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

Stupidities - Vol MCCCCLX, Part II, ch. 19

Puritannia Becomes the Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity.

President Bush urged the Peoples of the world, in UN assembled, to join Puritannia's fight against terrorism and warned that, he who is not with Us is against Us.

Buckle under all ye nations; the Almighty rules from Washington.

-o0o-

Britannia Strikes another Blow For Freefrom and Infantilism.

Home Secretary David Blunkett unveiled yet another anti-terrorism law-pack which he urged Parliament to pass without delay (or, presumably, any due and deliberate thought). According to BBC, the Home Secretary told the Commons that its "first job was to defend the public's rights and freedoms." Lest one might have wondered what freedoms those were, the secretary clarified that "the most basic right of all was the right to live in safety, free from the fear of attack."

Yes, men, "the right to be safe", to be protected, guarded, provided for and sheltered from all viscitudes of life snuggled into Big Mama's breast. But that is not all... all we wee uns have the right to be free from emotional distress, inconvenience, and any hoblgoblin we may conjure up. Goooooh.

Government certainly has a duty to protect against various evils, but to invert that into a right to be safe is a canard to make it sound as if we are gaining a freedom instead of loosing it.

-o0o-

More from the Hysteria Front.

Bin Laden's possible possession of or access to bio-nuclear weapons was a hot topic in most of the world's media. The only real interest here was how the story was reported.

According to CNN, Bin Laden "claimed" to have such weapons although USGOV denied it saying only that it had "credible information" Bin Laden had attempted to obtain them. CNN reported Bin Laden as saying "I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as a deterrent." CNN then quoted President Bush as responding, "These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass destruction, the tools to turn their hatred into holocaust. They can be expected to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons the moment they are capable of doing so." Noting the Bin Laden had called on the US to "live and let live" CNN capped the story with another presidential quote "This is an evil man that we're dealing with, and I wouldn't put it past him to develop evil weapons to try to harm civilization as we know it."

El Pais, on the other hand, reported the story by writing simply that Bin Laden said he would use nuclear or biological weapons only if the United States used them. In other words: Bin Laden disclaimed any involvement with the anthrax mailings and went on to reassure Puritannia's denizens that he, at any rate, will NOT resort to nuclear or biological attacks.

It clearly suits neither CNN's ratings nor USGOV's enlightenment campaign to focus on the real message; but what a difference the uncluttered truth makes!

-o0o-

Morris Dees Fesses up to being a Govamint Steppinfetchit.

A year ago, I logged on to the Southern Poverty Law Center's web page. Bannering some quote from Martin Luther King, the home page explained that SPLC was dedicated to fighting hatred and intolerance against various minorities. The page went on to explain that, in accordance with this self-set mission, the SPLC gathered information on fringe and hate groups that espoused "views hostile to minorities and the government."

Whooooaaa, Bessie! What's this "...and the government"? It's one kettle of fish for a private group to lobby for tolerance of other private groups and, even, to keep track of those who lobby or agitate to the contrary. It's quite a different kettle of fish to combat, seek laws against, and spy on those who are "hostile" to the government.

One didn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the ol Silver Platter was making the rounds again. Years back when only the federal government was prohibited from using the fruits of illegal searches and seizure, federal agents blythly laid back and let state police do the door smashing, rummaging and rousting. The evidence was then passed on to the feds on a "silver platter". Break down doors? Not us! Lordy forbid! But far be it from us to inquire where these lucious grapes got picked!"

So....ol Morris Dees was doing Stepnfetchit for the Feds. (Those old enough may recall from days when racial caricatures were not forbidden who dem dat Step-and-Fetch-It he was.) That was my hunch at any rate.

Well the other night during a CNN discussion on domestic terrorism, Dees said outright that the SPLC continued to "monitor" skinheads, militiamen, kluxers and other hate groups and "of course" the FBI "relied on us."

Don't you feel safe and freefrom, knowing that government is not only ubiquitous but hidden as well?

©WCG, 2001

.