Sunday, May 30, 2004

The Times Editorial Review on WMD Reporting

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or Mass Distraction?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: May 30, 2004


From the moment this office opened for business last December, I felt I could not write about what had been published in the paper before my arrival. Once I stepped into the past, I reasoned, I might never find my way back to the present.

Early this month, though, convinced that my territory includes what doesn't appear in the paper as well as what does, I began to look into a question arising from the past that weighs heavily on the present: Why had The Times failed to revisit its own coverage of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable. Except, of course, it appears to have been mistaken. On Tuesday, May 18, I told executive editor Bill Keller I would be writing today about The Times's responsibility to address the subject. He told me that an internal examination was already under way; we then proceeded independently and did not discuss it further. The results of The Times's own examination appeared in last Wednesday's paper, and can be found online at nytimes.com/critique

I think they got it right. Mostly. (I do question the placement: as one reader asked, "Will your column this Sunday address why the NYT buried its editors' note - full of apologies for burying stories on A10 - on A10?")

Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was Risen's "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," which was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held for a week. It didn't appear until three days after the war's start, and even then was interred on Page B10.

The Times's flawed journalism continued in the weeks after the war began, when writers might have broken free from the cloaked government sources who had insinuated themselves and their agendas into the prewar coverage. I use "journalism" rather than "reporting" because reporters do not put stories into the newspaper. Editors make assignments, accept articles for publication, pass them through various editing hands, place them on a schedule, determine where they will appear. Editors are also obliged to assign follow-up pieces when the facts remain mired in partisan quicksand.

The apparent flimsiness of "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert," by Judith Miller (April 21, 2003), was no less noticeable than its prominent front-page display; the ensuing sequence of articles on the same subject, when Miller was embedded with a military unit searching for W.M.D., constituted an ongoing minuet of startling assertion followed by understated contradiction. But pinning this on Miller alone is both inaccurate and unfair: in one story on May 4, editors placed the headline "U.S. Experts Find Radioactive Material in Iraq" over a Miller piece even though she wrote, right at the top, that the discovery was very unlikely to be related to weaponry.

The failure was not individual, but institutional.

When I say the editors got it "mostly" right in their note this week, the qualifier arises from their inadequate explanation of the journalistic imperatives and practices that led The Times down this unfortunate path. There were several.

THE HUNGER FOR SCOOPS Even in the quietest of times, newspaper people live to be first. When a story as momentous as this one comes into view, when caution and doubt could not be more necessary, they can instead be drowned in a flood of adrenalin. One old Times hand recently told me there was a period in the not-too-distant past when editors stressed the maxim "Don't get it first, get it right." That soon mutated into "Get it first and get it right." The next devolution was an obvious one.

War requires an extra standard of care, not a lesser one. But in The Times's W.M.D. coverage, readers encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated "revelations" that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests. Times reporters broke many stories before and after the war - but when the stories themselves later broke apart, in many instances Times readers never found out. Some remain scoops to this day. This is not a compliment.

FRONT-PAGE SYNDROME There are few things more maligned in newsroom culture than the "on the one hand, on the other hand" story, with its exquisitely delicate (and often soporific) balancing. There are few things more greedily desired than a byline on Page 1. You can "write it onto 1," as the newsroom maxim has it, by imbuing your story with the sound of trumpets. Whispering is for wimps, and shouting is for the tabloids, but a terrifying assertion that may be the tactical disinformation of a self-interested source does the trick.

"Intelligence Break Led U.S. to Tie Envoy Killing to Iraq Qaeda Cell," by Patrick E. Tyler (Feb. 6, 2003) all but declared a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - a link still to be conclusively established, more than 15 months later. Other stories pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors.

HIT-AND-RUN JOURNALISM The more surprising the story, the more often it must be revisited. If a defector like Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri is hailed by intelligence officials for providing "some of the most valuable information" about chemical and biological laboratories in Iraq ("Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq, Officials Say," by Judith Miller, Jan. 24, 2003), unfolding events should have compelled the paper to re-examine those assertions, and hold the officials publicly responsible if they did not pan out.

In that same story anonymous officials expressed fears that Haideri's relatives in Iraq "were executed as a message to potential defectors."

Were they? Did anyone go back to ask? Did anything Haideri say have genuine value? Stories, like plants, die if they are not tended. So do the reputations of newspapers.

CODDLING SOURCES There is nothing more toxic to responsible journalism than an anonymous source. There is often nothing more necessary, too; crucial stories might never see print if a name had to be attached to every piece of information. But a newspaper has an obligation to convince readers why it believes the sources it does not identify are telling the truth. That automatic editor defense, "We're not confirming what he says, we're just reporting it," may apply to the statements of people speaking on the record. For anonymous sources, it's worse than no defense. It's a license granted to liars.

The contract between a reporter and an unnamed source - the offer of information in return for anonymity - is properly a binding one. But I believe that a source who turns out to have lied has breached that contract, and can fairly be exposed. The victims of the lie are the paper's readers, and the contract with them supersedes all others. (See Chalabi, Ahmad, et al.) Beyond that, when the cultivation of a source leads to what amounts to a free pass for the source, truth takes the fall. A reporter who protects a source not just from exposure but from unfriendly reporting by colleagues is severely compromised. Reporters must be willing to help reveal a source's misdeeds; information does not earn immunity. To a degree, Chalabi's fall from grace was handled by The Times as if flipping a switch; proper coverage would have been more like a thermostat, constantly taking readings and then adjusting to the surrounding reality. (While I'm on the subject: Readers were never told that Chalabi's niece was hired in January 2003 to work in The Times's Kuwait bureau. She remained there until May of that year.)

END-RUN EDITING Howell Raines, who was executive editor of the paper at the time, denies that The Times's standard procedures were cast aside in the weeks before and after the war began. (Raines's statement on the subject, made to The Los Angeles Times, may be read at poynter.org/forum/?id=misc#raines.)

But my own reporting (I have spoken to nearly two dozen current and former Times staff members whose work touched on W.M.D. coverage) has convinced me that a dysfunctional system enabled some reporters operating out of Washington and Baghdad to work outside the lines of customary bureau management.

In some instances, reporters who raised substantive questions about certain stories were not heeded. Worse, some with substantial knowledge of the subject at hand seem not to have been given the chance to express reservations. It is axiomatic in newsrooms that any given reporter's story, tacked up on a dartboard, can be pierced by challenges from any number of colleagues. But a commitment to scrutiny is a cardinal virtue. When a particular story is consciously shielded from such challenges, it suggests that it contains something that plausibly should be challenged.

Readers have asked why The Times waited so long to address the issues raised in Wednesday's statement from the editors. I suspect that Keller and his key associates may have been reluctant to open new wounds when scabs were still raw on old ones, but I think their reticence made matters worse. It allowed critics to form a powerful chorus; it subjected staff members under criticism (including Miller) to unsubstantiated rumor and specious charges; it kept some of the staff off balance and distracted.

The editors' note to readers will have served its apparent function only if it launches a new round of examination and investigation. I don't mean further acts of contrition or garment-rending, but a series of aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe Hussein had W.M.D. at his disposal.

No one can deny that this was a drama in which The Times played a role. On Friday, May 21, a front-page article by David E. Sanger ("A Seat of Honor Lost to Open Political Warfare") elegantly characterized Chalabi as "a man who, in lunches with politicians, secret sessions with intelligence chiefs and frequent conversations with reporters from Foggy Bottom to London's Mayfair, worked furiously to plot Mr. Hussein's fall." The words "from The Times, among other publications" would have fit nicely after "reporters" in that sentence. The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the W.M.D. stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign.

In 1920, Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz wrote that The Times had missed the real story of the Bolshevik Revolution because its writers and editors "were nervously excited by exciting events." That could have been said about The Times and the war in Iraq. The excitement's over; now the work begins.

The public editor is the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.

Quick Facts About Periodical Cicadas
March 30, 2004

The largest group, or brood, of periodical cicadas is set to invade the eastern U.S. from May to June. Cicadas—insects that spend most of their lives as nymphs, burrowed underground and sucking sap from tree roots—emerge once every 17 years, transform into adults, reproduce, and then die.

Periodical cicadas, like this adult, are insects that spend most of their lives burrowed underground. They emerge once every 13 or 17 years to reproduce and die. One of the largest broods, or groups, will emerge from underground early this summer.

� Cicadas are often called locusts, but locusts are migratory grasshoppers that often travel in vast swarms. The appearance of cicadas in large numbers apparently caused the early European settlers in North America to equate them with the plague of locusts mentioned in the Bible.

� Cicadas are said to make good eating because they are low in fat and high in protein. They are considered a delicacy by many people around the world. The European settlers in North America observed the Indians eating them. During the last emergence of Brood X cicadas in 1987, a number of people in Cincinnati and Illinois were reported to have tried deep-fried and stir-fried cicadas. There was also talk of cicada pizzas and cicada candy, and local newspapers printed cicada recipes.

� Experts say that the best way to eat cicadas is to collect them in the middle of the night as they emerge from their burrows and before their skins harden. When they are in this condition—like soft-shell crabs—they can be boiled for about a minute. It is said they taste like asparagus or clam-flavored potato.

� The animal world pigs out on the cicada feast. Particularly, songbirds make good use of the bonanza, and their young are well supplied with the nutritious insects. Moles are said to flourish on the fully grown nymphs in the weeks prior to emergence. Other wild animals that enjoy the advantage include snakes and spiders.

� Dogs and cats may also avail themselves of the cicada smorgasbord. It does them no harm, although if they eat too many they may have some difficulty digesting a surfeit of cicada skins. There have been reported cases of dogs' digestive tracts becoming blocked by eating too many cicadas.

� Periodical cicadas are found only in the United States east of the Great Plains. The 17-year cicadas are found mainly in the northern, eastern, and western part of their range. The 13-year cicadas predominate in the South. Within the 17-year cicadas there are 12 year classes or broods. This year it is Brood X (Brood Ten) that is emerging, which was last seen in 1987. It is considered to be the largest of the year classes.

� While different broods emerge in different years, there are some years in which there are no broods, the so-called empty class years. Broods generally are geographically based, but there can be some overlapping. Some broods are found only in small areas. Others, like Brood X, can range across as many as 15 U.S. states.

� Each brood of 17-year cicadas actually consists of three different species, and they all emerge together. The species look different from one another, and each one has its own song. Listen carefully and you should be able to distinguish the different choruses, according to experts. The three songs have been described as sounding like the word "pharaoh," a sizzling skillet, and a rotary lawn sprinkler. The different species sing at different times of the day—one favors the early part of the day, another prefers midday, and the third takes the late-afternoon shift.

� Only the males sing. The females are lured to the sound and fly nearer. A female responds to a male with a flick of her wings. The two gradually draw close to one another until they meet for mating.

� In China male cicadas are kept in cages in people's homes so that the homeowners can enjoy the cicadas' songs.

� Cicadas may give away their pending emergence by building thousands of "chimneys" or "stovepipes" on the ground, especially near trees. They will emerge through these structures when they leave the ground and crawl up trees and shrubs.

� The transparent wings of cicadas are said to filter out ultraviolet light. People who have placed a cicada wing on their skin prior to exposure to the sun have noticed that they do not tan under the wing.

� Male cicadas die soon after mating. Females lay 400 to 600 eggs in as many as 40 to 50 different nests before they die.

� Cicadas generally leave no lasting damage, except perhaps to young trees and shrubs. After they have bred and died, they leave the area littered with twigs and leaves that were damaged when the females laid their eggs. The remains of cicada bodies may lie so densely on the ground that there is a smell of decay, but the bodies provide good nutrients for the soil.

� Billions of cicada nymphs hatch in their nests high in the trees, drop to the ground, and burrow into the earth. There they find a succulent tree root, which they tap into with a special strawlike mouth part. They feed on the tree sap and pass through their various growth stages until, 17 years later, it is time to emerge and renew their life cycle.

Friday, May 28, 2004

Kerry Outlines Foreign Policy
By ROBIN TONER and DAVID E. SANGER
NY Times
Published: May 28, 2004

SEATTLE, May 27 - Senator John Kerry mounted a broad new attack on the Bush administration's handling of national security on Thursday by accusing the president of undermining "the legacy of generations of American leadership" with a foreign policy that has abandoned the alliance-building of the post-World War II era.

Opening a two-week critique of administration foreign policy, Mr. Kerry sought to present a clear alternative to Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq and the war on terrorism, while pursuing the same central goal: destroying Al Qaeda and its allies. "Let there be no doubt," he warned the terrorist group, "this country is united in its determination to defeat terrorism."

He said that Mr. Bush, by making military pre-emption the central doctrine of a new American foreign policy and employing it too quickly in Iraq, had ignored Theodore Roosevelt's warning that if a man "lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble."

"They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy," he said of the administration's national security team. "They bullied when they should have persuaded. They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. They have made America less safe than we should be in a dangerous world."

Mr. Kerry concluded, "In short, they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership, and that is what we must restore, and that is what I will restore."

Foreshadowing proposals that his campaign plans to announce next week, he promised to "modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats" of the 21st century, and to "free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil." At the same time, he vowed he would confront Saudi Arabia, one of America's key suppliers for its role in "financing and providing ideological support of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

Mr. Kerry's tone was more measured than that of former Vice President Al Gore, who called Wednesday for the resignations of almost all of the top national security officials in the Bush White House, except for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Instead, Mr. Kerry attacked the competence of the entire administration, declaring that America's military should know he would never ask them "to fight a war without a plan to win the peace."

The speech, and the focus on foreign policy, come at a time of both political opportunity and risk for Mr. Kerry in the middle of the first wartime presidential campaign since 1972. Continued turmoil in Iraq and the prisoner abuse scandal have led to growing doubts about Mr. Bush's policies, and largely account for the president's sinking rating in the polls. Yet Mr. Kerry remains under pressure from some in his own party to present a more forceful alternative to Mr. Bush's approach, with many antiwar Democrats calling for a definite date for pulling out of Iraq.

It was unclear whether Mr. Kerry's careful balancing act on Thursday would satisfy them. "He wants us out of Iraq, but he realizes we can only do that by building a true global coalition," said Representative Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. "And while some people would like to hear an exit date, I think they understand that we need the coalition to get to that point."

In Mr. Kerry's speech, delivered in sober tones to an invited audience of about 450 people, including many veterans, he paid tribute to the "greatest generation," and then turned the lessons of World War II to current political purposes.

"Our leaders then understood that America drew its power not only from the might of weapons, but also from the trust and respect of nations around the world," he said.

Recalling his own service in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry described Mr. Bush as a man so stubborn that he was unable to rescue a flawed Iraq strategy. "One thing I learned in the Navy," he said, "is that when the course you're on is headed for the shoals, it's pretty smart to shift the rudder.

To Tell the Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: May 28, 2004

Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down.

But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in which the press wasn't willing to report negative information about George Bush.

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.

But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?

The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.

The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being original.

So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational — and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations.

And some journalists just couldn't bring themselves to believe that the president of the United States was being dishonest about such grave matters.

Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to be prepared for an avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access to the sort of insider information that is the basis of many journalistic careers.

The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?

A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the national media believing that the press has not been critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent who believe that it has been too critical. More important, journalists seem to be acting on that belief.

Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops — but the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called yet another terror alert — but the press raised questions about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out.")

It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.

But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

A message from Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General

On 19 August 2003 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed in a bomb attack on the UN building in Baghdad, almost 10 years after the Office of the High Commissioner was established to uphold and promote human rights.

As one of the most prominent international human rights defenders lay dying in the rubble, the world had good cause to ponder how the legitimacy and credibility of the UN could have been eroded to such a fatal degree. Bypassed in the Iraq war and marginalized in its aftermath, discredited by its perceived vulnerability to pressure from powerful states, the UN seemed virtually paralysed in its efforts to hold states to account for their adherence to international law and their performance on human rights.

It was easy at that moment to wonder whether the events of 2003 had also dealt a mortal blow to the vision of global justice and universal human rights that first inspired the creation of global institutions such as the UN. If human rights are used as a cloak by governments to put on or cast away according to political expediency, can the international community of states be trusted to bring about that vision? And what can the international community of citizens do to rescue human rights from the rubble? The answer came the same week that the UN office was bombed, when a group of women in Mexico won the first step towards achieving justice for their murdered daughters. Marginalized and poor, they had fought for 10 years to get that far but, finally, they compelled Mexican President Vicente Fox and the federal authorities to intervene. I was with the mothers of Ciudad Juárez when the news of this breakthrough came through. I will never forget the joy on the faces of the women and their gratitude to the thousands of people around the world whose efforts had helped bring about change. A worldwide web of international solidarity had globalized their struggle. Looking at them, I saw how much can be achieved for human rights through the dynamic virtual space of global civil society.

The challenges facing the global movement for human rights today are stark. As activists, we must confront the threat posed by callous, cruel and criminal acts of armed groups and individuals. We must resist the backlash against human rights created by the single-minded pursuit of a global security doctrine that has deeply divided the world. We must campaign to redress the failure of governments and the international community to deliver on social and economic justice.

The Baghdad tragedy was a clear reminder (though by no means the only one) of the global threat posed by those who are ready to use any means to further their political objectives. We condemn their acts unequivocally. They are guilty of abuse of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law, sometimes amounting to crimes against humanity and war crimes. They must be brought to trial but – and here we part company with some governments – in accordance with standards of international law. Human rights are for the best of us and the worst of us, for the guilty as well as the innocent. Denial of fair trial is an abuse of rights and risks converting perpetrators into martyrs. This is why we call for Saddam Hussein to be tried in accordance with international standards. This is why we oppose military commissions for the detainees at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that fail to meet international standards.

There is no path to sustainable security except through respect for human rights. The global security agenda promulgated by the US Administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses have neither increased security nor ensured liberty.

Look at the growing insurgency in Iraq, the increasing anarchy in Afghanistan, the unending spiral of violence in the Middle East, the spate of suicide bombings in crowded cities around the world. Think of the continued repression of the Uighurs in China and the Islamists in Egypt. Imagine the scale and scope of the impunity that has marked gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law in the "forgotten" conflicts in Chechnya, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nepal – forgotten, that is, by all except those who daily suffer their worst effects.

Double speak brings disrepute to human rights but, sadly, it is a common phenomenon. The USA and its allies purported to fight the war in Iraq to protect human rights – but openly eroded human rights to win the "war on terror". The war in Iraq was launched ostensibly to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, yet the world is awash with small arms and conventional weapons that kill more than half a million people a year. To make matters worse, in the name of combating the so-called "war on terror", many countries have relaxed controls on exports to governments that are known to have appalling human rights records, among them Colombia, Indonesia, Israel and Pakistan. The uncontrolled trade in arms puts us all at greater risk in peace and war.

Iraq and the "war on terror" have obscured the greatest human rights challenge of our times. According to some sources, developing countries spend about US$22 billion a year on weapons and, for $10 billion dollars a year, they would achieve universal primary education. These statistics hide a huge scandal: the failed promise to attack extreme poverty and address gross economic and social injustice.

According to some analysts, there is a real risk that the targets of UN Millennium Development Goals – MESSAGE such as the reduction of child and maternal mortality, getting all children to primary school, halving the number of people with no access to clean water – will not be achieved because international attention and resources have been diverted to the "war on terror".

The poor and the marginalized are most commonly denied justice and would benefit most from the fair application of the rule of law and human rights. Yet despite the increasing discourse on the indivisibility of human rights, in reality economic, social and cultural rights are neglected, reducing human rights to a theoretical construct for the vast majority of the world's population. It is no mere coincidence that, in the Iraq war, the protection of oil wells appears to have been given greater priority than the protection of hospitals.

Nor is it surprising that big business can do what it wants and get away with it, or choose not to do what it ought to do by claiming that it has no clear legal responsibility or accountability for human rights. The UN Human Rights Norms for Business, approved in 2003, are an important step towards corporate accountability but, sadly, have come under concerted attack by companies and governments.

Against this backdrop of abuse and impunity, hypocrisy and double standards, what can we do to make human rights matter?

We can show that human rights offer a powerful and compelling vision of a better and fairer world, and form the basis of a concrete plan of how to get there. They bring hope to women like Amina Lawal in Nigeria whose death sentence was set aside as a result of the massive support her case generated. They provide a tool to human rights defenders like Valdenia Paulino to fight her battles against police brutality in the favelas of São Paulo in Brazil. They give voice to the powerless: the prisoner of conscience, the prisoner of violence, the prisoner of poverty.

In times of uncertainty the world needs not only to fight against global threats, but to fight for global justice. Human rights are a banner to mobilize people globally in the cause of justice and truth. Thanks to the work of thousands of activists in Latin America, the tide is turning against impunity in that region. Despite the crusade by the USA to undermine international justice and ensure global immunity from prosecution for its citizens, the International Criminal Court appointed its prosecutor and began its work in earnest. Slowly, the courts in the USA and the United Kingdom have begun to scrutinize government attempts to restrict human rights in their "war on terror".

Human rights promise the certainty of equality and equity to millions of women around the world. Recent legislative changes in the status of women in Morocco will open a new chapter in gender equity in the region. Recognizing the power of human rights to universalize the struggle of women, members of Amnesty International are joining hands with women's rights activists and many others to campaign globally to stop violence against women. We call on leaders, organizations and individuals to make a public pledge to change themselves and to abolish laws, systems and attitudes that allow violence against women to flourish.

Human rights are about changing the world for the better. Using the powerful message of human rights, Amnesty International has launched a joint campaign with Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) to achieve global control of small arms. To those who say this will not work, we point to the coalitions that led to the banning of landmines and the creation of the International Criminal Court. Combining public pressure and government support, we are determined to bring about change.

We celebrate these and other gains in this report, but we have not allowed them to obscure the very real challenges that persist. We live in a dangerous and divided world where the relevance of human rights is daily put to the test, the legitimacy of activists is questioned, and the "accountability gap" of governments, international institutions, armed groups and corporate actors is growing. It is precisely in such a world that we need a bigger humanity that will say, "This has to stop. Things must change".

There is no stronger international community than global civil society. Through its members and allies in the human rights movement, Amnesty International is committed to reviving and revitalizing the vision of human rights as a powerful tool for concrete change. Through the voices and visions of millions of men and women, we will carry the message of human rights forward.

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2004, Issue No. 43
May 7, 2004

ISOO WILL INVESTIGATE SECRECY OF TORTURE REPORT
ISOO WILL INVESTIGATE SECRECY OF TORTURE REPORT

The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) will investigate the decision to classify a U.S. Army report concerning the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel, its director said yesterday. The ISOO is responsible for oversight of classification policy in the executive branch.

In an apparent violation of classification rules, the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, which identified numerous illegal acts of abuse, was classified Secret/No Foreign Dissemination. Yet the executive order that governs national security classification states that "In no case shall information be classified in order to... conceal violations of law...."

The ISOO move, reported in the Washington Post today, came in response to a May 6 letter from the Federation of American Scientists questioning the secrecy of the Army report and requesting an investigation.

"It is disappointing to realize that in this case the national security classification system functioned, intentionally or not, to cover up an egregious set of crimes," the FAS letter said.
See:
"It is my intent to pursue the issues you identified in your letter,"
ISOO director William Leonard promptly responded. "I will advise you when my review is complete."

See:
Mr. Leonard noted in a telephone interview that ISOO is already investigating related Defense Department classification policies regarding detention and interrogation activities at Guantanamo Bay.

New Report Finds Unprecedented Special Interest Access Under Bush
Greenwatch: May 24, 2004

Special interests are enjoying unprecedented access to government under the Bush Administration, as documented in a report released today by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a government watchdog group. President Bush opened the door when he stacked his transition teams with industry representatives in 2001.

A nonprofit organization formed in 1995 in response to Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards has compiled a 148-page examination of President Bush’s close relationship with special interest groups dating back to their $200 million investment in his election. The report shows that executives from a wide spectrum of industries and trade associations now hold powerful, policy-setting positions throughout the Bush administration – positions they have quickly turned to the benefit of the industries and corporations they previously represented.

The result? Rollbacks on protections for public health and the environment; relaxed corporate oversight; relaxed enforcement of regulations; greatly increased government secrecy, including a clamp-down on granting public and Congressional requests for information; a growing lack of federal accountability, including awarding no-bid, secret government contracts; and the suppression and distortion of scientific information whenever it appears at odds with the administration’s political goals.

"Special interests have taken over our government from top to bottom, turning back years of progress on health, safety and the environment," concludes Special Interest Takeover: The Bush Administration and the Dismantling of Public Safeguards. "That this puts the public and our natural resources at significant risk seems to be of little concern to the Bush administration. Rather, the administration appears to view government as an instrument to enrich its political allies."

For example, the report cites Bush's stacking of the Department of Energy's transition team with large-scale donors to his campaign, the so-called "Pioneers" who gave more than $100,000 in individual contributions to help get him elected. Pioneers Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, and Anthony Alexander, president of FirstEnergy, each held seats on the agenda-setting team.

The transition teams, in turn, helped to secure key agency positions for Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer for electric utilities (who became EPA's air administrator); Steven Griles, a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry (deputy secretary of the Interior); Mark Rey, a timber industry lobbyist (head of the Forest Service); and David Lauriski, a mine industry executive (head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration).

"Once in place, these special-interest allies literally opened the doors of government for business," the report concludes. Rey scrapped forest protections to make way for clear-cutting; Lauriski weakened black lung and respiratory protections for miners; Griles gave former clients a boon by pushing to open more public land to drilling. And Holmstead outdid them all when the EPA directly adopted language written by lawyers at his former employer, Latham & Watkins, for use in rolling back clean air standards.

The long-term consequences of such unprecedented blurring of the lines between industry and government may be even greater due to the removal of corporate oversight. With nobody holding corporate or industrial America accountable, the report concludes, "the Bush administration is inviting irresponsible behavior that could lead to catastrophic consequences."

Detainees, Unlawful Combatants, Enemy Fighters and Whatever it Takes to Avoid Calling Them Prisoners of War.

C.I.A. Bid to Keep Some Detainees Off Abu Ghraib Roll Worries Officials
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT
NY Times May 25, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 24 — The Central Intelligence Agency's practice of keeping some detainees in Abu Ghraib prison off the official rosters so concerned a top Army officer and a civilian official there that they reached a written agreement early this year to stop.

An undated copy of the memorandum was obtained by The New York Times. It was described as an agreement between the Army intelligence unit assigned to the prison and "external agencies," a euphemism for the C.I.A., to halt practices that bypassed both military rules and international standards.

Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, the Army officer who first investigated the prison abuses, concluded in his classified report that the practice of allowing what he called "ghost detainees" at the prison was "deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law." He complained that military guards were being enlisted to hide the prisoners from the Red Cross
...
On Capitol Hill on Monday, the Senate Armed Services Committee said the Army had promised to deliver about 2,000 pages of supporting documents missing from copies of General Taguba's report that was sent to Congress earlier this month.

Pentagon aides have described the omission as an administrative oversight. But Senate officials said the missing documents included about 200 pages from Colonel Pappas's sworn statement, including a document titled, "Draft Update for Secretary of Defense."
<------------------------------------->

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

U.S. lawyer's arrest on wrong fingerpint match shows anti-terror policy danger

WASHINGTON (AP) - The release of Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield after the FBI acknowledged it mistakenly matched his fingerprint to one found near the scene of the deadly Madrid train bombings is the latest illustration of what critics said is a flawed U.S. anti-terror policy that threatens civil liberties and privacy.

"It underscores the dangers of this kind of policy of arrest first, ask questions later," David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor and critic of post-Sept. 11, 2001 law-enforcement tactics, said Tuesday.

The FBI made a rare apology to Mayfield on Monday night, after he was cleared of any connection to the March 11 bombings that killed 191 people and injured more than 2,000. FBI officials said Tuesday they would have no further comment on the case.

Now, the agency is reviewing how it handles fingerprints, especially in cases such as the one involving Mayfield where forensic experts must rely on digital images, rather than original evidence. For the review, an international panel of experts will examine what happened in the Mayfield case.

This is not the first time the FBI has fingered an innocent person, to its embarrassment. Richard Jewell was wrongly accused in the 1996 bombing at the Atlanta Olympics. And nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee was freed in 2000 after a criminal case alleging he stole secrets from the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico fell apart. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton apologized to Lee for that foul-up.

To critics of government anti-terrorism tactics, Mayfield's arrest is an example of a problem that extends beyond flawed fingerprint-examination techniques. They said it shows the U.S. government is far too willing to detain people, sometimes for weeks or longer, with little criminal evidence.

Mayfield was taken into custody on a material-witness warrant, a law that has been on the books for decades to allow prosecutors, with a judge's approval, to detain people so they can testify when there is a reasonable fear they might flee.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the U.S. Justice Department has used that authority more than 50 times to detain people linked to terrorism investigations, authorities said. In some cases, criminal charges are filed later; in others, the individual is simply released - sometimes without ever having to testify.

"It's an easy tool for the government to use to detain someone when they don't have evidence of a crime," said Anjana Malhotra, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch studying post-Sept. 11 use of material-witness power.

The Mayfield case, Malhotra said, "is a classic example of the government's misuse of the material-witness warrant."

Justice Department and FBI officials reject that characterization and contend they followed long-established procedure every step of the way in the Mayfield case. Court papers filed by U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut of Oregon said the warrant was sought because the government feared leaks to the news media would disrupt the investigation and because of "the potential loss of critical evidence."

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said repeatedly the Justice Department will use every available legal tool to prevent future terrorist attacks. In practice, that often means arrests or detentions of suspect individuals on lesser charges, such as immigration violations, instead of waiting for a bigger case after a terror attack.

When Mayfield was arrested May 6, the government noted he had attended a local mosque and advertised his law practice in a publication owned by a man with terrorism ties, court records showed. Mayfield had also represented in a child-custody case Jeffrey Battle, who pleaded guilty last year to conspiring to help al-Qaida and the Taliban fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Ultimately, no charges were brought. The FBI said the Spanish bombing fingerprint linked to Mayfield "was based on an image of substandard quality" that several analysts - even one brought in by Mayfield - had nonetheless previously confirmed as belonging to him.

It wasn't until after the FBI sent two fingerprint examiners to Madrid to examine the physical evidence in person that it became clear the print was not a match to Mayfield.

Cole said such an incident could be prevented from happening again if Congress would update the material-witness law to require testimony be given as soon as possible. Judges also should be more skeptical when government prosecutors seek the warrants, he said.

May 23, 2004
Regarding the Torture of Others
By SUSAN SONTAG

I.

For a long time -- at least six decades -- photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered. The Western memory museum is now mostly a visual one. Photographs have an insuperable power to determine what we recall of events, and it now seems probable that the defining association of people everywhere with the war that the United States launched pre-emptively in Iraq last year will be photographs of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by Americans in the most infamous of Saddam Hussein's prisons, Abu Ghraib.

The Bush administration and its defenders have chiefly sought to limit a public-relations disaster -- the dissemination of the photographs -- rather than deal with the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures. There was, first of all, the displacement of the reality onto the photographs themselves. The administration's initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs -- as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict. There was also the avoidance of the word ''torture.'' The prisoners had possibly been the objects of ''abuse,'' eventually of ''humiliation'' -- that was the most to be admitted. ''My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture,'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said at a press conference. ''And therefore I'm not going to address the 'torture' word.''

Words alter, words add, words subtract. It was the strenuous avoidance of the word ''genocide'' while some 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda were being slaughtered, over a few weeks' time, by their Hutu neighbors 10 years ago that indicated the American government had no intention of doing anything. To refuse to call what took place in Abu Ghraib -- and what has taken place elsewhere in Iraq and in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay -- by its true name, torture, is as outrageous as the refusal to call the Rwandan genocide a genocide. Here is one of the definitions of torture contained in a convention to which the United States is a signatory: ''any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.'' (The definition comes from the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Similar definitions have existed for some time in customary law and in treaties, starting with Article 3 -- common to the four Geneva conventions of 1949 -- and many recent human rights conventions.) The 1984 convention declares, ''No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.'' And all covenants on torture specify that it includes treatment intended to humiliate the victim, like leaving prisoners naked in cells and corridors.

Whatever actions this administration undertakes to limit the damage of the widening revelations of the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere -- trials, courts-martial, dishonorable discharges, resignation of senior military figures and responsible administration officials and substantial compensation to the victims -- it is probable that the ''torture'' word will continue to be banned. To acknowledge that Americans torture their prisoners would contradict everything this administration has invited the public to believe about the virtue of American intentions and America's right, flowing from that virtue, to undertake unilateral action on the world stage.

Even when the president was finally compelled, as the damage to America's reputation everywhere in the world widened and deepened, to use the ''sorry'' word, the focus of regret still seemed the damage to America's claim to moral superiority. Yes, President Bush said in Washington on May 6, standing alongside King Abdullah II of Jordan, he was ''sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families.'' But, he went on, he was ''equally sorry that people seeing these pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America.''

To have the American effort in Iraq summed up by these images must seem, to those who saw some justification in a war that did overthrow one of the monster tyrants of modern times, ''unfair.'' A war, an occupation, is inevitably a huge tapestry of actions. What makes some actions representative and others not? The issue is not whether the torture was done by individuals (i.e., ''not by everybody'') -- but whether it was systematic. Authorized. Condoned. All acts are done by individuals. The issue is not whether a majority or a minority of Americans performs such acts but whether the nature of the policies prosecuted by this administration and the hierarchies deployed to carry them out makes such acts likely.

II.

Considered in this light, the photographs are us. That is, they are representative of the fundamental corruptions of any foreign occupation together with the Bush adminstration's distinctive policies. The Belgians in the Congo, the French in Algeria, practiced torture and sexual humiliation on despised recalcitrant natives. Add to this generic corruption the mystifying, near-total unpreparedness of the American rulers of Iraq to deal with the complex realities of the country after its ''liberation.'' And add to that the overarching, distinctive doctrines of the Bush administration, namely that the United States has embarked on an endless war and that those detained in this war are, if the president so decides, ''unlawful combatants'' -- a policy enunciated by Donald Rumsfeld for Taliban and Qaeda prisoners as early as January 2002 -- and thus, as Rumsfeld said, ''technically'' they ''do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention,'' and you have a perfect recipe for the cruelties and crimes committed against the thousands incarcerated without charges or access to lawyers in American-run prisons that have been set up since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

So, then, is the real issue not the photographs themselves but what the photographs reveal to have happened to ''suspects'' in American custody? No: the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken -- with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives. German soldiers in the Second World War took photographs of the atrocities they were committing in Poland and Russia, but snapshots in which the executioners placed themselves among their victims are exceedingly rare, as may be seen in a book just published, ''Photographing the Holocaust,'' by Janina Struk. If there is something comparable to what these pictures show it would be some of the photographs of black victims of lynching taken between the 1880's and 1930's, which show Americans grinning beneath the naked mutilated body of a black man or woman hanging behind them from a tree. The lynching photographs were souvenirs of a collective action whose participants felt perfectly justified in what they had done. So are the pictures from Abu Ghraib.

The lynching pictures were in the nature of photographs as trophies -- taken by a photographer in order to be collected, stored in albums, displayed. The pictures taken by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, however, reflect a shift in the use made of pictures -- less objects to be saved than messages to be disseminated, circulated. A digital camera is a common possession among soldiers. Where once photographing war was the province of photojournalists, now the soldiers themselves are all photographers -- recording their war, their fun, their observations of what they find picturesque, their atrocities -- and swapping images among themselves and e-mailing them around the globe.

There is more and more recording of what people do, by themselves. At least or especially in America, Andy Warhol's ideal of filming real events in real time -- life isn't edited, why should its record be edited? -- has become a norm for countless Webcasts, in which people record their day, each in his or her own reality show. Here I am -- waking and yawning and stretching, brushing my teeth, making breakfast, getting the kids off to school. People record all aspects of their lives, store them in computer files and send the files around. Family life goes with the recording of family life -- even when, or especially when, the family is in the throes of crisis and disgrace. Surely the dedicated, incessant home-videoing of one another, in conversation and monologue, over many years was the most astonishing material in ''Capturing the Friedmans,'' the recent documentary by Andrew Jarecki about a Long Island family embroiled in pedophilia charges.

An erotic life is, for more and more people, that which can be captured in digital photographs and on video. And perhaps the torture is more attractive, as something to record, when it has a sexual component. It is surely revealing, as more Abu Ghraib photographs enter public view, that torture photographs are interleaved with pornographic images of American soldiers having sex with one another. In fact, most of the torture photographs have a sexual theme, as in those showing the coercing of prisoners to perform, or simulate, sexual acts among themselves. One exception, already canonical, is the photograph of the man made to stand on a box, hooded and sprouting wires, reportedly told he would be electrocuted if he fell off. Yet pictures of prisoners bound in painful positions, or made to stand with outstretched arms, are infrequent. That they count as torture cannot be doubted. You have only to look at the terror on the victim's face, although such ''stress'' fell within the Pentagon's limits of the acceptable. But most of the pictures seem part of a larger confluence of torture and pornography: a young woman leading a naked man around on a leash is classic dominatrix imagery. And you wonder how much of the sexual tortures inflicted on the inmates of Abu Ghraib was inspired by the vast repertory of pornographic imagery available on the Internet -- and which ordinary people, by sending out Webcasts of themselves, try to emulate.

III.

To live is to be photographed, to have a record of one's life, and therefore to go on with one's life oblivious, or claiming to be oblivious, to the camera's nonstop attentions. But to live is also to pose. To act is to share in the community of actions recorded as images. The expression of satisfaction at the acts of torture being inflicted on helpless, trussed, naked victims is only part of the story. There is the deep satisfaction of being photographed, to which one is now more inclined to respond not with a stiff, direct gaze (as in former times) but with glee. The events are in part designed to be photographed. The grin is a grin for the camera. There would be something missing if, after stacking the naked men, you couldn't take a picture of them.

Looking at these photographs, you ask yourself, How can someone grin at the sufferings and humiliation of another human being? Set guard dogs at the genitals and legs of cowering naked prisoners? Force shackled, hooded prisoners to masturbate or simulate oral sex with one another? And you feel naive for asking, since the answer is, self-evidently, People do these things to other people. Rape and pain inflicted on the genitals are among the most common forms of torture. Not just in Nazi concentration camps and in Abu Ghraib when it was run by Saddam Hussein. Americans, too, have done and do them when they are told, or made to feel, that those over whom they have absolute power deserve to be humiliated, tormented. They do them when they are led to believe that the people they are torturing belong to an inferior race or religion. For the meaning of these pictures is not just that these acts were performed, but that their perpetrators apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show.

Even more appalling, since the pictures were meant to be circulated and seen by many people: it was all fun. And this idea of fun is, alas, more and more -- contrary to what President Bush is telling the world -- part of ''the true nature and heart of America.'' It is hard to measure the increasing acceptance of brutality in American life, but its evidence is everywhere, starting with the video games of killing that are a principal entertainment of boys -- can the video game ''Interrogating the Terrorists'' really be far behind? -- and on to the violence that has become endemic in the group rites of youth on an exuberant kick. Violent crime is down, yet the easy delight taken in violence seems to have grown. From the harsh torments inflicted on incoming students in many American suburban high schools -- depicted in Richard Linklater's 1993 film, ''Dazed and Confused'' -- to the hazing rituals of physical brutality and sexual humiliation in college fraternities and on sports teams, America has become a country in which the fantasies and the practice of violence are seen as good entertainment, fun.

What formerly was segregated as pornography, as the exercise of extreme sadomasochistic longings -- as in Pier Paolo Pasolini's last, near-unwatchable film, ''Salo'' (1975), depicting orgies of torture in the Fascist redoubt in northern Italy at the end of the Mussolini era -- is now being normalized, by some, as high-spirited play or venting. To ''stack naked men'' is like a college fraternity prank, said a caller to Rush Limbaugh and the many millions of Americans who listen to his radio show. Had the caller, one wonders, seen the photographs? No matter. The observation -- or is it the fantasy? -- was on the mark. What may still be capable of shocking some Americans was Limbaugh's response: ''Exactly!'' he exclaimed. ''Exactly my point. This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time.'' ''They'' are the American soldiers, the torturers. And Limbaugh went on: ''You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people. You ever heard of emotional release?''

Shock and awe were what our military promised the Iraqis. And shock and the awful are what these photographs announce to the world that the Americans have delivered: a pattern of criminal behavior in open contempt of international humanitarian conventions. Soldiers now pose, thumbs up, before the atrocities they commit, and send off the pictures to their buddies. Secrets of private life that, formerly, you would have given nearly anything to conceal, you now clamor to be invited on a television show to reveal. What is illustrated by these photographs is as much the culture of shamelessness as the reigning admiration for unapologetic brutality.

IV.

The notion that apologies or professions of ''disgust'' by the president and the secretary of defense are a sufficient response is an insult to one's historical and moral sense. The torture of prisoners is not an aberration. It is a direct consequence of the with-us-or-against-us doctrines of world struggle with which the Bush administration has sought to change, change radically, the international stance of the United States and to recast many domestic institutions and prerogatives. The Bush administration has committed the country to a pseudo-religious doctrine of war, endless war -- for ''the war on terror'' is nothing less than that. Endless war is taken to justify endless incarcerations. Those held in the extralegal American penal empire are ''detainees''; ''prisoners,'' a newly obsolete word, might suggest that they have the rights accorded by international law and the laws of all civilized countries. This endless ''global war on terrorism'' -- into which both the quite justified invasion of Afghanistan and the unwinnable folly in Iraq have been folded by Pentagon decree -- inevitably leads to the demonizing and dehumanizing of anyone declared by the Bush administration to be a possible terrorist: a definition that is not up for debate and is, in fact, usually made in secret.

The charges against most of the people detained in the prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan being nonexistent -- the Red Cross reports that 70 to 90 percent of those being held seem to have committed no crime other than simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught up in some sweep of ''suspects'' -- the principal justification for holding them is ''interrogation.'' Interrogation about what? About anything. Whatever the detainee might know. If interrogation is the point of detaining prisoners indefinitely, then physical coercion, humiliation and torture become inevitable.

Remember: we are not talking about that rarest of cases, the ''ticking time bomb'' situation, which is sometimes used as a limiting case that justifies torture of prisoners who have knowledge of an imminent attack. This is general or nonspecific information-gathering, authorized by American military and civilian administrators to learn more of a shadowy empire of evildoers about whom Americans know virtually nothing, in countries about which they are singularly ignorant: in principle, any information at all might be useful. An interrogation that produced no information (whatever information might consist of) would count as a failure. All the more justification for preparing prisoners to talk. Softening them up, stressing them out -- these are the euphemisms for the bestial practices in American prisons where suspected terrorists are being held. Unfortunately, as Staff Sgt. Ivan (Chip) Frederick noted in his diary, a prisoner can get too stressed out and die. The picture of a man in a body bag with ice on his chest may well be of the man Frederick was describing.

The pictures will not go away. That is the nature of the digital world in which we live. Indeed, it seems they were necessary to get our leaders to acknowledge that they had a problem on their hands. After all, the conclusions of reports compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other reports by journalists and protests by humanitarian organizations about the atrocious punishments inflicted on ''detainees'' and ''suspected terrorists'' in prisons run by the American military, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, have been circulating for more than a year. It seems doubtful that such reports were read by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or Condoleezza Rice or Rumsfeld. Apparently it took the photographs to get their attention, when it became clear they could not be suppressed; it was the photographs that made all this ''real'' to Bush and his associates. Up to then, there had been only words, which are easier to cover up in our age of infinite digital self-reproduction and self-dissemination, and so much easier to forget.

So now the pictures will continue to ''assault'' us -- as many Americans are bound to feel. Will people get used to them? Some Americans are already saying they have seen enough. Not, however, the rest of the world. Endless war: endless stream of photographs. Will editors now debate whether showing more of them, or showing them uncropped (which, with some of the best-known images, like that of a hooded man on a box, gives a different and in some instances more appalling view), would be in ''bad taste'' or too implicitly political? By ''political,'' read: critical of the Bush administration's imperial project. For there can be no doubt that the photographs damage, as Rumsfeld testified, ''the reputation of the honorable men and women of the armed forces who are courageously and responsibly and professionally defending our freedom across the globe.'' This damage -- to our reputation, our image, our success as the lone superpower -- is what the Bush administration principally deplores. How the protection of ''our freedom'' -- the freedom of 5 percent of humanity -- came to require having American soldiers ''across the globe'' is hardly debated by our elected officials.

Already the backlash has begun. Americans are being warned against indulging in an orgy of self-condemnation. The continuing publication of the pictures is being taken by many Americans as suggesting that we do not have the right to defend ourselves: after all, they (the terrorists) started it. They -- Osama bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? what's the difference? -- attacked us first. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, before which Secretary Rumsfeld testified, avowed that he was sure he was not the only member of the committee ''more outraged by the outrage'' over the photographs than by what the photographs show. ''These prisoners,'' Senator Inhofe explained, ''you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in Cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.'' It's the fault of ''the media'' which are provoking, and will continue to provoke, further violence against Americans around the world. More Americans will die. Because of these photos.

There is an answer to this charge, of course. Americans are dying not because of the photographs but because of what the photographs reveal to be happening, happening with the complicity of a chain of command -- so Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba implied, and Pfc. Lynndie England said, and (among others) Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican, suggested, after he saw the Pentagon's full range of images on May 12. ''Some of it has an elaborate nature to it that makes me very suspicious of whether or not others were directing or encouraging,'' Senator Graham said. Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said that viewing an uncropped version of one photo showing a stack of naked men in a hallway -- a version that revealed how many other soldiers were at the scene, some not even paying attention -- contradicted the Pentagon's assertion that only rogue soldiers were involved. ''Somewhere along the line,'' Senator Nelson said of the torturers, ''they were either told or winked at.'' An attorney for Specialist Charles Graner Jr., who is in the picture, has had his client identify the men in the uncropped version; according to The Wall Street Journal, Graner said that four of the men were military intelligence and one a civilian contractor working with military intelligence.

V.

But the distinction between photograph and reality -- as between spin and policy -- can easily evaporate. And that is what the administration wishes to happen. ''There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,'' Rumsfeld acknowledged in his testimony. ''If these are released to the public, obviously, it's going to make matters worse.'' Worse for the administration and its programs, presumably, not for those who are the actual -- and potential? -- victims of torture.

The media may self-censor but, as Rumsfeld acknowledged, it's hard to censor soldiers overseas, who don't write letters home, as in the old days, that can be opened by military censors who ink out unacceptable lines. Today's soldiers instead function like tourists, as Rumsfeld put it, ''running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise.'' The administration's effort to withhold pictures is proceeding along several fronts. Currently, the argument is taking a legalistic turn: now the photographs are classified as evidence in future criminal cases, whose outcome may be prejudiced if they are made public. The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, after the May 12 slide show of image after image of sexual humiliation and violence against Iraqi prisoners, said he felt ''very strongly'' that the newer photos ''should not be made public. I feel that it could possibly endanger the men and women of the armed forces as they are serving and at great risk.''

But the real push to limit the accessibility of the photographs will come from the continuing effort to protect the administration and cover up our misrule in Iraq -- to identify ''outrage'' over the photographs with a campaign to undermine American military might and the purposes it currently serves. Just as it was regarded by many as an implicit criticism of the war to show on television photographs of American soldiers who have been killed in the course of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it will increasingly be thought unpatriotic to disseminate the new photographs and further tarnish the image of America.

After all, we're at war. Endless war. And war is hell, more so than any of the people who got us into this rotten war seem to have expected. In our digital hall of mirrors, the pictures aren't going to go away. Yes, it seems that one picture is worth a thousand words. And even if our leaders choose not to look at them, there will be thousands more snapshots and videos. Unstoppable.

Susan Sontag is the author, most recently, of ''Regarding the Pain of Others.''

The New York Times: Commodities: "Saudi Promise of More Oil Fails to Stop Rise in Prices
By HEATHER TIMMONS

Published: May 25, 2004

AMSTERDAM, May 24 - Shrugging off Saudi Arabia's promises to step up oil production, investors and traders pushed oil and gasoline prices to new highs on Monday.
Crude oil for July delivery closed at $41.72 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, a 4.5 percent increase from Friday's close. Gasoline for June delivery rose 2.9 percent. Both were records for the exchange, which has traded the futures contracts since the early 1980's"

Monday, May 24, 2004

Ground Zero Funds Often Drifted Uptown
Money Also Went to Luxury Apartments
By Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 22, 2004; Page A01

NEW YORK -- Six months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress approved an $8 billion program to repair this city's damaged office towers, build apartment buildings and finance the rebirth of the financial district.

But two years later, city records show that much of the money, dubbed Liberty Bonds, has gone to developers of prime real estate in midtown Manhattan and Brooklyn and to builders of luxury housing.

Local and state officials -- over the objections of their own downtown development chief -- gave one developer $650 million from the Liberty Bonds to erect an office tower for the Bank of America near Times Square, miles from the shattered precincts of Ground Zero. According to city records, another developer got $113 million to build a tower for Bank of New York in Brooklyn. One of the few projects downtown has gone to actor and sometime developer Robert De Niro, who picked up nearly $39 million from the bonds in November to build a boutique hotel in Tribeca, directly north of Ground Zero.

Congress designated $1.6 billion of the Liberty Bonds for rental housing. Nearly all the money from those bonds has gone to prominent developers to build luxury apartment towers in the neighborhoods around Ground Zero, accelerating its transformation into one of New York's richest neighborhoods, the city records show.

Local political leaders, urban planners and neighborhood residents have sharply criticized these spending choices, saying that wealthy developers shouldn't need subsidies to build office towers in midtown -- where private construction is booming -- or luxury housing downtown. The new luxury towers will contain just a small percentage of apartments for the tens of thousands of moderate-income residents who live in Lower Manhattan.

"Explain to me why helping Bank of America build a tower on one of the most expensive pieces of property in the world is a good use of these moneys?" said state Sen. Liz Krueger, whose district encompasses 42nd Street at Sixth Avenue, where that tower is to rise. "We've gotten free federal money and, instead of building affordable housing, it's become a race between the most powerful groups in the city to claim it."

In the frenetic months that followed the terrorist attacks, Congress worked fast to assemble financing to rebuild the area around Ground Zero. In a rare move, Congress allowed private developers to receive proceeds for commercial projects from interest-free, tax-exempt bonds sold on the municipal bond market. While the Liberty Bonds were backed by the federal government, state and local officials selected the projects that would receive the money.

Congress put few conditions on the Liberty Bond program, but the program's advocates said the intention was clear -- and it was not for luxury apartments and commercial projects far from the site of the World Trade Center. In fact, the program stipulated that New York's governor and the city's mayor had to deem a downtown project "not feasible" before diverting money for use elsewhere in the city.

"We didn't put a lot of strings on the Liberty Bonds, but more should have gone for jobs and affordable housing," said U.S. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). "A lot of this money has been spent on projects that fit the letter of the law but not the spirit."

The city's Industrial Development Corp. was designated to hand out the commercial Liberty Bonds. The corporation's executive director, Barbara Basser-Bigio, said that city and state officials wanted to jump-start the broader city economy and that some of the projects would not have been built without the assistance. "Our top priority is to create office space," she said. "We are looking to stimulate the economy through the creation of jobs and enhance business districts throughout the city."

New York officials also say that critics are missing the urgency felt in the weeks after the attacks to retain businesses in the city, especially Lower Manhattan, which remains the nation's third-largest central business district.

"Downtown was hemorrhaging in those days," said Carl Weisbrod, a former top city development official and now president of the Alliance for Downtown New York. "It was critical to stabilize the residential and commercial communities."

'Rebuild, Renew, Enrich'

The first recovery aid began to flow to New York in the weeks immediately after the terrorist attacks. The Bush administration tapped $3.5 billion in community development block grants, a federal program usually reserved for economic development in poor communities. Of this money, $300 million was quickly directed to a program to retain companies tempted to flee from downtown Manhattan. Auditing firm Deloitte & Touche got $17 million, Bank of Nova Scotia got $3 million, and Bank of New York received $40 million. American Express got $25 million even without threatening to leave its 3 World Financial Center home. Other federal money intended for small businesses ending up going to investment-house brokers and traders.

In March 2002, Congress started to move beyond this initial emergency patchwork and created the Liberty Bond program. (This week the Senate approved an extension of the Liberty Bond program, and the legislation is now headed to the House.)

City officials applauded, saying the bonds would spark the redevelopment of downtown. "The Liberty Bonds will rebuild, renew and enrich Lower Manhattan," Gov. George E. Pataki (R) said at the time.

Myriad agencies are involved in the effort. The Lower Manhattan Development Corp., a joint state-city agency, has taken the lead in the rebuilding but was given no power over the Liberty Bonds. Separate city and state development agencies -- including the city's Liberty Development Corp. and the New York City Industrial Development Agency -- sell the bonds and provide the proceeds to developers.

The corporations' records show the agencies gave $400 million from Liberty Bonds to World Trade Center leaseholder Larry A. Silverstein to rebuild an office tower near Ground Zero, which he is doing even though he has no prospective tenants. The state set aside money for a downtown convention center and gave funding to De Niro and his partners for their six-story, 83-room boutique hotel 10 blocks north of Ground Zero.

The commercial market downtown, however, continues to sputter. The vacancy rate today hovers at 15 percent, more than twice what it was four years ago.

By the middle of 2003, no other developers had stepped forward to build downtown, city officials said. Officials at the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. argued for holding the Liberty Bonds in reserve and waiting for the downtown market to pick up.

But city and state development officials who controlled the Liberty Bonds turned their eyes elsewhere and provided funding for the Bank of America building and the Bank of New York office tower.

Developer Bruce C. Ratner, who is constructing the bank building, has also received $243 million from Liberty Bonds for the construction of a tower for Pace University and New York University Downtown Hospital. Media tycoon Barry Diller received preliminary approval for $80 million to build the corporate headquarters for his company, IAC/InterActiveCorp., which includes Ticketmaster, in the Chelsea neighborhood.

John C. Whitehead, the chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., criticized those awards, saying that Congress did not intend the Liberty Bonds for the more prosperous precincts of midtown. He told the corporation board last year that the bonds eventually "will be needed for the World Trade Center site itself and the surrounding area."

Rental Market Subsidies


The parceling out of $1.6 billion in Liberty Bonds to finance luxury housing has proved no less contentious. The downtown housing market slumped briefly after Sept. 11 but then swiftly rebounded. Today three-bedroom apartments near Ground Zero rent for $6,500 a month -- and sell for more than $1 million. Manhattan residential occupancy rates -- more than 95 percent -- are higher than before the terrorist attacks, according to real estate statistics.

Yet the state and city agencies that award the bonds -- the New York State Housing Finance Agency and New York City Housing Development Corp. -- awarded nearly all the residential Liberty Bonds to subsidize the rental market.

Common Cause New York reported that 30 percent of the state's residential share of Liberty Bond proceeds went to Leonard Litwin, who is a major campaign contributor to Pataki.

State housing officials said that political favoritism played no part in their decisions and that loans were handed out "on a first-come, first-served basis." Litwin, they say, had projects in the works and simply got in line when the Liberty Bonds came available.

"Market rents had gone down, and it was a market necessity," said Gary Jacob, a vice president of Glenwood Management Corp., Litwin's real estate firm.

Many urban planners doubt the economics of this argument, noting that Litwin put up a huge equity share in these projects, an indicator of his good financial health. But these planners save their most furious criticism for the state's Housing Finance Agency, which decided to waive its own guidelines requiring that developers who get public bonds set aside 20 percent of the apartments for families with low or moderate incomes.

Instead, they required that Liberty Bond developers designate just 5 percent of the apartments for families of moderate income, which is defined in the area as $80,000 a year for a family of three.

A year ago, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg laid out his master plan for rebuilding Lower Manhattan, saying he wanted to preserve its economic and residential diversity. But Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff, who has overseen much of the development, now says that goal is difficult to achieve.

"It's an admirable goal to have a mixed-income community, but maybe over time it's shifting," he said in an interview, adding that affordable housing in downtown Manhattan requires a deep subsidy. "Maybe this isn't the best use of scarce dollars," he continued. "We have to look at the trade-offs."

Surveys have shown that many residents want the federal recovery money used not just for affordable housing but also for economic development, schools and parks in downtown Manhattan.

"I constantly wonder what Congress will make of our lavish subsidies for some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country," said David Dyssegaard Kallick, an economist and senior analyst with the Fiscal Policy Institute, a think tank funded by foundations and labor. "It just seems shocking."

Sunday, May 23, 2004

Another General Has His Say.

Broken Engagement
The strategy that won the Cold War could help bring democracy to the Middle East-- if only the Bush hawks understood it.
Washington Monthly
By Gen. Wesley Clark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events. We have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; assuming that they exist at all, they obviously never presented an imminent threat. Saddam's alleged connections to al Qaeda turned out to be tenuous at best and clearly had nothing to do with September 11. The terrorists now in Iraq have largely arrived because we are there, and Saddam's security forces aren't. And peace between Israel and the Palestinians, which prominent hawks argued could be achieved "only through Baghdad," seems further away than ever.

Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence. For every report of a growing conversation in the Arab world about the importance of democracy, there's another report of moderate Arabs feeling their position undercut by the backlash against our invasion. For every example of progress (Libya giving up its WMD program), there's an instance of backsliding (the Iranian mullahs purging reformist parliamentarians).

What is certainly true is that any hope for a "domino theory" rests with Iraq's actually becoming something that resembles a stable democracy. But here, too, there has been little progress. Despite their heroic efforts, American soldiers have been unable to make the country consistently stable and safe. Iraq's various ethnic entities and political factions remain deeply divided. Even the administration has concluded that the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council lacks credibility with the ordinary Iraqis it is intended to represent. The country's reconstituted security forces have been ineffectual--indeed, in some cases, they have joined the armed resistance to our occupation. The ease with which the demagogue Muqtada al-Sadr brought thousands to the streets and effectively took over a key city for weeks has sparked fears that an Iranian-style theocracy will emerge in Iraq. And the American and Iraqi civilian death tolls continue to mount.

Whether or not you agreed with the president's decision to invade Iraq--and I did not--there's no doubt that America has a right and a duty to take whatever actions are necessary, including military action, to protect ourselves from the clear security threats emanating from this deeply troubled part of the world. Authoritarian rule in these countries has clearly created fertile ground for terrorists, and so establishing democratic governance in the region must be seen as one of our most vital security goals. There is good reason, however, to question whether the president's strategy is advancing or hindering that goal.

President Bush's approach to Iraq and to the Middle East in general has been greatly influenced by a group of foreign-policy thinkers whose defining experience was as hawkish advisors to President Reagan and the first President Bush, and who in the last few years have made an explicit comparison between Middle Eastern regimes and the Soviet Union. These neoconservatives looked at the nest of problems caused by Middle East tyranny and argued that a morally unequivocal stance and tough military action could topple those regimes and transform the region as surely as they believed that Reagan's aggressive rhetoric and military posture brought down the Soviet Union. In a March 2002 interview on CNN, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects of the Iraq war, argued that the moral judgment that President Bush made "very clear, crystal clear in his State of the Union message" in which he laid out the Axis of Evil is "exactly the same kind of clarity, I think, that Ronald Reagan introduced in understanding the Soviet Union." In a speech last year, Defense Department advisor Richard Perle made the comparison even more explicit: "I have no doubt that [Bush] has the vision that Ronald Reagan had, and can envision, can contemplate change on a very large scale in Iraq and elsewhere across the region."

This dream of engineering events in the Middle East to follow those of the Soviet Union has led to an almost unprecedented geostrategic blunder. One crucial reason things went wrong, I believe, is that the neoconservatives misunderstood how and why the Soviet Union fell and what the West did to contribute to that fall. They radically overestimated the role of military assertiveness while underestimating the value of other, subtler measures. They then applied those theories to the Middle East, a region with very different political and cultural conditions. The truth is this: It took four decades of patient engagement to bring down the Iron Curtain, and 10 years of deft diplomacy to turn chaotic, post-Soviet states into stable, pro-Western democracies. To achieve the same in the Middle East will require similar engagement, patience, and luck.

Inspiring smoke screens

Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy. As an Army officer in and out of Washington, I met many who would later star in the neoconservative movement at conferences and briefings. They're rightly proud of serving under Ronald Reagan, as I am. And as someone who favored a strong U.S. role abroad, I received a good deal of sympathy from them. As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their Project for a New American Century seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.

September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

For them, the key quality shared by Reagan and the current President Bush is moral clarity. Thus, for instance, long-time neoconservative writer and editor Norman Podhoretz, after noting approvingly that Bush's stark phrase "Axis of Evil" echoes Reagan's "Evil Empire," wrote in Commentary magazine: "The rhetorical echoes of Reagan reflected a shared worldview that Bush was bringing up to date now that the cold war was over. What Communism had been to Reagan in that war, terrorism was to Bush in this one; and as Reagan had been persuaded that the United States of America had a mission to hasten the demise of the one, Bush believed that we had a mission to rid the world of the other."

In the neoconservative interpretation, Reagan's moral absolutism allowed him to take on the Soviet Union by any means necessary: Because he recognized the supreme danger the Soviets posed, he was willing to challenge it with a massive military buildup. In this understanding, the moral equivocation of Carter and his predecessors left them satisfied with the failed, halfway strategy of containment. Only when Reagan changed the moral template of the conflict, their argument goes, was America able to get past the weak pieties of containment and rid the world of Soviet tyranny.

Likewise, as Perle has argued, Bush's moral certainty allowed him to recognize Islamic tyranny for what it was (a manifestation of evil) and unfetter American might to defeat it, which meant deploying the military to enact regime change. "Had we settled for containment of the Soviet Union," Perle wrote in December 2002, "it might still be in business today. Are we--and millions of former Soviet citizens--not better off because the United States went beyond mere containment and challenged the legitimacy of a totalitarian Soviet Union? The ideological and moral challenge to the Soviet Union that was mounted by the Reagan administration took us well beyond containment. If containment means that a country such as Iraq, that is capable of doing great damage, is left unhindered to prepare to do that damage, then we run unnecessary, foolish and imprudent risks."

In justifying his policy towards Iraq, Bush himself echoed Perle.

"Moral clarity," President Bush said in his 2002 commencement address to the U.S. Military Academy, "was essential to our victory in the cold war. When leaders like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan refused to gloss over the brutality of tyrants, they gave hope to prisoners and dissidents and exiles and rallied free nations to a great cause ... We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem." Never mind that the regime the administration was most intent on confronting was the one in the region that had perhaps the least to do with the events of September 11 or the immediate terrorist threat.

And the neoconservative goal was more ambitious than merely toppling dictators: By creating a democracy in Iraq, our success would, in the president's words, "send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran--that freedom can be the future of every nation," and Iraq's democracy would serve as a beacon that would ignite liberation movements and a "forward strategy of freedom" around the Middle East.

This rhetoric is undeniably inspiring. We should have pride in our history, confidence in our principles, and take security in the knowledge that we are at the epicenter of a 228-year revolution in the transformation of political systems. But recognizing the power of our values also means understanding their meaning. Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated.

The neoconservative rhetoric glosses over this truth and much else. Even aside from the administration's obvious preference for confronting terrorism's alleged host states rather than the terrorists themselves, it was a huge leap to believe that establishing democracies by force of Western arms in old Soviet surrogate states like Syria and Iraq would really affect a terrorist movement drawing support from anti-Western sentiment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

Perhaps most fundamentally, the conditions of the Middle East today are vastly different from those behind the Iron Curtain in 1989. And the fact is that the Soviet Union did not fall the way the neoconservatives say it did.

Red herring

The first thing to remember about American policy towards the Soviet Union is that we never directly invaded any nation under Soviet control. In the early 1950s, some in America saw the expansion of communism as an inevitability which must not only be resisted by force but also rolled back. And for a time during the Eisenhower administration, there was brave rhetoric about such an effort. Struggling resistance movements survived from year to year in the Baltics, Romania, and the Ukraine. And immigrant dissident groups in the United States kept up the political pressure on Washington to consider a more confrontational strategy. But any real prospect of rollback died as Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956.

Instead, the foreign policy consensus coalesced around containment, an idea which had been in the air since the early post-war period, when George Kennan, then a veteran American diplomat, published his seminal Foreign Affairs article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct." Kennan argued that the Soviet system contained within it "the seeds of its own decay." During the 1950s and 1960s, containment translated that observation into policy, holding the line against Soviet expansion with U.S. military buildups while quietly advancing a simultaneous program of cultural engagement with citizens and dissidents in countries under the Soviet thumb.

These subtler efforts mattered a great deal. The 1975 Helsinki Accords proved to be the crucial step in opening the way for the subsequent peaceful democratization of the Soviet bloc. The accords, signed by the Communist governments of the East, guaranteed individual human and political rights to all peoples and limited the authority of governments to act against their own citizens. However flimsy the human rights provisions seemed at the time, they provided a crucial platform for dissidents such as Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov. These dissidents, though often jailed and exiled, built organizations that publicized their governments' many violations of the accords, garnering Western attention and support and inspiring their countrymen with the knowledge that it was possible to stand up to the political powers that be.

With the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, it became clear once more that it would be the demands of native peoples, not military intervention from the West, that would extend democracy's reach eastward. Step by step, the totalitarian governments and structures of the East lost legitimacy in the eyes of their own citizens and elites. The United States and Western Europe were engaged, of course, in assisting these indigenous political movements, both directly and indirectly. Western labor unions, encouraged by their governments, aided the emergence of a democratic trade union movement, especially in Poland. Western organizations provided training for a generation of human-rights workers. Western broadcast media pumped in culture and political thought, raising popular expectations and undercutting Communist state propaganda. And Western businesses and financial institutions entered the scene, too, ensnaring command economies in Western market pricing and credit practices. The Polish-born Pope John Paul II directed Catholic churches in Eastern Europe and around the world to encourage their congregants to lobby for democracy and liberal freedoms.

Such outreach had profound effects, but only over time. In his new book, Soft Power, the defense strategist Joseph Nye tells the story of the first batch of 50 elite exchange students the Soviet Union allowed to the United States in the 1950s. One was Aleksandr Yakovlev, who became a key advocate of glasnost under Gorbachev. Another, Oleg Kalugin, wound up as a top KGB official. Kalugin later said: "Exchanges were a Trojan horse for the Soviet Union. They played a tremendous role in the erosion of the Soviet system...they kept infecting more and more people over the years."

Of course, military pressure played a vital role in making containment work. But we applied that pressure in concert with allies in Europe. In the 1980s, for instance, President Reagan began the deployment of intermediate range missiles in Europe as part of NATO. It was a political struggle in the West, but we engaged NATO and made it work.

Rising Soviet defense spending aimed at competing with the United States may have hastened the economic decline in the Soviet Union, helped convince the Russian generals that they couldn't compete with U.S. military technology, and strengthened Gorbachev's hand as he pushed for glasnost. But this end-game challenge of Reagan's would have been ineffective had 40 years of patient Western containment and engagement not helped undermine the legitimacy of the Communist regime in the eyes of its subjects. It was popular discontent with economic, social, and political progress, and people's recognition of an appealing alternative system, that finished off the repressive regimes of Eastern Europe, and eventually the whole Soviet Union. No Western threat of force or military occupation forced their collapse. Indeed, subsequent examination by Germany's Bundeswehr has shown that the East German military remained a disciplined conscript organization that could have effectively responded to Western intervention. But these governments were unable to resist focused, strongly-articulated popular will.

What the West supplied to the people of the East was, as former Solidarity leader and Polish Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek told me, very simple: hope. They knew there was a countervailing force to the occupying Soviet power which had repressed them and subjugated their political systems. Democracy could reemerge in Central and Eastern Europe because of a several decades-long dance between popular resistance and cautious Western leaders who moved ever so carefully to provide support and encouragement without provoking the use of repressive force by the Communist governments in reaction or generating actual armed conflict between East and West.

So, when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," or stood before crowds in Berlin and proclaimed "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," he was reaching a receptive audience on the other side of the wall. The neoconservatives persist in seeing a vast difference between Reagan's policy of confronting the Soviets and previous American administrations' tack of containing it. In fact, it was precisely those decades of containment and cultural engagement that made Reagan's challenge effective.

A long way from Prague

Bush, of course, has accompanied his invasion of Iraq with similarly bold and eloquent rhetoric about the prospect of peace and democracy throughout the Arab world. But it is hard to exaggerate how differently his words and deeds have been received in the Middle East, compared to Reagan's behind the Iron Curtain. While heartening some advocates of democracy, Bush's approach has provoked perhaps the fiercest and most alarming anti-American backlash in history. To take but one example, a March poll conducted by the Pew Center found that the percentage of people in Muslim countries who think suicide bombings are justified has grown by roughly 40 percent since the American occupation of Iraq. Even the most Western-friendly, pro-democratic media outlets in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon now openly question whether the Americans are anti-Islamic crusaders bent on assisting the Israeli occupiers of Palestine. This is a long way from Prague, circa 1989.

The reaction of the Middle East to America's invasion of Iraq should hardly have been surprising. Only willful blindness could obscure the obvious fact that the political and cultural conditions in the Middle East are profoundly different than those in the states of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. To one degree or another, the values and forms of democracy were part of the historic culture of the states of Central and Eastern Europe: There were constitutions and parliaments, in one form or another, in the Baltic States, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere before World War II. In some cases, these precedent experiences with democracy dated back into the 19th century.

This is evidently not the case in the Middle East. The Enlightenment never much penetrated the Ottoman frontiers, and so the great conflicts of faith versus reason and the value of each individual and his conscience which defined Western civilization were largely screened out there. Modern states in the Middle East emerged after the Ottoman Empire crumbled, and except in the cases of Turkey and Lebanon, there was nothing comparable to a Western democracy. Instead, "state socialism" was eventually imposed upon tribal and colonial heritages in many Arab states--replacing the Ottoman Empire with Western-drawn boundaries, authoritarian rulers, and, at best, pseudo-democratic institutions. Through it all, Islam--with its commingling of secular and religious authorities, and the power of its mullahs and its more fundamentalist, anti-Western sects--remained a significant force. As the example of Iran shows, elections and parliaments can be subverted by other means of control.

Nor is the desire for Western culture anywhere near as pronounced in the Middle East as it was behind the Iron Curtain. At the height of glasnost, American rock'n'roll bands toured the Soviet Union, playing to sold-out arenas of fans. By contrast, even many educated Muslims, who resent the yoke of tyranny under which they live, find much of American culture shocking and deplorable. Central European countries had enjoyed a culture of secular education and Western music and art dating at least to the late Renaissance, privileges and luxuries that ordinary citizens fought for centuries to gain access to. For much of the population of Central Europe, the Soviet darkness which descended in the late 1940s was something so fundamentally alien to the underlying culture that its overthrow can in hindsight be seen as close to inevitable. In the Middle East, periods of cultural openness can only be found in the fairly distant past.

Finally, the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia felt the extra sting of being ruled by an outside imperial force--Russia. By contrast, the tyrants of the Middle East, like Assad in Syria, the Al Sa'ud dynasty in Saudi Arabia and, indeed, Saddam Hussein, are all locally grown and can draw on some amount of nationalism for support. The imperial powers that most residents of the Middle East remember are, in fact, Western powers. And today's Western governments, including the United States, have long supported these Middle East strongmen. Whether we should have or should continue to do so is open to debate. What is not is that our sponsorship of these regimes has made the citizens less willing to believe our intentions are honorable. This is made all the more difficult because our strongest ally in the region, Israel, is seen by most Arabs as the enemy. It is then perhaps not surprising that opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that Osama bin Laden is far more popular among potential voters in Islamic states than George W. Bush.

Arab people power

Seeking to intervene and essentially impose a democracy on a country without real democratic traditions or the foundations of a pluralist society is not only risky, it is also inherently self-contradictory. All experience suggests that democracy doesn't grow like this. But we are where we are, and we must pull together to try to help this project succeed.

First, and most obviously, we need to avoid an impending disaster in Iraq. The current situation there is not only alarming in itself, but may also be creating a negative rather than positive dynamic for democracy in the Middle East. In the short term, we must significantly increase U.S. troop strength to restore and maintain stability. In the medium term, our European allies must share the burden--which will only happen if we share decision-making with them. And in the long term, we must draw down U.S. troops. A massive American military presence in the heart of the Middle East, after all, can only increase support for terrorism and undercut the position of indigenous pro-Western reformers.

We must also recommit ourselves to a real peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. We should measure success on the progress we make, not merely on final resolution. We must also recognize that here, the neoconservatives had it backwards: The "road to Jerusalem" didn't run through Baghdad at all; rather, until real progress is made towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a way that respects both sides, all American efforts to work within the region will be compromised.

Democracy and freedom have been ascendant in most parts of the world for at least the last 15 years, and it's hard to imagine that they aren't also destined to take root in the Middle East. But to play a constructive role in bringing this about, we must understand the facts on the ground and the lessons of history clearly. Our efforts should take into account not just the desire for freedom of those in the Middle East, but also their pride in their own culture and roots and their loyalty to Islam. We should work primarily with and through our allies, and be patient as we were during the four decades of the Cold War. More than anything else, we should keep in mind the primary lesson of the fall of the Soviet Union: Democracy can come to a place only when its people rise up and demand it.

Instead of brandishing military force and slogans about democracy, we must recognize what our real strengths and limitations are. In this part of the world, American power and rhetoric tend to produce countervailing reactions. Demands and direct action are appropriate in self-defense, but in a region struggling to regain its pride after centuries of perceived humiliation by the West, we should speak softly whenever possible. If we really want to encourage forms of government to emerge which we believe will better suit our own interests, then we have to set a powerful example and act indirectly and patiently--even while we take the specific actions truly necessary for our self-defense.

We should also recognize that it is not merely democracy itself--a popular vote to elect a government--that we seek for the Middle East, but rather more enlightened, tolerant, and moderating decisions and actions from governments. The tolerance, aversion to aggression, and openness which we hope to see emerge from a democratic transformation in the Middle East will require much more than just censuses, election registers, polling booths, and accurate ballot counts. We must avoid what Fareed Zakaria calls "illiberal democracy," governments which are elected but which routinely ignore constitutional limits on their power and deprive their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. Only by creating a system of pluralistic and overlapping structures and institutions that check the power of their leaders can the nations of the Middle East avoid this fate.

Any attempt to build democracy in the Islamic world must begin by taking into account Islam itself, the region's major source of culture, values, and law. There has been no "Protestant reformation" within the Muslim world. The teachings of the Koran tend to reflect an absolutism largely left behind in the West. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would not accept the emergence of a theocratic state within Iraq, he gave voice to a profound concern: that even in Iraq, one of the more secularized Arab states, the majority of people look to Islam for their values and beliefs. (Indeed, Saddam himself in his final years in power increasingly turned to religious rhetoric to shore up support among his impoverished people). Inevitably, any lasting constitution there must entail compromises that reflect popular values. Hopefully, a form of government can emerge that reflects Islamic notions of rights, responsibilities, and respect but that is also representative in nature, reflects popular sovereignty, and retains the capacity to make pragmatic decisions.

There are, after all, some reasons to be optimistic. One Islamic country in the Middle East that has made the transition to democracy is Turkey. But it did not do so overnight. After decades of tight military supervision of the political process, during which the United States and Western Europe embraced the country as part of NATO and urged subtle reforms, Turkey has only within the last few years overcome the last obstacles to full democracy. Spurred by a broad national desire to join the European Union, Turkish voters approved constitutional amendments which, among other things, separated the Turkish military from politics, and today an avowedly democratic but openly religious party runs the government and enjoys strong popular support. Algeria, a country only recently racked by fundamentalist violence, has taken tentative steps in this direction, as have Jordan and Bahrain.

Nowhere in the Middle East has the public demand for freedom been more striking than in Cyprus, 60 miles from the Syrian coast. For 30 years, the Christian Greek and Muslim Turkish sides of the island have been divided by a 120-mile "green line," the equivalent of the Berlin Wall. Last month, 40,000 Turkish citizens (a fifth of the population of the Turkish portion of the island) marched against their long-time authoritarian leader, Rauf Denktash, in favor of a U.N.-drafted unification plan with the Greek side.

This upwelling of popular demand was not the result of American military action; the protests were only the latest in a series that started long before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. What motivated the Turkish Cypriots was a simple desire for a better life. The Greek side of the island will be joining the European Union next month. Citizens on the Turkish side didn't want to be left behind. Indeed, 65 percent of them voted for the U.N. plan (though the Greek side rejected it). We must do everything we can to encourage others in the Middle East to do as the Turks of Cyprus have: to step forward and demand change. We must strengthen the liberal institutions in these countries and aid embryonic pro-democracy movements, using every tool we have and creating some new ones. In this effort, we will have to rely heavily on the proven capacities of groups one step removed from the U.S. government, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute.

But I also believe there is a need for a cabinet- or sub-cabinet level agency designed to support and evaluate the kind of political and economic development efforts that can prevent later crises and conflicts. This will require substantial budget authority as well as research, development, and operational responsibilities.

We must also recognize that to be successful, we're going to need our European allies. Europe is closer to the Middle East geographically and more enmeshed with it economically. It is home to millions of Middle Eastern immigrants, who are a natural bridge across the Mediterranean. It is not so strongly associated with Israel in the minds of Arabs as we are. And yet, its very proximity gives Europe at least as much incentive as we have to fight terrorism and work for a stable, democratic Middle East. This makes the Bush administration's belittling and alienating of Europe all the more perplexing.

With Europe as our partner, we can also think more ambitiously and inventively than we can alone. One possibility is to offer select Middle Eastern countries the chance at membership in our most valuable alliances and organizations--the incentive that roused the Turkish Cypriots. The desire for the benefits of joining alliances like the European Union are there. I remember a conversation I had in 1998 with King Hassan of Morocco. He told me of his desire to join the European Union in order to have the European highway system extended into his country.

Realistically, neither the European Union nor NATO will be in a position to expand for many years to come, having recently added many new members. But it should be possible to create adjunct regional organizations or associate memberships, such as the "Partnership for Peace" program that brought former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO's orbit. Middle East countries that sign up would get certain commercial and security benefits in return for shouldering responsibilities and making democratic reforms.

The Bush administration seems to understand the potential of this approach, even as its own unilateralist impulses undermine the possibility. Late last year, senior administration officials began talking about a "Greater Middle East Initiative" in which Western nations would offer Arab and South Asian countries aid and membership in organizations such as the WTO in exchange for those countries' making democratic reforms. It was exactly the right tack but required a subtle, consensus-building approach to implement.

Yet instead of consulting with Islamic countries and with European allies who had been making similar plans, the administration developed the plan all on its own, in secret, and when a copy was leaked to the Arab press, it caused a predictable backlash. Europeans groused and Arab leaders with no interest in democratic reform used the fact that America had developed the plan unilaterally as a convenient excuse to reject it out of hand. The State Department had to send diplomats out to do damage control so that the president can talk about the idea in a series of speeches next month.

We need to take the American face off this effort and work indirectly. But there are some American faces that can be enormously useful. Among our greatest assets during the Cold War were immigrants and refugees from the captive nations of the Soviet Union. Tapping their patriotism toward America and love of their homelands, we tasked them with communicating on our behalf with their repressed countrymen in ways both overt and covert, nursing hopes for freedom and helping to organize resistance. America's growing community of patriotic Muslim immigrants can play a similar role. They can help us establish broader, deeper relationships with Muslim countries through student and cultural exchange programs and organizational business development.

We can't know precisely how the desire for freedom among the peoples of the Middle East will grow and evolve into movements that result in stable democratic governments. Different countries may take different paths. Progress may come from a beneficent king, from enlightened mullahs, from a secular military, from a women's movement, from workers returning from years spent as immigrants in Western Europe, from privileged sons of oil barons raised on MTV, or from an increasingly educated urban intelligentsia, such as the nascent one in Iran. But if the events of the last year tell us anything, it is that democracy in the Middle East is unlikely to come at the point of our gun. And Ronald Reagan would have known better than to try.

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'
May 21, 2004

"Regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"
Gen. Anthony Zinni

President Bush named Zinni special envoy to the Middle East. But Zinni wound up breaking ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq.

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.

“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor. Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted. “I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?

“I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,” says Zinni.

“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the 'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.”

Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began. Should he have been surprised?

“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there,” says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.”

Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.

“As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country,” says Zinni.

“I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American who's serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake.”

What mistakes?

“Disbanding the army,” says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain elements of that society.”

Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.

“But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what bothers me most.”

Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”

Who specifically is he talking about?

“Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”

Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?

“I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,” says Zinni. “If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone.”

“You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set,” Kroft asked Zinni.

“Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes,” says Zinni.

“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden.”

Are there enough troops in Iraq now?

“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international participants? Yes,” says Zinni.

“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can provide services in there.”

But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?

“There is a limit. I think it’s important to understand what the limit is. Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,” says Zinni.

“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the people on the street, then we're gonna get to the point where we are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now. And I wouldn't want to see us fail here.”

Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago.

“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,” says Zinni.

“I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.”

60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined.

New Zealand News : "US probes 8 more Iraq, Afghan prisoner homicides
22.05.2004: 11.20am

WASHINGTON - The US military, embroiled in a scandal over the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, is investigating as homicides the deaths of eight more prisoners held by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon said on Friday.
A senior military official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said eight prisoner deaths under investigation have been 'classified by medical authorities as homicides, which involve suspected assaults of detainees either before or during interrogation sessions that may have led to the detainees' death.'

These deaths are in addition to two homicides of Iraqi prisoners, which the US Army said on May 4 had been committed by Americans. The official said the military was looking into more than 30 deaths of prisoners, primarily in Iraq.
Treatment of prisoners held by US forces has come under scrutiny amid ongoing revelations about the physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
The military official said the eight additional deaths deemed as homicides were among nine prisoner fatalities that remained under active investigation by the Army. The ninth death appeared to be due to natural causes, the official said. "

New Zealand News: "US disputes 40 killed Iraqis were wedding party

20.05.2004
1.00pm
BAGHDAD - The US army said on Thursday it killed around 40 people in an attack on suspected foreign fighters in Iraq near the Syrian border, but disputed reports that the victims were members of a wedding party. "

Friday, May 21, 2004

Strong Capital Exec vs Eliot Spitzer: "Fund Executive, Fined $60 Million, Accepts Life Ban
By RIVA D. ATLAS

Published: May 21, 2004
Associated Press

Richard S. Strong, the chairman of Wisconsin-based Strong Financial Corp., has agreed to pay a $60 million fine, apologize and accept a lifetime ban by the financial industry to settle an investigation into improper fund trading.

Richard S. Strong, who helped fuel the extraordinary growth of mutual funds over the last three decades, agreed yesterday to pay $60 million and be banned from the financial industry for life to settle an investigation over rapid trades he made at the expense of investors in his funds."

Wall Street Warrior - CFO Magazine - November Issue 2003 - CFO.com: "Wall Street Warrior

Ten questions for New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. His one message for CFOs: ''Be careful.''

A CFO Interview, CFO Magazine
November 01, 2003

Eliot Spitzer seems bent on bringing another Wall Street giant to its knees. This time the 44-year-old New York Attorney General is targeting the mutual-fund industry, with a probe of late-day trading activities and market timing at Canary Capital Partners that has led to the first-ever criminal charges in the financial-markets investigation."

The New York Times > Washington > : "White House's Medicare Videos Are Ruled Illegal
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: May 20, 2004


WASHINGTON, May 19 - The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had violated federal law by producing and disseminating television news segments that portray the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly.

The agency said the videos were a form of 'covert propaganda' because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, broadcast by at least 40 television stations in 33 markets. The agency also expressed some concern about the content of the videos, but based its ruling on the lack of disclosure."

The New York Times > Business > Media & Advertising : "Federal Witness in Martha Stewart Trial Is Charged With Perjury
By KENNETH N. GILPIN

Published: May 21, 2004

A government expert who testified for the prosecution in the Martha Stewart trial was charged today with two counts of perjury in connection with his testimony."

Chalabi: Alpha View

U.S. Aids Raid on Home of Chalabi
Iraqi Criminal Probe Seeks Associates of Ex-Ally of Pentagon

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 21, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD, May 20 -- Iraqi police backed by U.S. soldiers on Thursday raided the home of Ahmed Chalabi, a Governing Council member who was once the Pentagon's pick to run postwar Iraq. Officials later said they were seeking 15 people, including at least one member of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, on charges including fraud and kidnapping.

In coordinated searches, U.S. troops seized computers, files and dozens of rifles from two offices of the INC, a coalition of political parties that opposed former president Saddam Hussein. Boot prints marked several doors kicked down in the raids, which included a top-to-bottom search of the INC intelligence center that U.S. authorities once turned to for help in searching for former top Hussein officials and weapons of mass destruction.

A visibly agitated Chalabi told reporters after the raids that they were retribution for his increasingly strident criticism of the American management of post-Hussein Iraq. "I call to liberate the Iraqi people and get back our complete sovereignty," he said, speaking in English, "and I am raising these issues in a way that the Americans don't like."

But Hussein Muathin, a judge with the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, said the raids were part of an investigation into such crimes as the detaining and torturing of people, theft of government cars and illegal seizure of government facilities. Eight people, including Aras Habib, Chalabi's security and intelligence chief, have been declared fugitives. Chalabi was not charged.

U.S. and Iraqi officials said that the arrest orders originated in the Iraqi justice system and that senior U.S. occupation officials did not know about the warrants until they were served.

The raids appeared to complete Chalabi's fall from grace in the eyes of U.S. officials over the last difficult year of the occupation. In recent weeks, occupation authorities have cut off a $335,000 monthly subsidy to the INC's intelligence arm and have pursued an investigation focusing on alleged fraud against government agencies by Sabah Nouri, a Chalabi aide who served as the anti-corruption chief at the Ministry of Finance.

This pressure comes as occupation officials are preparing to hand limited authority to Iraqis on June 30 and oppose a government role for such former allies as Chalabi.

The raids alarmed other members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, several of whom called on the United States to apologize to Chalabi immediately. "Doing such a thing to a Governing Council member proves that they do not acknowledge this council, which they formed and appointed," said Songul Chapouk, a council member and women's rights activist. "This is an insult to this council."

In his news conference, Chalabi said an urgent council meeting had been called for Friday to address the board's relationship with the United States in light of the raid and the assassination this week of the council president as he waited to enter the compound of the U.S. occupation authority.

Chalabi, a wealthy businessman who returned to Iraq after decades of exile in Britain, won favor among Pentagon officials before the war as a prolific source of information on Iraq's weapons programs. He is also a moderate Shiite Muslim, making him a potentially important bridge to Iraq's majority religious community.

Chalabi's organization received $33 million from the United States between March 2000 and September 2003, which made it the leading exile opposition organization to Hussein. But it became clear after the fall of Baghdad that Chalabi enjoyed little support in Iraq, and much of his prewar intelligence has turned out to be wrong or "intentionally misleading," according to a recent U.S. assessment.

Lately, Chalabi has blamed U.S. officials for allowing members of Hussein's Baath Party to reemerge as a security force in the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad. He called U.S. security policy a failure after the assassination of Izzedin Salim, the council president who was killed Monday in a suicide car bombing. He has also clashed with L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, over who should manage an investigation of Hussein-era corruption inside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program.

INC officials said U.S. troops and Iraqi police fanned out in the elite Mansour neighborhood, the location of Chalabi's house and the INC offices, around 6 a.m. A few hours later, the officials said, soldiers and police arrived at Chalabi's home and demanded to be let inside. The officers said they were pursing several suspects, INC officials recounted, but would not disclose the reason or produce an arrest warrant when asked.

Haider Musawi, an INC official, said Chalabi conducted negotiations from inside his home. He eventually allowed one Iraqi police officer to enter and search the premises for the suspects. No one was found.

The police and soldiers moved next to the INC offices, housed in a lavish Chinese-style mansion that was once a perk of the director of Hussein's intelligence agency. Several guards on duty said as many as 100 U.S. soldiers arrived.

By their account, six Iraqi police officers entered with an American dressed in civilian clothes and body armor. One of the guards said the American directed the Iraqi police, who they said kicked down doors and smashed a picture of Chalabi. Damaged picture frames, including one holding a photograph of Chalabi, were seen by a reporter in one of the ransacked offices.

Haider Ridha Mohammed, a guard on duty at the time, said he asked the police officer why he had tossed the framed photograph on the ground. Mohammed said the officer responded, "He's gone now, Ahmad Chalabi is finished."

A senior Iraqi police official, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, denied that the officers vandalized the offices in any way.

For several months, U.S. officials have been investigating people affiliated with the INC for possible ties to a scheme to defraud the Iraqi government during the transition to a new currency that took place from Oct. 15 last year to Jan. 15, according to a U.S. occupation authority official familiar with the case. The official said the raids were partly related to that investigation.

At the center of the inquiry is Nouri, whom Chalabi picked as the top anti-corruption official in the new Iraqi Finance Ministry. Chalabi heads the Governing Council's finance committee and has major influence in its staffing and operation.

When auditors early this year began counting the old Iraqi dinars brought in and the new Iraqi dinars given out in return, they discovered a shortfall of more than $22 million. Nouri, a German national, was arrested in April and faces 17 charges including extortion, fraud, embezzlement, theft of government property and abuse of authority. He is being held in a maximum security facility, according to three sources close to the investigation.

In recent weeks, several other Finance Ministry officials have been arrested as part of the investigation. A U.S. official familiar with the case said, "We are cracking down on corruption regardless of names involved."

Staff writer Ariana Eunjung Cha in Washington and correspondent Sewell Chan and special correspondents Huda Ahmed Lazim and Bassam Sabti in Baghdad contributed to this report.
<------------------------------------->

Why the myth of Republican competence persists, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Note: A fairly balanced look at the current administration by Josh Marshall, who is one of the best political writers this country has produced in the past dozen years. Mr. Marshall, who holds a doctorate in American History, writes for the Washington Monthly and his blog: www.talkingpointsmemo.com should not be missed.

Chalabi: Viewpoint B

Funding for Chalabi's Group Will End
Pentagon had drawn fire from lawmakers over its support of the Iraqi National Congress.
By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial Iraqi exile once favored by high-ranking Bush administration officials to lead postwar Iraq, is losing his Pentagon funding, a senior U.S. official told a Senate committee Tuesday.

For months, congressional critics have complained about the $340,000 a month the Pentagon has been paying Chalabi and his group, the Iraqi National Congress, money that continued to flow even after U.S. intelligence agencies found that prewar information provided by the INC about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons programs was at times misleading, inflated or even fabricated.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of Chalabi's strongest supporters in the administration, said the Pentagon had decided to stop funding the INC.

Wolfowitz's explanation was terse. The decision, he said, "was made in light of the process of transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi people. We felt it was no longer appropriate for us to continue funding in that fashion."

Wolfowitz also praised the INC's efforts in Iraq. "There's been some very valuable intelligence that's been gathered through that process that's been very valuable for our forces," he said. "But we will seek to obtain that in the future through normal intelligence channels."

A spokesman for the INC said the payments would probably end June 30, the day the U.S. is scheduled to hand over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government. It was unclear whether the cutoff marked a final break between Chalabi — who for years was one of the most effective Iraqi exiles in lobbying for help to overthrow Hussein's regime — and the Bush administration.

So-called neoconservatives, who have been among Chalabi's strongest supporters in Washington, expressed anger Tuesday. "I think that the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmad Chalabi in particular are the best hope for Iraq, so of course I think it is a mistake," said former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle.

The Pentagon's money was "funding an intelligence operation which I am reliably informed saved American lives," Perle said. "If it isn't reconstituted in some other form, it is possible that lives will be lost because we'll be deprived of that intelligence."

But Chalabi also had harsh opponents, both in the U.S. and in the Arab world. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), one of Chalabi's most consistent critics, welcomed the Pentagon's decision. "Too many of the members of the administration banked too much on Chalabi," Biden said in an interview. "That is part of the reason why we lacked legitimacy in Iraq in the first place."

A spokesman for the INC in Washington said Tuesday that the group had expected the cutoff. "It was natural" that the Pentagon's financial support for the INC would end June 30, said Entifadh Qanbar, the spokesman. It would be improper, he said, for the U.S. to continue funding Iraqi political parties in a newly sovereign nation.

The INC, he said, has other sources of funding that will make it possible for the group to continue its political activities in Iraq, and the loss will not affect the group's relationship with the U.S.

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

"The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James, 1902 A lecture given at Edinburgh.

A Literary Artist Looks at 9/11

The Atlantic Monthly | November 2002
Varieties of Religious Experience
A short story
by John Updike

There is no God: the revelation came to Dan Kellogg in the instant that he saw the World Trade Center South Tower fall. He lived in Cincinnati but happened to be in New York, visiting his daughter in Brooklyn Heights, with a top-floor view of Lower Manhattan, less than a mile away. He was still puzzling over the vast quantities of persistent oily smoke, and the nature of the myriad pieces of what seemed to be white cardboard fluttering within the smoke's dark column, and who and what the perpetrators and purpose of this event might have been, when, as abruptly as a girl letting fall her silken gown, the entire skyscraper dropped its sheath and vanished, with a silvery rippling noise. The earth below, which Dan could not see, groaned and spewed up a cloud of ash and pulverized matter that slowly, from his distant perspective, mushroomed upward. The sirens filling the air across the river continued to wail, with no change of pitch or urgency; the mob of uninvolved buildings, stone and glass, held their pose of blank, mute witness. Had Dan imagined hearing a choral shout, a cry of protest breaking against the silence of the sky—an operatic human noise at the base of a phenomenon so pitilessly inhuman? Or had he merely humanized the groan of concussion? He was aware of looking at a, for him, new scale of things—that of Blitzkrieg, of erupting volcanoes. The collapse had a sharp aftermath of silence; at least he heard nothing for some seconds.

Ten stories below his feet, two black parking-garage attendants loitered outside the mouth of the garage, one seated on an aluminum chair, carrying on a joshing conversation that, for all the sound that rose to Dan Kellogg, might have been under a roof of plate glass or in a silent movie. The garage attendants wore short-sleeved shirts, but summer's haze this September morning had been baked from the sky. The only cloud was man-made—the foul-colored, yellow-edged smoke drifting toward the east in a solid, continuously replenished mass. Dan could not quite believe that the tower had vanished. How could something so vast and intricate, an elaborately engineered upright hive teeming with people, mostly young, be dissolved by its own weight so quickly, so casually? The laws of matter had functioned, was the answer. The event was small beneath the calm dome of sky. No hand of God had intervened, because there was none. God had no hands, no eyes, no heart, no anything.

Thus was Dan, an Episcopalian lawyer of sixty-three, brought late to the realization that comes to children with the death of a pet, to women with the loss of a child, to millions caught in the implacable course of war or plague. His revelation of cosmic emptiness thrilled him, though his own extinction was held within this new truth like one of the white rectangles weightlessly rising and spinning within the boiling column of smoke. He joined at last the run of mankind in its stoic atheism. He had fought this wisdom all his life, with prayer and evasion, with recourse to the piety of his Ohio ancestors and to ingenious and jaunty old books—Kierkegaard, Chesterton—read in adolescence and early manhood. But had he been in that building (its smoothly telescoping collapse in itself a sight of some beauty, like the color-enhanced stellar blooms of telescopically photographed supernovae, yet as quick as the toss of a scarf)—had he been in that building, would the weight of concrete and metal have been an ounce less, or hesitated a microsecond in its crushing, mincing, vaporizing descent?

No. The great No came upon him not in darkness, as religious fable would have it, but on a day of maximum visibility; "brutally clear" was how airplane pilots, interviewed after the event, described conditions. Only when Dan's revelation had shuddered through him did he reflect, with a watery spurt of panic, that his daughter, Gretchen, worked in finance—in midtown, it was true, but business now and then took her to the World Trade Center, to breakfast meetings at the very top, the top from which no one could have escaped.

Stunned, emptied, he returned from his point of vantage on the terrace to the interior of Gretchen's apartment. The stolid Anguillan nanny, Lucille, and Dan's younger granddaughter, Victoria, who was five and sick with a cold and thus not at school, sat in the library. The small room, papered red, was lined with walnut shelves; the books went back to Gretchen's college and business-school days and included a number—Cold War thrillers, outdated medical texts—that had once belonged to her husband, from whom she was divorced, just as Dan Kellogg was divorced from her mother. Lucille had drawn the shade of the window looking toward Manhattan. She reported to Dan, "I tell her not to look out the window, but then the television has nothing but the disaster, every channel we switch to."

"Bad men," little Victoria told him eagerly, her tongue stumbling, her cold making her enunciation even harder to understand than usual, "bad men going to knock down all the buildings in New York City!"

"That's an awful lot of buildings, Vicky," he said. When he talked to children, something severe and legalistic within him resisted imprecision.

"Why does God let bad men do things?" Victoria asked.

He had an answer, a new one, to this, but he didn't give it. The child's face looked feverish, not from her cold but from what she had seen through the window before the shade was drawn. Dan gave the answer he had learned when still a believer: "Because He wants to give men the choice to be good or bad." Her face, so fine in detail and texture—brutally fine—considered this theology for a second.

Then she burst forth, flinging her arms wide: "Bad men do anything they want, anything at all!"

"Not always," he corrected. "Sometimes good men stop them. Most of the time, in fact."

In the shadowy room they seemed three conspirators. Lucille was softly rocking herself on the sofa, and made a cooing noise now and then. "Think of all them still in there, all the people," she crooned, as if to herself. "I was telling Vicky how on Anguilla when I was a girl, no one had electricity, and telephones were only for the police, who rode bicycles wherever they went on the island. The only crime was workers coming back from three months away being vengeful with their wives for some mischief. The tallest building two stories high, and when there was no moon people didn't leave their cabins." Then, in a less dreamy voice, one meant to broadcast reassurance to the listening child, she told Dan, "Her momma called five minutes ago, and working is over for today, she coming home but don't know how. She might have to be walking all that way from Thirty-fourth Street."

Dan himself had been planning, before returning to Cincinnati, to take the subway up to the Whitney Museum and see the Wayne Thiebaud show, which was soon to be dismantled. At Victoria's age he had dreamed of working for Walt Disney, making cartoon animals move and talk, and Thiebaud had done that for a while; Dan relished the touch of Disney in the artist's candy colors and his bouncy, plump draftsmanship. Viewing this show was suddenly impossible, part of an idyllic, less barricaded past.

"So we'll all just wait for Mommy," he said, trying to be a leader. "I know," he announced. "Let's make Doughboy cookies for Mommy when she comes home! She'll be hungry." And he leaned over and poked Victoria in the tummy, as if she were the Doughboy in the television commercials.

But she didn't laugh or even smile. Her eyes, beneath her bangs and serious straight brows, were feverishly bright. She wanted to know what new and forbidden thing was happening on the other side of the window shade. And so did Lucille, but she denied herself turning on the television, and Dan denied himself another visit to the terrace to verify his desolating cosmic intuition.

n an hour Gretchen was home, safe and aghast and sweating with the unaccustomed exercise of marching across the Manhattan Bridge in a mob of others fleeing the island. Dan's daughter, at thirty-seven, was slim and hard and professional, a trim soldier-woman a far cry from both her timid, circumspect father and her indolent, fleshy mother. She turned on CNN on the little kitchen TV right away, and was not pleased by the smell of fresh-baked cookies. "We're trying to train Victoria away from sweets," she told her father, and when he explained how he and Lucille had sought to distract her, Gretchen said, "Let her watch a little. This is history. This is huge. It can't be hidden." In the Heights, she told them, auto traffic had ceased, and men and women with briefcases, dusted with ash, were stalking up the middle of Henry Street. She hid the warm cookies on an out-of-reach shelf; she sent Lucille off to pick up Victoria's older sister, Hermione, at her day school, and sent her father to the supermarket with a shopping list while she and Victoria went to the bank to withdraw plenty of cash, just in case society broke down.

On Montague Street an early lunch hour was in progress, and voices twanged over the outdoor tables much as usual, though self-consciously, somehow, as if unseen television cameras were grinding away. The street scene seemed enacted; even the boys loafing outside the supermarket appeared to be conscious of a new attention bearing on them, a new importance in the thickened air. The air smelled caustic and snowed flurrying motes of ash. Sensory impressions hit Dan harder than usual, because God had been purged from his brain. In his previous life commonsense atheism had not been good enough for him, nor had it seemed sufficiently gracious toward the miraculous universe. Now he had been shown how little the universe cared for his good opinion. He pushed his cart along. The supermarket was not crowded with panic shoppers but rather empty instead, and seemed darker than usual, sickly and crepuscular, like one of those pre-Christian underworlds, Hades or Sheol. People moved through the aisles, past the bins of bagels and shelves of gourmet snacks, as if for the first time, haltingly, and scanned one another's faces for a recognition that was almost there, a greeting on the tips of their tongues.

Dan returned to the apartment laden with plastic bags, two on each hand; the handles, stretched thin by the weight of oranges and milk and cranberry juice, had dug into his palms. Gretchen had returned with money and several plans. Already, signs advertising communal events were going up on lampposts: blood donations could be made at the Marriott, near Borough Hall, and Grace Church would host a special service at six.

In the subdued camaraderie of the crowd at the Marriott the father and daughter filled out laborious forms and were told, by bullhorn, to go home, the blood bank was overflowing, there was no more need for the present, but if any developed, their names were on record. At the church, where he and the four females he escorted found room in a back pew, Dan marveled at the human animal: Like dogs, we creep back to lick the hand of a God who, if He exists, has just given us a vicious kick. The harder He kicks, the more fervently we cringe and creep forward to lick His hand. The great old church, a relic of post-Civil War ecclesiastical prosperity, was for this occasion full, and the minister, a short young woman wearing a bell of glossy hair, announced in a clarion voice that at that moment several members of this congregation were still among the missing. She read their names. Let us pray for their safety, she said, and for the souls of all who perished today, and for the fate of this great nation. With an anatomical rustle that soared into the murk of the stony vaults above them, all bowed their heads.

Then and thereafter Dan felt detached. His sense of alienation persisted in the weeks that followed, as flags sprang from every porch bracket and God Bless America was written in shaving cream on every shop window. Eventually, back in Cincinnati, having returned, two days late, by bus, he looked across a river not to smoking towers but to Kentucky, where each pickup truck sprouted a soon tattered emblem of national pride and defiance. Heartland religiosity, though its fundamentalism and puritanism had often made him wince, was something Dan had been comfortable with; now it seemed barbaric. On television the President clumsily grasped the rhetoric of war, got used to it, and then got good at it. The nightly news showed how impromptu shrines had sprung up on sidewalks and outside fire stations across New York City. Candles guttered under color photocopies of the missing; memorial flowers wilted in their paper cones and plastic sheaths. Dan found himself irritated by the grotesque and pitiable sight of a great modern nation attempting to heal itself through the tired old magic of flags and candles—the human spirit since time immemorial pouring its colorful vain gestures into the void.

week or so before Dan's revelation, a stocky young Muslim—called, like millions of his co-religionists around the world, Mohamed—briefly hesitated before ordering a fifth Scotch on the rocks in a dim, unholy place, a one-story roadside strip joint on Florida's east coast. His companion, a younger, thinner man named Nawaf, lifted his slender hand from the table as if to protest and then let it weightlessly fall back. Their instructions were to blend in, and getting drunk was surely a way of merging with America, this unclean society disfigured by an appalling laxity of laws and an electronic delirium of supposed opportunities and pleasures. The very air, air-conditioned, tasted of falsity. The whiskey burned in Mohamed's throat like a fire against which he must repeatedly test his courage.

On the shallow stage, ignored by most of the customers scattered at small tables and only now and then brushed by his own glance, a young woman, naked save for strategic patches of tinsel and a dusting of glitter, writhed around a brass pole to a virtually mocking mutter of tuneless music. She was as lean as a starveling boy but for the protuberances of fat that distinguish women; these, Mohamed knew, had been swollen by injection to seem tautly round and perfectly doll-like. The whore was entwining herself upside down around her pole, and scissoring open her legs so that a tinsel thong battered back at the light. Her long hair hung in a heavy platinum sheet to the stage floor, which had been dirtied by her sisters' feet. There were three dancers: a Negress who performed barefoot, flashing soles and palms the color of silver polish; a raven-haired, onyx-eyed minx who wore high heels and kept fluttering her tongue between her lips; and the blonde, who danced least persuasively, with motions mechanically repeated while her eyes, their ice-blue outlined in thick black as if she were in an Egyptian wall painting, stared into the darkness without seeing. She did not see him, nor did he in his soul see her. Nawaf—with whom Mohamed was rehearsing once again the details of their enterprise, its many finely interlocked and synchronized parts, down to the last-minute cell-phone calls that gave the final go-ahead—had been drinking sweet drinks called daiquiris and had hurriedly gone to the bathroom. Nawaf was young and in this country but two months; its food was still poison to him. He had not grown Mohamed's impervious shell. The whore's globular breasts hung down parallel to her lowered sheet of hair while her shaved or plucked crotch twinkled and flashed. Through half-shut eyes and the shifting transparencies of whiskey Mohamed fancied a semblance to the ignorant fellaheen's conception of Paradise, where dark-eyed virgins wait on silken couches, among flowing rivers, to serve the martyrs delicious fruit. But they are manifestations, these houris, of the final purity, white in their limbs and in the whites of their eyes, radiant negatives of the underfed sluts who mechanically writhed on this soiled stage.

Another slut, the middle-aged waitress, wrinkled and thickened, a pot of curdled lewdness, of soured American opportunities, was waving a slip of paper at him. "Going off duty ... finish up my tables ... forty-eight dollars." Her twanging accent was difficult to penetrate, and from her agitation he gathered that this was not the first time this evening that he had offended her.

He did not see why he should hurry to pay. Nawaf was still in the bathroom, and the sandwiches they had ordered were still on the table, uneaten. That was it: she had offered some time ago—an hour? ten minutes? his memory was uncertain—to clear the table, and he had told her that he was not finished, though in fact the food disgusted him. It was, like everything in this country, excessive and wasteful—an open hot-roast-beef sandwich, not rare but gray, now cold and limp on its bread, dead meat scattered beneath his hands, far below them somehow in the chilled layers of air, and the french fries, too, and the coleslaw, garbage not fit for a street dog. Yet he kept thinking that he would turn to it, to soften the burning of the whiskey while he spoke sharply to Nawaf, hardening the younger man's shell for the great deed that had been laid out like a precision drawing in an engineering class. Mohamed had studied engineering among the infidels, learning the mathematics they had stolen centuries ago from the Arabs.

He must eat, for the day, the fateful morning, of culmination was approaching, and he must be strong, his hands and nerves inflexibly steady, his body vital and pure. The greatness of the deed held within him pressed upward like a species of nausea, straining his throat with a desire to cry out, to proclaim, as did the prophet whose name he bore, the magnificence, beyond all virtues and qualities imaginable on earth, of God and His justice. For the unbelievers We have prepared fetters and chains, and a blazing Fire. Flames of fire shall be lashed at you, and melted brass.

The blonde whore flicked away the sparkling thong and with spread legs waddled around the pole showing her shaved slit, an awkward, ugly maneuver that won scattered cheers from the jaded tables in the darkness. Nawaf returned, looking paler. He had been sick, he confessed. Mohamed felt a great love for his brother in conspiracy, the younger brother he had never had; he had been raised in a flowery Cairo suburb with a quartet of sisters. It was to keep them from ending as sluts that he had dedicated himself to the holy cause. They were too light-headed to know that the temptations twittering at them from television and radio were from Satan, designed to lure them into eternal mire. Their parents, in their European clothes, their third-rate prosperity measured out in imitation Western goods, were blind to the evil they wrought upon their children. Hoarding their comforts in their curtained, servant-run house in Giza, they were like eyeless cave creatures, blind to the grandeur of the One who will wrathfully reduce this world and its distractions to a desert. Mohamed carried that sublime desert, its night sky clamorous with stars, within him. When the sky is rent asunder; when the stars are scattered and the oceans roll together; when the graves tumble in ruin; each soul shall know what it has done and what it has failed to do.

The waitress had returned, accompanied by a man, a hireling, the bald bartender in a yellow T-shirt advertising something in three-dimensional speeding letters, a beer or perhaps a sports team—Mohamed could not quite bring it into focus. Nawaf looked worried; a warmth of fear came from him, and his movements betrayed a desire to leave. Mohamed quenched the boy's weak start of apology with a touch on his forearm and stood to confront the hireling in the speeding T-shirt. Standing so quickly dizzied him but did not weaken his wits or dull his awareness of the movements around him. A fresh girl on the stage, the abdah with bare feet again, dressed in filmy scarves that would come off, altered the light of the place, lifting its darkness somewhat as the spotlight played upon her. Pale faces, natives of this coast, turned to witness the quarrel. Within Mohamed his great secret felt an eggshell's thickness from bursting forth. More than once small mishaps and moments of friction—a traffic ticket, an INS summons, an irritated slip of the tongue with an inquisitive neighbor seeking, in that doglike American way, to be friendly—had threatened to expose the whole elaborate structure; but the All-Merciful had extended His protecting hand. Mohamed felt himself mighty in his power to restrain his tongue, a muscle that moves mountains. He produced his wallet and opened it to display the thickness of twenties and fifties and even hundreds, depicting in dry green engraving the dead heroes of this godless democracy. "Plenty to pay your bill," he told the threatening man in the yellow T-shirt. "And look, fellow, look here—" Not content with this demonstration of potency, Mohamed showed, too swiftly for a close examination, the card registering him in flying school and another, forged in Germany, stating that he was a licensed pilot. "I am a pilot."

Impressed and mollified, his foe asked, in the languid accents of a degenerate steeped in drugs, "Hey, cool. What airline?"

With unhesitating inspiration—it was one of those near truths that in the utterance become true, as the revealed faith is true, and the coming fruits of faith, the luminous boiling Fire—Mohamed said, "American." It sounded so just, so prophetic. He repeated it: "American Air Lines."

From where Jim Finch sat in his cubicle, about a third of the way into the vast floor full of bond traders and their computer monitors, the building's windows held a view of mostly sky, but if he stood, he could see New Jersey's low blue shore beyond the Statue of Liberty. From this height even the statue, facing the other way, looked small, like the souvenir statuettes for sale in every tourist trap. Jim came each morning from Jersey (three children and four bedrooms on a tenth of an acre in East Newark), and from where he lived he could see, picking his spots between asphalt rooftops and trees, the building in which he worked. To impress the kids he tried to locate his exact floor, counting down six from the top, though in truth it was hard from that distance to be certain; the skyscraper was built of vertical ribs that made individual floors and windows run together. Steel tubes, like a row of drinking straws, held the building up, so the windows seemed narrower than they should be, and the view out was more up and down than sideways. Today the sky's blank blue looked like a row of smooth plastic panels, except that curling gusts of smoke and flickering pieces of paper were invading the blue from below.

His cell phone rang. Jim's motion of picking it off his belt was habitual and instant, like a snake's strike. But instead of business it was Marcy, back in New Jersey. "Jim, honey," she said, "don't hate me, I forgot to say, you went out the door so fast, when you pick up the cleaning on the way home could you swing by the Pathmark and pick up a half gallon of whole milk and maybe check out their cantaloupes?"

"Okay, sure. Hey, Marcy—"

"The ones last week went straight from green to punky, but he said he'd have better ones in on Monday. The skins should give a little, but your thumb shouldn't leave a dent." He watched a piece of charred insulation rise into view and then float away while she was going on: "For the milk, we have plenty of skim for ourselves, but Frankie and Kristen, the way they're growing, they just wolf it down; she's as bad as he is. Honest, I meant to pick some up but the cart was already so full. Sorry, hon."

"Marcy, there's something—"

"Any dessert you'd like for yourself, buy it. And maybe—be sure to check the sell-by date—a half-dozen eggs, the large size, not the extra large. But don't forget Annie has that event at the church hall tonight, six-thirty, the beginning of indoor soccer, she's very anxious and wants us both there."

"Honey—"

"The young assistant minister scares her. She says he's uptight, he wants too much to win."

"Hey, could you please for Chrissake shut up?"

"What is it, Jim? You sound strange."

"Something strange has happened, I don't know what. We heard this terrible thump underneath us about three minutes ago. I thought it was on the street, but it sounded closer. Everything shook, and now I can see smoke out the windows. The interior phone lines are all out. People have come back saying the elevators aren't working and the stairs are full of smoke."

"Oh, my God."

"Nobody's panicking—I mean almost nobody. I'm sure it'll work out. I mean, how bad can it be?"

"Oh, my God."

"Stop saying that, honey. It'll get fixed, they'll figure it out. I can't keep talking, they got to start moving us somewhere. Hey. Marcy. You won't believe this, but the floor's warm. Actually fucking warm."

"Oh, Jimmy, do something; do something. Hang up whenever you have to. I've always hated those buildings, and you being so high."

"Listen, Marcy. What phone are you on? The upstairs portable?"

"Yes." Her voice trembled, putting extra syllables into the word, ye-ess, like a child scared that she has done wrong and will be punished. Across the miles between them they shared the sensation of being chastened children—a rubbed, watery feeling in their abdomens.

"Go into Annie's room and look out the window. Tell me what you see."

While he waited, he became aware of human movement among the desks, herd movement, with thumps and shouts and screams, but he didn't feel it had a direction he should join. A rising smell, a tarry industrial smell, oily and sweet, reminded him of airport runways, and the heat vibrations one sees while waiting to take off.

"Jim?"

"Still here. What can you see from Annie's window?"

"Oh, God, smoke! From pretty near the top; it's like the whole building is a horrible kind of cigar. A kind of black ink is running down between the grooves. What can it be? Remember that missile that maybe brought down that plane off Long Island?"

"Don't be dumb. Some kind of malfunction, it must be, within the building. The walls have enough wiring to fry China if there's a short. Don't worry, they'll figure it out. They have guys paid a fortune to sit around and plan how to handle events like this. Still, I must say—"

"What, Jimmy? What must you say?"

"I was starting to say it's getting damn hard to breathe in here. Somebody just smashed a window. They're chucking chairs right through the windows." Now his voice was shaky. "Hey, Marcy?"

"Yes?"

"I don't know, honey, but maybe this isn't so good."

"The smoke is coming from a floor under yours," she offered hopefully, shakily. "I can't count how many."

"Don't try." Her voice was a connection to the world, but it was entangling him, holding him back. "Listen. Marcy. In case I don't make it. I love you."

"Oh, my God! Don't say it! Just be normal!"

"I can't be normal. This isn't normal."

"Can't you get up to a higher floor and wait on the roof?"

"I think people have tried it and there's too much smoke in the stairways. It's getting hard to see. Can you tell the kids how much I love them?"

"Ye-ess." Breathlessly. She wasn't arguing. It wasn't like her; her giving up like this frightened him.

He tried to think practically. "All the stuff you need should be in the filing cabinet beside my desk, the middle drawer. Lenny Palotta can help you; he has the mutual-fund stuff, and the insurance policies."

"God, don't, darling. Don't think that way. Just get out, can't you?"

"Sure, probably." People were moving toward the windows—it was the coolest place, the place to breathe, a hundred stories in the air, the height of an airplane tucking its wheels back with that little concussion and snap. "But, just in case, you do whatever you want."

"What do you mean, Jim, do whatever I want?"

"I mean, you know, live your life. Do what looks best for yourself and the kids. Don't let anything cramp your style. Tell Annie in case I miss it that I wanted to be there tonight." Of all things, this made him want to cry, the image of his plump little daughter in soccer shorts, scared and pink in the face.

"Cramp my style?"

"My blessing, for Chrissake, Marcy. I'm putting a blessing on anything you decide to do. It's all right. Feel free."

"Oh, Jimmy, no. How can this be happening?"

He couldn't talk more; the smoke, the heat, the stink, were chasing him to the windows, where silhouettes were climbing up between the vertical ribs. He replaced the phone on his belt deftly; he instinctively grabbed his suit coat and sprinted, crouching, across the hot floor to his co-workers clustered at the windows. They were his family now, they had been his daytime family for years. They were problem solvers and would show him what to do. Like an airplane seizing altitude in its wings, he left gravity behind; connections were breaking, obligations falling away. He felt for those seconds as light as a newborn.

The nice young man beside her told her he was in sales management, on his way to a telecom convention in San Francisco, but he played rugby on weekends for exercise. It surprised Caroline that anyone in the United States played rugby after college. Ages ago in her long life, after the war, she had spent a year in England and had been taken to a rugby game, in Cambridge. She remembered the heavy-thighed men in shorts and striped shirts, struggling in the mud under low clouds in the damp, chilly air, pushing at each other and, for spurts, carrying the slippery oval ball in a two-handed, sashaying way that looked comically girlish to eyes accustomed to American football. To those same eyes it seemed curious that they played nearly naked, in short shorts, and yet no one seemed to get hurt.

The introductory courtesies came early in the flight, out of Newark. The plane had pushed into the air and climbed and banked so that the wing tip, with its little skinny aerial or whatever that was, threatened, it seemed to her, to spill them back into the sun-streaked prairie of streets and housetops and highways and dulling September trees below. Caroline had flown a great deal in her life, more than she had ever expected to as a child, when flying was something heroes did, test pilots and Lindbergh, and the whole family would rush out into the yard to see a blimp float overhead. Her first flights had been to college, in Ohio, into the old Cleveland Hopkins Airport, in bumpy two-engine prop planes. As she aged, she flew to visit relatives in St. Louis and Minneapolis; to England for her postgraduate year; to the Caribbean and Arizona and Europe on vacations with her husband, and on some of his lecture trips as he became distinguished; on three-day visits to her children when they married and scattered, and for matriarchal viewings of new grandchildren, and the ceremonies that these generated as they grew and aged; and even on an expensive around-the-world tour after her husband died, a self-indulgence in her grief. All in all she couldn't begin to count how many hundreds of thousands of miles she had flown, but she had never really liked it—the panicky run into lift-off, the abrupt banking, the unexplained changes in the sound of the engines, the sudden mysterious sharp jiggling over the ocean, your coffee swinging in your cup, your heart in your throat. The planes had gotten bigger and smoother. Some of those early flights, looking back, were little better than amusement-park rides that were designed to be terrifying—those little silver turboprops that bounced over the Appalachians, with tiny rivers below catching the sun; the stubby island-hoppers out of San Juan, where you walked steeply up the aisle, and the black stewardesses gave you candy to suck for pressure in your ears. Going off to college, she would dress up as if for a formal tea, even—could it be?—white gloves. Now these big broad jets were like buses; people wore any old disgusting thing and never looked up from their laptops and acted personally injured if they didn't land on time to the minute, as if they were riding railroad tracks in the sky.

The nice young man, once the pilot's drawl had given permission to move about and use laptops, had asked her if she would mind, since so many seats were empty, if he moved to another and gave them both more room. She thought his asking was dear; it showed a good old-fashioned upbringing. She watched him set up a little office for himself in two seats across the aisle, and then she studied the terrain five miles below, familiar to her from those first nervous flights of hers, to Ohio so many years and journeys ago. She recognized the Delaware, and then the Susquehanna; and while waiting for the stewardess with her rattling drinks cart to reach the midsection of the plane, she must have dozed, because she awoke as if rudely shaken. The airplane was jiggling and bucking; it had changed personality.

Yet the faces around her showed no alarm, and the heads she could see above the seatbacks were still. A young man standing in front of the first-class curtain was saying something she couldn't quite hear. He was slender, with skimpy facial hair along his jawline, and touchingly graceful and hesitant in the way he used his hands. He seemed to have no weapon, yet he had everyone's attention, and the clumsy change in the way the plane was being handled connected somehow to him. He had an aura of nervous excitement; his eyes showed too much white. Another young man, plumper, came out from behind the curtains and then went back. Before he went back, he shouted something she heard as "Stay in your seats, no harm will come!" She realized that these boys did not know much English, so the men in front trying to talk to the boy with the wispy beard were wasting their breath. The noise of conversation in the airplane had risen like that at a cocktail party, or in a rainy-day classroom, and here and there people were talking into their cell phones, including the rugby player across the aisle, whose hand as it held the little gadget to his ear looked massive, with its red knuckles and broad wedding ring.

The engines spasmodically wheezed and a sudden tilt brought her heart up into her throat; the plane was turning. The great wing next to her window leaned glinting above the gray-green earth. The land below looked like Ohio now, flatter than the Alleghenies, and she saw a smoky city that could be Akron or Youngstown. The sun had shifted to her side of the plane, coming in at an angle that bothered her eyes. A cataract operation two years before had restored childhood's bright colors and sharp edges but left her corneas sensitive to light. The plane must be heading southeast, back to Pennsylvania. She tried to think it through, to picture the plane's exact direction, yet she was still dozy; the flight had been scheduled to leave at eight, and that had meant setting the alarm in Princeton for five-thirty. Her skin had broken out in a sweat. Her body was terrified before her mind caught up. What was foremost in her mind was the simple wish, fervent enough to be a prayer, that the plane might be taken, like an easily damaged toy, out of those invisible hands that were giving it such a jerky, panicky, incompetent ride.

Caroline wondered why the boy up front, evidently a hijacker, was letting so many passengers talk on their telephones; perhaps it was a way to keep them calm. He came down the aisle a little way into the economy section and then retreated; in warning he held up something metallic, a small knife of some sort, the kind that slides open to cut boxes, but his face, with its beard not quite a beard, looked slack and pasty. His mind was elsewhere, somewhere beyond. He wore black jeans and a long-sleeved red-checked shirt; he could have been a young computer whiz on his way to Silicon Valley. She had two grandsons at dot-coms; they dressed like farmhands, like hippies decades ago, believing they loved the earth; but this boy had no pencils or pens in his shirt pocket, the way her grandsons did. He had that baby knife and that pale skin and a head of thick black hair above eyebrows that nearly met in the middle, over his distracted, glittering gaze. Why wouldn't he look at anybody?

How humiliating, this sweating she was doing into her underwear. She would smell when she got off the plane, under the wool dress she had put on thinking that it was always cool in Tiburon, however hot in Princeton. The redwoods, the Bay breezes—she realized that she might not reach them today. They would land at some obscure airport, and a long standoff of negotiations would begin. When they started to release hostages, however, an old lady would be among the first.

Eddies of communication—hand signals, eye motions, conversations increasingly blatant and emphatic as the slack-faced young hijacker's obliviousness dawned on everyone—moved through the plane. The people up front had glimpsed something when the first-class curtain had been pulled aside; word of whatever it was spread back, skipping around her inaudibly yet chilling her damp skin. Others had learned something through their telephones that they urgently had to share. Young men in their white shirts and ties gathered in the aisle and had a conference of some sort, a huddle, right near her, around the seat of that nice rugby player. Not a huddle, a scrum—that was the word they had used in England.

She tried to eavesdrop but heard only excited muttering, and then the distinct word "yes," repeated in several men's voices. They had voted. The slender young Arab moved down the aisle, hopefully gesturing for people to sit down. The plane was still rocking in those unseen hands, jerking and tilting, but the rugby player stood up with the others—he was taller than she had realized, with those huge wrists jutting from his French cuffs—and they all faced forward. She was looking up and caught his eye; he smiled and gave her a thumbs-up. She heard a voice, another young man's, say, "You guys ready? Let's roll."

Somewhere in front of her a baby began to cry. Caroline hadn't realized that a baby was on the flight. The voice of the young mother sounded tense, but the crying stopped; perhaps she had replaced a pacifier. From farther up front came yelps and another woman's cry: a middle-aged woman's, indignant and coarse. The roaring engines made sounds hard to distinguish. The young man with the knife disappeared behind the broad shoulders and white shirts of the husky American men. The shirts in turn disappeared behind the blue first-class curtain, and there were thumping sounds, and the clatter of a serving cart, while a fearful gabble arose from the passengers still in their seats.

The airplane lurched more violently than ever before, and Caroline felt, as surely as if the wires and levers controlling the great mechanism were her own sinews and bones, that control had been lost—something crucial had been severed. From the wing came a high grinding noise; through her porthole she saw the flaps strain erect, exposing their valves, and the vast tapering wing, with its indifferent little aerial at the very tip and its aluminum segments stenciled with warnings to mechanics, seem to stand on end; the intricate stiff entity of it was heeling beyond any angle of possible recovery. The largeness of everything, the plane and the planet Earth and the transparent miles between them, struck her much as when the bandages on her eyes had been removed, giving her back the world in its shocking unsoftened colors. Her body was hanging sideways in the seat belt, so heavily it hurt.

Through the scratched plastic window the earth in its rural detail—a few houses and outbuildings, a green blob of woods, a fenced field, a lonely road—swung across her vision while her ears popped, and she realized that, nightmarish though it was, this was real, the reality beneath everything, this surge into the maw of gravity. She had time for a prayer, but her brain was flung into wordlessness; she felt upside down, and the tortured engine near her ear was making everything shake. She was meeting the truth that her parents and all the protectors of her long life had implied: the path of safety is slippery and narrow. Mercy, Caroline managed to think. Dear Lord, have mercy.

Dan stood outside his daughter's apartment, on the sooty tiled terrace from which he had seen the tower collapse. In the six months since then news events had tended to corroborate his revelation. A woman in Texas was being tried for systematically drowning her five children; Catholic priests were revealed to have molested their immature charges in numbers larger than ever imagined or confessed; almost every week, somewhere in the United States, angry or despairing or berserk fathers murdered their wives or ex-wives and their children and then, as if in adequate atonement, killed themselves. Meanwhile, war had been declared and pursued, with its usual toll of inane deaths—colliding helicopters, stray bombs, false intelligence, fatal muddle unmitigated by any biblical dignity of vengeance or self-sacrifice. The masterminds of evil remained at large; the surrendered enemies appeared exhausted and confused—pathetic small fry. They complained about the climate of Cuba and the shortage of suitable mullahs. They claimed, and others stridently claimed for them, their international legal rights. Religious slaughters occurred in India and Israel, fires and floods and plagues elsewhere. The world tumbled on, spewing out death and pain like an engine off the tracks.

His younger granddaughter, his fellow witness to the most spectacular of recent catastrophes, solemnly informed Dan that all the dogs of New York City had bleeding paws, from looking through wreckage for dead people.

Gretchen, the tough-minded survivor of divorce, had not prevented the child from gathering what she could from the newspapers and television. "It's turned her into a real news hawk," she had dryly explained. "Hermione, on the other hand, refused from Day One to have anything to do with it. It wasn't ladylike, and she's disdained it all. She says such things aren't appropriate for children. She can actually pronounce 'appropriate.' But for Vicky, it would have been unhealthy, really, Daddy, to try to shelter her from what everybody knew, what all her schoolmates talked about. After all, compared with children in Bosnia and Afghanistan she's still pretty well off."

"Not all the dogs, Victoria," Dan told his granddaughter, "just a few trained for a certain special job, and wearing little leather booties that nice people made for them. Most people are very nice," he said.

The child stared up at him pugnaciously, a bit doubtful but wanting to agree. In six months she had grown; her eyes, a chalky pale blue beneath level brows, entertained more subtle expressions; at moments, especially when she was thinking to herself, he could see stir, in the childishly fine perfection of her face, the seeds of feminine mystery and of her mature beauty.

Lucille, within earshot, said, so the child would overhear, "Vicky, she so interested in all the developments. She know how that terrible mess almost cleaned up now, and the two blue searchlights there as a monument, we see them every night."

Victoria explained to her grandfather, "They mean all the people in there have gone up to heaven."

By daylight, from the terrace, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were simply not there. Their stark form, like that of two cubes projected skyward by some computer trick, had registered but delicately above the old-fashioned visual thicket of Lower Manhattan. Rectangular clouds of glass and aluminum, they had been wiped from the city's silhouette. They were not there, but Dan was here, and God with him: the atheistic expunging had not occurred. His church pledge needed to be delivered in its weekly envelopes; a minor committee (Property Maintenance and Improvement) of which he was a member continued to meet. As tended to be true in Cincinnati, the Episcopal church was conservative, presenting a stream of Cranmer's words in which the mind could lose itself. Dan would have missed the mild-mannered fellowship—the handshakes in the Gothic narthex, the awkward passing of the peace. Why punish with his non-attendance, in protest of something God and not they had done, a flock of polite people for whom periodically chorusing the Apostles' Creed was part, and not the very least part, of getting along, of doing their best, of being decent citizens? He would miss the Sunday-morning assembly, the smell of waxed pews and musty kneeling cushions, the reckless sense of an unlikely wager, the taste of the tasteless wafer in his mouth.

While he stood there ten stories above the Brooklyn alley (where the two attendants, in the mild March air, again sat joshing at the entrance to their parking garage), the towers' distant absence seemed a light throwing a shadow behind him, a weak shadow, but inextricable from his presence—the price, it could be said, of his living presence. He was alive, and a shadowy God in him. Human consciousness had curious properties. However big things were, it could encompass them, as if it were even bigger. And it kept insisting on making a narrative of his life, however nonsensically truncated the lives of others—crushed in an instant, or snapped off on the birthing table—had been.

Gretchen and Victoria, his progeny, his tickets to genetic perpetuation, ventured out gingerly onto the terrace. "Amazing," his daughter said, seeking to read his thoughts, "how the not-thereness remains so haunting. Sometimes you still see them in old ads, where the admen haven't noticed or taken the trouble to airbrush them out of the background, and it's a thrill. It feels illicit. A lot of these yuppie movies and TV serials have a glimpse of the towers, from SoHo or the Staten Island ferry or wherever, and now they've been collected on a tape, like the kisses in Cinema Paradiso. They've become a kind of cult."

Victoria eagerly volunteered, "Someday, when all the bad men are gone, they'll put them back, just exactly the way they were." She gestured appropriately wide and high, standing on tiptoe.

Dan tended to discourage other people's illusions, though he cherished his own. "I don't think that would be very sensible," he told the child. "Or very American."

"Why not American?" Gretchen asked, with her oppositional, possibly aggrieved edge. If her parents hadn't divorced, her marriage might have held together; a bad precedent had been set.

"We move on, don't we?" he tactfully answered. "As a nation. We try to learn from our mistakes. Those towers were taller than they needed to be. The Arabs were right—they were a boast."

Hermione, barefoot, peeked out from the door leading into the library, but did not venture onto the dirty tiles. She admonished them, "Children shouldn't see what you're all looking at. It's scary."

"Don't be scared," her younger sister told her. "My teacher says the blue lights are like the rainbow. They mean it won't happen again."

From Bernard Lewis's "Revolt of Islam" Article in the New Yorker Magazine: November 2001

For Osama bin Laden, 2001 marks the resumption of the war for the religious dominance of the world that began in the seventh century. For him and his followers, this is a moment of opportunity. Today, America exemplifies the civilization and embodies the leadership of the House of War, and, like Rome and Byzantium, it has become degenerate and demoralized, ready to be overthrown. Khomeini's designation of the United States as "the Great Satan" was telling. In the Koran, Satan is described as "the insidious tempter who whispers in the hearts of men." This is the essential point about Satan: he is neither a conqueror nor an exploiter—he is, first and last, a tempter. And for the members of Al Qaeda it is the seduction of America that represents the greatest threat to the kind of Islam they wish to impose on their fellow-Muslims.

But there are others for whom America offers a different kind of temptation—the promise of human rights, of free institutions, and of a responsible and elected government. There are a growing number of individuals and even some movements that have undertaken the complex task of introducing such institutions in their own countries. It is not easy. Similar attempts, as noted, led to many of today's corrupt regimes. Of the fifty-seven member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, only one, the Turkish Republic, has operated democratic institutions over a long period of time and, despite difficult and ongoing problems, has made progress in establishing a liberal economy and a free society and political order.

In two countries, Iraq and Iran, where the regimes are strongly anti-American, there are democratic oppositions capable of taking over and forming governments. We could do much to help them, and have done little. In most other countries in the region, there are people who share our values, sympathize with us, and would like to share our way of life. They understand freedom, and want to enjoy it at home. It is more difficult for us to help those people, but at least we should not hinder them. If they succeed, we shall have friends and allies in the true, not just the diplomatic, sense of these words.

Meanwhile, there is a more urgent problem. If bin Laden can persuade the world of Islam to accept his views and his leadership, then a long and bitter struggle lies ahead, and not only for America. Sooner or later, Al Qaeda and related groups will clash with the other neighbors of Islam—Russia, China, India—who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sanctities.

Monday, May 17, 2004

'The Rest of the Story' about Abu Ghraib Abuse

THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
The New Yorker: Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”

The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan. Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance before firing on them. On October 7th, the night the bombing began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader.

A lawyer on duty at the United States Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a strike. By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of reach. Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness. One officer described him to me that fall as “kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors.” In November, the Washington Post reported that, as many as ten times since early October, Air Force pilots believed they’d had senior Al Qaeda and Taliban members in their sights but had been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles. There were similar problems throughout the world, as American Special Forces units seeking to move quickly against suspected terrorist cells were compelled to get prior approval from local American ambassadors and brief their superiors in the chain of command.

Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate “high value” targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror. A special-access program, or sap—subject to the Defense Department’s most stringent level of security—was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps. America’s most successful intelligence operations during the Cold War had been saps, including the Navy’s submarine penetration of underwater cables used by the Soviet high command and construction of the Air Force’s stealth bomber. All the so-called “black” programs had one element in common: the Secretary of Defense, or his deputy, had to conclude that the normal military classification restraints did not provide enough security.

“Rumsfeld’s goal was to get a capability in place to take on a high-value target—a standup group to hit quickly,” a former high-level intelligence official told me. “He got all the agencies together—the C.I.A. and the N.S.A.—to get pre-approval in place. Just say the code word and go.” The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said.

The people assigned to the program worked by the book, the former intelligence official told me. They created code words, and recruited, after careful screening, highly trained commandos and operatives from America’s élite forces—Navy seals, the Army’s Delta Force, and the C.I.A.’s paramilitary experts. They also asked some basic questions: “Do the people working the problem have to use aliases? Yes. Do we need dead drops for the mail? Yes. No traceability and no budget. And some special-access programs are never fully briefed to Congress.”

In theory, the operation enabled the Bush Administration to respond immediately to time-sensitive intelligence: commandos crossed borders without visas and could interrogate terrorism suspects deemed too important for transfer to the military’s facilities at Guantánamo, Cuba. They carried out instant interrogations—using force if necessary—at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the world. The intelligence would be relayed to the sap command center in the Pentagon in real time, and sifted for those pieces of information critical to the “white,” or overt, world.

Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were “completely read into the program,” the former intelligence official said. The goal was to keep the operation protected. “We’re not going to read more people than necessary into our heart of darkness,” he said. “The rules are ‘Grab whom you must. Do what you want.’”

One Pentagon official who was deeply involved in the program was Stephen Cambone, who was named Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in March, 2003. The office was new; it was created as part of Rumsfeld’s reorganization of the Pentagon. Cambone was unpopular among military and civilian intelligence bureaucrats in the Pentagon, essentially because he had little experience in running intelligence programs, though in 1998 he had served as staff director for a committee, headed by Rumsfeld, that warned of an emerging ballistic-missile threat to the United States. He was known instead for his closeness to Rumsfeld. “Remember Henry II—‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?’” the senior C.I.A. official said to me, with a laugh, last week. “Whatever Rumsfeld whimsically says, Cambone will do ten times that much.”

Cambone was a strong advocate for war against Iraq. He shared Rumsfeld’s disdain for the analysis and assessments proffered by the C.I.A., viewing them as too cautious, and chafed, as did Rumsfeld, at the C.I.A.’s inability, before the Iraq war, to state conclusively that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. Cambone’s military assistant, Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, was also controversial. Last fall, he generated unwanted headlines after it was reported that, in a speech at an Oregon church, he equated the Muslim world with Satan.

Early in his tenure, Cambone provoked a bureaucratic battle within the Pentagon by insisting that he be given control of all special-access programs that were relevant to the war on terror. Those programs, which had been viewed by many in the Pentagon as sacrosanct, were monitored by Kenneth deGraffenreid, who had experience in counter-intelligence programs. Cambone got control, and deGraffenreid subsequently left the Pentagon. Asked for comment on this story, a Pentagon spokesman said, “I will not discuss any covert programs; however, Dr. Cambone did not assume his position as the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence until March 7, 2003, and had no involvement in the decision-making process regarding interrogation procedures in Iraq or anywhere else.”

In mid-2003, the special-access program was regarded in the Pentagon as one of the success stories of the war on terror. “It was an active program,” the former intelligence official told me. “It’s been the most important capability we have for dealing with an imminent threat. If we discover where Osama bin Laden is, we can get him. And we can remove an existing threat with a real capability to hit the United States—and do so without visibility.” Some of its methods were troubling and could not bear close scrutiny, however.

By then, the war in Iraq had begun. The sap was involved in some assignments in Iraq, the former official said. C.I.A. and other American Special Forces operatives secretly teamed up to hunt for Saddam Hussein and—without success—for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But they weren’t able to stop the evolving insurgency.

In the first months after the fall of Baghdad, Rumsfeld and his aides still had a limited view of the insurgency, seeing it as little more than the work of Baathist “dead-enders,” criminal gangs, and foreign terrorists who were Al Qaeda followers. The Administration measured its success in the war by how many of those on its list of the fifty-five most wanted members of the old regime—reproduced on playing cards—had been captured. Then, in August, 2003, terror bombings in Baghdad hit the Jordanian Embassy, killing nineteen people, and the United Nations headquarters, killing twenty-three people, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the head of the U.N. mission.

On August 25th, less than a week after the U.N. bombing, Rumsfeld acknowledged, in a talk before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, that “the dead-enders are still with us.” He went on, “There are some today who are surprised that there are still pockets of resistance in Iraq, and they suggest that this represents some sort of failure on the part of the Coalition. But this is not the case.” Rumsfeld compared the insurgents with those true believers who “fought on during and after the defeat of the Nazi regime in Germany.” A few weeks later—and five months after the fall of Baghdad—the Defense Secretary declared,“It is, in my view, better to be dealing with terrorists in Iraq than in the United States.”

Inside the Pentagon, there was a growing realization that the war was going badly. The increasingly beleaguered and baffled Army leadership was telling reporters that the insurgents consisted of five thousand Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein. “When you understand that they’re organized in a cellular structure,” General John Abizaid, the head of the Central Command, declared, “that . . . they have access to a lot of money and a lot of ammunition, you’ll understand how dangerous they are.”

The American military and intelligence communities were having little success in penetrating the insurgency. One internal report prepared for the U.S. military, made available to me, concluded that the insurgents’“strategic and operational intelligence has proven to be quite good.” According to the study:

Their ability to attack convoys, other vulnerable targets and particular individuals has been the result of painstaking surveillance and reconnaissance. Inside information has been passed on to insurgent cells about convoy/troop movements and daily habits of Iraqis working with coalition from within the Iraqi security services, primarily the Iraqi Police force which is rife with sympathy for the insurgents, Iraqi ministries and from within pro-insurgent individuals working with the CPA’s so-called Green Zone.

The study concluded, “Politically, the U.S. has failed to date. Insurgencies can be fixed or ameliorated by dealing with what caused them in the first place. The disaster that is the reconstruction of Iraq has been the key cause of the insurgency. There is no legitimate government, and it behooves the Coalition Provisional Authority to absorb the sad but unvarnished fact that most Iraqis do not see the Governing Council”—the Iraqi body appointed by the C.P.A.—“as the legitimate authority. Indeed, they know that the true power is the CPA.”

By the fall, a military analyst told me, the extent of the Pentagon’s political and military misjudgments was clear. Donald Rumsfeld’s “dead-enders” now included not only Baathists but many marginal figures as well—thugs and criminals who were among the tens of thousands of prisoners freed the previous fall by Saddam as part of a prewar general amnesty. Their desperation was not driving the insurgency; it simply made them easy recruits for those who were. The analyst said, “We’d killed and captured guys who had been given two or three hundred dollars to ‘pray and spray’”—that is, shoot randomly and hope for the best. “They weren’t really insurgents but down-and-outers who were paid by wealthy individuals sympathetic to the insurgency.”

In many cases, the paymasters were Sunnis who had been members of the Baath Party. The analyst said that the insurgents “spent three or four months figuring out how we operated and developing their own countermeasures. If that meant putting up a hapless guy to go and attack a convoy and see how the American troops responded, they’d do it.” Then, the analyst said, “the clever ones began to get in on the action.”

By contrast, according to the military report, the American and Coalition forces knew little about the insurgency: “Human intelligence is poor or lacking . . . due to the dearth of competence and expertise. . . . The intelligence effort is not coördinated since either too many groups are involved in gathering intelligence or the final product does not get to the troops in the field in a timely manner.” The success of the war was at risk; something had to be done to change the dynamic.

The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that “detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.”

Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to “Gitmoize” the prison system in Iraq—to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba—methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in “stress positions” for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)

Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation.

“They weren’t getting anything substantive from the detainees in Iraq,” the former intelligence official told me. “No names. Nothing that they could hang their hat on. Cambone says, I’ve got to crack this thing and I’m tired of working through the normal chain of command. I’ve got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I’m going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it’s working. We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We’re getting good stuff. But we’ve got more targets”—prisoners in Iraqi jails—“than people who can handle them.”

Cambone then made another crucial decision, the former intelligence official told me: not only would he bring the sap’s rules into the prisons; he would bring some of the Army military-intelligence officers working inside the Iraqi prisons under the sap’s auspices. “So here are fundamentally good soldiers—military-intelligence guys—being told that no rules apply,” the former official, who has extensive knowledge of the special-access programs, added. “And, as far as they’re concerned, this is a covert operation, and it’s to be kept within Defense Department channels.”

The military-police prison guards, the former official said, included “recycled hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.” He was referring to members of the 372nd Military Police Company. Seven members of the company are now facing charges for their role in the abuse at Abu Ghraib. “How are these guys from Cumberland going to know anything? The Army Reserve doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

Who was in charge of Abu Ghraib—whether military police or military intelligence—was no longer the only question that mattered. Hard-core special operatives, some of them with aliases, were working in the prison. The military police assigned to guard the prisoners wore uniforms, but many others—military intelligence officers, contract interpreters, C.I.A. officers, and the men from the special-access program—wore civilian clothes. It was not clear who was who, even to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, then the commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, and the officer ostensibly in charge.

“I thought most of the civilians there were interpreters, but there were some civilians that I didn’t know,” Karpinski told me. “I called them the disappearing ghosts. I’d seen them once in a while at Abu Ghraib and then I’d see them months later. They were nice—they’d always call out to me and say, ‘Hey, remember me? How are you doing?’” The mysterious civilians, she said, were “always bringing in somebody for interrogation or waiting to collect somebody going out.” Karpinski added that she had no idea who was operating in her prison system. (General Taguba found that Karpinski’s leadership failures contributed to the abuses.)

By fall, according to the former intelligence official, the senior leadership of the C.I.A. had had enough. “They said, ‘No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan—pre-approved for operations against high-value terrorist targets—and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets’”—the sort of prisoners who populate the Iraqi jails. “The C.I.A.’s legal people objected,” and the agency ended its sap involvement in Abu Ghraib, the former official said.

The C.I.A.’s complaints were echoed throughout the intelligence community. There was fear that the situation at Abu Ghraib would lead to the exposure of the secret sap, and thereby bring an end to what had been, before Iraq, a valuable cover operation. “This was stupidity,” a government consultant told me. “You’re taking a program that was operating in the chaos of Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, a stateless terror group, and bringing it into a structured, traditional war zone. Sooner or later, the commandos would bump into the legal and moral procedures of a conventional war with an Army of a hundred and thirty-five thousand soldiers.”

The former senior intelligence official blamed hubris for the Abu Ghraib disaster. “There’s nothing more exhilarating for a pissant Pentagon civilian than dealing with an important national security issue without dealing with military planners, who are always worried about risk,” he told me. “What could be more boring than needing the coöperation of logistical planners?” The only difficulty, the former official added, is that, “as soon as you enlarge the secret program beyond the oversight capability of experienced people, you lose control. We’ve never had a case where a special-access program went sour—and this goes back to the Cold War.”

In a separate interview, a Pentagon consultant, who spent much of his career directly involved with special-access programs, spread the blame. “The White House subcontracted this to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon subcontracted it to Cambone,” he said. “This is Cambone’s deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program.” When it came to the interrogation operation at Abu Ghraib, he said, Rumsfeld left the details to Cambone. Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable, the consultant added, “but he’s responsible for the checks and balances. The issue is that, since 9/11, we’ve changed the rules on how we deal with terrorism, and created conditions where the ends justify the means.”

Last week, statements made by one of the seven accused M.P.s, Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who is expected to plead guilty, were released. In them, he claimed that senior commanders in his unit would have stopped the abuse had they witnessed it. One of the questions that will be explored at any trial, however, is why a group of Army Reserve military policemen, most of them from small towns, tormented their prisoners as they did, in a manner that was especially humiliating for Iraqi men.

The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind,” a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996.

The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression. “The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,” Patai wrote. Homosexual activity, “or any indication of homosexual leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given any publicity. These are private affairs and remain in private.” The Patai book, an academic told me, was “the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.” In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged—“one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.”

The government consultant said that there may have been a serious goal, in the beginning, behind the sexual humiliation and the posed photographs. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends. The government consultant said, “I was told that the purpose of the photographs was to create an army of informants, people you could insert back in the population.” The idea was that they would be motivated by fear of exposure, and gather information about pending insurgency action, the consultant said. If so, it wasn’t effective; the insurgency continued to grow.

“This shit has been brewing for months,” the Pentagon consultant who has dealt with saps told me. “You don’t keep prisoners naked in their cell and then let them get bitten by dogs. This is sick.” The consultant explained that he and his colleagues, all of whom had served for years on active duty in the military, had been appalled by the misuse of Army guard dogs inside Abu Ghraib. “We don’t raise kids to do things like that. When you go after Mullah Omar, that’s one thing. But when you give the authority to kids who don’t know the rules, that’s another.”

In 2003, Rumsfeld’s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General’s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on International Human Rights. “They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,” Horton told me. “They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue.

The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it’s going to occur.” The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. “They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.” They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed on January 13th, when Joseph Darby, a young military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib, reported the wrongdoing to the Army’s Criminal Investigations Division. He also turned over a CD full of photographs. Within three days, a report made its way to Donald Rumsfeld, who informed President Bush.

The inquiry presented a dilemma for the Pentagon. The C.I.D. had to be allowed to continue, the former intelligence official said. “You can’t cover it up. You have to prosecute these guys for being off the reservation. But how do you prosecute them when they were covered by the special-access program? So you hope that maybe it’ll go away.” The Pentagon’s attitude last January, he said, was “Somebody got caught with some photos. What’s the big deal? Take care of it.” Rumsfeld’s explanation to the White House, the official added, was reassuring: “‘We’ve got a glitch in the program. We’ll prosecute it.’ The cover story was that some kids got out of control.”

In their testimony before Congress last week, Rumsfeld and Cambone struggled to convince the legislators that Miller’s visit to Baghdad in late August had nothing to do with the subsequent abuse. Cambone sought to assure the Senate Armed Services Committee that the interplay between Miller and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, had only a casual connection to his office. Miller’s recommendations, Cambone said, were made to Sanchez. His own role, he said, was mainly to insure that the “flow of intelligence back to the commands” was “efficient and effective.” He added that Miller’s goal was “to provide a safe, secure and humane environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence.”

It was a hard sell. Senator Hillary Clinton, Democrat of New York, posed the essential question facing the senators:

If, indeed, General Miller was sent from Guantánamo to Iraq for the purpose of acquiring more actionable intelligence from detainees, then it is fair to conclude that the actions that are at point here in your report [on abuses at Abu Ghraib] are in some way connected to General Miller’s arrival and his specific orders, however they were interpreted, by those MPs and the military intelligence that were involved.. . .Therefore, I for one don’t believe I yet have adequate information from Mr. Cambone and the Defense Department as to exactly what General Miller’s orders were . . . how he carried out those orders, and the connection between his arrival in the fall of ’03 and the intensity of the abuses that occurred afterward.

Sometime before the Abu Ghraib abuses became public, the former intelligence official told me, Miller was “read in”—that is, briefed—on the special-access operation. In April, Miller returned to Baghdad to assume control of the Iraqi prisons; once the scandal hit, with its glaring headlines, General Sanchez presented him to the American and international media as the general who would clean up the Iraqi prison system and instill respect for the Geneva Conventions. “His job is to save what he can,” the former official said. “He’s there to protect the program while limiting any loss of core capability.” As for Antonio Taguba, the former intelligence official added, “He goes into it not knowing shit. And then: ‘Holy cow! What’s going on?’”

If General Miller had been summoned by Congress to testify, he, like Rumsfeld and Cambone, would not have been able to mention the special-access program. “If you give away the fact that a special-access program exists,”the former intelligence official told me, “you blow the whole quick-reaction program.”

One puzzling aspect of Rumsfeld’s account of his initial reaction to news of the Abu Ghraib investigation was his lack of alarm and lack of curiosity. One factor may have been recent history: there had been many previous complaints of prisoner abuse from organization like Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross, and the Pentagon had weathered them with ease. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had not been provided with details of alleged abuses until late March, when he read the specific charges.

“You read it, as I say, it’s one thing. You see these photographs and it’s just unbelievable. . . . It wasn’t three-dimensional. It wasn’t video. It wasn’t color. It was quite a different thing.” The former intelligence official said that, in his view, Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials had not studied the photographs because “they thought what was in there was permitted under the rules of engagement,” as applied to the sap. “The photos,” he added, “turned out to be the result of the program run amok.”

The former intelligence official made it clear that he was not alleging that Rumsfeld or General Myers knew that atrocities were committed. But, he said, “it was their permission granted to do the sap, generically, and there was enough ambiguity, which permitted the abuses.”

This official went on, “The black guys”—those in the Pentagon’s secret program—“say we’ve got to accept the prosecution. They’re vaccinated from the reality.” The sap is still active, and “the United States is picking up guys for interrogation. The question is, how do they protect the quick-reaction force without blowing its cover?” The program was protected by the fact that no one on the outside was allowed to know of its existence. “If you even give a hint that you’re aware of a black program that you’re not read into, you lose your clearances,” the former official said. “Nobody will talk. So the only people left to prosecute are those who are undefended—the poor kids at the end of the food chain.”

The most vulnerable senior official is Cambone. “The Pentagon is trying now to protect Cambone, and doesn’t know how to do it,” the former intelligence official said.

Last week, the government consultant, who has close ties to many conservatives, defended the Administration’s continued secrecy about the special-access program in Abu Ghraib. “Why keep it black?” the consultant asked. “Because the process is unpleasant. It’s like making sausage—you like the result but you don’t want to know how it was made. Also, you don’t want the Iraqi public, and the Arab world, to know. Remember, we went to Iraq to democratize the Middle East. The last thing you want to do is let the Arab world know how you treat Arab males in prison.”

The former intelligence official told me he feared that one of the disastrous effects of the prison-abuse scandal would be the undermining of legitimate operations in the war on terror, which had already suffered from the draining of resources into Iraq. He portrayed Abu Ghraib as “a tumor” on the war on terror. He said, “As long as it’s benign and contained, the Pentagon can deal with the photo crisis without jeopardizing the secret program. As soon as it begins to grow, with nobody to diagnose it—it becomes a malignant tumor.”

The Pentagon consultant made a similar point. Cambone and his superiors, the consultant said, “created the conditions that allowed transgressions to take place. And now we’re going to end up with another Church Commission”—the 1975 Senate committee on intelligence, headed by Senator Frank Church, of Idaho, which investigated C.I.A. abuses during the previous two decades. Abu Ghraib had sent the message that the Pentagon leadership was unable to handle its discretionary power. “When the shit hits the fan, as it did on 9/11, how do you push the pedal?” the consultant asked. “You do it selectively and with intelligence.”

“Congress is going to get to the bottom of this,” the Pentagon consultant said. “You have to demonstrate that there are checks and balances in the system.” He added, “When you live in a world of gray zones, you have to have very clear red lines.”

Senator John McCain, of Arizona, said, “If this is true, it certainly increases the dimension of this issue and deserves significant scrutiny. I will do all possible to get to the bottom of this, and all other allegations.”

“In an odd way,” Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, “the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a diversion for the prisoner abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions that is authorized.” Since September 11th, Roth added, the military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the world on detainees. “Some jags hate this and are horrified that the tolerance of mistreatment will come back and haunt us in the next war,” Roth told me. “We’re giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar.”

Here's a link to The American Progress, another of the "liberal media" email/news updating outlets.

Tenet didn't want to make his agency appear to have been hoodwinked, Bush wanted to make a case for invading Iraq, and Powell doesn't want to be blamed for making the case for war. In all, all three want to point to someone else as the one who is at fault.

Rumsfeld and Tenet Defending Assessments of Iraqi Weapons
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT (NYT) 1362 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 3

ABSTRACT - Central Intelligence Director George J Tenet will mount strong public defense of prewar judgments made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq and its illicit weapons stockpiles as Defense Sec Donald H Rumsfeld offers his own defense of Bush administration's prewar intelligence; will make speech at Goergetown Univ seeking to correct 'misperceptions and downright inaccuracies' concerning what intelligence community reported and did not report regarding Iraq.

Rumsfeld testifies before Senate Armed Services Committee, saying he believes American-led search team in Iraq might still find illicit weapons there despite comments by former weapons inspection leader David A Kay that no stockpiles of such arms existed in Iraq at time of American-led invasion last Mar; dual defenses come after Secretary of State Colin L Powell comments that he is not sure he would have recommended invasion if he knew that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons; Pres Bush is trying to deflect criticism of the intelligence; photo (M)

Powell Says C.I.A. Was Misled About Weapons
By DAVID E. SANGER
NY Times
Published: May 17, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 16 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said for the first time on Sunday that he now believes that the Central Intelligence Agency was deliberately misled about evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing unconventional weapons.

He also said, in his comments on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," that he regrets citing evidence that Iraq had mobile biological laboratories in his presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003.

The assertion about the mobile labs was one of the most dramatic pieces of the presentation, which was intended to make public the Bush administration's best case for invading Iraq. For days before his speech, Mr. Powell sat in a conference room at the C.I.A., examining the sources for each charge he planned to make.

But on Sunday, Mr. Powell argued that the C.I.A. itself was misled, and that in turn he was, too. "Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out not to be accurate," Mr. Powell said, going farther than he did on April 2 when he conceded that the intelligence was not "that solid."

On Sunday, Mr. Powell hinted at widespread reports of fabrications by an engineer who provided much of the most critical information about the labs. Intelligence officials have since found that the engineer was linked to the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group that was pressing President Bush to unseat Mr. Hussein.

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading," Mr. Powell said in the interview, broadcast from Jordan. "And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."

That was a sharp contrast to comments four months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, who said the administration still believed that the trailers were part of a program of unconventional weapons, and added that he "would deem that conclusive evidence" that Mr. Hussein in fact had such programs.

Taken with past admissions of error by the administration or its intelligence agencies, Mr. Powell's statement on Sunday leaves little room for the administration to argue that Mr. Hussein's stockpiles of unconventional weapons posed any real and imminent threat.

"Basically, Powell now believes that the Iraqis had chemical weapons, and that was it," said an official close to him. "And he is out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war."
<------------------------------------->

Sunday, May 16, 2004

Biggest Divide? Maybe It's Health Care
By ROBIN TONER
NY Times
Published: May 14, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 13- Senator John Kerry has spent this week campaigning relentlessly on the problems in the nation's health care system and maintaining that President Bush has failed to address them. The Bush campaign has countered furiously, saying Mr. Kerry's proposals are far too expensive and would inevitably lead to government micromanagement of private health care.

This is not just another exercise in partisan maneuvering. Nowhere are the policy differences between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush more apparent, health analysts say, than on what to do about rising health costs and the growing number of Americans without insurance. Few dispute the extent of the problem. After several years of stability in the mid-1990's, the cost of coverage is soaring again. Premiums were up an average of 13.9 percent last year, the third consecutive year of double-digit increases. More and more small businesses say they are staggering under the strain.

The number of Americans without insurance, meanwhile, has jumped to 43.6 million, according to a census report last fall, and more than a fifth are children. Mr. Kerry argued this week that those problems had worsened on Mr. Bush's watch. "George Bush has had four years to offer America a real health care plan, and he hasn't," the senator declared Wednesday in Orlando, Fla.

Republicans say that they are, in fact, responding: Senate Republicans stepped forward Tuesday to endorse a package of tax measures - including Mr. Bush's main proposal - aimed at the uninsured.

But the Bush and Kerry plans differ substantially in cost, the number of uninsured they hope to cover, the methods they would use and the underlying philosophy. Health care analysts say the difference in scale alone is striking.

One expert on health, Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute, said, "The president's proposals remain very modest, while Senator Kerry is willing to make health a major priority of his administration."

Mr. Bush's main proposal for the uninsured would cost $70 billion over 10 years. It would give a new tax credit to low- and moderate-income families to help them buy health insurance. The proposal, first unveiled in the 2000 campaign but never enacted, would provide up to $1,000 for individuals and $3,000 for families. The administration estimates it would benefit 4.5 million Americans when put fully into effect.

Mr. Bush presents the plan as a part of his philosophy of giving individuals more choices and more control over their health care, and of trusting the private market to respond to their needs.

"I've made my stand,'' the president said in March. ''I believe that the best health care policy is one that trusts and empowers consumers and one that understands the market."

Similarly, Mr. Bush proposes to hold down health costs through the approach sometimes described as consumer-driven health care. The idea is to make consumers more conscious of the cost of medical care, encouraging them to shop around for better deals and eventually reducing unnecessary care.

As the president envisions it, consumers would combine high-deductible insurance plans, which are relatively inexpensive, with tax-free health savings accounts that they would create to cover the cost of routine medical care. This year he has proposed making the premiums for those plans deductible, to further encourage their use.

Critics fault the president's plan on several grounds. They say that his $3,000 tax credit falls far short of what it takes to buy a substantial family plan, and that he relies too much on the market of individual health insurance rather than buttressing the employer-based system of group coverage, considered far more stable. In the end, the critics assert, Mr. Bush's proposals would leave tens of millions of Americans uninsured, and many millions more squeezed by the soaring costs of an unfettered market.

Mr. Kerry, for his part, has a sweeping plan that tries to cover all uninsured children and most uninsured adults without the kind of fundamental structural change that doomed past Democratic proposals. It would cost $650 billion over 10 years, his campaign estimates, and would be financed by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 a year.

The most unusual part of Mr. Kerry's plan would have the federal government pick up 75 percent of the cost of the most expensive medical cases - those of over $50,000 a year - if employers guaranteed that they would pass the savings along to their workers through reduction of premiums. This is intended to ease the burden on businesses, especially small ones, and provide cost relief to Americans with insurance.

In general, Mr. Kerry would provide a variety of new subsidies to help small businesses and low-income people buy health insurance: $177 billion over 10 years in tax credits, more than twice the size of Mr. Bush's credits.

The senator would also create a new version of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, a collection of private plans now available to Congress and federal workers, that would provide good group coverage to other Americans and small businesses.

And he would expand assistance to the states to cover more children and low-income adults under Medicaid.

Mr. Kerry argued this week that his plan would succeed because it was not a "government plan" with new mandates and bureaucracies. Republicans say it would nonetheless lead to new government regulation and essentially transfer to the federal government the responsibility for a huge share of health care spending
<------------------------------------->

Rumsfeld and Aide Backed Harsh Tactics, Article Says

WASHINGTON, May 15 Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and one of his top aides authorized the expansion of a secret program that permitted harsh interrogations of detained members of Al Qaeda, allowing these methods to be used against prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 02, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council. “Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added. And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

Saturday, May 15, 2004

Bush Points Out Lesson in Prisoner Abuse Scandal
The president reminds Concordia graduates that failures of character have far-reaching effects.
By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer

MEQUON, Wis. Drawing on the controversy that has haunted his reelection campaign in recent weeks, President Bush on Friday pointed to the U.S. soldiers accused of abusing Iraqi inmates as a life lesson for new college graduates."

Note: Nicely written and delivered speech. Unfortunately for the majority of citizens the President Bush that we have seen in practice, is nothing close to what he sounds like in his speeches.

Department of Political Science at UIUC: "Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002"

The Executive Summary is here

Wiggle Room?

Politics or charity? Donations questioned
By MONI BASU
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/14/04

What's wrong with Georgia's corporate leaders trying to raise money for an Atlanta charity that benefits kids with cancer? Plenty, if you ask Melanie Sloan, head of a Washington watchdog agency. She filed a complaint seeking to pull the plug on an event sponsored by AFLAC, the Columbus-based insurance giant, and Southern Co., the Atlanta utility conglomerate, that she called "shameful abuse" of children's charities.

The companies have signed on at $100,000 apiece to sponsor "Rocking the Apple . . . Georgia Style," a concert in New York City during the Republican National Convention, Aug. 30-Sept. 2. U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and other influential Republican lawmakers are scheduled to attend. Chambliss, designated as host of the event, said the concert was not a ruse and could raise as much as $250,000 for Camp Sunshine, an organization that allows children with cancer to sail boats, ride horses and spend time with one another.

Sloan said she has no problems with a children's charity benefiting from corporate donations. But when she learned the concert would bring together big donors and lawmakers, she grew suspicious. New campaign fund-raising laws placed a ban on "soft money" — unregulated contributions from corporations, labor unions and individual donors. The aim was to prevent large donors from buying access to federal elected officials.

"I think what we have is AFLAC wanting to have an event at the convention and realizing the best way to do it is to have a charity as a front," said Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In what she called a disturbing new trend, charities have become a way for politicians to skirt the new restrictions, she claims.

"The main issue is that it's exploiting charities for politician gain," said Sloan, who filed complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee against Chambliss and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). She also filed a complaint against Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who had agreed to host a similar fund-raiser at the Democratic Party's convention in July. The Democrats' event has since been canceled.

Sloan's complaint suggests that the charity events could violate Senate rules that bar members from soliciting contributions for charities from lobbyists. It contends that the events also violate Internal Revenue Service regulations that prohibit charities from participating in political events on behalf of, or against, a candidate.

"The use of charitable organizations — by both Democrats and Republicans — to finance convention events is a reprehensible misuse of charities [and] reflects poorly on the Senate as well as the charities involved," the complaint states. Organizers said neither of the events is political in nature and both are intended to raise money for their respective charities.

Two other watchdog agencies, Democracy 21 and Common Cause, have raised concerns about a weeklong event scheduled during the Republican convention and coordinated by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. A $500,000 gift to Celebrations for Children buys the donor a private dinner with DeLay, Broadway theater tickets, a cruise on a yacht, a luxury suite to listen to President Bush's acceptance speech at Madison Square Garden and several other perks.

After the event's costs are deducted, proceeds would be used by the charity, which is affiliated with DeLay, to fund a facility for disadvantaged children in Texas. "The more money you pay, the more access you get," said Mary Boyle, spokeswoman for Common Cause. "DeLay's charity is the one that causes us the greatest concern because it was established for the sole purpose of funding the week in New York."

Led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Congress in 1995 passed a gift ban intended to prevent special interest groups from wining and dining lawmakers. But Boyle said charities remain a gray area for politicians. "We think it's good when members of Congress help a charity," Boyle said. "But the concern here is that charities are being used by wealthy people to gain access to Congress. And that's not good."
<------------------------------------->

Limbaugh attacks prosecutors in full-page newspaper ads
By JILL BARTON
Associated Press
Published on: 05/13/04

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. Rush Limbaugh took out full-page ads in two Florida newspapers Thursday to attack prosecutors who are investigating whether he illegally purchased prescription painkillers"

Three swimmers die off S. Florida coast over past few days
the Associated Press
Published on: 05/14/04

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. Three swimmers believed to have been caught in rip currents have died over the past two days off the South Florida coast, with two bodies washing ashore Thursday morning and more than a dozen people rescued".

Note: Remember: if caught in a rip tide you should swim laterally with the shore until you come to a section where the tide weakens, and you can then swim to shore. Don't over exert yourself...use the side-stroke or back stroke. Heavy exertion, overhand swimming, and fright are deadly in a rip tide.

Friday, May 14, 2004

A Method of Seeing Native TV From Timbuktu

The Saddam Show
How to watch Iraqi TV on the Web.
By Paul Boutin
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 1:42 PM PT

Americans have a knee-jerk reaction when they see Saddam Hussein's speeches and footage of American POWs from the Iraq Satellite Channel aired on U.S. networks: What do you mean, there's a TV channel I can't get?

Don't worry, you can add the Iraq Satellite Channel to your 500-channel universe with a little tinkering. Iraqi television is rebroadcast onto the Net by the Dutch service DSL-TV, in both Real and Windows Media formats. The catch is that unlike ish.com's Al Jazeera stream from Germany, DSL-TV tries to limit its service to computers inside the Netherlands as part of its terms of service.

But for the savvy Net surfer, that's an easy problem to get around. Like Web browsers, streaming media players allow you to use what's called a proxy server to make your computer's requests take place from inside the Netherlands—or from whatever country you prefer. (Baghdad blogger Salam Pax uses this technique from inside Iraq to reach blocked Web sites and send untraceable e-mail to his fans.) Hackers who support the free, anonymous flow of information host publicly available proxies from all over the world, and lists of them are available on sites such as Public Proxy Servers.

To watch the Iraq Satellite Channel on your computer, click through the list of proxies at Public Proxy Servers until you find one located in the Netherlands. Jot down its IP address (which looks something like 12.345.67.89) and port number (probably 80 or 8080). Find the option to set a proxy on your Web browser. (On the latest version of Internet Explorer for Windows, select Internet Options -> Connections -> LAN Settings.) Plug in the IP address and port number. Save the settings, then open the DSL link. Click on the streaming link for the Iraq Satellite Channel. If your software is fairly new, Internet Explorer will pop up the video in a separate panel and begin playing it. Or you may have to separately set the HTTP proxy on your Windows Media Player or Real player, each of which has its own Preferences or Options menus. I tuned in with both Windows Media on a PC and with RealOne on a Mac. Two caveats: You'll need a broadband connection, and if your local network has a firewall or VPN, you may get error messages instead of video.

Iraqi TV looks like local-access cable, or at least state-sponsored local-access propaganda. It's not all Saddam, all the time, despite the frequent canned footage of him. Some of the fare is strikingly similar to American television: news reports, speeches, music videos (some with lots of guns in them), and poignant interviews with big-eyed children in hospital beds. There are frequent updates on the war. Last time I checked, Iraq's Minister of Information, Muhammad Said as Sahhaf, was speaking from a podium cluttered with microphones. Last night, I saw the notorious photos of American prisoners.

Viewers be warned: American TV networks make daily decisions on what to show or not to show their viewers. On the Internet, it's easy to route around those decisions. If blogging makes everyone a journalist, then tricks like this one make everyone their own news producer. If you're squeamish, or if you're the relative of an American soldier, you may not want to watch images that the TV networks have deemed unfit for American audiences. But if you want to narrowcast the Iraq Satellite Channel to yourself to see what's being fed to the Iraqi people during this war, you can.
<------------------------------------->

Q: What do these countries have in common?

Afghanistan
Algeria
Angola
Burma
Burundi
Congo
Chechnya
Haiti
Kosovo
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Kashmir
Liberia
Nigeria
Pakistan
Phillipines
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Uganda
Zimbabwe

A: A Country heavily involved in religious and sectarian violence in the recent past.
<------------------------------------->

Reasserting the primacy of a political, instead of a military, reaction to terrorist groups and their activities.

"Countering al Qaeda". An appreciaton of the situation and suggestions for stategy by Brian Michael Jeknins at the Rand Corporation 2002.

UPI No mad cow tests at large Texas slaughterhouses in 2004. Even at the Lone Star Beef Processors plant where a cow that exhibited signs of a brain disorder was not tested, despite a USDA policy to test all such cows for mad cow disease.

CBC NewsThe Daily Mirror admits the U.K. Iraq abuse photos are fakes.

Note: So how long will it be before the U.S. Far Right claims the same about U.S. abuse photos?

CBC NewsThousands of Cubans rally against new U.S sanctions

Thursday, May 13, 2004

Schoolyard bullies and their victims: The picture fills out by Patrik Jonsson for the Christian Science Monitor.

Mexican Air Force Films UFOs
Associated Press Page 1 of 1
11:17 AM May. 12, 2004 PT

Mexican Air Force pilots filmed 11 unidentified flying objects in the skies over southern Campeche state, a spokesman for Mexico's Defense Department confirmed Tuesday.

A videotape made widely available to the news media on Tuesday shows the bright objects, some sharp points of light and others like large headlights, moving rapidly in what appears to be a late-evening sky. The lights were filmed on March 5 by pilots using infrared equipment. They appeared to be flying at an altitude of about 11,500 feet, and reportedly surrounded the jet as it conducted routine anti-drug trafficking vigilance in Campeche. Only three of the objects showed up on the plane's radar.

"Was I afraid? Yes. A little afraid because we were facing something that had never happened before," said radar operator Lt. German Marin in a taped interview made public Tuesday. "I couldn't say what it was ... but I think they're completely real," added Lt. Mario Adrian Vazquez, the infrared equipment operator. Vazquez insisted that there was no way to alter the recorded images.

The plane's captain, Maj. Magdaleno Castanon, said the military jets chased the lights "and I believe they could feel we were pursuing them." When the jets stopped following the objects, they disappeared, he said.

A Defense Department spokesman confirmed Tuesday that the videotape was filmed by members of the Mexican Air Force. The spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, declined to comment further.The video was first aired on national television Monday night then again at a news conference Tuesday by Jaime Maussan, a Mexican investigator who has dedicated the past 10 years to studying UFOs.

"This is historic news," Maussan told reporters. "Hundreds of videos (of UFOs) exist, but none had the backing of the armed forces of any country.... The armed forces don't perpetuate frauds." Maussan said he obtained the video from Secretary of Defense Gen. Ricardo Vega Garcia.

Better Not Try to Blame the Abuse on Low-Level Enlisted Men and Women!! It Could Not Have Happened That Way as Anyone Who Served in The US Armed Forces Can Attest!

Private says: I was told to stand there, hold the leash and look at the camera
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
13 May 2004

The female soldier at the centre of the Iraqi prison abuse scandal yesterday maintained that she only posed in the infamous pictures of naked detainees because she was told to do so by her superiors, as a means of softening up the prisoners for interrogation.

Hours before the Pentagon privately showed what were by some accounts even more shocking photos to senior politicians on Capitol Hill, Private Lynndie England, 21, said she was given specific instructions on how to pose in the pictures. Asked who gave those instructions, she replied "persons in my chain of command", refusing to be more specific.

Her claim, in an interview with a television station in Denver, Colorado, echoes those of six of her colleagues in the 372nd Military Police Company, who are also facing courts martial for their part in the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. It will intensify suspicions that responsibility for the abuse is not confined to them, or even to the six middle-ranking officers who face dismissal from the armed forces.

Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of running US military prisons in Iraq, told The Washington Post she had tried to block decisions by more senior officials to put military intelligence in effective charge of the prisons and authorising the use of lethal force to keep order.

She put the blame on Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, and Major-General Geoffrey Miller, the former commander at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, who was sent to Iraq in 2003 to "improve" the results of prisoner interrogations. Both generals have denied that they gave any such orders.

Pte England, who in one photo was shown holding a leash around the neck of a naked Iraqi detainee, said she was "instructed by persons in higher rank to 'stand there, hold the leash, look at the camera'." She said: "They then took pictures for PsyOps [psychological operations]. I didn't really want to be in any pictures. It was all rather weird."

In a separate TV interview, Pte England's lawyer claimed those who gave the orders were "from MI [Military Intelligence] and OGA [other government agencies]", the latter a widely used reference to the CIA.

After the pictures were taken, Pte England said she was praised by her superiors, who told her: "Hey, you're doing great, just keep it up." She added that things had happened at the prison even worse than those depicted in the pictures already made public.

As she spoke, congressmen and senators were being shown some of the "hundreds" of further photos and "dozens" of video clips showing prisoner abuse including forced sex, rape and torture, now in the Pentagon's possession. One emerging Senator, clearly shaken, described them as "stomach-churning". Others said the new material made clear that responsibility extended higher up the command chain.

At Pentagon insistence, the viewings took place in secure rooms on Capitol Hill. Sharp divisions have emerged about whether the pictures should be released to the public, with some arguing that the sooner everything is out in the open the better. Others senators and congressmen contend that, after the airing of the video showing the beheading of the US businessman Nick Berg by Islamic militants, the release of more prison abuse photos would only further inflame the situation.

However the argument is resolved, intense pressure will continue on the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, despite strong public support from President George Bush.

Yesterday at a Senate hearing on the White House request for $25bn (£14bn) of supplementary funds for the Iraq operation, Mr Rumsfeld dismissed complaints that the interrogation techniques used in Iraq violated the Geneva Convention. He told Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, that Pentagon lawyers had approved sleep deprivation, dietary changes and other methods. Mr Rumsfeld flatly rejected Mr Durbin's charge that these went "far beyond the Geneva Conventions".

Military specialists and political observers believe the Defence Secretary could yet be forced from office, possibly by the publication of the thus-far secret material.

Even Republican senators loyal to the administration maintain that junior officers and NCOs cannot be the sole scapegoats. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, insisted yesterday that Mr Rumsfeld was anything but indispensable, and that "any number of people" could replace him. He said suitable candidates included the Republican senators John McCain and John Warner, their Democratic colleague Carl Levin of Michigan, and Bill Clinton's defence secretary William Perry.

Tallahassee Democrat | 05/13/2004 | Federal deficit reaches almost $282 billion
By Jeannine Aversa
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Deficit of almost $282 billion in first seven months of budget year

The government ran a deficit of $281.8 billion in the first seven months of the 2004 budget year according to the latest snapshot of the nation's balance sheets. The data released by the Treasury Department on Wednesday showed more red ink than the $202.1 billion shortfall recorded for the corresponding period last year. For the 2004 budget year that began Oct. 1, spending has totaled $1.35 trillion, 7.5 percent more than the same period a year ago. Revenues came to $1.07 trillion - a 1.3-percent increase from a year ago.
<------------------------------------->
This Administration Simply Doesn't Have A Clue About Anything That Really Matters!!!All they seem capable of is redirecting citizens attention toward some lame attempt at remaking America 2004 into a 50's era Mayberry replica replete with John Wayne male characters, and Stepford Wives. Get Real!!

U.S. Discloses Wal-Mart Fine of $3.1 Million
Wal-Mart Fined $3.1M by Justice Dept.

The Justice Department said on Wednesday that Wal-Mart had agreed to pay $3.1 million in fines for violating the Clean Water Act at 24 sites in nine states.


Tax Relief Charade

NY Times Editorial
Published: May 13, 2004

Last week, House Republicans were the driving force behind the passage of a stopgap measure intended to provide relief for taxpayers who have been hit of late with the alternative minimum tax. The relief is sorely needed. But the House's measure is disingenuous — a temporary fix that will mollify justifiably aggrieved taxpayers in the short run while obscuring the real cause of the alternative tax problem and, by extension, dangerous flaws in the Bush administration's tax policy.

The alternative minimum tax is built into the federal tax code to ensure that superwealthy taxpayers don't use excessive tax breaks to avoid paying their fair share. In the 1990's, it never applied to more than about one million people a year. But in recent years, the tax has begun afflicting middle-class and upper-middle-class taxpayers who are far from the multimillionaires it was intended to affect. This year, about three million taxpayers will owe this tax. Without corrective action, nearly 30 million taxpayers will be affected in 2010, most of them making $50,000 to $200,000.

Part of the problem is that the alternative minimum tax was not designed to reflect the effects of inflation, so the House's fix would provide some inflation protection by increasing the thresholds for the tax through 2005. But a more serious cause is the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. When the tax cuts were enacted, no corresponding changes were made to the alternative tax. So as the tax cuts reduce the liability on a filer's Form 1040, the alternative tax liability looms relatively larger. In effect, most taxpayers snared by this tax will be giving back all or part of the tax savings they were supposed to reap from the Bush tax cuts.

This consequence was not unforeseen — the alternative tax has been studied from every conceivable angle for over a decade. It is allowed to endure in its current form for only one reason: to mask the tax cuts' disastrous effect on the deficit. As long as the alternative tax is on the books, official budget estimates include the revenue it is projected to raise from middle-class taxpayers — even though the administration and Congress are publicly committed to ensuring that those same taxpayers won't have to pay. One way or the other, then, the administration's tax plan is sheer duplicity. Either middle-class Americans will find their supposed tax cuts gobbled up by the alternative tax, or the deficit will be far larger than the administration projects.

The hidden budget hole is enormous. Right now, the administration argues that Congress must permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, the cost of doing so, without reforming the alternative tax, is about $1.2 trillion. If the alternative tax is reformed so it won't apply to middle-class taxpayers, the cost will explode to nearly $2 trillion.

The Senate is expected to pass the House's temporary fix, but middle-class taxpayers should not be fooled. They will either get little if any benefit from the Bush tax cuts, or they will get a deficit that has ballooned beyond anyone's worst nightmare

U.S. Missile Shield Won't Work: Scientist Group


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5133987&src=rss/topNews§ion=news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said on Thursday.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Clash of Civilizations

"Clash of Civilizations
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 13, 2004
ASHINGTON

Testifying before the Senate yesterday, General Richard Myers admitted that we're checkmated in Iraq.

"There is no way to militarily lose in Iraq," he said, describing the generals' consensus. "There is also no way to militarily win in Iraq."

Talk about the sound of one hand clapping. And they say John Kerry is on both sides of issues.

Sounding like Mr. Kerry, General Myers summed up: "This process has to be internationalized. The U.N. has to play the governance role. That's how we're, in my view, eventually going to win."

The administration's demented quest to conquer Arab hearts and minds has dissolved in a torrent of pornography denigrating other parts of the Arab anatomy. George Bush, who swept into office on a cloud of moral umbrage, now has his own sex scandal — one with far greater implications than titillating cigar jokes.

The Bush hawks, so fixated on making the Middle East look more like America, have made America look un-American. Should we really be reduced to defending ourselves by saying at least we don't behead people?

Gripped in a "I can't look at them — I've got to look at them" state of mind, lawmakers grimly filed into private screening rooms on the Hill to check out the 1,800 grotesque images of sex, humiliation and torture.

"They're disgusting," Senator Dianne Feinstein told me. "If somebody wanted to plan a clash of civilizations, this is how they'd do it. These pictures play into every stereotype of America that Arabs have: America as debauched, America as hypocrites.

"Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz act like they know all the answers, almost like a divine right," she said. "They don't have a divine right, and they are wrong."

After 9/11, America had the support and sympathy of the world. Now, awash in digital evidence of uncivilized behavior, America has careered into a war of civilizations. The pictures were clearly meant to use the codebook of Muslim anxieties about nudity and sexual and gender humiliation to break down the prisoners.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell said some photographs seemed to show Iraqi women being commanded to expose their breasts — such debasement, after a war that President Bush partly based on women's rights.

The problem, of course, is that the war in Iraq started with lies — that Saddam's W.M.D. were endangering our security and that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

In a public relations move that cheapens the heroism of soldiers, the Pentagon merged the medals for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, giving the G.W.O.T. medal, for Global War on Terrorism, in both wars to reinforce the idea that we had to invade Iraq to quell terrorism. The truth is that our invasion of Iraq spurred terrorism there and around the world.

That initial deception — and headlong rush to throw off international conventions and old alliances, and namby-pamby institutions like the U.N. and the Red Cross — led straight to the abuse of Abu Ghraib. Now the question is whether the C.I.A. tortured Al Qaeda operatives.

Officials blurred the lines to justify ideological decisions, calling every Iraqi who opposed us a "terrorist"; conducting rough interrogations, perhaps to find the nonexistent W.M.D. so they would not look foolish; rolling all opposition into one scary terrorist ball that did not require sensitivity to the Geneva Conventions or "humanitarian do-gooders," to use the phrase of Senator James Inhofe, a Republican.

Senator Fritz Hollings made it clear yesterday that Rummy has left us undermanned and undertrained in Iraq — another factor in the torture scandal. "Now, in a country of 25 million, you're trying to secure it with 135,000," he scolded Mr. Rumsfeld, adding: "We're trying to win the hearts and minds as we're killing them and torturing them." At least, he said sarcastically, Gen. William Westmoreland never asked a Vietcong general to take the town, "like we have for Falluja. We've asked the enemy general to take the town."

The hawks, who promised us garlands in Iraq, should have recalled the words of the historian Daniel Boorstin, who warned that planning for the future without a sense of history is like planting cut flowers.

Fallout over Plan B
2 FDA Officials Urged to Resign Over Plan B

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

MSNBC - Altercation: Correspondents Corner: David Scott, USMC Ret.
Hometown: Westfield, MA

I know this is probably a horrible and perhaps nearly incomprehensible thing to say, but I am happy that these prison murders, rapes and abuses have finally been shown to the American people, and make no mistake, given a choice this administration would never have allowed the country to see these terrible things.

As a disabled Vietnam veteran and as someone whose existence has been defined by war, there are things happening in Iraq that have a very sick and familiar feel, only this is a much more secret war. In Vietnam it was all there on the T.V. every night, the carnage and senseless killing that is a part of every war.

In this war it is all a secret, as if there really were no killings no grotesquely wounded as if the 700 or so dead or the thousands wounded were just numbers with no names attached no real lives to account for and it is unpatriot and nearly criminal to merely mention those that have fallen.

It is we, the wretched refuse, the poor people, and it has always been the poor who fight wars, who are ultimately made more poor, more disenchanted once they return home to V.A. hospitals with the worst health care system in the country and veterans benefits that require nothing less than shameless begging.

It is always us against them. The rich ,the privileged, that have never been in a war, have never been wounded or had friends die who have never seen rows and rows of blasted bone and mutilated flesh in veterans hospitals, those like Bush or Cheney who posture and blather about things like patriotism and sacrifice, have no concept of the ugliness, the stupidity or the real shock and awe of suddenly being hit and down and the bleeding out into the ground of a foreign country far away. It is always us, it is never them.

And it only comes to you later by painful degrees if you have survived with the rest of the wretched wounded in a slow sickening epiphany, that this is no John Wayne movie or Iwo Jima battle but a senseless murdering for reasons that are more and more unclear.

To all those who make these decisions about war, who seem suddenly appalled like our President and the rest of the rich who run this country, or the outraged officers who always serve in the rear, to all those faux warrior architects, or political pundits who have no idea what it is like to be thousands of miles away with a rifle in a foreign country where the enemy does not wear uniforms and there are no real fronts. Where life is cheap and always at risk, these pictures, these rapes, these tortures, these murders are what happen in such places. And they happen in every war. It is the ugly nature of the thing that I thought we had learned 30 years ago.

Report of the International Committe of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War And Other Protected Persons, Feb. 2004God forbid an innocent is deemed a "person of interest" by the interrogators. The ICRC report plainly asserts the treatment seen in the recently released photos was, and still is, routine standard practice in CF prison facilities when the subject is labeled a person of interest.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | 'Cooks and drivers were working as interrogators'
Julian Borger in Washington
Friday May 7, 2004
The Guardian

Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian.

Torin Nelson, who served as a military intelligence officer at Guantánamo Bay before moving to Abu Ghraib as a private contractor last year, blamed the abuses on a failure of command in US military intelligence and an over-reliance on private firms. He alleged that those companies were so anxious to meet the demand for their services that they sent "cooks and truck drivers" to work as interrogators.

"Military intelligence operations need to drastically change in order for something like this not to happen again," Mr Nelson said. He spoke to the Guardian in a series of interviews by phone and email.

He claimed that "many of the detainees at the prison are actually innocent of any acts against the coalition and are being held until the bureaucracy there can go through their cases and verify their need to be released."

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Gallup Poll Results: May 11th, 2004Bush Job Approval Drops to Record Low. Prison Abuse Scandal Polling Results. Rumsfeld Job Approval Nose Dives.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall provides an balanced assessment of the ICRC Report on prison conditions in Iraq.

Mirror.co.uk - MY HELL IN CAMP X-RAY. A British National talks about his captivity at Gitmo.

The Price of Arrogance


In a war that could go on for decades, you cannot simply detain people indefinitely on the sole authority of the secretary of Defense>
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek May 17 issue -

America is ushering in a new responsibility era," says President Bush as part of his standard stump speech, "where each of us understands we're responsible for the decisions we make in life." When speaking about bad CEOs he's even clearer as to what it entails: "You're beginning to see the consequences of people making irresponsible decisions. They need to pay a price for their irresponsibility."

"I take full responsibility," said Donald Rumsfeld in his congressional testimony last week. But what does this mean? Secretary Rumsfeld hastened to add that he did not plan to resign and was not going to ask anyone else who might have been "responsible" to resign. As far as I can tell, taking responsibility these days means nothing more than saying the magic words "I take responsibility."

After the greatest terrorist attack against America, no one was asked to resign, and the White House didn't even want to launch a serious investigation into it. The 9/11 Commission was created after months of refusals because some of the victims' families pursued it aggressively and simply didn't give up. After the fiasco over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, not one person was even reassigned. The only people who have been fired or cashiered in this administration are men like Gen. Eric Shinseki, Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey, who spoke inconvenient truths.

Rumsfeld went on in his testimony to explain that "these terrible acts were perpetrated by a small number." That's correct, except the small number who are truly responsible are not the handful of uniformed personnel currently being charged for the prison abuse scandal. The events at Abu Ghraib are part of a larger breakdown in American policy over the past two years. And it has been perpetrated by a small number of people at the highest levels of government.

Since 9/11, a handful of officials at the top of the Defense Department and the vice president's office have commandeered American foreign and defense policy. In the name of fighting terror they have systematically weakened the traditional restraints that have made this country respected around the world. Alliances, international institutions, norms and ethical conventions have all been deemed expensive indulgences at a time of crisis.

Within weeks after September 11, senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House began the drive to maximize American freedom of action. They attacked specifically the Geneva Conventions, which govern behavior during wartime. Donald Rumsfeld explained that the conventions did not apply to today's "set of facts." He and his top aides have tried persistently to keep prisoners out of the reach of either American courts or international law, presumably so that they can be handled without those pettifogging rules as barriers. Rumsfeld initially fought both the uniformed military and Colin Powell, who urged that prisoners in Guantanamo be accorded rights under the conventions. Eventually he gave in on the matter but continued to suggest that the protocols were antiquated. Last week he said again that the Geneva Conventions did not "precisely apply" and were simply basic rules.

The conventions are not exactly optional. They are the law of the land, signed by the president and ratified by Congress. Rumsfeld's concern—that Al Qaeda members do not wear uniforms and are thus "unlawful combatants"—is understandable, but that is a determination that a military court would have to make. In a war that could go on for decades, you cannot simply arrest and detain people indefinitely on the say-so of the secretary of Defense.

The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides has been "We're at war; all these niceties will have to wait." As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation, humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure. If the world is not to be trusted in these dangerous times, key agencies of the American government, like the State Department, are to be trusted even less. Congress is barely informed, even on issues on which its "advise and consent" are constitutionally mandated.

Leave process aside: the results are plain. On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq—troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani—Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.

Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe. I'm sure he takes full responsibility.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

Just Trust Us
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: May 11, 2004

Didn't you know, in your gut, that something like Abu Ghraib would eventually come to light?

When the world first learned about the abuse of prisoners, President Bush said that it "does not reflect the nature of the American people." He's right, of course: a great majority of Americans are decent and good. But so are a great majority of people everywhere. If America's record is better than that of most countries — and it is — it's because of our system: our tradition of openness, and checks and balances.

Yet Mr. Bush, despite all his talk of good and evil, doesn't believe in that system. From the day his administration took office, its slogan has been "just trust us." No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of that trust. Out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, Congress has deferred to the administration's demands. Sooner or later, a moral catastrophe was inevitable.

Just trust us, John Ashcroft said, as he demanded that Congress pass the Patriot Act, no questions asked. After two and a half years, during which he arrested and secretly detained more than a thousand people, Mr. Ashcroft has yet to convict any actual terrorists. (Look at the actual trials of what Dahlia Lithwick of Slate calls "disaffected bozos who watch cheesy training videos," and you'll see what I mean.)

Just trust us, George Bush said, as he insisted that Iraq, which hadn't attacked us and posed no obvious threat, was the place to go in the war on terror. When we got there, we found no weapons of mass destruction and no new evidence of links to Al Qaeda.

Just trust us, Paul Bremer said, as he took over in Iraq. What is the legal basis for Mr. Bremer's authority? You may imagine that the Coalition Provisional Authority is an arm of the government, subject to U.S. law. But it turns out that no law or presidential directive has ever established the authority's status. Mr. Bremer, as far as we can tell, answers to nobody except Mr. Bush, which makes Iraq a sort of personal fief. In that fief, there has been nothing that Americans would recognize as the rule of law. For example, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's erstwhile favorite, was allowed to gain control of Saddam's files — the better to blackmail his potential rivals.

And finally: Just trust us, Donald Rumsfeld said early in 2002, when he declared that "enemy combatants" — a term that turned out to mean anyone, including American citizens, the administration chose to so designate — don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. Now people around the world talk of an "American gulag," and Seymour Hersh is exposing My Lai all over again.

Did top officials order the use of torture? It depends on the meaning of the words "order" and "torture." Last August Mr. Rumsfeld's top intelligence official sent Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the Guantánamo prison, to Iraq. General Miller recommended that the guards help interrogators, including private contractors, by handling prisoners in a way that "sets the conditions" for "successful interrogation and exploitation." What did he and his superiors think would happen?

To their credit, some supporters of the administration are speaking out. "This is about system failure," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. But do Mr. Graham, John McCain and other appalled lawmakers understand their own role in that failure? By deferring to the administration at every step, by blocking every effort to make officials accountable, they set the nation up for this disaster. You can't prevent any serious inquiry into why George Bush led us to war to eliminate W.M.D. that didn't exist and to punish Saddam for imaginary ties to Al Qaeda, then express shock when Mr. Bush's administration fails to follow the rules on other matters.

Meanwhile, Abu Ghraib will remain in use, under its new commander: General Miller of Guantánamo. Donald Rumsfeld has "accepted responsibility" — an action that apparently does not mean paying any price at all. And Dick Cheney says, "Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had. . . . People should get off his case and let him do his job." In other words: Just trust us.
<------------------------------------->

Monday, May 10, 2004

Independent Judiciary?

Gannett, AP Sue U.S. Marshals for Erased Scalia Tapes
Mon May 10, 2004 03:34 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) -

Two media companies and two of their reporters accused the U.S. Marshals Service in a lawsuit on Monday of violating their constitutional rights by confiscating recording devices during a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and erasing his remarks.

Antoinette Konz, who works with the Gannett newspaper the Hattiesburg American, and Denise Grones, who works with the Associated Press, were covering Scalia's appearance at a high school in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on April 7 for a talk on the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Deputy Marshal Melanie Rube demanded they turn over their tape recorder and digital recorder, Gannett said in a statement. The reporters received their equipment back after Scalia's comments were erased.

Gannett said the federal suit seeks nominal damages and an injunction prohibiting the Marshals Service from seizing and erasing reporters' recordings. The suit names Rube, other marshals and the service as a whole and was filed in U.S. District Court for the southern district of Mississippi. A Marshals Service spokesman said the service could not comment on any pending litigation.

"It is ironic this seizure took place while Justice Scalia was making a speech about preserving the Constitution," said Gary Watson, president of Gannett's newspaper division. "We're taking this unusual action because the justice system must step in and bring these illegal actions to an immediate halt."

Scalia, who did not play a role in the marshals' action, last month issued a rare written apology calling the incident "upsetting and indeed enraging," according to the Hattiesburg American.

The Supreme Court Justice said in a letter to the newspaper that the marshals were enforcing his general practice of not allowing the recording of his public appearances for broadcast, which had not been communicated to reporters at the event. Scalia said in the future he would not object to print media recording his comments to ensure accuracy, according to the newspaper.
<------------------------------------->

Self-Censorship by the Media

Eye on F.C.C., TV and Radio Watch Words
By JACQUES STEINBERG
NY Times Business
Published: May 10, 2004

The reverberations from this year's fiasco of a Super Bowl half-time show are reaching every corner of the broadcasting world, and not even the viewers of "Masterpiece Theater" are immune.

The producers of "Masterpiece Theater," intent on staying in the good graces of a Federal Communications Commission increasingly vigilant for instances of indecency, took a step last month they never had before. They chose not to make available to PBS member stations an unexpurgated version of the critically acclaimed British series "Prime Suspect," and instead sent out two edited versions: one with all of the salty language edited, and another with only some of the possibly offending words excised.

Television and radio broadcasters say they have little choice but to practice a form of self-censorship, swinging the pendulum of what they consider acceptable in the direction of extreme caution. A series of recent decisions by the F.C.C., as well as bills passed in Congress, have put them on notice that even the unintentional broadcast of something that could be considered indecent or obscene could result in stiffer fines or even the revocation of their licenses.

"If you're asking if there has been overcaution on the part of broadcasters today, I think the answer is yes," said Jeff Smulyan, the chairman and chief executive of Emmis Communications, which owns 16 television stations and 27 radio stations in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and other cities. "Everyone is going to err on the side of caution. There is too much at stake. People are just not sure what the standards really are."

The uncertainty over standards, Mr. Smulyan said, has convinced station executives to hire at least two paralegals whose responsibilities will include deleting potentially offensive material on live broadcasts before those words can be heard by the audience, using technology that delays the airing of those programs by an interval of several seconds.

Among those who will be subject to that legal backstop is the Chicago radio host known as "Mancow," who mixes celebrity interviews with racier fare. Michael J. Copps, an F.C.C. commissioner who has been one of the strongest critics of media companies, acknowledged that some broadcasters appeared to be overreacting. But, he said, "I applaud the effort at self policing."

He also disputed the notion that the commission's standards on indecency were too vague. "I think most of the things we're dealing with right now are pretty clear, from the standpoint of being indecent," he said. "There's enough stuff out there that shouldn't be on." Still, Mr. Copps said that the broadcasters themselves could resolve any ambiguities they perceive by drafting and adopting what he described as a "voluntary code of broadcaster conduct."

James P. Steyer, founder and chief executive of Common Sense Media, a nonpartisan organization that advocates better programming aimed at children and families, said that "a few extreme, silly examples" of media companies being perhaps too cautious were far preferable to what he considers the "completely unregulated environment" of the recent past.

Complaints about indecency on the airwaves are not uncommon in election years, although they often grow fainter once the first Tuesday in November goes by. This year, the exposure of Janet Jackson's right breast during a Super Bowl halftime show seen by tens of millions of viewers provided something of a gift to a Republican administration seeking to shore up its standing with conservatives, as well as with those who complain that media companies have grown large in recent years while facing little government scrutiny.

Two recent rulings by the F.C.C. have had a particularly chilling effect on broadcasters. Last month, the agency proposed levying nearly $500,000 in fines on six radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications for broadcasting a 20-minute snippet of Howard Stern's program dealing mostly with sexual talk. (Clear Channel has since stopped carrying Mr. Stern's program.)
<------------------------------------->

Stocks Close Below 10,000 for 1st Time Since December
Business News: Stock Prices

The stock market fell to new 2004 year lows as the prospect of higher interest rates, high oil prices, Iraq, and the presidential election all unnerved investors.

Sunday, May 09, 2004

Sasser boy wonder was helping mum.

The Supreme Court Asks: Who Will Guard the Guardians?


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/weekinreview/09word.html?ex=1399435200&en=0a3b8e18411c75e8&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

In arguments before the Supreme Court, the question of whether the courts must give the executive branch a free hand on how to treat detainees takes on a chilling tone.

Crisis of Confidence


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/opinion/08BROO.html?ex=1399348800&en=e8d90209f1253497&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

The cause is still just, but to keep it moving forward, we have to reboot.

Big Gap Found in Taxation of Wages and Investments


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/business/08tax.html?ex=1399348800&en=bca0fbf4f58fc7ec&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Americans are being taxed more than twice as heavily on earnings from work as on they are on investment income.

Has the Romance Gone? Was It the Drug?


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/health/psychology/04PSYC.html?ex=1399003200&en=46920dd959dd9ebb&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Experts are beginning to ask whether antidepressants impair not only sexual desire in some people, but also the ability to experience romance.

National Science Panel Warns of Far Too Few New Scientists


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/science/05RESE.html?ex=1399176000&en=75c9ca4543761b35&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Too few Americans are entering technical fields and international competition is heating up for bright foreigners who once filled the gap.

For seniors, Medicare's new card isn't a cinch


http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0507/p03s01-ussc.html

The rollout of discount cards for prescription drugs creates confusion.

What an Old Sears Catalog Could Teach eBay Today


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/business/yourmoney/09digi.html?ex=1399435200&en=91b473794feed6b4&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

If someone coined an eBay rule, it might be this: "Satisfaction most emphatically not guaranteed. All sales final."

Saturday, May 08, 2004

Sasser Worm Suspect Confesses to German Police


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5080508&src=rss/topNews§ion=news

HANOVER, Germany (Reuters) - German police have arrested an 18-year-old man suspected of creating the "Sasser" computer worm, believed to be one of the Internet's most costly outbreaks of sabotage.

The Value of Feedback on eBay for PowerSellers

On May 7th, 2004 -Richard @ Bizmart wrote to eBay PowerSellers Help saying:

Original Message: How can one enter negative feedback on a transaction that
warrants it, without being subject to an undeserved retributory posting?
It says 90 days is the end of the feedback 'cycle', so I waited until 3
minutes before the end of 90 days to post negative feedback on a
dishonest Seller. Lo and behold, 90 days and one hour later the listing
is still accessible, and they can probably still flame me in
retribution. How can one honestly enter negative feedback without being
subject to retribution? Does the 90 day expiration mean midnight PST? or
what? Without this being an option, what Seller in their right mind
would post negative feedback about a Buyer? Especially if they are a
PowerSeller? 99.x% of my transactions are excellent; but there is always
that 0.x% that causes the problem. I will leave N/FB but only if I don't
have to be concerned about that Yo-Yo saying negative things about me,
especially when they are not warranted.
<------------------------------------->

At 05:11 AM 05/08/2004, eBay PowerSellers Help wrote back saying:
Thank you for writing. I will be happy to help.

...

This reply was useful for new users and for general purposes; however it does not offer any solution to the problem, nor provide a good reason why feedback cannot, and does not end after a certain, definite time. Again, no reasonable PowerSeller will post negative feedback about a Buyer because of the time, effort, cost involved and the probability of retaliatory responses.

Of what use then is the mention of a 90 day time frame? An approximation? Bidding, Buying, Paying eBay fees, etc, are all not approximations...they are definite, precise, limited. Why not do the same thing with Feedback?

If a transaction ended more than 90 days ago, it may be possible to leave feedback through our "Leave feedback for a single transaction" feature in the Feedback Forum.

Again, stating that the time frame for close of feedback functions on an auction are not definite.

When a potential trading partner sees that you have a large number of positive comments mixed in with a negative comment or two, the positive comments you have received will always outweigh a negative comment.

Yes, but for PowerSellers, a negative feedback response is several orders of magnitude more damaging than for a Buyer...or novice Seller!

Another option is to use our SquareTrade service. SquareTrade offers online dispute resolution services to eBay members. SquareTrade helps you work together with the other party and with a trained mediator to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. For more detailed information about SquareTrade and to file a complaint, please go to this link:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/confidence/problems-dispute-resolution.html

Square Trade has proven to be helpful only if the other party is willing to be rational or abide by neutral arbitration, and it costs $10-$20 directly, plus about an hour of time to file a claim. Many sales are not worth the effort it requires to file such claims, nor do I suspect that SquareTrade has achieved a high order of satisfactory arbitrations, whereby the PowerSeller chooses to repeat the effort on a later case.

Please pass this up the chain of command to suggest valid reasons for making the feedback timeline definite.

Thanks,
Richard @ Bizmarts
<------------------------------------->

Friday, May 07, 2004

Brain Cramps

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why?
Answer: "I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever,"
-- Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss U.S.A. contest.

``````````````````````````````````

"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
-- Mariah Carey, singer
`````````````````````````````````````````

"Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life,"
-- Brooke Shields, during an interview to become Spokesperson for the Federal Anti-smoking Campaign.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````

"I've never had major knee surgery on any other part of my body,"
-- Winston Bennett, University of Kentucky Basketball Forward.
`````````````````````````````````````````````

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
-- Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington, D.C.
`````````````````````````````

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the President."
-- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````

"That lowdown scoundrel deserves to be kicked to death by a jackass, and I'm just the one to do it,"
-- A U.S. congressional candidate in Texas.
````````````````````````````

"Half this game is ninety percent mental."
-- Danny Ozark, manager of Philadelphia Phillies
``````````````````````````````````

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-- former U.S. Vice President Al Gore
```````````````````

"I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix."
-- former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle
``````````

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
-- former president of American Motors, Lee Iacocca
```````````

"The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
-- Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback &sports analyst.
````````````````````````````````````````````

"We don't necessarily discriminate. We simply exclude certain types of people."
-- Colonel Gerald Wellman, ROTC Instructor.
`````````````````````````````````

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
-- former U.S.. President Bill Clinton,
``````````````````

"We are ready for an unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
-- former U.S. Vice President Al Gore
``````````

"Traditionally, most of Australia's imports come from overseas."
-- Keppel Enderbery
```````````````

"Your food stamps will be stopped effective March 1992, because we received notice that you passed away. May God bless you. You may reapply if there is a change in your circumstances."
-- State Department of Social Services, Greenville, South Carolina
````````````````````````````````````````````

"If somebody has a bad heart, they can plug this jack in at night as they go to bed and it will monitor their heart throughout the night. And the next morning, when they wake up dead, there'll be a record."
-- Mark S. Fowler, former Federal Communications Commission Chairman
<------------------------------------->

The Oil Crunch
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: May 7, 2004

Before the start of the Iraq war his media empire did so much to promote, Rupert Murdoch explained the payoff: "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil." Crude oil prices in New York rose to almost $40 a barrel yesterday, a 13-year high.

Those who expected big economic benefits from the war were, of course, utterly wrong about how things would go in Iraq. But the disastrous occupation is only part of the reason that oil is getting more expensive; the other, which will last even if we somehow find a way out of the quagmire, is the intensifying competition for a limited world oil supply.

Thanks to the mess in Iraq — including a continuing campaign of sabotage against oil pipelines — oil exports have yet to recover to their prewar level, let alone supply the millions of extra barrels each day the optimists imagined. And the fallout from the war has spooked the markets, which now fear terrorist attacks on oil installations in Saudi Arabia, and are starting to worry about radicalization throughout the Middle East. (It has been interesting to watch people who lauded George Bush's leadership in the war on terror come to the belated realization that Mr. Bush has given Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted.)

Even if things had gone well, however, Iraq couldn't have given us cheap oil for more than a couple of years at most, because the United States and other advanced countries are now competing for oil with the surging economies of Asia.

Oil is a resource in finite supply; no major oil fields have been found since 1976, and experts suspect that there are no more to find. Some analysts argue that world production is already at or near its peak, although most say that technological progress, which allows the further exploitation of known sources like the Canadian tar sands, will allow output to rise for another decade or two. But the date of the physical peak in production isn't the really crucial question.

The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen? Maybe it already has.

I know, of course, that such predictions have been made before, during the energy crisis of the 1970's. But the end of that crisis has been widely misunderstood: prices went down not because the world found new sources of oil, but because it found ways to make do with less.

During the 1980's, oil consumption dropped around the world as the delayed effects of the energy crisis led to the use of more fuel-efficient cars, better insulation in homes and so on. Although economic growth led to a gradual recovery, as late as 1993 world oil consumption was only slightly higher than it had been in 1979. In the United States, oil consumption didn't regain its 1979 level until 1997.

Since then, however, world demand has grown rapidly: the daily world consumption of oil is 12 million barrels higher than it was a decade ago, roughly equal to the combined production of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It turns out that America's love affair with gas guzzlers, shortsighted as it is, is not the main culprit: the big increases in demand have come from booming developing countries. China, in particular, still consumes only 8 percent of the world's oil — but it accounted for 37 percent of the growth in world oil consumption over the last four years.

The collision between rapidly growing world demand and a limited world supply is the reason why the oil market is so vulnerable to jitters. Maybe we'll get through this bad patch, and oil will fall back toward $30 a barrel. But if that happens, it will be only a temporary respite.

In a way it's ironic. Lately we've been hearing a lot about competition from Chinese manufacturing and Indian call centers. But a different kind of competition — the scramble for oil and other resources — poses a much bigger threat to our prosperity.

So what should we be doing? Here's a hint: We can neither drill nor conquer our way out of the problem. Whatever we do, oil prices are going up. What we have to do is adapt.

More Incredible News!

U.S. Rules Morning-After Pill Can't Be Sold Over the Counter
By GARDINER HARRIS
NY Times
Published: May 7, 2004

Federal drug regulators yesterday rejected a drug maker's application to sell a morning-after pill over the counter because of concerns about whether young girls would be able to use it safely.

The Food and Drug Administration told the pill's maker, Barr Pharmaceuticals, that before the drug could be sold without a prescription the company must either find a way to prevent young teenagers from getting it from store shelves or prove, in a new study, that young girls can understand how to use it without the help of a doctor.

Company executives expressed confidence that they could clear those hurdles, although it was unclear how long that would take. The decision was a surprise because in December, a panel of independent experts assembled by the Food and Drug Administration voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the drug be sold over the counter. The majority concluded that the drug was not only effective but that women could be trusted to use it correctly without a doctor. The Food and Drug Administration normally follows the recommendation of its advisory panels.

The drug, called Plan B, is presently available only by prescription. But Barr's application to sell the medicine without a prescription has been embroiled in a controversy that has now spilled into the presidential campaign. Advocates say that making the pill more broadly available will prevent unwanted pregnancies while opponents say it will encourage promiscuity and risky sex.

"By overruling a recommendation by an independent F.D.A. review board, the White House is putting its own political interests ahead of sound medical policies that have broad support," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign. "This White House is more interested in appealing to its electoral base than it is in protecting women's health." Plan B consists of two high-dose birth control pills that either interfere with ovulation or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. It can be taken up 72 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse and may prevent up to 89 percent of unplanned pregnancies.

James Trussell, director of the office of population research at Princeton University and a member of the advisory board, said that the agency never raised the issue of label comprehension among young teenagers when it approved other products to be sold over the counter. "The White House has now taken over the F.D.A.," Mr. Trussell said.

In some European countries, drugs are offered by prescription, over the counter and behind the counter. For the latter, patients must discuss the drug's purchase with a pharmacist but need not get a doctor's prescription. In the United States, there is no widespread "behind the counter" system of drug delivery. And it is not clear that federal drug regulators have the authority to construct or approve one.

Time for Bush to See The Realities of Iraq
By George F. Will
Washington Post
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page A25

Oh? Who?

Appearing Friday in the Rose Garden with Canada's prime minister, President Bush was answering a reporter's question about Canada's role in Iraq when suddenly he swerved into this extraneous thought:

"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern."

What does such careless talk say about the mind of this administration? Note that the clearly implied antecedent of the pronoun "ours" is "Americans." So the president seemed to be saying that white is, and brown is not, the color of Americans' skin. He does not mean that. But that is the sort of swamp one wanders into when trying to deflect doubts about policy by caricaturing and discrediting the doubters.

Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, later said the president meant only that "there are some in the world that think that some people can't be free" or "can't live in freedom." The president meant that "some Middle Eastern countries -- that the people in those Middle Eastern countries cannot be free."

Perhaps that, which is problematic enough, is what the president meant. But what he suggested was: Some persons -- perhaps many persons; no names being named, the smear remained tantalizingly vague -- doubt his nation-building project because they are racists.

That is one way to respond to questions about the wisdom of thinking America can transform the entire Middle East by constructing a liberal democracy in Iraq. But if any Americans want to be governed by politicians who short-circuit complex discussions by recklessly imputing racism to those who differ with them, such Americans do not usually turn to the Republican choice in our two-party system.

This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides about how "all people yearn to live in freedom" (McClellan). And about how it is "cultural condescension" to doubt that some cultures have the requisite aptitudes for democracy (Bush). And about how it is a "myth" that "our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture" because "ours are not Western values; they are the universal values of the human spirit" (Tony Blair).

Speaking of culture, as neoconservative nation-builders would be well-advised to avoid doing, Pat Moynihan said: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." Here we reach the real issue about Iraq, as distinct from unpleasant musings about who believes what about skin color.

The issue is the second half of Moynihan's formulation -- our ability to wield political power to produce the requisite cultural change in a place such as Iraq. Time was, this question would have separated conservatives from liberals. Nowadays it separates conservatives from neoconservatives.

Condoleezza Rice, a political scientist, believes there is scholarly evidence that democratic institutions do not merely spring from a hospitable culture, but that they also can help create such a culture. She is correct; they can. They did so in the young American republic. But it would be reassuring to see more evidence that the administration is being empirical, believing that this can happen in some places, as opposed to ideological, believing that it must happen everywhere it is tried.

Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.

In "On Liberty" (1859), John Stuart Mill said, "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say" that the doctrine of limited, democratic government "is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties." One hundred forty-five years later it obviously is necessary to say that.

Ron Chernow's magnificent new biography of Alexander Hamilton begins with these of his subject's words: "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." That is the core of conservatism.

Traditional conservatism. Nothing "neo" about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix
<------------------------------------->

U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse
Complete text of Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th
Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba

Security Experts Warn of Nastier Sasser Worm
Wed May 5, 2004 05:54 PM ET
By Bernhard Warner and Spencer Swartz
LONDON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -

Computer security experts warned on Wednesday that the Sasser worm could merge with earlier virus-like programs to wreak more havoc on the Internet, just as companies and PC users clean up from the last attack and authorities hunt for those responsible.

Since appearing on the weekend, the fast-moving Sasser computer worm has hit PC users around the world running the ubiquitous Microsoft Windows 2000, NT and XP operating systems, but is expected to slow down as computer users download anti-virus patches.

But Sasser could mutate by combining with the two-month-old Netsky worm, making it a launching pad for further Web attacks that would put it on par with Blaster, the destructive worm that appeared last year and used infected computers to attack Microsoft Corp.'s Web site.

For now, the more benign Sasser worm does its harm by duplicating itself and slowing down Internet connections.

"My expectation is that Netsky and Sasser variants will merge and become what we call one 'abundant threat' that attacks through e-mail and software vulnerabilities," said Jimmy Kuo, a research fellow at Network Associates Inc.'s McAfee anti-virus unit.

The fast-moving Sasser worm, which has hit home users, corporations, and government agencies throughout Europe, North America and Asia, does not appear to damage hardware such as disk drives but it may damage software applications on PCs, analysts said.

Estimates on how many users have been hit globally by the virus vary from 150,000 to 1 million, although analysts say the final tally could be in the millions by the time the four Sasser variants work their way through the Internet.

COST STILL UNKNOWN

Analysts were also unsure what economic damage Sasser had caused so far but said the costs associated with things such as installing new software on PCs and labor costs are likely to make it an expensive clean-up process.

Infected computers - if they are not cleaned up with a security patch and protected by firewalls and anti-virus software - could be used by virus writers to launch future attacks, experts said.

Microsoft said on Wednesday it was working with the Northwest Cybercrime Task Force, a joint effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Secret Service, to hunt down those responsible for the latest worm outbreak. Microsoft created a page (http://www.microsoft.com/sasser) on its corporate Web site to deal with the Sasser threat and also offered a clean-up tool to rid infected computers of the worm, said Stephen Toulouse, security program manager for the company's Security Response Center.

The world's largest software maker declined to say whether it planned to offer a bounty, such as the $250,000 reward it offered for the Blaster worm creator.

One theory about the motives behind Sasser is that the creator is part of a Russian group calling itself the "Skynet anti-virus group," the same group behind the recurring Netsky e-mail virus outbreak.

A message found deep in the coding of a recent Netsky variant claimed responsibility for Sasser, analysts said.

Police say criminal groups, many of whom are believed to operate from Eastern Europe, have hatched a string of computer viruses and worms capable of taking over PCs.

The origin of Internet threats is notoriously difficult to track, but authorities managed to find teenagers responsible for creating a copycat version of the Blaster worm. Minnesota teen Jeffrey Lee Parson was arrested in August, followed by the arrest of an unidentified juvenile in Seattle in September.

Red Cross Says Repeatedly Warned U.S. on Iraq Jail
Thu May 6, 2004 04:02 PM ET
By Richard Waddington
GENEVA (Reuters) -

The International Committee of the Red Cross said Thursday it had repeatedly urged the United States to take "corrective action" at a Baghdad jail at the center of a scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The Geneva-based humanitarian agency, mandated under international treaties to visit detainees, has had regular access to Abu Ghraib prison since U.S.-led forces began using it last year, said chief spokeswoman Antonella Notari.

"The ICRC, aware of the situation, and based on its findings, has repeatedly asked the U.S. authorities to take corrective action," she told Reuters.

Notari declined to give details of what the ICRC had seen during the visits, which take place every five to six weeks, or about its reports to the U.S. authorities.

Asked about the ICRC alerts, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "When they raise concerns, we take those concerns seriously... When it comes to the Red Cross, there are actions that have been taken."

"And when allegations of prisoner abuse came to light more recently, the military in the region immediately began taking steps to ... see just who was responsible for these actions and take steps to punish those individuals."
The ICRC, which has been operating since the late 19th century, keeps a public silence about what it hears from detainees as the price for gaining access to jails in trouble spots around the world from Chechnya to West Africa.

Pictures of grinning U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqis at Abu Ghraib -- the largest prison in the country and notorious for torture under Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- have sparked an international outcry.

President Bush told Jordan's King Abdullah he was sorry for the humiliation suffered by Iraqi prisoners and their families. "I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," Bush said at the White House after a meeting with the Jordanian monarch.

"I assured him that Americans like me didn't appreciate what we saw," he added.

WANTON CRIMINAL ABUSES

Abu Ghraib jail was also been the focus of a separate earlier probe by a U.S. general. Maj.-Gen. Antonio Taguba's report, covering October to December last year and completed on March 3, cited incidents of "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."

The ICRC's Notari dismissed some U.S. media reports suggesting that the Red Cross had not had access to a special wing in the jail where the abuse took place. "To the best of our knowledge we have had access to all sectors," she said. And she rejected a proposal from the new head of the jail, Maj.-Gen. Geoffrey Miller, that the ICRC set up a permanent presence there, saying: "We are not going to be part of their organization."

The ICRC has visited thousands of prisoners under the control of U.S. and British forces, which are also being investigated after a London newspaper published pictures of a soldier apparently urinating on an Iraqi detainee.

But Notari declined to comment on what officials had seen in British-run jails.

Under the Geneva Conventions on prisoners and the treatment of civilians in wartime, the ICRC must be allowed to interview detainees in private and on a regular basis.

On these terms, it has carried out two visits to Saddam, in U.S. custody since his capture shortly before Christmas.

"It is important that people understand our role, which is to be present and to have a dialogue with the authorities," Notari said.

But on a few occasions the Red Cross has broken its vow of silence, because either the authority concerned has issued a partial account of the ICRC's findings or has simply failed to take any action after a long period.

The ICRC recently expressed mounting frustration over the situation of Afghan and other detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, announcing that its concerns about conditions and treatment were not being addressed.
<------------------------------------->

Excerpt from: "The Tragic Fallacy", The Modern Temper, Joseph Wood Krutch. 1957

"Comedy laughs the minor mishaps of its characters away; drama solves all the difficulties which it allows to arise; and melodrama, separating good from evil by simple lines, distributes its rewards and punishments in accordance with the principles of a naive justice which satisfies the simple souls of its audience, which are neither philosophical enough to question its primitive ethics nor critical enough to object to the way in which its neat events violate the laws of probability."

"A sophisticated society...like ours...has neither fairy tales to assure it that all is always right in the end nor tragedies to make it believe that it rises superior in soul to the outward calamities which befall it."

"True tragedy capable of performing its function and of purging the soul by reconciling man to his woes can exist only by virtue of a certain pathetic fallacy far more inclusive than that to which the name is commonly given."

"Like the belief in love and like most of the other mighty illusions by means of which human life has been given a value, the Tragic Fallacy depends ultimately upon the assumption which man so readily makes that something outside his own being, some "spirit not himself" - be it God, Nature, or that still vaguer thing called a Moral Order- joins him in the emphasis which he places upon this or that and confirms him in his feeling that his passions and his opinions are important. When his instinctive faith in that correspondence between the outer and the inner word fades, his grasp upon the faith that sustained him fades also, and Love or Tragedy or what not ceases to be the reality which it was because he is never strong enough in his own insignificant self to stand alone in a universe which snubs him with its indifference."

"Modern psychology has discovered (or at least strongly emphasized) the fact that under certain conditions desire produces belief, and having discovered also that the more primitive a given mentality the more completely are its opinions determined by its wishes, modern psychology has concluded that the best mind is that which most resists the tendency to believe a thing simply because it would be pleasant or advantageous to do so."

Excerpt from: "The Tragic Fallacy", The Modern Temper, Joseph Wood Krutch. 1957

"Comedy laughs the minor mishaps of its characters away; drama solves all the difficulties which it allows to arise; and melodrama, separating good from evil by simple lines, distributes its rewards and punishments in accordance with the principles of a naive justice which satisfies the simple souls of its audience, which are neither philosophical enough to question its primitive ethics nor critical enough to object to the way in which its neat events violate the laws of probability."

"A sophisticated society...like ours...has neither fairy tales to assure it that all is always right in the end nor tragedies to make it believe that it rises superior in soul to the outward calamities which befall it."

"True tragedy capable of performing its function and of purging the soul by reconciling man to his woes can exist only by virtue of a certain pathetic fallacy far more inclusive than that to which the name is commonly given."

"Like the belief in love and like most of the other mighty illusions by means of which human life has been given a value, the Tragic Fallacy depends ultimately upon the assumption which man so readily makes that something outside his own being, some "spirit not himself" - be it God, Nature, or that still vaguer thing called a Moral Order- joins him in the emphasis which he places upon this or that and confirms him in his feeling that his passions and his opinions are important. When his instinctive faith in that correspondence between the outer and the inner word fades, his grasp upon the faith that sustained him fades also, and Love or Tragedy or what not ceases to be the reality which it was because he is never strong enough in his own insignificant self to stand alone in a universe which snubs him with its indifference."

"Modern psychology has discovered (or at least strongly emphasized) the fact that under certain conditions desire produces belief, and having discovered also that the more primitive a given mentality the more completely are its opinions determined by its wishes, modern psychology has concluded that the best mind is that which most resists the tendency to believe a thing simply because it would be pleasant or advantageous to do so."

Excerpt from: "The Tragic Fallacy", The Modern Temper, Joseph Wood Krutch. 1957

"Comedy laughs the minor mishaps of its characters away; drama solves all the difficulties which it allows to arise; and melodrama, separating good from evil by simple lines, distributes its rewards and punishments in accordance with the principles of a naive justice which satisfies the simple souls of its audience, which are neither philosophical enough to question its primitive ethics nor critical enough to object to the way in which its neat events violate the laws of probability."

"A sophisticated society...like ours...has neither fairy tales to assure it that all is always right in the end nor tragedies to make it believe that it rises superior in soul to the outward calamities which befall it."

"True tragedy capable of performing its function and of purging the soul by reconciling man to his woes can exist only by virtue of a certain pathetic fallacy far more inclusive than that to which the name is commonly given."

"Like the belief in love and like most of the other mighty illusions by means of which human life has been given a value, the Tragic Fallacy depends ultimately upon the assumption which man so readily makes that something outside his own being, some "spirit not himself" - be it God, Nature, or that still vaguer thing called a Moral Order- joins him in the emphasis which he places upon this or that and confirms him in his feeling that his passions and his opinions are important. When his instinctive faith in that correspondence between the outer and the inner word fades, his grasp upon the faith that sustained him fades also, and Love or Tragedy or what not ceases to be the reality which it was because he is never strong enough in his own insignificant self to stand alone in a universe which snubs him with its indifference."

"Modern psychology has discovered (or at least strongly emphasized) the fact that under certain conditions desire produces belief, and having discovered also that the more primitive a given mentality the more completely are its opinions determined by its wishes, modern psychology has concluded that the best mind is that which most resists the tendency to believe a thing simply because it would be pleasant or advantageous to do so."

Thursday, May 06, 2004

"Every production of an artist should be the expression of an adventure of his soul."
W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965)

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. A Galileo could no more be elected President of the United States than he could be elected Pope of Rome. Both posts are reserved for men favored by God with an extraordinary genius for swathing the bitter facts of life in bandages of soft illusion."
H.L.Mencken (1880-1956)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. "
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

How To Discipline Private Contractors
What consequences do the companies involved in Abu Ghraib face?
By Phillip Carter for Slate Online
Posted Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at 3:10 PM PT

Criminal charges have been filed against the U.S. military personnel accused of torturing prisoners at Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison. Reports have also alleged that government contractors coached these soldiers on how to abuse the Iraqis, in apparent violation of international and domestic law. These contractors are not subject to military justice, and so far, the Justice Department has taken no steps to prosecute them. When private military contractors break the law, what can be done to discipline them?

Quite a bit, as it turns out. Misbehaving firms can have their government contracts terminated; they can be barred from competing for future contracts; and they may also be subject to civil and criminal liability. However, nearly all of these penalties are at the discretion of the agency that issued the original contract. Procurement officials, political leaders, prosecutors, and judges get to decide whether to sanction contractors for allegedly breaking the law in Iraq.

Google Gmail

Read My Mail, Please
The silly privacy fears about Google's e-mail service.
By Paul Boutin
Updated Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 2:26 PM PT

Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were the heroes of the Net from the moment they launched their better-than-the-rest search engine in 1998, right up until two weeks ago. On April 1, they announced plans for Gmail, a Googleized alternative to the free Web-based e-mail services offered by Hotmail, Yahoo!, and a slew of smaller companies. Depending on your take, Gmail is either too good to be true, or it's the height of corporate arrogance, especially coming from a company whose house motto is "Don't Be Evil."

At first, Web hipsters dismissed Gmail as an April Fool's hoax. But Google's offer is real. Gmail will provide each user an entire gigabyte of free e-mail storage. That's about 250 times the 4-megabyte limit of a basic Yahoo! Mail account and 10 times Hotmail's 100-megabyte "super-user" package, which costs $60 a year. In return for all that inbox space, Google wants just one favor: to be allowed to scan the content of your incoming messages and serve content-targeted ads alongside them.

If you haven't tried it, it sounds creepy. But after a week of testing the prerelease version of Gmail, I'm on the other side of the fence. Gmail isn't an invasion of privacy, and its ads are preferable to the giant blinking banners for diets and dating services that are splashed across my other Web mail accounts.

Judging by the reaction of lots of people, Google might as well have asked for everyone's ATM passwords. California state Sen. Liz Figueroa told Reuters she was drafting legislation that, if passed, would prohibit the scanning of e-mail in order to serve ads. In England, watchdog group Privacy International filed a complaint that Gmail would violate the European Union's privacy laws. Silicon Valley's paper of record, the San Jose Mercury News, fretted on its editorial page, "If Google ogles your mail, can Ashcroft be far behind?" The controversy bubbled all the way up to late night, where Conan O'Brien joked about Google inserting ads for 1984.

The outcry isn't new, only the scale of it is. Ten years ago, some Web pioneers had a similarly squeamish reaction when the first search engines began crawling their sites and including them in searchable databases, along with ads matched to users' queries. As a manager for HotBot, one of the first ad-carrying search engines in the mid-1990s, I heard from plenty of Webmasters who demanded that their pages be removed from the system. Today, their objections seem quaint.

Ten years from now, we'll probably look back at the Gmail dust-up with similar befuddlement. Even now, most Google-bashers have one thing in common: They haven't actually laid eyes on Gmail. Critics have falsely claimed that Google staff, rather than automated software, will read your e-mail, that ads will be inserted into e-mail message text, rather than alongside it in your browser window, and that Google will collect a log of which ads are served to your account. Most important, Gmail critics have ignored the fact that automated software already scans the contents of your incoming e-mail messages. Antispam and antivirus software at most ISPs and corporate firewalls comb through the personal contents of your e-mail all the time. Gmail is just a little more upfront about it.

Gmail's ads are text-only, in the same spartan format used for the ads next to Google's search engine results. In my tests, a mailing-list discussion about in-ear headphones was flanked by terse ads for headphones and audio stores. Press releases about developments in the Wi-Fi industry were accompanied not by ads, but by links to "related pages" from Google's search engine. Social chit-chat, such as "let's catch up" or "what are you doing Friday," got no ads or links at all. I tried forcing Gmail's hand with keywords like "Claritin" and "suicide," but it ignored them.

Best of all, my outgoing messages are free of the appended shills tacked on by other services, such as "Yahoo! Tax Center—File online by April 15" or "FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar—get it now!" If you've ever found one of those at the bottom of an e-mail about a death in the family, Gmail's ad strategy sounds appealing, not invasive.

But Gmail's user-friendliness won't quiet critics who fear that Google has implemented a tool akin to Carnivore, probably far more efficiently than the FBI did. I called Google co-founder Sergey Brin about this and got a half-encouraging response. Gmail's ad server, he says, doesn't collect any info on which ads it serves to which specific users, nor does it record users' browser cookies or IP addresses. There's a twofold benefit to that. Advertisers can't get reports on who saw what, Brin says, and Google won't have personal data about your ad viewing to hand over to the Man, should a subpoena or warrant be served.

The real threat of using Web mail—from Google or from anyone else—is having your mail itself subpoenaed or just plain leaked. Web mail accounts have been cracked despite the best efforts of their administrators. CNET cyber-rights advocate Declan McCullagh listed past security breaches at Yahoo! and Hotmail in a column this week, then slammed critics of Gmail's ad plan on his Politech mailing list. "I'm starting to suspect that these pro-regulatory privacy folks who are so upset about Google are really just anti-advertising," he wrote, because they haven't raised similar cries over antispam software.

The most obvious way for Google to mollify Gmail critics would be to allow users a chance to opt out of the targeted ads, and hope that most won't bother. Brin insists the company has no plans to do that, contrary to recent news reports, but he says it hasn't been ruled out, either. In return for turning off the company's ad targeting system, Google could offer, say, only 10 megabytes of disk space to those who opt out. It would still be a better deal than Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail, and skittish customers might reconsider the ads as they near their inbox quotas. Still, critics would demand that the ad-targeting system be opt-in instead of opt-out, even though they make no similar demand for spam-filtering software. What's more, the opt-out solution wouldn't assuage non-Gmail users who fear their missives to opted-in Gmailers will be handed over to advertisers, or worse, John Ashcroft.

Luckily, there's a better option. Ten years ago, the privacy objections of people who didn't want their Web sites crawled by search engines were put to rest with a simple fix: Webmasters could place a file named robots.txt on their sites as a "No Trespassing" marker, a sign that they didn't want their site to be searched. Google needs to offer a robots.txt for e-mail, some kind of tag that any Web user can include in a message to indicate that it shouldn't be scanned by Gmail software. Given that antispam and antivirus software will scan the e-mail anyway, this solution would be somewhat phony. But if McCullagh is right that Gmail-bashers are just opposed to helping advertisers, it will do the trick.

The Google guys need to implement this before the backlash gets out of hand. Otherwise, they may be forced to abandon the best Web mail system yet because of a few well-placed people who've never even tried it. That really would be evil.

Paul Boutin is a Silicon Valley writer who spent 15 years as a software engineer and manager.
<------------------------------------->

Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified
by Bernard Lewis
Atlantic Monthly: Sept. 1990

The online version of this article appears in two parts. Click here to go to part one, click here to go to part two.

Caution for Broadband Users

We've written an article on one of the hazards of broadband exposed by the Sasser worm.

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

Sasser Is a New Kind of Worm...If you use Windows you better learn how it propagates !!

Sasser worm begins to spread
Last modified: May 1, 2004, 10:25 AM PDT
By Robert Lemos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Update
A worm, dubbed Sasser by antivirus firms, was spreading slowly throughout the Internet on Saturday, taking advantage of a vulnerability in unpatched Windows systems to infect new hosts.

The Sasser worm began spreading Friday night and seems to be moving at a pace far slower than previous worms such as MSBlast and Code Red, said Alfred Huger, senior director of security firm Symantec's response team.

"It is a slow burn," he said. "It is picking up speed, but right now we aren't seeing too much activity." Symantec initially rated the Sasser worm as a two on its five-point scale of threats. A five is the highest danger rating on the scale. Rival antivirus firm Network Associates rated the threat a medium danger, and the Internet Storm Center, which monitors network threats, raised its general Internet danger level to yellow, essentially a medium rating as well.

"Due to the release of this worm, we moved to infocon yellow for the next 24 hrs," the Internet Storm Center site said. "The exact impact is not clear at this point." Security experts did not know how far the worm had spread, but many companies reported some infections, said Vincent Gullotto, vice president of Network Associates' antivirus emergency response team.

"We have had 25 to 50 reports from companies that have had up to a few hundred machines infected," he said. "One company wanted to patch this weekend, but the worm infected their network first."

The creation of the worm didn't surprise the Internet's security community. Security experts widely predicted that a worm would soon start spreading using that particular flaw by exploiting a recent vulnerability in a component of Microsoft Windows known as the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service, or LSASS.

The Sasser worm spreads from infected computer to vulnerable computer with no user intervention required. The worm scans for vulnerable systems, creates a remote connection to the system, installs a file transfer protocol (FTP) server and then downloads itself to the new host.

The worm opens up the initial connection on a specific application data channel, or port, numbered 9996. After the worm infects the new host, the FTP server listens on port 5554 for new files.

The worm uses multiple processes to scan different ranges of Internet addresses. The scans attempt to detect the vulnerable LSASS component on port 445. Microsoft has analyzed the worm and believes it also spreads through port 139. Both are data channels used by the Windows file sharing protocol and, in many cases, are blocked by Internet service providers.

A team of Microsoft engineers worked through the night to analyze the worm, said Stephen Toulouse, security program manager for the software giant.

"We are still studying the worm, but we do know customers that install the update are protected from Sasser," Toulouse said. The worm will cause the LSASS component of Windows to crash, according to analyses. Infected systems will then perform a 60-second countdown before restarting. Microsoft has created a Web page telling customers how to manually clean up the worm.

Antivirus firms also continue to analyze the worm.
<------------------------------------->

If he needs help with coming up with one...

Note: During Mr. Bush's latest press conference/speech, he said he could not remember any mistakes he had made while in Office. The Center for American Progress has compiled a list of "100 Mistakes" which can probably make his task a bit easier.

Number One on the List is the Most Damaging: "1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war."

Above all others, this mistake should force him from the Presidency and back to his "beloved Crawford ranch" in January 2005

<------------------------------------->

Monday, May 03, 2004

Wolfie's Fuzzy Math
By MAUREEN DOWD
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: May 2, 2004

WASHINGTON
This administration is the opposite of "The Sixth Sense." They don't see any dead people.

Beyond the president's glaring absence at military funerals; beyond the Pentagon's self-serving ban on photographing the returning flag-draped coffins at Dover; beyond playing down the thousands of wounded and maimed American troops and the thousands of hurt and dead Iraqi civilians, now comes the cruel arithmetic of Paul Wolfowitz.

Asked during a Congressional budget hearing on Thursday how many American troops had been killed in Iraq, Mr. Wolfowitz missed by more than 30 percent. "It's approximately 500, of which — I can get the exact numbers — approximately 350 are combat deaths," he said.

As of Thursday, there were 722 deaths, 521 in combat. The No. 2 man at the Pentagon was -apparently- oblivious in the bloodiest month of the war, with the number of Americans killed in April overtaking those killed in the six-week siege of Baghdad last year.

This is, of course, an administration that refuses to quantify or acknowledge the cost of its chuckleheaded empire policies, in bodies, money, credibility in the Arab world, reputation among our allies or the reinvigoration of militant Muslims around the globe. Duped themselves, they duped Americans into thinking it would be easy, paid for with Iraqi oil. But Donald Rumsfeld's vision of showing off a slim, agile military was always at odds with the neocons' vision of infusing enough security into Iraq to turn it into an instant democratic paradise.

But it's unhealthy to censor the ugly realities of war. The real danger is when the architects of war refuse to rethink bad assumptions, wrapping themselves in the blindly ideological nobility of their mission. Hiding the faces of the war dead makes the motivation seem like saving face in an election year.
<------------------------------------->

Sunday, May 02, 2004

For Kerry, war dwarfs politics
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/02/2004
Cynthia Tucker

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
-- John Kerry, veteran, 1971

John Kerry's campaign has suffered from a curious redefinition of patriotism and heroism -- a revisionism that glorifies armchair warriors while denigrating combat veterans. His combat medals haven't quieted the Bush campaign machine, which sends its minions out to denounce Kerry as unpatriotic and anti-military.

It is an odd thing, but it did not start here. Two years ago, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) defeated Max Cleland -- a Vietnam veteran whose service left him a triple amputee -- partly by challenging his patriotism. Chambliss doesn't want to own up to that now, but many remember his attack ads that featured photos of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and questioned Cleland's "courage." (Chambliss, by the way, avoided service in Vietnam because of what he says was a bad knee.)

This was not a smear reserved for Democrats. In the 2000 GOP presidential primary, the Bush machine did not hesitate before turning John McCain's record as a prisoner of war against him. Recognizing in McCain a military résumé with which they could not compete, Bush strategists started a whisper campaign, insisting that McCain's years in the custody of the North Vietnamese had left him "mentally unstable" and unfit for the presidency.

So it comes as no great surprise that the latest Bush tactic is to denounce Kerry for his activism against the Vietnam War. In a display of gall that can only be described as astounding, campaign strategist Karen Hughes, interviewed recently on CNN, insisted that reporters ought to prod more deeply into Kerry's activities during the Vietnam War.

Indeed, they should (as they should further explore the activities of President Bush during that same war). What they will find in Kerry's past is a young man who had the courage to say what so many were thinking and some, such as former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, only belatedly admitted -- the war in Vietnam was folly, unwinnable, a quagmire.

Kerry was, as he now acknowledges, angry about the official lies, the ludicrous military strategies, the lives lost. His rhetoric, as he concedes, was over the top. But his crusade to end the war -- based on his observations as a naval officer who had come under fire after volunteering for hazardous duty -- was the very definition of patriotism.

That honorable definition may be returning to vogue as the war in Iraq grows increasingly unpopular. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, nearly half the country now questions the wisdom of the war. And nearly half -- 46 percent -- believe U.S. troops should come home as soon as possible.

Kerry doesn't agree. Like Bush, he believes the United States must stay the course. Both men have suggested more troops may be sent to Iraq to quell the insurrection and create the stability needed to allow the Iraqis to elect a government. They may be right in their refusal to leave.

But, in public at least, Bush seems almost obscenely serene about his decision to send young Americans to die by the hundreds in Iraq. Never mind that he avoided combat in the relative safety of a National Guard "champagne unit" that sheltered other sons of the wealthy and well-connected.

His vice-president, Dick Cheney, is similarly self-righteous, though he had "other priorities" during the Vietnam era. Perhaps it is mere coincidence that his wife, Lynne Cheney, gave birth to their first child exactly nine months and two days after the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting childless married men.

Kerry, by contrast, has seen the waste of war up close. After the combat death of his close friend, Dick Pershing, in 1968, he wrote a letter to the girlfriend who would become his first wife, Judy: "If I do nothing else in my life I will never stop trying to bring to people the conviction of how wasteful and asinine is a human expenditure of this kind."

He knows what it means to send other people's children off to die.
<------------------------------------->

Saturday, May 01, 2004

Tax All Income? or only Wage Income?

Do Fat Cats Pay Less?
By Robert S. McIntyre
Issue Date: 05.05.04
American Prospect Online

When then-presidential candidate John Edwards complained that "something is deeply wrong when a billionaire has a lower tax rate than his secretary," he was talking about George W. Bush's cut in the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to only 15 percent. But it got me thinking: Even with Bush's huge new loophole, do we really tax total personal investment income much more lightly than wages? This April, I spent a few weeks working out the arithmetic.

The short answer is that when Edwards charged that workers pay "at more than twice the rate" of wealthy investors, he understated his case. In fact, these days the average tax rate people pay on earnings is a lot more than double the rate on investment income.

If the income tax treated earned and unearned income by the same rules, its graduated rates would naturally hit unearned income the hardest. But besides all the various tax shelters for capital gains, dividends, municipal bonds, real estate, and so forth, there's the fact that a major portion of investment income is never reported. Together, legal loopholes and cheating cut the average tax rate on unearned income by more than half, down to only 9.6 percent.

Meanwhile, earned income is almost entirely reported on tax returns and, on top of that, pays two taxes. First, there's the income tax, which averages 10.7 percent, and second, there's the payroll tax, which averages 12.7 percent. So the total tax on earnings is 23.4 percent -- two and a half times the rate on investment income.

Looked at another way, earnings make up 71 percent of total personal income, but taxes on earnings account for 88 percent of total income and employment taxes. In contrast, investment income is 22 percent of total personal income, but it accounts for only 11 percent of personal taxes.

President Bush deserves some of the blame for this situation. His new tax breaks for capital gains and dividends, along with his cuts in income-tax rates generally, have lowered personal taxes on unearned income by more than a fifth. His tax cuts for earned income, however, are less than a tenth. On top of that disparity, Bush's tolerance for tax shelters and cheating has encouraged even more upper-income tax avoidance and evasion on investment income.

But things have been moving in a Bushian direction for decades. Before Ronald Reagan took office, the top income-tax rate on most unearned income was 70 percent, compared with a 50-percent top rate on earnings. The capital-gains-tax rate, now 15 percent, was 35 percent. And payroll taxes were almost a quarter lower than they are today. Back then, our lawmakers seemed to understand that working is harder than clipping coupons.

Of course, for radical right-wingers, even our current low taxes on investment earnings remain far too high. Their affection for a "flat tax" is not just its single rate but, even more important, its full exemption for investment income. They hope that if there's a second Bush term, they may get their way.

Those who think otherwise can find some reassurance in John Kerry's call for restoring the pre-Bush top income-tax rates and curbing Bush's capital-gains and dividends tax breaks. (The latter is a nice reversal, seeing as Kerry had previously called for a dividend tax cut even before Bush proposed it.)

But Kerry also should take a hard look at getting more unearned income reported on tax returns. Right now, for instance, small-time investors see all their capital gains reported to the Internal Revenue Service by their mutual funds. In contrast, big-time investors can pretty much make up their own numbers, and many of them do -- which is why total reported capital gains are estimated to be about a quarter below what legally ought to be declared. Stockbrokers have all the information that the IRS needs to enforce the law; they're just not required to report it.

Then there's the big enchilada: Why do we exempt investment income from Social Security and Medicare taxes? Those who fear that an additional 15-percent tax on investors' incomes would be too big a burden need to explain why they don't feel that way when it comes to workers

Charles P. Pierce: April 2004:
"It is preposterous -- even in politics -- to pretend that there is a single "Christian" view on, say, taxation, when there isn't even a single "Christian" view on Jesus Christ, let alone to whom he entrusted his message."

Four vs Twenty Four

Posted on Thu, Apr. 29, 2004

Treasury devoting more resources to Cuba than terror suspects

BY NANCY SAN MARTIN

Knight Ridder Newspapers

MIAMI - (KRT) - A Treasury Department report acknowledging that it has only four employees chasing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's money and nearly two dozen chasing Cuba embargo violators brought withering criticism on the federal agency Thursday.

"The magnitude of the discrepancy is just stunning,'' said Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., a member of the bipartisan Cuba Working Group, which favors lifting U.S. restrictions on travel to the island. "We're chasing old ladies on bicycle trips in Cuba when we should be concentrating on using a significant tool against shadowy terrorist organizations,'' he added.

Derivatives: The Next Shoe?

Buffett criticizes hedge funds at Omaha meeting
Sat May 1, 2004 06:27 PM ET
By Philip Klein

OMAHA, Neb., May 1 (Reuters) - Warren Buffett on Saturday criticized hedge funds and warned of the dangers of derivatives and looming inflation in front of nearly 20,000 shareholders who trekked to Omaha, Nebraska for the annual meeting of his Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Buffett called hedge funds a "fad" that was more about Wall Street marketing than sound investing. "People that are now investing in hedge funds in aggregate are going to be disappointed," Buffett, who is known as the "Oracle of Omaha", said. The fees that hedge fund managers charge were unfair, he said.

In his remarks to shareholders, he used the example of the $6 billion accounting scandal at mortgage financier Freddie Mac to demonstrate the risks of derivatives. Despite having intelligent board members, being chartered by the U.S. Congress, and being followed by dozens of Wall Street analysts, he said Freddie Mac could not get a hold on the complexity of these financial instruments. "Sometime in the next 10 years you will have a huge problem that will either be caused by or accentuated by people's activities in derivatives," he said.

It's always about sex, degradation, and someone else to blame it on

General Suggests Abuses at Iraq Jail Were Encouraged
By PHILIP SHENON
NY Times
Published: May 2, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 1 — The Army Reserve general whose military police officers were photographed as they mistreated Iraqi prisoners said Saturday that she had been "sickened" by the pictures and had known nothing about the sexual humiliation and other abuse until weeks later.

But the officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade, said the special high-security cellblock at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, where the abuses took place had been under the tight control of a separate group of military intelligence officers who had so far avoided any public blame.

In her first public comments about the brutality — which drew wide attention and condemnation after photographs documenting it were broadcast Wednesday night by CBS News — General Karpinski said that while the reservists involved were "bad people" and deserved punishment, she suspected they were acting with the encouragement, if not at the direction, of military intelligence units that ran the special cellblock used for interrogation.

Speaking in a telephone interview from her home in South Carolina, the general said military commanders in Iraq were trying to shift the blame exclusively to her and the reservists.

"We're disposable," she said of the military's attitude toward reservists. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame? They want to put this on the M.P.'s and hope that this thing goes away. Well, it's not going to go away."

She said the special cellblock, known as 1A, was one of about two dozen in the large prison and was essentially off limits to soldiers who were not part of the interrogations.

She said repeatedly in the interview that she was not defending the actions of the reservists who took part in the brutality, who were part of her command. She said that when she was first presented with the photographs of the abuse in January, they "sickened me."

"I put my head down because I really thought I was going to throw up," she said. "It was awful. My immediate reaction was: These are bad people, because their faces revealed how much pleasure they felt at this."

But she said the context of the brutality had been lost, including the fact that the military police officers involved represented only a small fraction of the nearly 3,400 reservists who reported to her from 16 different prisons and similar locations around Iraq.

She said she was also alarmed that little attention has been paid to the military unit that controlled Cellblock 1A, where her soldiers guarded the Iraqi detainees between interrogations.

She said that the floor space of the two-story cellblock was only about 40 feet by 20 feet, and that military intelligence officers were in and out of the cellblock "24 hours a day."

"They were in there at 2 in the morning, they were at 4 in the afternoon," said General Karpinski, who arrived in Iraq last June and who was the only woman to hold a command in the war zone. "This was no 9-to-5 job."

The photographs of American soldiers smiling, laughing and signaling "thumbs up" as Iraqi detainees were forced into sexually humiliating positions provoked outrage just as the American military was seeking to pacify a rising insurgency and gain the trust of more Iraqis before turning over sovereignty to a new government on June 30.

General Karpinski, who has returned to South Carolina and her civilian profession as a business consultant, said she visited Abu Ghraib as often as twice a week last fall and had repeatedly instructed military police officers under her command to treat prisoners humanely and in accord with international human rights agreements.

"I can speak some Arabic," she said. "I'm not fluent, but when I went to any of my prison facilities, I would make it a point to try to talk to the detainees."

But she said she did not visit Cellblock 1A, in keeping with the wishes of military intelligence officers who, she said, worried that unnecessary visits might interfere with their interrogations of Iraqis.

She acknowledged that she "probably should have been more aggressive" about visiting the interrogation cellblock. She stressed that she had received no reports from any of her commanders of possible prisoner abuses in the cellblock.

After the first allegations of abuse circulated earlier this year, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior American commander in Iraq, ordered sweeping inquiries into whether any commanders — including General Karpinski — should be held responsible. He also ordered a review of policies and procedures at all of the prisons controlled by occupation forces in Iraq.

The administrative review, known in the military criminal justice system as an AR15-6, was completed March 1 by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who had assembled a team of officers trained in military detention. The report was approved by his superior, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of American ground forces in the Middle East, and forwarded to General Sanchez on April 4.

The finding documented the abuses illustrated by the photographs circulating this week, as well as other problems in the military's detainee system in Iraq.