Monday, November 19, 2007
Nova’s ‘Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial’PBS Nova: “Judgment Day- Intelligent Design on Trial” takes an in depth look at Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, the case that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania, in the 2005 court battle over the teaching evolution in public schools.
This Nova special takes viewers beyond the headlines of the court decisions and through interviews with key players in the case, including scientists, Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, it shows how this wasn’t just a court case that would have serious implications for the future of science education in America and the separation of church and state, it literally pitted “friend against friend, and neighbor against neighbor” within the small community that serves as a microcosm of an America still divided over evolution.
You can watch the entire episode online here.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
What Are We Fighting For?
By E.J. Dionne —
It’s time that we subject the Iraq war to the same cost-benefit analysis that we are called upon to impose on other government endeavors. We are supposed to repeal or revise domestic programs that don’t work. Shouldn’t a troubled war policy be treated the same way?
By E.J. Dionne —
It’s time that we subject the Iraq war to the same cost-benefit analysis that we are called upon to impose on other government endeavors. We are supposed to repeal or revise domestic programs that don’t work. Shouldn’t a troubled war policy be treated the same way?
The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere
The influential foreign policy pundit continues to spout the same adolescent infatuations with warmongering which led him to cheer on the Iraq War.
by Glenn Greenwald
Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia
The former prosecutor announces that he is running for president to "save civilization" from Islamic terrorism.
by Glenn Greenwald
The influential foreign policy pundit continues to spout the same adolescent infatuations with warmongering which led him to cheer on the Iraq War.
by Glenn Greenwald
Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia
The former prosecutor announces that he is running for president to "save civilization" from Islamic terrorism.
by Glenn Greenwald
Make the Bush Record the IssueAbsent amnesia—which only happens on soaps—Democrats will be fine.
By Markos Moulitsas
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Taxi To The Dark Side
This documentary murder mystery examines the death of an Afghan taxi driver at Bagram Air Base from injuries inflicted by U.S. soldiers. In an unflinching look at the Bush administration's policy on torture, the filmmaker behind Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room takes us from a village in Afghanistan to Guantanamo and straight to the White House.
This documentary murder mystery examines the death of an Afghan taxi driver at Bagram Air Base from injuries inflicted by U.S. soldiers. In an unflinching look at the Bush administration's policy on torture, the filmmaker behind Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room takes us from a village in Afghanistan to Guantanamo and straight to the White House.
Ay Dios Mio!
The New York Times
November 17, 2007
In Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up to Joneses
By SAM ROBERTS
Step aside Moore and Taylor. Welcome Garcia and Rodriguez.
Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.
The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture.
Garcia moved to No. 8 in 2000, up from No. 18, and Rodriguez jumped to No. 9 from 22nd place. The number of Hispanic surnames among the top 25 doubled, to 6.
Compiling the rankings is a cumbersome task, in part because of confidentiality and accuracy issues, according to the Census Bureau, and it is only the second time it has prepared such a list. While the historical record is sketchy, several demographers said it was probably the first time that any non-Anglo name was among the 10 most common in the nation. “It’s difficult to say, but it’s probably likely,” said Robert A. Kominski, assistant chief of social characteristics for the census.
Luis Padilla, 48, a banker who has lived in Miami since he arrived from Colombia 14 years ago, greeted the ascendance of Hispanic surnames enthusiastically.
“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Mr. Padilla said. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”
Reinaldo M. Valdes, a board member of the Miami-based Spanish American League Against Discrimination, said the milestone “gives the Hispanic community a standing within the social structure of the country.”
“People of Hispanic descent who hardly speak Spanish are more eager to take their Hispanic last names,” he said. “Today, kids identify more with their roots than they did before.”
Demographers pointed to more than one factor in explaining the increase in Hispanic surnames.
Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.
“The movie studios used to demand that their employees have standard Waspy names,” said Justin Kaplan, an historian and co-author of “The Language of Names.”
“Now, look at Renée Zellweger,” Mr. Kaplan said.
And because recent Hispanic and Asian immigrants might consider themselves more identifiable by their physical characteristics than Europeans do, they are less likely to change their surnames, though they often choose Anglicized first names for their children.
The latest surname count also signaled the growing number of Asians in America. The surname Lee ranked No. 22, with the number of Lees about equally divided between whites and Asians. Lee is a familiar name in China and Korea and in all its variations is described as the most common surname in the world.
Altogether, the census found six million surnames in the United States. Among those, 151,000 were shared by a hundred or more Americans. Four million were held by only one person.
“The names tell us that we’re a richly diverse culture,” Mr. Kominski said.
But the fact that about 1 in every 25 Americans is named Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Miller or Davis “suggests that there’s a durability in the family of man,” Mr. Kaplan, the author, said. A million Americans share each of those seven names. An additional 268 last names are common to 10,000 or more people. Together, those 275 names account for one in four Americans.
As the population of the United States ballooned by more than 30 million in the 1990s, more Murphys and Cohens were counted when the decade ended than when it began.
Smith — which would be even more common if all its variations, like Schmidt and Schmitt, were tallied — is among the names derived from occupations (Miller, which ranks No. 7, is another). Among the most famous early bearers of the name was Capt. John Smith, who helped establish the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, Va., 400 years ago. As recently as 1950, more Americans were employed as blacksmiths than as psychotherapists.
In 1984, according to the Social Security Administration, nearly 3.4 million Smiths lived in the United States. In 1990, the census counted 2.5 million. By 2000, the Smith population had declined to fewer than 2.4 million. The durability of some of the most common names in American history may also have been perpetuated because slaves either adopted or retained the surnames of their owners. About one in five Smiths are black, as are about one in three Johnsons, Browns, and Joneses and nearly half the people named Williams.
The Census Bureau’s analysis found that some surnames were especially associated with race and ethnicity.
More than 96 percent of Yoders, Kruegers, Muellers, Kochs, Schwartzes, Schmitts and Novaks were white. Nearly 90 percent of the Washingtons were black, as were 75 percent of the Jeffersons, 66 percent of the Bookers, 54 percent of the Banks and 53 percent of the Mosleys.
Terry Aguayo contributed reporting from Miami.
November 17, 2007
In Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up to Joneses
By SAM ROBERTS
Step aside Moore and Taylor. Welcome Garcia and Rodriguez.
Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.
The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture.
Garcia moved to No. 8 in 2000, up from No. 18, and Rodriguez jumped to No. 9 from 22nd place. The number of Hispanic surnames among the top 25 doubled, to 6.
Compiling the rankings is a cumbersome task, in part because of confidentiality and accuracy issues, according to the Census Bureau, and it is only the second time it has prepared such a list. While the historical record is sketchy, several demographers said it was probably the first time that any non-Anglo name was among the 10 most common in the nation. “It’s difficult to say, but it’s probably likely,” said Robert A. Kominski, assistant chief of social characteristics for the census.
Luis Padilla, 48, a banker who has lived in Miami since he arrived from Colombia 14 years ago, greeted the ascendance of Hispanic surnames enthusiastically.
“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Mr. Padilla said. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”
Reinaldo M. Valdes, a board member of the Miami-based Spanish American League Against Discrimination, said the milestone “gives the Hispanic community a standing within the social structure of the country.”
“People of Hispanic descent who hardly speak Spanish are more eager to take their Hispanic last names,” he said. “Today, kids identify more with their roots than they did before.”
Demographers pointed to more than one factor in explaining the increase in Hispanic surnames.
Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.
“The movie studios used to demand that their employees have standard Waspy names,” said Justin Kaplan, an historian and co-author of “The Language of Names.”
“Now, look at Renée Zellweger,” Mr. Kaplan said.
And because recent Hispanic and Asian immigrants might consider themselves more identifiable by their physical characteristics than Europeans do, they are less likely to change their surnames, though they often choose Anglicized first names for their children.
The latest surname count also signaled the growing number of Asians in America. The surname Lee ranked No. 22, with the number of Lees about equally divided between whites and Asians. Lee is a familiar name in China and Korea and in all its variations is described as the most common surname in the world.
Altogether, the census found six million surnames in the United States. Among those, 151,000 were shared by a hundred or more Americans. Four million were held by only one person.
“The names tell us that we’re a richly diverse culture,” Mr. Kominski said.
But the fact that about 1 in every 25 Americans is named Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Miller or Davis “suggests that there’s a durability in the family of man,” Mr. Kaplan, the author, said. A million Americans share each of those seven names. An additional 268 last names are common to 10,000 or more people. Together, those 275 names account for one in four Americans.
As the population of the United States ballooned by more than 30 million in the 1990s, more Murphys and Cohens were counted when the decade ended than when it began.
Smith — which would be even more common if all its variations, like Schmidt and Schmitt, were tallied — is among the names derived from occupations (Miller, which ranks No. 7, is another). Among the most famous early bearers of the name was Capt. John Smith, who helped establish the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, Va., 400 years ago. As recently as 1950, more Americans were employed as blacksmiths than as psychotherapists.
In 1984, according to the Social Security Administration, nearly 3.4 million Smiths lived in the United States. In 1990, the census counted 2.5 million. By 2000, the Smith population had declined to fewer than 2.4 million. The durability of some of the most common names in American history may also have been perpetuated because slaves either adopted or retained the surnames of their owners. About one in five Smiths are black, as are about one in three Johnsons, Browns, and Joneses and nearly half the people named Williams.
The Census Bureau’s analysis found that some surnames were especially associated with race and ethnicity.
More than 96 percent of Yoders, Kruegers, Muellers, Kochs, Schwartzes, Schmitts and Novaks were white. Nearly 90 percent of the Washingtons were black, as were 75 percent of the Jeffersons, 66 percent of the Bookers, 54 percent of the Banks and 53 percent of the Mosleys.
Terry Aguayo contributed reporting from Miami.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sane Officers Oppose Cheney
By Joe Conason —
The Pentagon has launched a preventive strike against a target that military chiefs presumably regard as one of the most active current threats to U.S. and world security—namely, the office of the vice president of the United States.
Bush Stands by His Dictator
By Robert Scheer —
"The war on terror” made me do it. That’s the excuse that works for George W. Bush to rationalize his assaults on the rule of law, from arbitrary arrest to torture. So why not try some war-on-terror obfuscation to bail out his president-dictator buddy over in Pakistan?
By Joe Conason —
The Pentagon has launched a preventive strike against a target that military chiefs presumably regard as one of the most active current threats to U.S. and world security—namely, the office of the vice president of the United States.
Bush Stands by His Dictator
By Robert Scheer —
"The war on terror” made me do it. That’s the excuse that works for George W. Bush to rationalize his assaults on the rule of law, from arbitrary arrest to torture. So why not try some war-on-terror obfuscation to bail out his president-dictator buddy over in Pakistan?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Bhutto Calls on Musharraf to Resign
The opposition leader who has twice been put under house arrest says she will not serve within the President's government.
*Protesters open fire on two police stations in Karachi
The opposition leader who has twice been put under house arrest says she will not serve within the President's government.
*Protesters open fire on two police stations in Karachi
The evolution of creationism
After their notorious legal defeat, intelligent design proponents are resurfacing with insidious new assaults on science.
By Gordy Slack
*************************************************************************************
"Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial"
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Norman Mailer Brawled With Bush to the Bitter Endby John Nichols
There is much, much to be said of Norman Mailer, the Pulitzer-prize winning author and world-class rabble-rouser who has died at age 84.
But the pugilistic pensman would perhaps be most pleased to have it known that he went down swinging. The chronicler of our politics and protests in the 1960s with two of the era’s definitional books - 1968’s Armies of the Night and Miami and the Siege of Chicago, did not rest on the laurels - and they were legion — earned for exposing the dark undersides of the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
He went after George Bush with a fury, and a precision, that was born of his faith that all politicians - including 1969 New York City mayoral candidate Norman Mailer - had to be viewed skeptically. And, when found to be lacking, had to be dealt with using all tools available to a writer pocketed two Pulitzers, a National Book Award, a George Polk Award, a Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters from the National Book Foundation and a global prominence rarely accorded the pushers of pens.
Mailer did not hesitate to suggest that Bush and his compatriots were setting up “a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America” and he saw the war in Iraq as an imperialistic endeavor destined — as all such attempts are — to diminish democracy at home.
“Iraq is the excuse for moving in an imperial direction,” Mailer wrote on the eve of the conflict.
“War with Iraq, as they originally conceived it, would be a quick, dramatic step that would enable them to control the Near East as a powerful base — not least because of the oil there, as well as the water supplies from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers — to build a world empire.”
Mailer recognized in the president’s schoolboy militarism the most dangerous of instincts. So it was that, when Bush made his 2003 appearance in flight-suit drag before a sign declaring “Mission Accomplished” as part of the first - though certainly not the last — celebration of the fantasy of “victory” in Iraq, Mailer responded with a critique that remains the most damning assessment of a president who has known more than his share of damnation.
“Democracy, more than any other political system, depends on a modicum of honesty.
Ultimately, it is much at the mercy of a leader who has never been embarrassed by himself,” Mailer, who as a young Harvard graduate had served in the South Pacific during World War II, wrote of Bush at the close of a brilliant piece for The New York Review of Books. “What is to be said of a man who spent two years in the Air Force of the National Guard (as a way of not having to go to Vietnam) and proceeded–like many another spoiled and wealthy father’s son–not to bother to show up for duty in his second year of service? Most of us have episodes in our youth that can cause us shame on reflection. It is a mark of maturation that we do not try to profit from our early lacks and vices but do our best to learn from them. Bush proceeded, however, to turn his declaration of the Iraqi campaign’s end into a mighty fashion show. He chose–this overnight clone of Honest Abe–to arrive on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on an S-3B Viking jet that came in with a dramatic tail-hook landing. The carrier was easily within helicopter range of San Diego but G.W. would not have been able to show himself in flight regalia, and so would not have been able to demonstrate how well he wore the uniform he had not honored. Jack Kennedy, a war hero, was always in civvies while he was commander in chief. So was General Eisenhower. George W. Bush, who might, if he had been entirely on his own, have made a world-class male model (since he never takes an awkward photograph), proceeded to tote the flight helmet and sport the flight suit. There he was for the photo-op looking like one more great guy among the great guys. Let us hope that our democracy will survive these nonstop foulings of the nest.”
Mailer would continue protesting the foulings of the nest, on the streets of New York during the 2004 Republican National Coronation and with a pugilistic pen that pummeled the empire builders and their lesser stooges — asking pointedly in final years that paralleled Bush’s “Patriot Acts” and an endless “war on terror”: “What does it profit us if we gain extreme security and lose our democracy?” — until it was finally laid to rest on Saturday.
Norman Mailer, Outspoken Novelist, Is Dead
By CHARLES McGRATH
Norman Mailer, the combative, controversial novelist who loomed over American letters longer and larger than any writer of his generation, died today. He was 84.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Don't like abortion? Shoot a provider in the headA Pennsylvania judge granted an injunction Thursday against the man in charge of a threatening antiabortion Web site.
by Catherine Price
The Associated Press reports that District Judge Thomas Golden of Pennsylvania took a stand against a guy named John Dunkle, who was maintaining a Web site with antiabortion messages.
Actually, "messages" is an understatement. Dunkle's site included postings, as the AP put it, that "exhorted readers to kill an abortion provider by shooting her in the head." On Thursday, Judge Golden granted an injunction against Dunkle that requires him to remove the threatening postings and prevents him from posting similar messages -- some of which included names, addresses and photographs of clinic workers -- in the future. (Dunkle wasn't the author of these messages, but he did post them.)
The postings are down now, but they were threatening enough that one former clinician at the Philadelphia Women's Center stopped providing reproductive services because she was worried she might be killed.
Judging from the post quoted by the AP, I wouldn't be surprised if others also quit. "While it does not sound good to say go shoot her between the eyes, it sounds even worse to say let her alone," the post said. It included the provider's name, photo and address.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Every aspect of Bush's foreign policy has now collapsed. Every dream of neoconservatism has become a nightmare. Every doctrine has turned to dust. The influence of the United States has reached a nadir, its lowest point since before World War II, when the country was encased in isolationism.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Flashback: Robertson Agreed That America "Deserved" 9/11By Greg Sargent
In light of Pat Robertson's endorsement today of former NYC Mayor and Churchillian 9/11 hero Rudy Giuliani, it seems worth recalling that even as the smoke was still rising from the site a few days later, Robertson had this to say about the disaster in a TV appearance with Jerry Falwell:
"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.
"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."
Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."
Subsequent to that, Falwell placed some of the blame for 9/11 squarely on a range of Americans -- civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals, abortion rights supporters -- who have tried to "secularize" America. Robertson didn't disagree. Today Rudy gladly accepted his endorsement.
*************************************************************************************
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Bush and Musharraf's grand illusion
Democracy for Pakistan was never the deal -- and as Musharraf's latest power-grab throws his nation into turmoil, Bush will gladly go along.
Democracy for Pakistan was never the deal -- and as Musharraf's latest power-grab throws his nation into turmoil, Bush will gladly go along.
By Juan Cole
Monday, November 05, 2007
Islam, Politicizedby Juan Cole
Fearmongering GOP presidential candidates are demonizing Muslims and Islam. Why are Democrats so slow to challenge their false claims of 'Islamofacism'?
Sunday, November 04, 2007
By Glenn Kessler
As Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf struggles to maintain power in his country, The Washington Post goes behind the scenes to look at the Bush administration’s wobbly relations with Musharraf, whom Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was unable to dissuade from imposing emergency rule.
Shumer, Feinstein and Democrats Roll Over for Bush Torture Agenda, Again.
When the history of the Consttitution's abrogation is written, cowards like the leading Democrat politicians will be exposed as the enablers they have become. No principles, no backbones, no leadership.
washingtonpost.com
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime
By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; B01
As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."
That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is,
the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:
Q: Was it painful?
A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.
Q: Like you were drowning?
A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.
Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.
Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law
of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime
By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; B01
As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."
That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is,
the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:
Q: Was it painful?
A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.
Q: Like you were drowning?
A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.
Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.
Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law
of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Musharraf declares state of emergency
Musharraf: Pakistan at ‘dangerous’ juncture
President suspends constitution, replaces chief justice, blocks TV.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Arianna Huffington: Unhinged: Giuliani Buys Into His Own Testosterone-Fueled MythWith each passing day -- and each bellicose, over-the-top, spittle-enhanced pronouncement -- Rudy Giuliani is revealing that he has the soul of a thug and the disposition of a tyrant. His behavior on the stump shows Jimmy Breslin nailed it when he described Giuliani as "a small man in search of a balcony." (Don't forget, Il Rudy cleaned up Times Square and made the subways run on time.)
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Anti-gay funeral protesters fined millionsAnti-gay church protested at ceremony for man’s son, a fallen Iraq Marine.
MSNBC News Services
Biden Nails Rudy
Sen. Joe Biden nails Rudy Giuliani during Tuesday's MSNBC debate: "And the irony is, Rudy Giuliani, probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani... I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else! There's nothing else! And I mean this sincerely. He's genuinely not qualified to be president."
Cashing In on TerrorBy Robert Scheer —
Not to stoke any of the inane conspiracy theories running wild on the Internet, but if Osama bin Laden wasn’t on the payroll of Lockheed-Martin or some other large defense contractor, he deserves to have been. What a boondoggle 9/11 has been for the merchants of war, who this week announced yet another quarter of whopping profits made possible by George Bush’s pretending to fight terrorism by throwing money at outdated Cold War-style weapons systems.
Drumbeat, Shrumbeat: Oil Drums Don’t Beat!
By Christopher Platt
For several months now, I’ve been reading and hearing a constant drumming of ever-more-worrisome news reports and commentary with the term “drumbeat,” as in “The drumbeat for war with Iran grows louder.” This administration has really gone off the deep end, and the poison coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about how we should attack Iran is so inflammatory (and so unnecessary, as I’ll discuss later on), that I’m reminded of the Warner Brothers cartoons of the late 1940s, which often depicted a clownish, raging Hitler frantically chewing on his office rugs and the curtains in his madness. No, I am NOT comparing our president, or our vice-president, to Hitler. I am comparing them to characters in a Diane Arbus photograph. I am comparing them to Looney Tunes. Just not as funny.
Does anyone really think we are doing so well with the war(s) we have that we can possibly believe it’s a good time to start another one? And what, pray tell, would we fight this new one with? We’re plumb out of weaponry – except for bullshit, which this administration has been piling up in abundance. How about delivery systems? I’ll leave that to the Neocons who have been burying us in the stuff for all these years.
Look, it really doesn’t have to go this way. Aren’t you as sick of all the carnage as I am? Can anyone possibly think we should be sending even more of our children to die for so fruitless an endeavor as showing Iran that we have bigger cojones – and even less concern for the lives of our kids than they do?
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak at Columbia University, one of the many things he said which drew little comment was that his country was pursuing nuclear power not for its warmaking potential, but simply as an energy source. Iran, he said, lacks the capacity to refine most of its crude oil. Most of what it extracts, it sells, and then it has to import gasoline and other petroleum products, much the same as we do. That statement piqued my interest. So I looked it up. OPEC says Iran now produces about 3.4 million barrels/day (bpd) of crude. Iran’s own figures, if they’re accurate, show that its few refineries are processing about one-fifth of that amount to produce 40 million liters/day (340,000 bpd) of gasoline. But Iran needs 30 million liters/day more (another 255,000 bpd) to meet its current needs.
So here’s my idea. It’s a typically American solution to a problem. Let’s throw money at it, instead of the bodies of our children. Let’s take Ahmadinejad at his word, and assume he and the ruling mullahs really want to have their own gasoline. Let’s offer to build, at our expense, a world-class, $10-billion oil refinery in Iran – or, even better, TWO such facilities – like ones we have built in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. A refinery on that scale can process about 500,000 bpd of crude into roughly 250,000 bpd of the good stuff. So, one refinery will make Iran happy. Now, give the no-bid construction contract to KBR, formerly part of Halliburton. That will make Dick Cheney happy. If Cheney’s happy, Pres. Bush is happy, too (means they might be able to go hunting together safely). And you all know what happens when Pres. Bush is happy? (Answer: Maybe Ahmadinejad shuts up for awhile. Maybe Tailgunner Joe Lieberman does, too. Worth it, no?)
Now, if we build two of these big boys, we first cut a deal where we get a guaranteed equivalent amount of crude (Or, what the Hell, let’s just take the gasoline. Our refining capacity isn’t so great, either!), at no cost, once construction has been completed, for just long enough to pay for the two refineries. In case you don’t want to do the math yourself, 500,000 bpd of crude oil, at $90/barrel – last week’s oil future price -- is $45 million/day. The refinery is paid for in 222 days! Two of ‘em are paid for within 14 months. Oh yes, the deal requires Iran to curb its nuclear program, under supervision and with verification of neutral outside observers.
So, Iran is refining another 1 million bpd of its crude, and we are splitting the output. After the repayment period is up, we agree to continue buying the same amount of crude, or the gasoline, at current prices – or, better still, we could “lock in” a price in advance like the smarter airlines do. Iran will still be pumping more than 1.5 million bpd of unrefined crude that it can sell to whomever it wants (my bet is on China).
Another way to see the advantages here: The last figures I saw peg our total daily crude oil imports at about 1.4 million bpd. We just cut that by a third, without having any new refineries built here, where they could damage our fragile Arctic wilderness ecosystem, or be swamped by a super-hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. And the $10 billion? Sounds like a lot, sure, but that’s how much the Pentagon says our current war on Iraq/Afghanistan/Terror costs it every month. You want to scale it up? Sure! Why not build FOUR $10-billion refineries? That’s four months of war. For a long-term deal that accounts for better than half of our current level of imported crude. And doesn’t kill anybody. Take that, OPEC!
Objection! You say Iran is our enemy, it’s a terrorist state, and we shouldn’t be negotiating with a terrorist state. Oh, I can deal with that as easy as 1-2-3: (1) After 9/11, Iran was the FIRST nation to offer its condolences, support and complete cooperation in catching those responsible – including help against the Taliban. We rejected their offer. The November, 2007, issue of Esquire has an authoritative article that describes how, in April 2003, Iran floated a detailed Mideast peace plan that promised it would take “decisive action” against local terrorists, end its support for Hamaz and the Islamic Jihad, mothball its nuclear program AND agree to recognize Israel. But our government decided to ignore this incredible offer. (2) If you define a terrorist state as one that provides money, arms and other support to groups in another country bent on violence and fomenting unrest, just remember that the U.S. has openly provided exactly such succor to the Iraqi Kurds for decades. Now, some of the Kurds are attacking our longtime ally, Turkey. Oops! (3) Actually, NOT negotiating is how armed conflict usually starts, or persists. To say we don’t negotiate with terrorist states is bullshit, too. Our administration has branded North Korea as a terrorist state, yet we’ve been openly negotiating with them at Panmunjom since the 1950s. Any more questions?
Objection overruled. To get back to my plan, far and away the best thing about the idea is that we get plenty of that nice petroleum that our complete catastrophe in Iraq was supposedly all about, AND we’ll be leaving no more of our children’s precious blood spilled needlessly on the sand. Okay, you can put away those drums now.
For several months now, I’ve been reading and hearing a constant drumming of ever-more-worrisome news reports and commentary with the term “drumbeat,” as in “The drumbeat for war with Iran grows louder.” This administration has really gone off the deep end, and the poison coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about how we should attack Iran is so inflammatory (and so unnecessary, as I’ll discuss later on), that I’m reminded of the Warner Brothers cartoons of the late 1940s, which often depicted a clownish, raging Hitler frantically chewing on his office rugs and the curtains in his madness. No, I am NOT comparing our president, or our vice-president, to Hitler. I am comparing them to characters in a Diane Arbus photograph. I am comparing them to Looney Tunes. Just not as funny.
Does anyone really think we are doing so well with the war(s) we have that we can possibly believe it’s a good time to start another one? And what, pray tell, would we fight this new one with? We’re plumb out of weaponry – except for bullshit, which this administration has been piling up in abundance. How about delivery systems? I’ll leave that to the Neocons who have been burying us in the stuff for all these years.
Look, it really doesn’t have to go this way. Aren’t you as sick of all the carnage as I am? Can anyone possibly think we should be sending even more of our children to die for so fruitless an endeavor as showing Iran that we have bigger cojones – and even less concern for the lives of our kids than they do?
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak at Columbia University, one of the many things he said which drew little comment was that his country was pursuing nuclear power not for its warmaking potential, but simply as an energy source. Iran, he said, lacks the capacity to refine most of its crude oil. Most of what it extracts, it sells, and then it has to import gasoline and other petroleum products, much the same as we do. That statement piqued my interest. So I looked it up. OPEC says Iran now produces about 3.4 million barrels/day (bpd) of crude. Iran’s own figures, if they’re accurate, show that its few refineries are processing about one-fifth of that amount to produce 40 million liters/day (340,000 bpd) of gasoline. But Iran needs 30 million liters/day more (another 255,000 bpd) to meet its current needs.
So here’s my idea. It’s a typically American solution to a problem. Let’s throw money at it, instead of the bodies of our children. Let’s take Ahmadinejad at his word, and assume he and the ruling mullahs really want to have their own gasoline. Let’s offer to build, at our expense, a world-class, $10-billion oil refinery in Iran – or, even better, TWO such facilities – like ones we have built in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. A refinery on that scale can process about 500,000 bpd of crude into roughly 250,000 bpd of the good stuff. So, one refinery will make Iran happy. Now, give the no-bid construction contract to KBR, formerly part of Halliburton. That will make Dick Cheney happy. If Cheney’s happy, Pres. Bush is happy, too (means they might be able to go hunting together safely). And you all know what happens when Pres. Bush is happy? (Answer: Maybe Ahmadinejad shuts up for awhile. Maybe Tailgunner Joe Lieberman does, too. Worth it, no?)
Now, if we build two of these big boys, we first cut a deal where we get a guaranteed equivalent amount of crude (Or, what the Hell, let’s just take the gasoline. Our refining capacity isn’t so great, either!), at no cost, once construction has been completed, for just long enough to pay for the two refineries. In case you don’t want to do the math yourself, 500,000 bpd of crude oil, at $90/barrel – last week’s oil future price -- is $45 million/day. The refinery is paid for in 222 days! Two of ‘em are paid for within 14 months. Oh yes, the deal requires Iran to curb its nuclear program, under supervision and with verification of neutral outside observers.
So, Iran is refining another 1 million bpd of its crude, and we are splitting the output. After the repayment period is up, we agree to continue buying the same amount of crude, or the gasoline, at current prices – or, better still, we could “lock in” a price in advance like the smarter airlines do. Iran will still be pumping more than 1.5 million bpd of unrefined crude that it can sell to whomever it wants (my bet is on China).
Another way to see the advantages here: The last figures I saw peg our total daily crude oil imports at about 1.4 million bpd. We just cut that by a third, without having any new refineries built here, where they could damage our fragile Arctic wilderness ecosystem, or be swamped by a super-hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. And the $10 billion? Sounds like a lot, sure, but that’s how much the Pentagon says our current war on Iraq/Afghanistan/Terror costs it every month. You want to scale it up? Sure! Why not build FOUR $10-billion refineries? That’s four months of war. For a long-term deal that accounts for better than half of our current level of imported crude. And doesn’t kill anybody. Take that, OPEC!
Objection! You say Iran is our enemy, it’s a terrorist state, and we shouldn’t be negotiating with a terrorist state. Oh, I can deal with that as easy as 1-2-3: (1) After 9/11, Iran was the FIRST nation to offer its condolences, support and complete cooperation in catching those responsible – including help against the Taliban. We rejected their offer. The November, 2007, issue of Esquire has an authoritative article that describes how, in April 2003, Iran floated a detailed Mideast peace plan that promised it would take “decisive action” against local terrorists, end its support for Hamaz and the Islamic Jihad, mothball its nuclear program AND agree to recognize Israel. But our government decided to ignore this incredible offer. (2) If you define a terrorist state as one that provides money, arms and other support to groups in another country bent on violence and fomenting unrest, just remember that the U.S. has openly provided exactly such succor to the Iraqi Kurds for decades. Now, some of the Kurds are attacking our longtime ally, Turkey. Oops! (3) Actually, NOT negotiating is how armed conflict usually starts, or persists. To say we don’t negotiate with terrorist states is bullshit, too. Our administration has branded North Korea as a terrorist state, yet we’ve been openly negotiating with them at Panmunjom since the 1950s. Any more questions?
Objection overruled. To get back to my plan, far and away the best thing about the idea is that we get plenty of that nice petroleum that our complete catastrophe in Iraq was supposedly all about, AND we’ll be leaving no more of our children’s precious blood spilled needlessly on the sand. Okay, you can put away those drums now.
# # #
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons
The New York Times
October 28, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
By FRANÇOIS FURSTENBERG
Montreal
MUCH as George W. Bush’s presidency was ineluctably shaped by Sept. 11, 2001, so the outbreak of the French Revolution was symbolized by the events of one fateful day, July 14, 1789. And though 18th-century France may seem impossibly distant to contemporary Americans, future historians examining Mr. Bush’s presidency within the longer sweep of political and intellectual history may find the French Revolution useful in understanding his curious brand of 21st- century conservatism.
Soon after the storming of the Bastille, pro-Revolutionary elements came together to form an association that would become known as the Jacobin Club, an umbrella group of politicians, journalists and citizens dedicated to advancing the principles of the Revolution.
The Jacobins shared a defining ideological feature. They divided the world between pro- and anti-Revolutionaries — the defenders of liberty versus its enemies. The French Revolution, as they understood it, was the great event that would determine whether liberty was to prevail on the planet or whether the world would fall back into tyranny and despotism.
The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.
By 1792, France was confronting the hostility of neighboring countries, debating how to react. The Jacobins were divided. On one side stood the journalist and political leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville, who argued for war.
Brissot understood the war as preventive — “une guerre offensive,” he called it — to defeat the despotic powers of Europe before they could organize their counter-Revolutionary strike. It would not be a war of conquest, as Brissot saw it, but a war “between liberty and tyranny.”
Pro-war Jacobins believed theirs was a mission not for a single nation or even for a single continent. It was, in Brissot’s words, “a crusade for universal liberty.”
Brissot’s opponents were skeptical. “No one likes armed missionaries,” declared Robespierre, with words as apt then as they remain today. Not long after the invasion of Austria, the military tide turned quickly against France.
The United States, France’s “sister republic,” refused to enter the war on France’s side. It was an infuriating show of ingratitude, as the French saw it, coming from a fledgling nation they had magnanimously saved from foreign occupation in a previous war.
Confronted by a monarchical Europe united in opposition to revolutionary France — old Europe, they might have called it — the Jacobins rooted out domestic political dissent. It was the beginning of the period that would become infamous as the Terror.
Among the Jacobins’ greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism — Le Patriote Français was the title of Brissot’s newspaper — and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.
Even the Jacobins’ dress distinguished “true patriots”: those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.
Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.
To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government’s police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — “domicilary visits,” they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, “when the homeland is in danger.”
Robespierre — now firmly committed to the most militant brand of Jacobinism — condemned the “treacherous insinuations” cast by those who questioned “the excessive severity of measures prescribed by the public interest.” He warned his political opponents, “This severity is alarming only for the conspirators, only for the enemies of liberty.” Such measures, then as now, were undertaken to protect the nation — indeed, to protect liberty itself.
If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: “No liberty for the enemies of liberty.” Saint-Just’s pithy phrase (like President Bush’s variant, “We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself”) could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.
On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.
Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to “Islamofascism.”
A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.
François Furstenberg, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, is the author of "In the Name of the Father: Washington’s Legacy, Slavery and the Making of a Nation."
October 28, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
By FRANÇOIS FURSTENBERG
Montreal
MUCH as George W. Bush’s presidency was ineluctably shaped by Sept. 11, 2001, so the outbreak of the French Revolution was symbolized by the events of one fateful day, July 14, 1789. And though 18th-century France may seem impossibly distant to contemporary Americans, future historians examining Mr. Bush’s presidency within the longer sweep of political and intellectual history may find the French Revolution useful in understanding his curious brand of 21st- century conservatism.
Soon after the storming of the Bastille, pro-Revolutionary elements came together to form an association that would become known as the Jacobin Club, an umbrella group of politicians, journalists and citizens dedicated to advancing the principles of the Revolution.
The Jacobins shared a defining ideological feature. They divided the world between pro- and anti-Revolutionaries — the defenders of liberty versus its enemies. The French Revolution, as they understood it, was the great event that would determine whether liberty was to prevail on the planet or whether the world would fall back into tyranny and despotism.
The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.
By 1792, France was confronting the hostility of neighboring countries, debating how to react. The Jacobins were divided. On one side stood the journalist and political leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville, who argued for war.
Brissot understood the war as preventive — “une guerre offensive,” he called it — to defeat the despotic powers of Europe before they could organize their counter-Revolutionary strike. It would not be a war of conquest, as Brissot saw it, but a war “between liberty and tyranny.”
Pro-war Jacobins believed theirs was a mission not for a single nation or even for a single continent. It was, in Brissot’s words, “a crusade for universal liberty.”
Brissot’s opponents were skeptical. “No one likes armed missionaries,” declared Robespierre, with words as apt then as they remain today. Not long after the invasion of Austria, the military tide turned quickly against France.
The United States, France’s “sister republic,” refused to enter the war on France’s side. It was an infuriating show of ingratitude, as the French saw it, coming from a fledgling nation they had magnanimously saved from foreign occupation in a previous war.
Confronted by a monarchical Europe united in opposition to revolutionary France — old Europe, they might have called it — the Jacobins rooted out domestic political dissent. It was the beginning of the period that would become infamous as the Terror.
Among the Jacobins’ greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism — Le Patriote Français was the title of Brissot’s newspaper — and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.
Even the Jacobins’ dress distinguished “true patriots”: those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.
Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.
To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government’s police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — “domicilary visits,” they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, “when the homeland is in danger.”
Robespierre — now firmly committed to the most militant brand of Jacobinism — condemned the “treacherous insinuations” cast by those who questioned “the excessive severity of measures prescribed by the public interest.” He warned his political opponents, “This severity is alarming only for the conspirators, only for the enemies of liberty.” Such measures, then as now, were undertaken to protect the nation — indeed, to protect liberty itself.
If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: “No liberty for the enemies of liberty.” Saint-Just’s pithy phrase (like President Bush’s variant, “We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself”) could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.
On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.
Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to “Islamofascism.”
A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.
François Furstenberg, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, is the author of "In the Name of the Father: Washington’s Legacy, Slavery and the Making of a Nation."
Monday, October 29, 2007
None of the mainstream press coverage of record-high crude oil prices that I saw last week turned $92.22-a-barrel into a teachable moment. Instead of exhuming archival footage of gas station lines from the '70s, producers might have re-aired the more recent tape of former Harken Energy director George W. Bush strolling hand-in-hand through the Crawford bluebonnets with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
The Mega-Bunker of BaghdadThe new American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest, least welcoming, and most lavish embassy in the world: a $600 million massively fortified compound with 619 blast-resistant apartments and a food court fit for a shopping mall. Unfortunately, like other similarly constructed U.S. Embassies, it may already be obsolete.
by William Langewiesche
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Bush's Appalachian War: Bombing Ancient Mountainsby Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
Bush cites his "global war on terror" and the need for energy independence as reasons to legalize the killing of mountains from a range that has lived for millions of years. There is no way to bring back the over 450 mountaintops that have been razed solely to permit profitable coal mining for his buddies. Instead of pursuing a clean energy policy, Bush has declared war on Appalachia.
Many Americans are not aware that our self-proclaimed patriotic warrior who loves to preach adherence to religious doctrine is killing our "purple mountain majesties" that God has "shed His grace on" for the benefit of all. This is a war, complete with Bush authorizing mining companies to occupy Appalachia, literally bomb away the mountain summits and kill not just mountains and streams, but people, culture, environmental habitat and species.
During 1985-2001, "approximately 800 square miles of mountains were leveled."
Don’t Confirm MukaseyBy Matthew Rothschild
His callous attitude about brutality, and this Cheney-esque attitude about the powers of the Presidency disqualify Mukasey for the post of leading law enforcement officer in the USA.
****************************************
Don’t Give Mukasey a Pass
By Marie Cocco
The nominee for attorney general doesn’t know “what is involved” in waterboarding, and he appears to back Bush’s usurpation of power. Isn’t it time for the Democrats to grow some spine?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Edwards Gets Tough on BusinessSusan Davis reports on the presidential race.
John Edwards is targeting Corporate America and what he argues are its corrupt and greedy practices. In a speech today in Des Moines, Iowa, he is outlining his plan to renew the “social contract” between business and government if elected president. “In corporate America, where a broader sense of social responsibility once held sway, a culture of greed has taken over.
Instead of treating their employees fairly, being accountable to their shareholders and contributing to America’s prosperity, CEOs act like their corporations exist just to build their own massive fortunes,” says Edwards, according to speech excerpts provided to Washington Wire by his campaign.
Edwards is proposing, among other things, universal retirement accounts that employers would be required to provide if they don’t offer pension programs. Workers’ contributions would be matched dollar-for-dollar on the first $500 through a proposed “Get Ahead” tax credit. The plan would also allow workers to put their savings into government-sponsored annuities that would be run through the existing federal retirement savings plan or the Social Security Administration.
Edwards is also proposing stronger protections for workers seeking to unionize and increased shareholder rights. And he’s proposing to cap tax-deferred compensation funds for top executives at $1 million annually, and pushing for more disclosure of corporate governance structures, the pay and demographics of top corporate officers, as well as political contributions, government contracts, and taxes paid.
To protect consumers, Edwards wants a new regulator, the Family Savings and Credit Commission, which would oversee credit card and financial services plans marketed to the public. He also proposes tougher Food and Drug Administration inspection standards and safety regulations on products, like kids’ toys, made abroad.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Lies Of John McCain And Mike Huckabeeby Bob Cesca
America was founded by men of the Enlightenment: a movement which emphasized reason, rationality, liberalism, anti-authoritarianism and political equality. The founders were revolutionary liberals who believed strongly in secular government. This is nowhere near "right of center" or indicative of a Judeo-Christian Nation.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
By Robert Scheer —
Hey, a billion here, a billion there, who’s counting? Not the State Department, which admitted this week that it can’t say “specifically what it received” for the $1.2 billion it paid DynCorp, ostensibly to train the Iraqi police—other than that somebody got an Olympic-size swimming pool out of the deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)