him and everything he stands for, him and his ticket-only rallies, and his coddling staff, and his use of the Secret Service as cheap sidewalk bouncers. Imagine him hearing them out, debating them, giving them the respect of his knowledgeable disagreement. It is inconceivable. One can more easily imagine C-Plus Augustus's flapping his arms and flying to the top of the Washington Monument. Imagine that "character" is even at issue between these two men.
Somebody who was there in Iowa told me that story, and told me I couldn't use it, but that's too damn bad today. I am voting for John Kerry because it is a time for serious people who are strong enough in their heart to listen to anger and slander and calumny and to respond to it, not with the tinny bombast of an unearned office, and not with the cheesy legerdemain of concocted eminence, but with the strength to stay long enough to try to redeem it.
The other good reason to vote for Kerry is provided by Rude Blogger, and basically says that Senator Kerry is a hero for standing up to more powerful figures for the good of the nation during the Winter Soldier testimony, during Iran-Contra, and during the BCCI investigation into terrorist finances. Go read it, but be aware that he truly is rude.
