America's Posture in the World

The News: George Galloway, British MP, has show what a man with fire in his belly can do. The Democrats have no one with that capacity. What they have is Nancy Pelosi, whose idea of a constructive approach to the Middle East was to tell AIPAC last week,

"There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.

"The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology....

"In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'

"The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever."

The Note: "Stand," you say? A different posture was evident for all to see.

©WCG, 2005
.

The Illusion of News

BBC reports "The interrogation of "key" al-Qaeda suspect Abu Faraj al-Libbi is "proceeding well", Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has said. ..... Pakistan ... denies US agents are present at his questioning. "

The Note: It is a well known legal maxim that the introduction of irrelevant material confuses issues, is likely to inflame emotions, and renders a verdict unreliable. If men were pure abstract thinking machines, irrelevant facts would automatically be reduced to zero's in an equation; but men are not -- irrelevance distracts.

However it is equally the case that a failure to introduce relevant facts produces the same result; one could say that de-relevancing detracts. The above BBC article is a simple illustration of the point. At face value, the article states three plain and almost uninteresting facts: (1) a key leader in AlQaeda (2) is being interrogated "well" and (3) the US is uninvolved.

The report is a lie. The United States has made the destruction of Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks the cornerstone of its foreign and domestic policy in pursuit of which it has spent billions of dollars, gone to war and instituted a police state. Taking those facts into consideration, it is absurd to think that the U.S. is not present at the suspect's questioning. By omitting those background facts, BBC distorts the reality reported. What a difference, had BBC reported, just as succinctly, as follows:

"The United States which has made the rooting out of Al Qaeda a primary policy goal in pursuit of which it has engaged in major diplomatic offensives and spent billions of dollars .... denies that US agents are present at the questioning of a key Al Qaeda suspect."

What was omitted is not a question of "interpretation" or "opinion." The fact that US agents are present at the man's question flows with the force of flood torrent from the primary fact of the US's anti-terrorism policies. In any given case, the US may have varying degrees of interests and hence levels of involvement. However, it is simply absurd to think that the US, which has said it would leave no stone unturned to root out Osama Bin Laden network would not be present at a "key" suspect's questioning.

Once U.S. interests and presence are taken into consideration, the meaning of "proceeding well" looses its sunny cast and takes on far darker implications: the man is being tortured. Unlike the presence of agents, the presence of torture does not flow with ineluctible force from the sole fact of U.S. interests and objectives. However, it does flow from that fact coupled with another relevant -- but omitted -- source fact, to wit: the U.S. practice and policy of "rendition".

At all relevant times, the U.S. has secretly and clandestinely spirited away and delivered "suspects" to authorities in other countries where the suspects have been subjected to horrible tortures. The practice of rendition is an unquestionable fact. This fact includes not only the fact that suspects are tortured and but also the fact that U.S. wants to hide the fact of torture and deny its involvement in the torture.

When the fact of rendition is factored into the news equation and added to the fact of other U.S. anti-terrorism policies, it is a virtually certainty that Libbiis not simply being "interviewed" or "de-briefed" but is being "stressed" -- as they put it in -- some artful manner. In ultimate result the article if a double falsehood.

BBC exculpates itself from propagating this lie, on the ground that it is not a lie -- that it is merely reporting what a Pakistani official says and denies. At a strict and purely linguistic level that is true. But it is the nature of frauds that they are, at some level, "true". If they were not, they would not succeed.

The initial fraud here, is that the article is presented as the report of a fact. That is what the BBC says it does and that is the expectation with which people read BBC reports. However, the "fact" reported is not that Libbi's interrogation is "going well". That is actually just hearsay. If one wants to be precise -- in the same strict manner that BBC excuses are precise -- what is reported is that a Pakistani official is of the opinion that the interrogation is going well. The is the meaning of the headline's use of quotes. "Suspect's Interrogation 'going well'' The article reports nothing about the interrogation; it reports only a statement and opinion about an interrogation. Likewise the article reports only a "denial" of US presence.

What kind of "news" is this? It is not in any real sense news about what people call "hard facts". It is news about what government officials say is news. In other words it is news about what government paints the news to be. It is in short news about fantasies.

©WCG, 2005

More from the Official Truth Dept.

Army Admits It Lied About Death of Pat Tillman

The Washington Post has obtained new information in the death of Pat Tillman ­ the professional football who quit the NFL to fight in Afghanistan. Tillman died just over a year ago in Afghanistan. At the time the Army reported he died after being hit by enemy fire. According to a new Army report -- the first Army investigator who looked into Tillman's death found within days that he was killed by his fellow Army Rangers in an act of "gross negligence." However Army officials decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after a nationally televised memorial service. Documents obtained by the Washington Post also show that officers destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother who was also an Army Ranger in Afghanistan.

U.S. Denies harboring Anti-Castro Terrorist

Meanwhile a Cuban man connected to the 1976 bombing of a commercial airliner is in the news again this week. The man -- Luis Posada Carriles -- is one of the most notorious militant opponents of Fidel Castro. He was trained 40 years ago by the U.S. military and is now seeking political asylum in Florida. On Tuesday Venezuela's Supreme Court ruled that the government should seek his extradition from the United States to face terrorism charges. In 1985 he escaped from a Venezuelan prison after being jailed in connection to the airline bombing that killed 73 people. He has also been jailed in Panama for trying to assassinate Castro on Panamanian soil. Castro has described Posada as "the most famous and cruel terrorist of the western hemisphere." Earlier this week State Department official Roger Noriega spoke about Posada's request for asylum and gave mixed messages. He claimed the Bush administration didn't know for sure if Posada was in the United States. He said Cuban claims about Posada "may be a completely manufactured issue." At the same time Noriega said the U.S. is "not interested in granting him asylum."

And we should believe anything the Government says?

©WCG, 2005
.

The Fundamental Arrogance of Irresponsibility

The News: San Francisco Chronicle reports on the righteous reaction against Schiavo's husband's decision to remove his wife's feeding tube.

"One person told me they hoped I died from cancer. Another said my family members should rot in hell," Argenziano said. "They are the most awful, venomous, un-Christian things you have ever heard."

Fundamentalist activist Mahoney said he was not aware of any threats to Greer or to senators. He said he did not see why it was wrong to publicize Greer's address. "Some people might be compelled to pray in front of his house," he said.

Next to him, a man with a camera slung over his neck asked Mahoney if he had the home address of Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo's husband and legal guardian, who has pressed for the removal of the feeding tube. Michael Schiavo has said his wife never would have wanted to be kept alive by machines. Without hesitation, Mahoney gave the man Schiavo's home address. He had it memorized. -

The Note: "...might be compelled...." ? This is what is so contemptible about these people, they beg off responsibility for their own actions. No one is "compelled" to pray in front of someone's house; one decides to do that. Not only do they beg off responsibility, they then add arrogance, implying that God is what compells them.

©WCG, 2005

.

Defeating the Peace Process

The News: Israel has resumed construction of one of the most controversial parts of its separation barrier in the West Bank - deep inside the occupied territory. The attorney general approved the work near Ariel settlement on Monday, four months after a court order halted it. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei accused Israel of bad faith by resuming construction during ceasefire talks. - (BBC)

The Note: One was wondering how they were going to derail the peace process. Of course they had to make happy at the demise of the evil peace-wrecking Arafat. And they had to make even happier at the election of a man who by any standard is a quisling to Israeli interests. Ah ... but ach mein Gott, this might lead back to the route to peace. So at first, Sharon states that although it is wonderful Abu Baba got elected the "important thing" is the "attitude on the street" -- in other words will the average Palestinian start to feel love in his heart for the Jew ? -- and, more important still, will Hamas stop throwing bombs. No doubt, Sharon was pleased with himself, seeing as the imminent likelihood of either event was about as great as that of the Second Coming. But lo! In the past few days, Abu Baba has reached an agreement with Hamas to stop bombing. Ach! Gott... now vee really muss begin zu vorry. So... they resume building a contested part of the wall. What a slimy bunch of earth slugs.

©WCG, 2005
.

Idiot Prince does a Taboo-boo

The News: England's Prince Harry was caught on film at a costume party dressed as {gasp} an Afrika Korps officer wearing the dread "S" symbol on an armband. Fleet street atwitter. An not just the street. According to the Independent "Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre said: "This was a shameful act displaying insensitivity for the victims, not just for those soldiers of his own country who gave their lives to defeat Nazism, but to the victims of the Holocaust who were the principal victims of the Nazis."

The Note: Principal victims? Once again ethnocentricity triumphs over fact.. The Jews were not the "principal" victims of the Nazis: 20 million Russians were. But Rabbi Hier apparently only counts victims whose suffering is unique and special. At any rate, the taboo campaign against another idiot prince will be nauseating to watch.

©WCG, 2005

.

Bound & Gagged -- The Policy, not the Rag

About a month ago when we were rounding up the Taliban, we Chipsters read on CNN.com that the surrendered or captured fighters were being led off to their place of detention "shackled, blindfolded and gagged".  Gagged?

Say what? Has SM become part of official policy or is some "logistical planner" rather pulsing up a sweat at his desk while he draws up these protocols?

Dragging off captives shackled is about as old as dragging off captives. As far as I know, dragging off captives shackled and blindfolded became a practice during the Vietnam War, although I am sure it had been done to isolated individuals before that time. But gagged? The procedure served no purpose other than to humiliatingly, depersonalize by an act of dominance barely removed and metaphorically close to rape.

Reassuringly enough, the story was accompanied by a blurry dark foto showing some bars and an "enemy" kneeling before someone standing. More recently, as Taliban members have been transported farther, the Pentagon has placed a gag on the press. Apparently, CNN broadcast pictures of the detainees being led about in jump suits and shackles, but since then the Pentagon has prohibited any more such pictures. The pressure must have been fairly intense because we can't find pictures clipped from the broadcast anywhere on CNN's web page. In fact, all one sees is fascinating pictures of guard towers, barbed wire and MPs. With a cynicism quite worthy of Goering, the government says that the prohibition is designed to spare the detainees "public humiliation" in accordance with Geneva Protocols. It is well understood that those provisions are aimed at preventing the dragging of prisoners through howling mobs, putting them on stages or cages in the public square and so on. They have nothing to do with press coverage. More saliently, those same protocols prohibit humiliation whether private or public and keeping prisoners in open air cages would seem to be a serious violation of the standards of treatment we purport to follow.

As one has no doubt read, there have been contradictory information on whether all or some of these Taliban were drugged for the flight to Guantanamo. What is clear is that they were ear-plugged, goggle-blinded, shackled near to immobile and given a bottle to piss in. Rumsfeld has justified this torture-by-sensory deprivation on the grounds that these brutes are so vicious they would "gnaw through the cables" of the airplane just to bring it down. Really! At any rate, it must have been quite a trip, since it was reported that, on arrival, the plane was cleaned up and "disinfected".

It was equivocally reported that, on arrival, some of the Taliban might possibly have "resisted" by falling to the ground or perhaps their legs were weak. Guards were seen yelling at them but this, it was said, was due to the earplugs. Musta been mighty strong earplugs or were the hapless prisoners drugged after all?

And what have these men done to deserve this treatment -- supposing this kind of treatment is deserved by anyone? As far as I can recall Afghanistan was a sovereign country. It was controlled, up to 90% by the Taliban. Under international law that made the Taliban the de facto government of that country. At the very least, it qualified for recognition as a recognized belligerent, which usually occurs when one warring party controls some "significant" portion of territory.

The general rule is also that the de facto government becomes the de jure one, although there is no requirement that it be officially recognized by any other sovereign state, because the cardinal rule of all international law is that you can't tell a sovereign what to do, unless he agrees to be told. It was for this "reason" that the U.S. could withhold recognition of Communist China for 30 years. At any rate, no matter how one cuts it and regardless of U.S. recognition or lack of it, the Taliban could not be characterized as a band of bandits or partisans. They had acquired some status between recognizable belligerent and official government; and what that means is that the individual Taliban qualify as POWs.

And what did any of these individuals do to be classified as criminals? I have heard nothing to show that any of them had any hand in the 9/11 bombing. Rather, as part of a belligerent party or government, they fought (for a while) against foreign parties invading their country. But in the American view, this is a criminal act. So... if we were to go to war with un-recognized Cuba, and its army were to fight back and loose, we could drag it off to some "detention" center in Georgia?

But even supposing that the Taliban are criminals, it is astonishing to see the government take the position that criminals can be treated like factory or circus animals. (Not that animals should be treated that way either).

Well....in the long perspective of "the crimes, vices and follies that comprise the history of mankind" (Gibbon) it is all a relatively small thing; but a small thing that is deeply disgusting and which betrays a depravity of mind that pervades our government.

©WCG, 2002