Shlonkom Bakazay?

"At this very moment there are 100,000 fools of our species who wear hats, slaying 100,000 fellow creatures who wear turbans, or being massacred by them." - voltaire, micromagus, 1752


now, the up-to-date version

"At this very moment there are 100,000 fools of our species who wear hats, slaying 100,000 fellow creatures who wear turbans and then sodomizing the children of these creatures in front of their mother's very own eyes who had been subsequently detained to inflict psychological torture on both the turban wearing creature and the mother herself, or being massacred by said turban wearing creatures."

i wonder how voltaire would comment on recent developments. perhaps... what a wonderful world.

be nice to an iraqi today

laaaaaaamanilioff

Below is a recent post from Salon.com's blog. There are many links with stories and the original video of the recent ACLU conference where Seymour Hersh publically mentions the sexual abuse of Iraqi children at Abu Ghraib. There is a German report you can download, bandwidth courtesy of Sadly, No!. While the report's in German you don't have to look far to read an English translation.

Rumsfeld will lose his job because of the impact of these more vivid representations of what was really going on inside Iraqi prisons. The videos themselves could come out. Then what? The administration should try to 'accidentally' destroy them like those recently destroyed military records of the president. If the record of something doesn't exist anymore, then it never happened. No need for accountability when the tree didn't make a noise even though it fell?

This is the kind of logic that makes people believe America is safer.

America is safer? (see previous post and click the first link)

Let's hope Bush beats himself.

Because I still seriously doubt that Kerry can do it.
****

Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape

After Donald Rumsfeld testified on the Hill about Abu Ghraib in May, there was talk of more photos and video in the Pentagon's custody more horrific than anything made public so far. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse," Rumsfeld said. Since then, the Washington Post has disclosed some new details and images of abuse at the prison. But if Seymour Hersh is right, it all gets much worse.



Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it. The speech was first reported in a New York Sun story last week, which was in turn posted on Jim Romenesko's media blog, and now EdCone.com and other blogs are linking to the video. We transcribed the critical section here (it starts at about 1:31:00 into the ACLU video.) At the start of the transcript here, you can see how Hersh was struggling over what he should say:


"Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."


"It's impossible to say to yourself how did we get there? Who are we? Who are these people that sent us there? When I did My Lai I was very troubled like anybody in his right mind would be about what happened. I ended up in something I wrote saying in the end I said that the people who did the killing were as much victims as the people they killed because of the scars they had, I can tell you some of the personal stories by some of the people who were in these units witnessed this. I can also tell you written complaints were made to the highest officers and so we're dealing with a enormous massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there and higher, and we have to get to it and we will. We will. You know there's enough out there, they can't (Applause). .... So it's going to be an interesting election year."


Notes from a similar speech Hersh gave in Chicago in June were posted on Brad DeLong's blog. Rick Pearlstein, who watched the speech, wrote: "[Hersh] said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, 'You haven't begun to see evil...' then trailed off. He said, 'horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.' He looked frightened."


So, there are several questions here: Has Hersh actually seen the video he described to the ACLU, and why hasn't he written about it yet? Will he be forced to elaborate in more public venues now that these two speeches are getting so much attention, at least in the blogosphere? And who else has seen the video, if it exists -- will journalists see and report on it? did senators see these images when they had their closed-door sessions with the Abu Ghraib evidence? -- and what is being done about it?


(Update: A reader brought to our attention that the rape of boys at Abu Ghraib has been mentioned in some news accounts of the prisoner abuse evidence. The Telegraph and other news organizations described "a videotape, apparently made by US personnel, is said to show Iraqi guards raping young boys." The Guardian reported "formal statements by inmates published yesterday describe horrific treatment at the hands of guards, including the rape of a teenage Iraqi boy by an army translator.")


-- Geraldine Sealey


[09:26 PDT, July 15, 2004]

Posted on Salon.com's blog

this is so good

this isn't bad either

this too

First off, Abu Khaleel is the shizzle for his latest post on his Iraqi Letter to America. Check him out on his multiple blogs of insight and candor.

Second, check out the comment of the moment from me on top and then the quote of the moment with secret link. I figured a little spice aint hurt nobody. I would say comment of the day and quote of the day, but who am I kidding...I'm not changing it everyday. I just hate the fact that "News Links" is most prominent on the sidebar, ya know? They should be on the bottom, really. I'm so sick of the news. I learn more from my family than the friggin news.

Also, we're at 60 blogs with Najma's sister coming into the fray. So sweet...keep up the good work all you shiny happy iraqis. You rock.

And last but not least, lets congratulate Emigre's remarkable work with Iraq blog count. One thing I'd like to specifically point out though, Abbas has a new post everyday practically...but the NEW POST thing doesn't work for him. How come? I know it has been less than accurate in the past, but it was usually working for him. It's only something I noticed. And the man needs the attention and lovin' from the blogosphere. And lets welcome Fayrouz as a fellow contributer with Iraq Blog Count, too!

Cool folks...
take it sleazy,
l.

Well, I found myself commenting on F9/11 on a blog without having seen the film. Now I've seen it and I can speak in turn. I didn't plan on seeing it because I thought it would just piss me off. But since I made that comment, I felt I should see it. so, yeah...here are a few of my thoughts about it and some other tangents.

I felt it was masterfully crafted to impact an American audience. I'm sure that this film has caused major concern/excitement, even though republican strategists won't admit to this and the democratic contender wishes to distance himself from Moore while reaping the benefits of this version of events. I thought the film would disturb me much more than it did. Surprisingly enough to me, I was most infuriated when near the end of the film Moore highlights how it's a cruel irony that the people that pay most for America's mistakes are those that are the poorest, least privileged, and least educated members of American society.

As for the amount of focus put on Saudi Arabia: I expected much more after reading a sleuth of reviews. And I thought it wasn't excessive at all considering how little most Americans know about the relationships and ties that exist between the Bush and Saudi Royal family (and even the connection with the bin Laden family). The gap must be made up for somehow. Being excessive in this case, as some see it, does not bother me at all. And I think when a conflict of interest so deep puts so many people (namely the sons and daughters of America and Iraq) in harms way for a cause that allows those interests to strengthen, there is a reason to allow as many facts to come to life on a screen in this manner. It is an exquisite execution of one's first amendment rights. And Moore is talented for so many reasons. He asks many of the right questions at the right time. He offers facts that are seldom reported. He courageously makes claims that many of the spineless media were and still are unwilling to make. He highlights the human story and shows the consequences of the war, which is not a common and uncensored concern in the mainstream media or for the current administration.

Most importantly, the amount of dialogue between family and friends that this film will create is encouraging. I'm not aware of any other film that accomplishes such a feat at this important time. So I congratulate Mr. Moore for getting people to talk about the war at the dinner table if nothing else.

Conversely, I see how many people across the political and cultural spectrum can be offended by the tact and tone of the film. First, the Iraqi in me tells me that this is only a sliver of reality. But a sliver is better than nothing at all. It also tells me that people were not all that smiley as Moore depicts Iraqis as being before the war took place. And it's important to note this. I saw the now infamous "kite flying" scene. The kid flying the kite was not so much offensive as were all the expressions, none which were negative. But this was done for affect. And it's good enough to comprehend the affect of this scene than say he was wrong for doing it. Obviously Iraq has been experiencing extreme pain and death for decades. Most recently the sanctions had practically strangled the people while making Saddam so much more powerful in the resulting vacuum. Stasis for Saddam and his thugs, while the situation got exceedingly worse for poor Iraqis. Even though I was and continue to be against this war, I do understand this hard cold fact.

Again, many of my family both here and in Iraq say that the only way to get rid of Saddam would be by having this war. But most think it was not the right way to go about doing it. And does it mean that it is right to have this war? Some say yes, some say no. I think it was a huge mistake in the long run...of course, after so brutally crushing the common person's will through such harsh sanctions and continuous bombing raids while Saddam and his thugs got fat off of Iraq's toil. The knees of millions of Iraqis had buckled. How could such a people resist? Well, unfortunately for our troops (and now I oddly think to myself...American and Iraqi troops), we are seeing how the people can resist on a daily basis. 4 american soldiers died on monday, 4 on tuesday, 2 on wenesday, 6 on Thursday, 1 on friday, 4 on saturday, 3 on sunday. How many will die today?! ...and how many Iraqi policemen or national guard? are those numbers not available? and civilian Iraqis? oh, we dont do body counts. ah...i see. the human story from the American perspective was not missing in F9/11...oh, but the Iraqi human story was missing I felt. I was disappointed that Moore did not compliment the Lipscomb family's story with an Iraqi mother's story of loss and ensuing pain. He did show a rabidly screaming Iraqi mother (possible grandmother too) laying threats on Americans captured by some Arabic TV channel. That's not as humanizing as a civil chat in a living room, though.

All in all, Fahrenheit 9/11 made me feel sick. Of course, there's anger, regret, and frustration at the level of ignorance. It just put me in an uncomfortable place in the end. It made me wonder why have I been put through many wars in my life in such a demented way. Sometimes as a victim, but mostly as a voyeur from afar while I wondered if much of my family were still alive and in what condition: how psychologically traumatized they were after, if they had electricity, and if they had the appropriate provisions when the worst situations arose. I told one of my cousins recently how I felt kind of responsible in a twisted way for what is happening now with the security situation. He told me not to feel this way...and I wondered to myself how I can make any American soldier taken out of a difficult life from the inner city or rural setting being so naive about the world, who's only hope to get out of their situation and be educated is the army, and then expected to handle being in such a hostile and foreign place...how could i make them responsible? There's the "pawns of empire" argument. And it's pertinent to this situation. But is it the soldier's fault? No, obviously. Soldiers carry out the orders of their commanding officers...it's the politicians and policy makers who should hold ultimate accountability. because they created a muddled and unjust middle eastern and southeast asian policy that has promoted death, destruction, and torture to stop death, destruction, torture while at the same time bringing freedom. how do you create freedom through bombs, continuing torture and bringing guantanamo bay methods to Iraq? instead, they've created a place that will fan the flames of extremism and hatred for the foreseeable future if the Bush administration does not make some drastic changes and allow for a debate to actually take place fromo the highest to lowest levels of government about the current methodology of the so-called "war on terror" or war without end. (I tend to think it is too late...but I try to hope it isn't.) so, when will they be held accountable for all the half-truths and deceit that has broken apart alliances that have been painstakingly put together during the past half-century and caused unmistakable damage to american credibility through the unmistakable and shameful Abu Ghraib scandal?

A tagent: I've had this crazy idea lately...wouldn't it be a thoroughly demented fate if I, for instance, was drafted into the Army and had to serve in Iraq. I think about this from time to time. This hypothetical would pose a serious and interesting dilemma. So, I'm writing a short story about it now because it would be an interesting way for me to navigate through my identity in a creative manner.

on the other side of the coin...americans expect iraqis to be bombed, liberated into chaos, and like it, too? this is just extremely ridiculous, ok? when an iraqi blogger pours praise on occupation soldiers it makes me sick to my stomach sometimes because i wonder, do they deserve it when 100 Iraqis die and another few hundred maimed? and what was the context of this praise? shouldn't they just get out as soon as possible for their and Iraq's own good? then i think how these contracted killers in firms like blackwater are causing more confusion and violence riding around so arrogantly with their six-figure in six-months work while the soldier is made to suffer from their mistakes and go rescue them. GET THE CONTRACTED CIVILIANS WITH HEAVY WEAPONS (THAT CONSTITUTE THE EFFECT OF MILITIAS) CAUSING CHAOS OUT OF IRAQ FIRST!

anyway, where was i? well, yes, now back to the other side of the coin...say some fresh faced 18 year old from the deep south goes to Iraq and really screws up and kills an innocent person or gets killed in the process because he or she couldn't speak arabic or was culturally insensitive. i can't blame anyone but the situation. the situation should not have come about to cause such trauma. in some cases the situation causes terminal trauma either reflexively or projected upon a person. that is my civil middle ground. if i tried to relate to the insurgent's or the soldier's point of view, I would always get an incomplete picture. because how do i know that some specific insurgent didn't just join because his whole family was slaughtered "accidentally" in an american targeting mistake. that's the problem when fighting with such cruel weapons. there's absolutely no room for error, or else you are creating more violence and more insurgents more quickly than creating a steady electricity supply or jobs, for instance. and what about that young impressionable army recruit? should he be made into a victim because he screwed up with his itchy trigger finger? hell no, but i hope none of my family are on the receiving end of such fire.

so, i walk this fine line because i see no other way to keep an open mind.

and my open mind has not been a victim through this difficult time.

so i have won. ha, world. ha.

bye

l.

Introduction: They Control Iraq, But Do They Control Themselves

Of course the people don't want war....But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along....All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
(Herman Goering, speaking at the Nuremberg trials in 1946)

The title of this book does not refer to the ancient kettles which disappeared from the museums and archaeological sites in the days after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime (in all probability, to reappear after the appropriate time first on the black, then on the legitimate, art market): these kettles were mostly stolen, not borrowed, and the worry about the looting of museums and archaeological sites in Iraq again displayed the hypocrisy and pretence of the liberal attitude of 'respect for other cultures'. The title refers to another kettle --the one in the joke evoked by Freud to illustrate the strange logic of dreams: (1) I never borrowed the kettle from you; (2) I returned it to you unbroken; (3) the kettle was already broken when I igot it from you. Such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments, of course, confirms per negationem what it endeavours to deny -- that I returned a broken kettle to you.

Did not the same inconsistency characterize the justification of the war on Iraq in early 2003? (1) Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction which pose a 'clear and present danger' not only to his neighbors and Israel, but to all democratic Western states. (2) So what were we to do when, in September 2003, David Kay, the CIA official in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, had to concede that no such weapons had been found so far (after more than a thousand US specialists had spent months looking for them)? We move on to the next level: even if Saddam does not have any WMDs, he was involved with al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attack, so he should be punished as part of the justified revenge for 9/11 and in order to prevent such attacks in the future. (3) However, again, in September 2003, even President George Bush had to concede: ' We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks.' So what do we do after this painful concession, given the fact that a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in those attacks? We move on to the next level: even if there is no proof of the link with al-Qaeda, Saddam's regime is a ruthless dictatorial regime, a threat to its neighbors and a catastrophe to its own people, and this fact alone provides reason enough to topple it....^1 The problem, again, was that there were too many reasons for the war.

What conferred a semblance of consistency on this multitude of reasons was, of course, ideology. The images of Saddam endlessly repeated on our screens before the war (Saddam firing a rifle into the air) made him into some kind of Iraqi Charlton Heston -- the president not only of Iraq, but also of the Iraqi Rifle Association. ... The true interest of these images, however, is that they remind us how the ideological struggle is fought out not only at the level of arguments but also at the level of images: which image will hegemonize a field, and function as the paradigmatic embodiment of an idea, a regime, a problem. Recall (the now half-forgotten) Jessica Lynch, 'the face of the war' : in an ideological gesture par excellence, she was elevated into the paradigm of the US soldier. Her story is to be read at three levels, which again correspond to the Lacanian triad Imaginary-Symbolic-Real (ISR). First there was the imaginary spectacle: the ordinary all-American girl-next-door, tender and fragile, the very opposite of the brutish soldier of our imagination. ... Then, of course, there was, the underlying ideological background, the symbolic level of media manipulation. And, last but not least, we should not forget the very 'vulgar' economic aspect: Jessica enlisted in the US Army in order to be able to pursue her studies afterwards, that is to escape the small-town lower-class life of rural community in crisis, so that when she 'triumphantly' returned home, this looked more like being brought back to a prison from which she had tried to break out -- no wonder she looked uneasy, and the spectacle of her homecoming did not really catch on.^2

In contrast to the Gulf War of 1991, epitomized by the camera shot of a computer-guided projectile hitting its target, thereby depicting war as an abstract computer game (there were no battlefield reports during that war; the blackout was complete), the Iraqi war of 2003 was well characterized by the 'embedded reporters' -- reporters staying with the troops, providing live coverage of their day-to-day life and the battles themselves, thus contributing the 'human touch' and generating an instant identification of the spectator's perspective with that of the soldier. With regard to this shift, it is crucial to not how both approaches are 'abstract' in the strict Hegelian-Marxian sense -- if anything, there is more truth about the actual nature of the war in the abstract-technological video-game approach. The 'concrete' depiction of the experience of combatants is abstract in the sense that it obfuscates the concrete totality which provides the true global meaning of the war. What, then, would have been the correct approach? Apropos of this war reporting, I am tempted to repeat the old Adornian critical comment: the truth is the very split between the two modes, the abstract-digital level and the 'human-touch' level of individual experience -- in other words, the truth is that this split is irreducible, that there is no common denominator between the two.^3

What, then, was the real reason for going to war? Strangely, there were, in effect, three: (1) a sincere ideological belief that the USA was bringing democracy and prosperity to another nation; (2) the urge brutally to assert and demonstrate unconditional US hegemony; (3) control of Iraq's oil reserves. Each of the three levels has a relative autonomy of its own, and should not be dismissed as a mere deceptive semblance. Recall the basic American reaction (at least) since the Vietnam War: we just try to do good, to help others, to bring peace and prosperity, and look what we get in return. ... The fundamental insight of movies like John Ford's Searchers and Michael Scorsese's Taxi Driver is today, with the global American ideological offensive, more relevant than ever -- we witness the resurgence of the figure of the 'quiet American', a naive benevolent agent who sincerely wants to bring democracy and Western freedom to the Vietnamese; it is just that his intentions totally misfire, or, as Graham Greene put it: 'I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.'

As for the second reason, in their recent The War Over Iraq, Willam Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote:

The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there. ... We stand at the cusp of a new historical era. ... This is a decisive moment. ... It is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the future of the Middle East and the war on terror. It is about what sort of role the United States intends to play in the twenty-first century.

I can only agree with this: it truly is the future of the international community that is at stake now -- the new rules that will regulate it; the character of the New World Order.

As far as oil is concerned, as reported in the media in June 2003, Paul Wolfowitz not only dismissed the WMD issue as a 'bureaucratic' excuse for war, but openly admitted that oil was the true motive: 'Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.'^4 And it seems obvious that the key factor was the middle one: using Iraq as a pretext or an exemplary case to stake out the coordinates of the New World Order, to assert the USA's right to pre-emptive strikes, and thus to elevate its status into that of the only global policeman. The message was addressed not to the Iraqi people, but primarily to all of us, the witnesses to the war -- we were its true ideological and political targets.

A new vision of the New World order is thus emerging as the de facto guiding light of recent US politics: after September 11, the USA basically wrote off the rest of the world as a reliable partner; the ultimate goal is therefore no longer the Fukayama utopia of expanding universal liberal democracy, but the transformation of the USA into 'Fortress America', a lone superpower isolated from the rest of the world, protecting its vital economic interests and securing its safety through its new military power, which includes not only forces for rapid deployment anywhere around the globe, but also the development of space weapons by means of which the USA will control the surface of the globe from above. The existence of this strategy throws a new light on to the recent conflicts between the USA and Europe: it is not Europe which is 'betraying' the USA; the USA itself no longer needs or has to rely on its exclusive partnership with Europe. While this vision, of course, is an ideological fiction (today, the idea that any country can be a secluded 'fortress' is quite simply unworkable), it is non the less a fiction with immense material power, a fiction materialized in gigantic state apparatuses, and economic and military activity.

****
The above is the first six pages of Slavoj Zizek's new book called, >>Iraq, the Borrowed Kettle<<. Interestingly enough, there was this forum on compuserve about 'the kettle' a day or two ago that I happened across.

Enjoy, and I recommend buying the book.

-l.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-anonymous2jul02,1,1846957.story

COMMENTARY


Seeing Islam Through a Lens of U.S. Hubris


Our national mind-set may be leading us toward defeat, a CIA expert says.
By Anonymous

July 2, 2004

On the one hand, Americans are told daily by the media, newsmakers and government officials that the West is winning the war that began on Sept. 11; that we've taken the fight to the terrorists and rolled back their networks, and that the majority of Al Qaeda's leadership has been captured or killed.

But if you listen closely, you can also hear sharp disconnects. The directors of the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI warn periodically that Al Qaeda is as dangerous now as it was in 2001. And, if you dig even deeper into the newspaper, you'll find stories claiming these gentlemen are incorrect — Al Qaeda actually is more dangerous today than it was before what Osama bin Laden calls the "blessed attacks" of 11 September.

Periodically, the Department of Homeland Security has raised the threat-warning indicator from yellow to amber — or is it amber to yellow? — on a tacky traffic-light-looking device. Adjusting the streetlight-of-death is meant to portray the DHS judgment that the threat to U.S. interests from someone, somewhere in the world has increased. The warnings are then complemented by advice urging citizens to quickly buy a "disaster supply kit," which includes duct tape and plastic sheeting to make their homes airtight, WMD-proof fortresses.

To say the least, Americans are getting mixed and confusing messages from their leaders. Are we headed toward a victory parade, Cold War bomb shelters or simply straight to the graveyard? Do repeated warnings of an Al Qaeda-produced disaster mark a genuine threat, or have federal bureaucrats learned to cover their butts so they will not have another "failed-to-warn" à la 9/11? Are Bin Laden-related dangers downplayed to nurse the on-again, off-again economic recovery and the presidential prospects of both U.S. political parties? Are we to reach for champagne or a rosary?

I believe the answer lies in the way we see and interpret people and events outside North America, which is heavily clouded by arrogance and self-centeredness amounting to what I called "imperial hubris." This is not a genetic flaw in Americans that has been present since the Pilgrims splashed ashore at Plymouth Rock, but rather a way of thinking that America's elites acquired after the end of World War II. It is a process of interpreting the world so it makes sense to us, a process yielding a world in which few events seem alien because we Americanize their components.

"When confronted by a culturally exotic enemy," Lee Harris explained in the August/September 2002 issue of Policy Review, "our first instinct is to understand such conduct in terms that are familiar to us." Thus, for example, Bin Laden is a criminal whose activities are fueled by money — as opposed to a devout Muslim soldier fueled by faith — because Americans know how to beat well-heeled gangsters. We assume, moreover, that Bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms and democracy, not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. military now has a more-than-10-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world.

Our political leaders contend that America's astoundingly low approval ratings in polls taken in major Islamic countries do not reflect our unquestioning support of Israel and, as such, its "targeted killings" and other lethal high jinks. Nor, they say, are the ratings due to our relentless support for tyrannical and corrupt Islamic regimes that are systematically dissipating the Islamic world's energy resources for family fun and profit, while imprisoning, torturing and executing domestic dissenters. The low approval ratings, we are confident, have nothing to do with our refusal to apply nuclear nonproliferation rules with anything close to an even hand; a situation that makes Israeli and Indian nuclear weapons acceptable — each is a democracy, after all — while Pakistan's weapons are intolerable, perhaps because they are held by Muslims. And surely, if we can just drive and manage an Islamic Reformation that makes Muslims secular like us, all this unfortunate talk about religious war will end.

Thus, because of the pervasive imperial hubris that dominates the minds of our political, academic, social, media and military elites, America is able and content to believe that the Islamic world fails to understand the benign intent of U.S. foreign policy. This mind-set holds that America does not need to reevaluate its policies, let alone change them; it merely needs to better explain the wholesomeness of its views and the purity of its purposes to the uncomprehending Islamic world. What could be more American in the early 21st century, after all, then to re-identify a casus belli as a communication problem, and then call on Madison Avenue to package and hawk a remedy called "Democracy-Secularism-and-Capitalism-are-good-for-Muslims" to an Islamic world that has, to date, violently refused to purchase?

This is meant neither to ridicule my countrymen's intellectual abilities nor to be supportive of Bin Laden and his interpretation of Islam, but to say that most of the world outside North America is not, does not want to be and probably will never be just like us. And let me be clear, I am not talking about America's political freedoms, personal liberties or respect for education and human rights; the same polls showing that Muslims hate Americans for their actions find broad support for the ideas and beliefs that make us who we are. Pew Trust polls in 2003, for instance, found that although Muslims believed it "necessary to believe in God to be moral," they also favored what were termed "democratic values."

I'm saying that when Americans — the leaders and the led — process incoming information to make it intelligible in American terms, many not only fail to clearly understand what is going on abroad but, more ominous, fail to accurately gauge the severity of the danger that these foreign events, organizations, attitudes and personalities pose to U.S. national security and our society's welfare and lifestyle.

In order to make the decisions and allocate the resources needed to ensure U.S. security, Americans must understand the world as it is, not as we want — or worse yet, hope — it will be.

I have long experience analyzing and attacking Bin Laden and Islamists. I believe they are a growing threat to the United States — there is no greater threat — and that we are being defeated not because the evidence of the threat is unavailable but because we refuse to accept it at face value and without Americanizing the data. This must change, or our way of life will be unrecognizably altered.

*


The author is a senior counterintelligence official at the CIA who served from 1996 to 1999 as head of a special unit tracking Osama bin Laden. The CIA allowed publication of his forthcoming book, "Imperial Hubris" (Brassey's, 2004), in which the author is identified as "Anonymous."

BBC is just reporting that there was only ONE Iraqi correspondant allowed in the courtroom. What? And there are about 200 newspapers in Iraq now. What is wrong with these numbers?

This, specifically, is a travesty. Freedom in action, huh?

let freedom reign? ...NO, sorry, wrong on that too...it is "let freedom ring" mista prezident.

And now, I'm afraid this trial will not be as legitimate as it should be. This will be a big mistake if they don't fix it to be more legitimate when proceedings really begin. Take Chalabi out of the court. The GC appointing salem chalabi as chief judge tarnishes the process. I want justice as much as anybody else. He needs to get what's coming to him, but it NEEDS and MUST be from a more legitimate and sound process. I reiterate that because the integrity of the process is compromised, it will be a huge mistake in the long-term.

Of course this is playing out as it is for an American audience. But this should be a process that is custom built for Iraqis, shouldn't it? Especially the ones that have lived through the tyranny of this dictator

There will not be appropriate reconciliation for Iraqis living inside Iraq at this rate.

regardless...

Long Live Iraq,
saddam is going down one way or another
and today is a good day for this reason alone

liminal

ps
a sidenote:
i must pt. out that it is both highly ironic and poetic justice that saddam is not getting a "fair" trial just as his "trials" were unfair. we shall see how this irony plays out.


pps/updated early friday morning
Here's Robert Fisk's latest article:

*****

Confused? Shadow of his old self? Hardly

By Robert Fisk in Baghdad

02 July 2004

Bags beneath his eyes, beard greying, finger-jabbing with anger, Saddam was still the same fox, alert, cynical, defiant, abusive, proud. Yet history must record that the new "independent" government in Baghdad yesterday gave Saddam Hussein an initial trial hearing that was worthy of the brutal old dictator.

He was brought to court in chains and handcuffs. The judge insisted that his own name should be kept secret. The names of the other judges were kept secret. The location of the court was kept secret. There was no defence counsel.

For hours, the Iraqi judges managed to censor Saddam's evidence from the soundtrack of the videotaped proceedings - so that the world should not hear the wretched man's defence. Even CNN was forced to admit that it had been given tapes of the hearing "under very controlled circumstances".

This was the first example of "new" Iraq's justice system at work - yet the tapes of the court appeared on CNN with the logo "Cleared by US Military". So what did the Iraqis and their American mentors want to hide?

The voice of the Beast of Baghdad as he turned - much to the young judge' s surprise - on the court itself, pointing out the investigating lawyer had no right to speak "on behalf of the so-called coalition"? Saddam's arrogant refusal to take human responsibility for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait? Or his dismissive, chilling response to the mass gassings of Halabja? "I have heard of Halabja," he said, as if he had read about it in a newspaper article. Later, he said just that: "I've heard about them [the killings] through the media."

Perhaps the Americans and the Iraqis they have appointed to run the country were taken by surprise. Saddam, we were all told over the past few days, was "disorientated", "downcast", "confused", a "shadow of his former self" and other clichés. These were the very words used to describe him on the American networks from Baghdad yesterday. But the moment the mute videotape began to air, a silent movie in colour, the old combative Saddam was evidently still alive. He insisted the Americans were promoting his trial, not the Iraqis. His face became flushed and he showed visible contempt towards the judge. "This is all a theatre," he shouted. "The real criminal is Bush."

The brown eyes moved steadily around the tiny courtroom, from the judge in his black, gold-trimmed robes to the policeman with the giant paunch - we were never shown his face - with the acronym of the Iraqi Correctional Service on his uniform. "I will sign nothing - nothing until I have spoken to a lawyer," Saddam announced - correctly, in the eyes of several Iraqi lawyers who watched his performance on television.

Scornful he was, defeated he was not. And of course, watching that face yesterday, one had to ask oneself how much Saddam had reflected on the very real crimes with which he was charged: Halabja, Kuwait, the suppression of the Shia Muslim and Kurdish uprisings in 1991, the tortures and mass killings.

One looked into those big, tired, moist eyes and wondered if he understood pain and grief and sin in the way we mere mortals think we do. And then he talked and we needed to hear what he said and the question slid away; perhaps that is why he was censored. We were supposed to stare at his eyes, not listen to his words. Milosevic-like, he fought his corner. He demanded to be introduced to the judge. "I am an investigative judge," the young lawyer told him without giving his name.

In fact, he was Ra'id Juhi, a 33-year old Shia Muslim who had been a judge for 10 years under Saddam's own regime, a point he did concede to Saddam later in the hearing without telling the world what it was like to be a judge under the dictator. He was also the same judge who accused the Shia prelate Muqtada Sadr of murder last April, an event that led to a military battle between Sadr's militiamen and US troops in the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. Mr Juhi, who most recently worked as a translator, was appointed - to no one 's surprise - by the former US proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer.

Already, one suspected, Saddam had sniffed out what this court represented for him: the United States. "I am Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq," he announced - which is exactly what he did when US Special Forces troops dragged him from his hole on the banks of the Tigris river seven months ago. "Would you identify yourself?"

When Judge Juhi said he represented the coalition, Saddam admonished him. Iraqis should judge Iraqis but not on behalf of foreign powers, he snapped. "Remember you're a judge, don't talk for the occupiers." Then he turned lawyer himself. "Were these laws of which I am accused written under Saddam Hussein?" Judge Juhi conceded that they were. "So what entitles you to use them against the president who signed them?"

Here was the old arrogance that we were familiar with, the president, the rais who believed he was immune from his own laws, that he was above the law, outside the law. Those big black eyebrows that used to twitch whenever he was angry, began to move threateningly, arching up and down like little drawbridges above his eyes.

The invasion of Kuwait was not an invasion, he said. "It was not an occupation." Kuwait had tried to strangle Iraq economically, "to dishonour Iraqi women who would go into the street and would be exploited for 10 dinars". Given the number of women dishonoured in Saddam's torture chambers, these words carried their own unique and terrible isolation.

He called the Kuwaitis "dogs", a description the Iraqi authorities censored to "animals" on the tape. Dogs are, alas, one of the most cursed of creatures in the Arab world. "The president of Iraq and the head of the Iraqi armed forces went to Kuwait in an official manner," Saddam blustered.

But then, watching that face with its expressive mouth and bright white crooked teeth, the eyes glimmering, a dreadful thought occurred. Could it be this awful man - albeit given less chance to be heard than the Nazis at the first Nuremberg hearings - actually knew less than we thought? Could it be that his apparatchiks and grovelling generals, even his own sons, kept from this man the iniquities of his regime? Might it just be possible that the price of power was ignorance, the cost of guilt a mere suggestion here and there that the laws of Iraq - so immutable according to Saddam - were not adhered to as fairly as they might have been?

No, I think not. I remember how, a decade and a half ago, Saddam asked a group of Kurds whether he should hang "the spy" Farzad Bazoft and how, once the crowd had obligingly told him to execute the young freelance reporter from The Observer, he ordered his hanging. No, I think Saddam knew. I think he regarded brutality as strength, cruelty as justice, pain as mere hardship, death as something endured by others.

Of course, there was that smart, curious black jacket, more a sports blazer than a piece of formal attire, the crisply cleaned shirt, the cheap pen and the piece of folded, yellow exercise paper which he took from his jacket pocket when he wanted to take notes. "I respect the will of the people," he said at one stage. "This is not a court - it is an investigation."

The key moment came at that point. Saddam said the court was illegal because the Anglo-American war which brought it into being was illegal - it had no backing from the UN Security Council. Then Saddam crouched slightly and said with controlled irony: "Am I not supposed to meet with lawyers? Just for 10 minutes?"

And one had to have a heart of stone not to remember how many of his victims must have begged, in just the same way, for just 10 more minutes.

___________________

again, updated sat morning
with another fisk article
*******


US military tried to censor coverage of Saddam hearing

By Robert Fisk in Baghdad

03 July 2004

A team of US military officers acted as censors over all coverage of the hearings of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen on Thursday, destroying videotape of Saddam in chains and deleting the entire recorded legal submissions of 11 senior members of his former regime.

A US network cameraman who demanded the return of his tapes, which contained audios of the hearings, said he was told by a US officer: "No. They belong to us now. And anyway, we don't trust you guys."

According to American journalists present at the 30-minute hearing of Saddam and 11 former ministers at Baghdad airport, an American admiral in civilian clothes told camera crews that the judge had demanded that there should be no sound recording of the initial hearing. He ordered crews to unplug their sound wires. Several of the six crews present pretended to obey the instruction. "We learnt later," one of them said, "that the judge didn't order us to turn off our sound. The Americans lied - it was they who wanted no sound. The judge wanted sound and pictures."

Initially, crews were told that a US Department of Defence camera crew would provide the sound for their silent tapes. But when CNN and CBS crews went to the former occupation authority headquarters - now the US embassy - they found that three US officers ordered the censorship of tape which showed Saddam being led into the courtroom with a chain round his waist which was connected to handcuffs round his wrists. The Americans gave no reason for this censorship.

"They were rude and they didn't care," another American television crew member said. "They were running the show. The Americans decided what the world could and could not see of this trial - and it was meant to be an Iraqi trial. There was a British official in the courtroom whom we were not allowed to take pictures of. The other men were US troops who had been ordered to wear ordinary clothes so that they were 'civilians' in the court."

Three US officers viewed the tapes taken by two CNN cameras, 'Al-Djezaira' (a local, American-funded Iraqi channel), and the US government. "Fortunately, they were lazy and they didn't check all the tapes properly so we got our 'audio' through in the satellite to London," one of the crew members told The Independent yesterday. "I had pretended to unplug the sound from the camera but the man who claimed he was a US admiral didn't understand cameras and we were able to record sound. The American censors at the embassy were inattentive - that's how we got the sound out."

The only thing the Americans managed to censor from most of the tapes was Saddam's comment that "this is theatre - Bush is the real criminal."

Television stations throughout the world were astonished yesterday when the first tapes of Saddam's trial arrived without sound and have still not been informed that the Americans censored the material. "What can we do when an American official tells us the judge doesn't want sound - and then we find out that they lied and the judge does want the sound?" an American camera operator asked.

Video showed the face - and audiotape revealed the voice - of Judge Raid Juhi, whose name was widely reported in the Arab press yesterday. According to the camera crews, Judge Juhi wanted the world to hear Saddam's voice. Nevertheless the Americans erased the entire audiotape of the hearings of the 11 former Saddam ministers, including that of Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister, and "Chemical" Ali, Saddam's cousin accused of gassing the Kurds at Halabja. The US Department of Defence tape of their hearings has been taken by the US authorities so there is now no technical record of the words of these 11 men, save for the notebooks of "pool" reporters - four Americans and two Iraqis - who were present.

Judge Juhi said not long ago that "I have no secrets - a judge must not be ashamed of the decisions he takes."

The Americans apparently think differently.

________________

and again Sat night, Robert Fisk is turning them out in a hardcore fashion
Wonderful!
******


So this is what they call the new, 'free' Iraq


Americans hold Saddam Hussein. Americans ran the court in which he appeared. Americans censored the tapes of the hearing. Who do you think is running the country? Robert Fisk in Baghdad reports on Iraq's first week of freedom from coalition rule


04 July 2004



In his last hours as US proconsul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer decided to tighten up some of the laws that his occupation authority had placed across the land of Iraq.


He drafted a new piece of legislation forbidding Iraqi motorists to drive with only one hand on the wheel. Another document solemnly announced that it would henceforth be a crime for Iraqis to sound their car horns except in an emergency. That same day, three American soldiers were torn apart by a roadside bomb north of Baghdad, one of more than 60 attacks on US forces over the weekend. And all the while, Mr Bremer was worrying about the standards of Iraqi driving.


It would be difficult to find a more preposterous - and chilling - symbol of Mr Bremer's failures, his hopeless inability to understand the nature of the débâcle that he and his hopeless occupation authority have brought about. It's not that the old "Coalition Provisional Authority" - now transmogrified into the 3,000-strong US embassy - was out of touch. It didn't even live on Planet Earth. Mr Bremer's last starring moment came when he departed Baghdad on a US military aircraft, with two US-paid mercenaries - rifles pointed menacingly at camera crews and walking backwards - protecting him until the cabin door closed. And Mr Bremer, remember, was appointed to his job because he was an "anti-terrorist" expert.


Most of the American CPA men who have cleared out of Baghdad are doing what we always suspected they would do when they had finished trying to put a US ideological brand name on "new" Iraq; they have headed off to Washington to work for the Bush election campaign. But those left behind in the "international zone" - those we have to pretend are no longer an occupation authority - make no secret of their despair. "The ideology is gone. The ambitions are gone. We've no aims left," one of them said last week. "We're living from one day to the next. All we're trying to do now - our only goal - is to keep the lid on until January 2005 [when the first Iraqi elections are supposed to be held]. That's our only aim - get past the elections - and then get the hell out."


The production of Saddam Hussein in a Baghdad "court" last week - he was actually sitting in one of his former palaces - was therefore the occupiers' last card. After this, there is going to be no more "good news" in Iraq, no more devices, no more tricks, no more captures to brighten our eyes before the November elections in the US. Yet even the court melodrama was symptomatic of how little power the West is prepared to cede to an Iraq to which it last week falsely claimed to be handing "full sovereignty".


Americans continue to hold Saddam - in Qatar, not in Iraq - and Americans ran the court in which Saddam appeared. American soldiers in plain clothes were the "civilians" in the court. American officials censored the tapes of the hearing, lied about the judge's wish to record the sound of the trial, and marked the videotapes "cleared by US military"; three US officers later confiscated all the original tapes of the trial. "The last time that happened to me," one of the reporters involved said afterwards, "was when the Iraqi government took my tapes in Basra during the 1991 Gulf War."


But it's not just the crude handling of the start of Saddam's show trial - where he had, of course, no defence counsel. For if he is ever to be given a fair trial in the future, the "muting" of the tapes last week will have set an important precedent. For he can now be "silenced" again - if, for example, he deviates from the script and starts telling the court about his close association with the US rather than his non-existent contacts with al-Qa'ida.


But America's occupation continues in many other ways. Its 146,000 soldiers are still all too much in evidence in Iraq, its tanks guarding the walls of the US "embassy", its armour littered throughout Baghdad, its convoys humming - and sometimes exploding - along the highways outside the city. The "new" and "sovereign" government cannot order it to leave. Mr Bremer's raft of reconstruction contracts to US companies ensures that American firms continue to cream off Iraq's money, described quite accurately by Naomi Klein in The Nation as "multibillion robbery". And Mr Bremer managed to institute a set of laws that the "new" and "sovereign" government is not permitted to change.


One of the most insidious was the re-introduction of Saddam's 1984 law banning all strikes. This piece of folly was intended to muzzle the so-called Federation of Iraqi Trade Unions. Yet the trade unions are among the few secular groups in Iraq opposing religious orthodoxy and fundamentalism. A strong trade union movement could provide a vital base of political and democratic power in a new Iraq. But no, Mr Bremer preferred to protect big business.


And all the while, the power of the mercenaries has been growing. Blackwater's thugs with guns now push and punch Iraqis who get in their way: Kurdish journalists twice walked out of a Bremer press conference because of their mistreatment by these men. Baghdad is alive with mysterious Westerners draped with hardware, shouting and abusing Iraqis in the street, drinking heavily in the city's poorly defended hotels. They have become, for ordinary Iraqis, the image of everything that is wrong with the West. We like to call them "contractors", but there is a disturbing increase in reports that mercenaries are shooting down innocent Iraqis with total impunity. US military and diplomatic officials have now set an 80/20 ration target for "security" details - 80 Iraqi mercenaries for every 20 Western mercenaries.


And even if President Bush can forget it, the Abu Ghraib scandal burns on in a country where the filth and nudity and humiliation inflicted by US soldiers will take a generation to erase from the memory. One leftist group in Baghdad now claims that several women, allegedly raped by Iraqi policemen at the jail while Americans watched, have been murdered by their families for their "dishonour".


Large areas of the country are now effectively outside any government control - even America's. Fallujah is a virtual people's republic and lynch law is occurring even in Baghdad. The so-called "Mehdi Army" of Muqtada al-Sadr publicly executed a 20-year-old man in the slums of Baghdad's Sadr City last month for "collaboration" with the Americans. Understandably, few journalists dare to travel outside Baghdad - much to the pleasure of the US military. "They killed all those poor people at the wedding party near the Syrian border and our military sources told us there'd been a fuck-up," an American correspondent complained last week. "Then [Brigadier General Mark] Kimmitt says that all the dead were terrorists and he knows we can't go and prove he's wrong."


Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister, we must recall, was a CIA man, an MI6 man and a former Baathist. Indeed, he boasted to journalists that he had taken money from 14 intelligence agencies while he was in exile. However "free" Mr Allawi thinks Iraq is, he will not turn against his American protectors - nor against the glowering figure of John Negroponte, the new US ambassador of Honduras fame.


Ironically, the only real hope for the new government would be to do what a majority of its people say they want: to tell the Americans to leave. This, of course, Mr Allawi cannot do. His "sovereign" government needs those American troops to protect it from the people who don't want the American troops in Iraq.


And so we boil our way on to those January 2005 elections, the lid dangerously lifting from time to time to horrify us with little glimpses of the future. Many Iraqis believe that there will be a new dictator, a "democratically minded strongman" in the creepy expression of American neo-conservative Daniel Pipes, to bring about the security that we have failed to give them.


For after the elections, if indeed they are held, we shall self-righteously claim we can no longer be blamed for anything that goes wrong in Iraq. We liberated the Iraqis from Saddam, we shall say. We gave them "democracy" - and look what a mess they made of it. 

I am excited about a new blog from a 16 year old from Mosul, Najma Abdullah. Her blog is called, A star from Mosul. Mosul represent! As you may or may not know, that's where my family is from. So this is a heads up for everybody to get a fresh perspective from Najma.

I am sitting here in a state of bewilderment. I don't know who to believe, but I know what my gut tells me. How will this get any better in the short term? and the long term? What the hell is going on? When you cannot protect police stations, you've got a serious problem. I am tempted to burst into a rage describing the injustices of this war and how it led to this and other madness of sexual abuse and torture. The terrorism was indeed brought into focus in Iraq because of the war and the consequences of having absolutely no plan whatsoever. The terrorism is in the prisons and in Fallujah, too. Who is inciting it? Well, this is far more complicated than meets the eye. I am a firm believer of confronting the ills that have occurred as soon as possible. We cannot let the prison abuse fall into the cracks of history. That is why somebody high on the food chain must be accountable. It would help the situation on the ground as far as Iraqis go, I'm sure. This war was a huge mistake in such terms of failure to recognise what would be effective at curbing violence. And it's only created more rage in the region and elsewhere that will lead to more madness far down the line.

But now, we also have another certain set of problems...and if we keep our eye off the ball, more innocent people will die in the short term. So, how do we solve the problems that are squarely in front of us now...namely, security. Without it, it's obvious nothing will get done. I honestly have no idea. It is so far off the charts as something that might possibly be handled that I shudder to think. I am extremely disturbed like Zeyad here. I am enraged like Raed, some days. And I am on point with almost everything that River utters. Of course, we haven't heard from Salam lately, but he's pretty damn apt all the time. I hope his projects are going well. And Juan Cole is frighteningly knowledgeable and inspirational to me. I need to write you because my father is a fellow Alumni. The newest addition to the blogosphere that has me captivated is Abbas Kadhim. Thank you once again Abbas. Just wonderful...and each day, what an absolute treat. I plan to start continuing to connect the dots as I was before. It has just been difficult to do while trying to get on with things. There's so much I've missed commenting on and creating because I couldn't. I hate not being concise and missing the important things.

And now, it is absolutely critical that voices be heard on the matter. On a personal note, my family fears speaking on the phone about the most difficult of matters because they are scared as before, under Saddam. This speaks volumes. I hope more Iraqis will learn how to blog if they don't know how and put their thoughts and feelings not just for others to read and for the record; I'm convinced blogging is therapeutic. We need more security and therapy.

But such little and, really, negative progress has been made for security and so we have this terrible situation where nothing gets done and the future is unknown and lacks excitement in a positive manner. We all feel a weight that makes us depressed and indignant. Our collective psychology has been terribly damaged by recent revelations of all the prison abuse and an avalanche of lies cascading upon lies. I urge everybody to keep their chin up and posture straight in this next phase of occupation. Because most of us know it will still be one even after the symbolic handover. We must work as hard as possible to make sure elections happen as soon as possible and that the troops leave immediately (though I don't think this will happen by the sheer kindness of the current Administration). According to Raed, there are 6 permanent bases being built. I thought I read that there were 13 being built, so that is good...only 6. But seriously, these bases need a sunset clause...or else this is enough reason for such a low grade war as we are witnessing recently to continue on a steady and mystifying rate. When something like yesterday happens, time stands still for me as I negotiate what suddenly seem to be petty decisions and melodramas that are taking place in my life.

I have no conclusions. I have few suggestions besides the above that the troops need to leave immediately and that more control needs to be given to Iraqis that have lived inside Iraq during all these years. Exiles, generally speaking, offer something good to the country...but when they have ties to the CIA or any institution like that, what kind of message does that send to the population at large. I am thinking all the time, but I am in disgusted awe of the situation only FOUR DAYS before the Neo Puppet Council has "full sovereignty". When Iraqis achieve this long awaited and deserved goal...well, that will be a day to celebrate.

Long Live Iraq! God Bless all Iraqis inside Iraq now...My thoughts are with you constantly.

LOVE OVER FEAR,

Liminal

HOW LONG WILL THIS LAST BEFORE SOMEBODY RESPONSIBLE IS FIRED or RESIGNS?

THANKS TO SCOTT LINDLAW AND TERRANCE HUNT OF AP, I HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO SCREAM ABOUT. SO, WHAT IS TORTURE MR. BUSH? DONALD RUMSFAILED? JUSTICE-LESS DEPARTMENT'S JOHN "HOLY EAGLE MUNCHER" ASHCROTCH? (SEE HOW LOW YOU'VE MADE ME SINK??? I'M CALLING YOU NAMES.) WAY TO GO, WAY TO DUMB IT DOWN AND TWIST IT UP INTO MORE LIES AND DECEIT. I AM OUTRAGED BY THE LACK OF ACCEPTENCE AND POLITICAL COVER-UP GOING ON...THIS IS DEFINITELY GOING TO THE NEXT LEVEL HERE. INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE TO THIS DEGREE WILL NOT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS THAT THOSE IN CERTAIN CIRCLES WISH (OR WISH NOT) TO SOLVE. READ AND WEEP. SCREAM AND CURSE. I'LL PUT UP moreHYPERLINKS LATER.*

First, let's take a look at a part of the Taguba Report on the prisoner abuse scandal that is not just concerning Abu Ghraib, mind you.

(S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees. (ANNEXES 25 and 26)

7. (U) These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements. In reaching my findings, I have carefully considered the pre-existing statements of the following witnesses and suspects (ANNEX 26): a. (U) SPC Jeremy Sivits, 372nd MP Company - Suspect
b. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company – Suspect
c. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company - Suspect c. (U) PFC Lynndie R. England, 372nd MP Company - Suspect
d. (U) Adel Nakhla, Civilian Translator, Titan Corp., Assigned to the 205th MI Brigade- Suspect
e. (U) SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company
f. (U) SGT Neil A. Wallin, 109th Area Support Medical Battalion
g (U) SGT Samuel Jefferson Provance, 302nd MI Battalion
h (U) Torin S. Nelson, Contractor, Titan Corp., Assigned to the 205th MI Brigade
j. (U) CPL Matthew Scott Bolanger, 372nd MP Company
k. (U) SPC Mathew C. Wisdom, 372nd MP Company
l. (U) SSG Reuben R. Layton, Medic, 109th Medical Detachment
m. (U) SPC John V. Polak, 229th MP Company

-Now today's news:
****

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.

The documents were handed out at the White House in an effort to blunt allegations that the administration had authorized torture against al-Qaida prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq. ``I have never ordered torture,'' Bush said a few hours before the release.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, disavowed a memo written in 2002 that appeared to justify the use of torture in the war on terror. The memo also argued that the president's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties.

That 50-page document, dated Aug. 1, 2002, will be replaced, senior Justice Department officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. A new memo will instead narrowly address the question of proper interrogation techniques for al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the officials said, citing department policy for requesting anonymity on their comments.

***

THEN THE ARTICLE CONTINUES...(I'M NOT GOING TO PUT THE WHOLE THING NOW, AND I COULD PAR IT DOWN A BIT LATER ON.)

***
TERRANCE HUNT GIVES US EVEN MORE IN HIS ARTICLE

****
.


Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:


-Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.


-Removing prisoners' clothes.


-Intimidating detainees with dogs.


-Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.


-Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.


-Shaving detainees' heads and beards.


-Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.


Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

*****
LINDLAW'S CONT...

*****


At the Justice Department, senior officials said that the 50-page memo issued to the White House on Aug. 1, 2002, would be repudiated and replaced because it contained what they called overbroad and irrelevant advice.



The memo, signed by former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee, included lengthy sections that appeared to justify use of torture in the war on terrorism and it contended that U.S. personnel could be immune from prosecution for torture. The memo also argued that the president's powers as commander in chief allow him to override U.S. laws and international treaties banning torture.



Critics on Capitol Hill and elsewhere have said that memo provided the legal underpinnings for subsequent abuses of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Reacting to the White House release, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused the administration of continuing to withhold information.



``Though this is a self-serving selection, at least it is a beginning,'' Leahy said. ``But for the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to find the whole truth, we will need much more cooperation and extensive hearings.''



Associated Press writers Curt Anderson, Robert Burns and Scott Lindlaw contributed to this article.


****

ACCORDING TO BUSH'S FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, "FROZEN FRENCH FRIES ARE A FRESH VEGETABLE" AND KETCHUP IS TOO...SO, LOGICALLY, YOU'D THINK THAT THESE THINGS WOULD BE TORTURE IF IT WERE STRETCHED (IN NEOCONS EYES...IN THE SAME DIRECTION). INSTEAD, LOGIC IS DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN BY THOSE 5-THUMBED MONSTERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEFENSE and JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS. WHY DON'T PEOPLE IN THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS CALL PEOPLE OUT AND HOLD SOME HIGHER-UPS ACCOUNTABLE?

WELL, the following is an example of that happening.

READ "IMPERIAL HUBRIS". IT'S A NEW BOOK BY >>ANONYMOUS<< (WHO INDCIDENTALLY WORKS FOR THE CIA, NOT THE PUPPET PM, MIND YOU) SAYING WE ARE LOSING THE WAR ON TERRORISM. I BELIEVE IT'S OUT IN STORES on JULY 15.


AGAIN, HYPER LINKS UP LATER. AND CAPS DOWN. I'M JUST LAZY TO DO IT NOW. more later....RAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! W H A T I S T O R T U R E Y O U A N I M A L S ? ? ?

It's taking me longer than I expected to get the Bromley piece up. But more is up now. Enjoy and keep your eyes open even in bondage X>

Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one. -A.J.P. Taylor

Poker players who win more often than they lose obey a rule of thumb expressed in the phrase "never chase the pot." Were the United States to apply the same policy to the cards it has been dealt in Iraq we would fold the hand sooner instead of later--without conditions or complaint, accepting the loss as a fact beyond the hope of rescue by Commander James Bond or the ace of hearts.

President George Bush apparently doesn't know the game (doesn't know it or believes himself too rich to care what any of the numbers mean), and so in the news from Washington and Baghdad these days we see the squandering of the country's fortune (its wealth, the lives of its young men and women, its character and good name) on the vanity of a feckless commander in chief who holds the equivalent of ofive low unmatched cards--a bankrupt theory of world domination, a collection of lurid snapshots from the Abu Ghraib prison, a botched military occupation of the Mesopotamian desert, a delusionary secretary of defense, few allies in western Europe and none in the kingdoms of Islam. Undetterred by circumstance, well pleased with his persona as the last, best hope of mankind, the President smiles his spendthrift and self-congratulating smile and bets another Marine division on teh chance that it will save Mel Gibson's Jesus from a mob of bearded terrorists in Najaf.

I can understand why some people might find the performance terrifying, also why some otehr people might see it as darkly comic, but what I don't understand is why anybody continues to think that the man knows what he's doing. Presumable they're unacquainted with the lessons of the poker table; maybe they don't know that the President imagines himself in a game with John Wayne, Omar Sharif, and the Devil. Important personages in the new media, sources well informed and highly placed, acknowledge the mess that the noble heir has made of the American gamble in Iraq, but when I suggest that the President would do well to heed the advice of the historian A.J.P. Taylor, the tribunes on the jingo right accuse me of cowardice or treason (not a true American, no friend of our soldiers in the field); representatives of the conscience-stricken left draw my attention to the geopolitical reality of the international oil price and Woodrow Wilson's high-minded notion of making the world safe for democracy. But no matter what the provenience of the correction or the rebuke, all present in the chorus of responsible opinion (Senator Kerry as well as President Bush) offer sentiments identical to the ones that for twelve years bankrolled the American losses in Vietnam--the United States must "stay the course," discharge its "moral responsibility," protect the Iraqi people from the scourge of civil war, maintain its "credibility" as the all-powerful wonder of the world. The sales pitch is as disingenuous now as it was in 1968:

America must finish the job

What job? Instead of going to Iraq with plans for military occupation, we went with the script for a Hollywood western, and we have done as much as we know how to do--captured the bad guy, discovered that he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction, expended large quantities of ammunition, reduced to rubble a substantial weight of antiquated architecture, killed or maimed 4,000 American troops as well as an unlisted number of Iraqi civilians. Begining with the plotline of High Plains Drifter and similar in both disposition and result to the American expeditions to Cuba and the Philipines at the turn of the twentieth century, to Haiti in 1915 and 1994, to Vietnam in 1962-75.

Certainly we can do more of the same, but as to the construction of a democratic theme park on the banks of the Euphrates, we have neither a liking nor talent for the enterprise. Of the books recently leading the New York Times bestseller list, at least sic (smong them those by Richard Clarke, Ron Suskind, John Dean, and Bob Woodward) speak to the Bush Administrations's failure to comprehend, much less anticipate or address, the task described in the Pentagon's promotional brochures. The Washington aides-de-camp arranging the maps on the walls of the White House Situation Room tend to overlook the fact that the Americans are an authentically civilian people, devoid of an exalted theory of the state that might allow us to govern subject races with a firm hand and a quiet conscience. The imperial project serves the interest of the proprieted classes, but the owrk must be performed by the laboring classes, and it is never easy to harness the energy of the latter to the enthusiasms of the former. At about the same time that the Abu Ghraib prison photographs were making the rounds of the Internet, the apostles of freedom-loving blitzkrieg were acknowledging the need for another fifteen infantry to stand watch for another four or five years over the investments of American capital in the oil fields of Basra and Kirkuk. The Pentagon doesn't have the troops, and if the opinion polls can be believed (popular support for the liberation of Iraq falling from 53 percent to 48 percent in the month of May) the American public isn't willing to spend the money or the time. Who will then finish the job? None other than the Iraqi people, currently identified (as were the rebels in the American revolution) as terrorists, detainees, foreign agents, enemy combatants.

Moral Responsibility

The two words sound nicely together when presented to a television camera or to a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, but where is teh meaning in either the adjective or the noun? How moral? Responsibility to what or to whom?

I know of no war described by its active participants as moral. Men go off to war for as many reasons as can be dressed up with a flag or a name for God; the horror of the battlefield translates the fine language into the savage instinct for survival, the military band music in to the sound of dying animals. Consult the testimony of the witnesses to the killing at Verdun, Stalingrad, or Omaha Beach, and the voices of fast-receding conscience find nothing moral in the mass production of their own collective murder.

The American dimplomatists of fifty years ago at least had the good grace not to mince words. George Kennan in the winter of 1948 circulated a memorandum to his associates at the State Department in which he made no attempt to conceal the motive of straightforward plunder behind the screens of Christion charity:

We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population...In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.

The argument presupposed an American realpolitik strongmindedly turned away from what Kennan regarded as "unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standard and democratization."

Responsibility, the second word in the stock phrase, is as nonsensical as the first. The Bush Administration interprets the responsibility as one owing to its own stupidity, arrogance, and pride. The invasion of Iraq was mounted on the false premise that secular democracy (that happy, blessed state) could be forced at gunpoint upon Muslim nationalists faithful to the teachings of the Koran and more familiar with the punishment inflicted upon them by ten years of American economic sanctions than with the sayings of Thomas Jefferson. To excuse the subsequent fiasco of the military occupation, the President asks the American people for the willing suspension of their disbelief. Although characteristic of an administration that defines the acceptance of responsibility as a fool's errand and the admission of error as a sign of weakness, teh stratagem comes up against a difficulty on which a younger and wiser John Kerry remarked soon after his return from the war in Vietnam, a war in which he'd served with distinction as a naval lieutenant but had come to regard as both irresponsible and immoral. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, he said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" The Bush Administration answers the question with the directive, "Tell the man a lie."

America's credibility at stake

Not America's credibility, the credibility of the Bush Administration. The phrase "American foreign policy" currently stands as a synonym for cynicism and deceit, the credit rating of a White House press release so sharply discounted nearly everywhere in the world among people unaffiliated with the weapons industry, a low-enforcement agency, or the Republican Party that in Israel the newspapers defend the cruelties inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza by saying, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor aggregate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

The Bush Administration staged the violent overthrow of Saddam Hussein to prove that America's colossal military power established its right to rule the world from the gun platforms of virtual omnipotence. During the first weeks of the invasion the staff officers at the White House congratulated one another on "the demonstration effect" of their high-tech gladitorial show in the cradle of civilization, certain that the fireworks display would so shock and amaze troublesome regimes elsewhere in the Middle East that no Arab in his or her right mind would chance the risk of overt or covert defiance. Contrary to the expectations of the studio executives in Washington, the events of the last year have taught a different object lesson, demonstrating the limits of American power and suggesting that the Bush Administration's imperialist policy amounts to little else except another name for terrorism--precision-guided and digitally enhanced but otherwise similar in its objectives to the action-movie sequence that destroyed Manhattan's World Trade Center. The apostles of "the new information order" have been making the point for twenty years. The terrorist who blows up a train in Madrid enlists the complicity of CNN, and within an hour of committing the atrocity, he holds as hostage the rage and despair of audience large enough to wreck a government. So also the scenes of street fightin in Fallujah and the exhibition of photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison, seen within the hour by America's prospective enemies everywhere in teh Islamic world. The war on terror is a war of images, the firepower of the world's television cameras striking an asymmetric balance against the weapons of mass destruction in the Pentagon's arsenal of fear.

Like the rescue of Vietnam from the evil castle of Soviet Communism, the rescue of Iraq from the caves of Arab jihad has borne out the law of uninteded effects. Meant to astonish the world with the virtues of democracy, the expedition to Indochina taught a generation of American citizens to think of their own government as an oriental despotism. In Iraq the theory and the practice of terrorism; what we have done instead is to endow it with diplomatic credentials, making credible the policies of blind assassination.

Failure is not an option

Define the American purpose in Iraq as the transformation of the Arab Middle East into a democratic real estate development, or the seizing of what President Bush fondly describes as "an historic opportunity to change the world," and failure is the only option. What is at issue is the degree of failure, and whether the United States can earn a measure of respect (from an increasingly large body of its own citizens as well as from the Iraqi people) by departing, preferably before the end of teh year, without attempting to secure the perimeters of a puppet government or a client state. Every day that American troops kill or be killed (for whatever reason on no matter whose orders) adds to the sum of anger and resentment certain to makemore difficult the country's struggle with its own tribal hatreds, nationalist politics, religious zeal. We cannot know if our withdrawal will incite civil war, or, if such a war occurs, whether it will lead to a worse or more far reaching result than the one assured by our extended military presence. Our Washington geopoliticians wrongly forecast a massive bloodletting in Vietnam after our escape from the roof of the embassy in Saigon. Probably we won't like the government that the Iraqis choose for themselves--whether a secular state in control of its owl oil reserves or an Islamic theocracy unfriendly to Israel--but if we mean what we say about democratic principle and free elections, on what ground do we prevent them from choosing it? Under the auspices of the United Nations, we can provide money and medicine, also roads, sewers, electrification, and copies of The Federalist Papers, but not a constitution similar to the one that we imposed on Cuba in 1901, which reserved our right to "intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence."

In the meantime we can hope that John Kerry, the presidential candidate, remembers the question asked by John Kerry, the naval lieutenant. For the time being he appears to have forgotten what he once knew about lost wars and dishonest advertising slogans. His campaign speeches echo the sentiments of his opponent (job to do, moral responsibility, more American troops back the currency of Iraqi independence); whether offered in good faith or deemed politically expedient, the dead language condemns him to the prison of the past, to the belief that America's "national security" depends on the weight of its military power. The Bush Administraion's gamble in Iraq has proved the error of the hypothesis. The country is less secure now than it was a year ago, the multiplication of our enemies outpacing our production of lying press releases and our manufacture of high-performance artillery shells.

The summer election season presents Kerry with the chance to find his way out of the hall of old mirrors, possibly to discover an exit strategy in the idea that our national security stems from the character and the intelligence of the American people--i.e., from the investment in education, health care, our own infrastructure and environment, not from the chasing of the country's fortune in to the mouth of an omnivorous and never-ending war.

PS Again, LEWIS H. LAPHAM of Harper's magazine wrote the above article, click for interview with him.

PS BONUS: F'ITALL's Satirical remixed state of the union address (in real audio) (in quicktime, or in windows media)

Below is Raed's introduction note. Please visit the site by clicking anywhere on the orange text of Raed's words. This was clearly a lot of hard work by many. Congratulations on a job well done for everybody involved. -lim

I was the country director of the first (and maybe only) door-to-door civilian casualties survey. Marla Ruzika was my American partner, the fund raiser, and the general director of CIVIC. Unfortunately, she didn't have the chance to publish the final results until now.


I decided to publish my copy of the final results of the Iraqi civilian casualties in Baghdad and the south of Iraq on the 9th of this month in respect to the big effort of the 150 volunteers who worked with me and spent weeks of hard work under the hot sun of the summer, in respect to Majid my brother who spent weeks arranging the data entry process, and in respect to the innocent souls of those who died because of irresponsible political decisions.


Two thousand killed, Four thousand injured.


Each one of these thousands has a life, memories, hopes. Each one had his moments of sadness, moments of joy and moments of love.


In respect to their sacred memory, I would appreciate it if you could spend some minutes reading the database file: read their names, and their personal details, and think about them as human beings, friends, and relatives -- not mere figures and numbers.


I led the volunteers in their work in Baghdad, and the nine cities of the south: Karbala, Hilla, Najaf, Diwanyya, Simawa, Nasryya, Basra, Kut and Amara through my weekly visits. I went to the north for a couple of times, and arranged some smaller-scale surveys.


The survey teams were from the local areas: I made sure to create groups that reflected the ethnical, religious and gender ratios of the targeted regions. And I designed the survey form, all of which relied on my scientific background I gained from my M.Sc. researches, and relied on the very cooperative spirits of the volunteers and of the Iraqi families. We preferred not to include the military casualties to give our survey a civilian perspective.


Civilian: anyone killed outside the battlefield, even if his original job was military (e.g. a soldier killed in his house is a civilian). Military: anyone killed while fighting in a battle, even if his original job was a civic one (e.g. an engineer killed while fighting as a Fidaee). We had primitive and simple tools of research, yet I believe our survey is credible and accountable.


I would like to thank my friend Michael Richardson, a writer and graphic designer from Northampton, MA, USA, for his huge effort in designing and publishing the casualties website.




—Raed Jarrar
Baghdad

PS footnote, today this came out, BBC reports- US U-turn on upbeat terror report: Global terror attacks are on the rise, says the US State Department, admitting an earlier report - which had claimed attacks were tailing off - was wrong

and BBC also reports, US firms face Iraq abuse lawsuit: Two US firms hired to help interrogate Iraqi prisoners have been sued for allegedly conspiring to abuse detainees in order to boost profits. The firms - Titan and CACI International - deny the allegations.

answer me this. it seems to already be in the making.

iraqis killing other iraqis? is that scenario possible? well, the u.s. seems hell-bent on making this a reality. in fact, they've done quite a job at achieving this feat already. equip, arm, train, and leave? that's the plan? ...oh, i'm sorry, it will not be so simple. that is called a strategy for disaster. they wish to secure the oil AND geostrategic control over the near-east and central asia? is this an oil piggy-bank for the future to rope-tie china and russia against the will of american designs? what a mess already, and what a mess the entire thing could become. i do have hope that the collective-will of the iraqi people will not allow for such barbaric behavior. unfortunately, i don't believe a change in the white house to john kerry, the presumptive competitor, will solve the many new problems created and that have been put into motion. is that a new political strategy? create so many problems that people that are already so apathetic and desensitized become so ignorant to the ACTUAL problems that they are taken advantage of and/or bought, brainwashed, brainrinsed.

it would, no doubt, be better. and i suppose that is reason enough to vote for him. but i don't see any substantive changes coming unless certain people are released from their current jobs or, like a eureka moment, found derelict of their duties to the people of america and the world.

inshallah bil kh'air,

l.

ps* unfortunately, there's not a rewind button.

pss* An American in the Hague? By JONATHAN D. TEPPERMAN
The United States will find it difficult to prosecute foreign war criminals if it refuses to accept for itself legal standards it accuses them of breaking.

pssst!* *Political Obituaries for Neocons* excellent, professor cole...thanks for the heads-up. and thank you to Paul Richter of the LA Times. A Tough Time for 'Neocons' ..."Once, they exulted in the Iraq war. Now, with the setbacks in the region and the Chalabi spy probe, neoconservatives are feeling besieged."

PSSSST!!! WAKE UP AMERICA! WHO IS ACOUNTABLE? HMMMMMM??? JESS BRAVIN of the WALL STREET JOURNAL WILL TELL YOU in much detail IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME.

Abbas Kadhim, Calling it like it is...I missed this gem a few days ago. I love it. Abbas, thank you for truly calling it like it is. Visit Abbas' site immediately if you haven't already.

[ENTER ABBAS, exit lim.]

I was on Al-Aalam TV this evening. Sorry for not giving advance notice to those of you who watch it. They were interested in what I had to say about the not-so-new U.N resolution on Iraq.

I believe that it is a mask to hide the occupation behind a new name, "incomplete sovereignty". Remember that the rights of the Arab people have been lost for decades in the rosy language of U.N. resolutions. One can provide a long list of resolutions that were fashioned after the legal style of "The Animal Farm."

A bad resolution that does not guarantee true independence of Iraq in the "very near" future is a guarantee of a violent revolution in Iraq in a matter of years. We do not want this. Iraq has seen a lot of blood already. The 1958 coup was made possible by a few British planes and a couple of engineers stationed in the middle of nowhere in Iraq and a proposed treaty. "It is the [symbolism], stupid!"

no to fascism 60 years ago and today! celebrating the liberation of europe from nazism is extremely important. but walking down a similar path of wanton destruction in a different suit is not acceptable. so, stop the torture and sexual abuse of prisoners in iraq (and in the u.s.--on a lesser scale--) right now and respect the geneva convention (and the bill of rights) not only when it is convenient. respect iraqi culture and common sense by firing or letting rumsfeld & ashcroft (O)and their underlings go. yes, overhaul time...we need to overhaul and restore democracy in america. respect americans by doing this and returning the liberties that have been taken away by such racist legislation like the patriot act. don't wait until later or when politically convenient. tenet shouldn't be the only scapegoat. and chalabi...please don't make me sick. -lim.

How can Iraq be a sovereign nation when there are over 130,000 US troops in the country and 13 permanent military bases currently being built??? (or even textually sovereign...(ie, whatever UN resolution is passed))-liminal