News & views …
Back to Main
March 21, 2006
OT 06-24
Comments
MINSK: There are reports that Byelorussian President Alexandr Lukaschenka is proposing legislation to have him named “President for Life”, sparing the country any future threat of an oppositionalist coup.
In addition, there are reports that he is going to add a clause allowing him to continue rule after his death from beyond the grave through a spiritual medium of his own choosing.
Other reports indicate that Vladimir Putin has already volunteered for this position…
Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 21 2006 7:14 utc | 1
The Real Matrix – Above and Beyond
There have been stories for years about experiments where a clear plate is placed in a fish tank and left for an extended period. When the plate is removed, the fish generally remain on their respective side of the tank. The same thing happens when you put gnats in a covered jar for a while, and then remove the cover. Only a few adventurous creatures emerge, but the bulk of them remain in their self-imposed isolation from the rest of the universe. One of the primary attributes possessed by those few adventurous individuals who escape the jar is awareness (awareness of the jar, the top and a sense of “potential beyond the top”) that exceeds that of the general population. What happened to the fish in the tank and the gnats in the jar? Somehow, their original intent, freedom and nature was subverted by something else, first imposed from an external source and then willingly, but unconsciously, self-imposed with equal vigor in deference to the perceived existence of the status quo.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 21 2006 7:49 utc | 2
A friend alerted me about the following by e-mail, being as there has been recent talk of a 911 post I thought the info would indeed be interesting: (Note, we are going to have to discuss this topic eventually right?)
911 EYEWITNESS SHOWS AT INTERNATIONAL PRESS CONFERENCE
Posted by: 911eyewitness on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 –
Is the American Press still Free?
This was the title of a controversial presentation at a prestigious press club in Tokyo, Japan, Tuesday, March 14. The New York Times Tokyo Bureau Chief, Jim Brooks, said that he couldn’t attend an official press function about 9/11 or he would be fired. Coincidentally, the Reuters Bureau chief, Daniel Sloan, was also a strong opponent to the event being held, but he and Brooks were voted down by international members and the event was able to go ahead.
911Eyewitness was screened during dinner for 50 international journalists at the Tokyo, Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan and received tremendous applause.
Was this meeting the reason that the 911 Eyewitness site was hacked? Did this screening for influential journalists trigger a retaliatory attack on the news website?
Are the evildoers getting worried about the scientific analysis of controlled demolition presented in 911Eyewitness?
Could this line of inquiry be the weak link that they have no debunking defense against?
Long-standing FCCJ member Benjamin Fulford, former Tokyo Bureau Chief for Forbes Magazine, chaired the discussion about 9/11 evidence. He talked about his own personal epiphany after researching the evidence available on the net. He challenged the international press to do their own investigations to determine whether the bloggers have scooped the mainstream press on the true story behind the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001.
Those in attendance were virtually unanimous in agreement that controlled demolition brought down the towers after watching 911Eyewitness.
The lone vocal critic who labeled 911Eyewitness analysis featuring Newton’s Laws of Science as “propaganda” was quickly silenced by additional testimony from ex-MI5 agent David Shayler, stating 9/11 was an inside job, streaming from the internet on Google’s video site.
The evening was a resounding success for 9/11 truth.
Japan is currently buzzing with numerous magazine articles on 9/11 and may prove to be a key ally in the fight for truth. Stay tuned for more…
Note: This morning we got the site operational again after it was brought down by hackers on the 14th. Coincidence that it was not available to the Conference?
A very important meeting, indeed.
This tidbit says more than a little about the American press:
The New York Times Tokyo Bureau Chief, Jim Brooks, said that he couldn’t attend an official press function about 9/11 or he would be fired.
I have to admit I was a bit sceptical about this event but I was wrong, found the foreign correspondants club of japan and sure enough on the calendar for march 14th was this:
Has America lost its freedom of the press?
March 14, 2006 18:30 Please
log in to RSVP
6:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 14th, 2006
Has America lost its freedom of the press? There seems to be no other explanation for the otherwise incomprehensible failure of the American media to report on vast array of evidence pointing to the events of 911 as being part of a U.S. government conspiracy. People are being murdered, newspaper and TV archives are being sanitized and government announcements are being retroactively rewritten. A growing group of academics, government officials, military veterans and other concerned citizens are fighting back using the internet and other non-traditional media. These people include a former German Defense Minister, a former member of the Bush Cabinet, authors like Gore Vidal and Hunter S. Thomson (who died recently under suspicious circumstances), prominent academics and many others. They have succeeded to the point where 63% of Canadians and 50% of New Yorkers now believe the U.S. government was complicit in the 911 attacks. Come see the evidence for yourself. All you need to do is to bring is a mind that is 80% shut and 20% open.
RESERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED!
A dinner will be served at a cost of 1,750 yen (including tax). Sign up now at the reception desk (3211-3161) or online at http://www.fccj.or.jp.
To help us plan the proper seating and food preparation, please reserve in advance, preferably by noon of the day of the event. Those without reservations will be turned away once available seats are filled.
Reservations cancelled less than 24 hours in advance will be charged in full.
Freedom of Press Committee
Further, I took the liberty to e-mail Bureau Chief Mr.Jim Brooks to substantiate the claim. I intend to report back if he replies.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 21 2006 11:45 utc | 4
As usual another great link from Uncle $Scam. I too
have taken the liberty of trying to shake some sort
of official comment loose from the FCCJ.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Mar 21 2006 14:35 utc | 5
kevin phillips on democracynow this morning, discussing his new book, which hits the shelves today. partial transcript here
Posted by: b real | Mar 21 2006 17:03 utc | 6
One of the differences between the Japanese press and the U.S. press is that the Japanese press knows about the Tokyo firebombings and many of them have pondered the fact that intricate planning went into ensuring maximum deaths by burning.
They know about the scientific attention that went into designing a faux town and atom bombing it to make sure that the bomb was calibrated to burn specific kinds of houses, and furniture, and… whatever else is in a town. They know that their own nation’s most horrifying crimes against humanity were inherited and rewarded by the victors. They know that the unthinkable is anything but.
But most of all, when a member of the Japanese press, or public, hears that PNAC at the outset of the Bush administration was pining for another Pearl Harbor, they hear with knowledge that sometimes a surprise attack is a “surprise” attack.
Posted by: citizen | Mar 21 2006 18:26 utc | 7
This is an interesting development.
Iraqi insurgents did a company size raid on a police station.
One to two hundered attackers, prepared road blocks and IEDs do fend off reinforcement.
The objective of the raid was achieved in full. The policemen were killed, their materials (cars) distroyed and all prisoners were freed. Casualties were very light, just one insurgent killed.
US reinforcment was fended off two. Two scout helicopters the US send in had to land after comming under fire.
This is quite significant in military terms. So far we saw group action, sometimes a platoon size raid. This was a full company and a well planed and successful(!) action. How long until batallion size action follows?
More than 100 masked fighters surrounded the jail in Muqdadiya, 60 miles north of Baghdad, and blasted government forces with mortars, grenades and machine guns. The police returned fire and killed one insurgent, Interior Ministry officials said.
The attackers destroyed about 20 police vehicles and set fire to the police station and a nearby courthouse before escaping, the Iraqi officials said. An Iraqi army unit that tried to reach the scene to support the police during the attack was disabled by a roadside bomb as the convoy passed through a city gate.
American ground forces and two American OH-58A Kiowa helicopters rushed to the scene in support of Iraqi troops, said Sgt. Doug Anderson, a military spokesman. The helicopters came under small-arms fire, and one soldier was wounded, he said. The helicopters both landed safely.
b real
when you have finished phillips – i would really love to read it. living in the provinces – i haven’t the availability of books like that – it seems like our new comrade paul craig roberts – a republican who has turned
b, knowing your experience in the army & that of anna missed i would be really interested in a detailed rendering of what that means in practical terms for example – to be able to fight in company size
i know i’m a little rascal asking for this but so often you & anna – really connect at this level – & i trust your information than the dull military analysis on offer elsewhere
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 21 2006 18:50 utc | 9
@r’giap – detailed rendering of what that means in practical terms for example – to be able to fight in company size
In short – quite a bit.
What I can read from the news accounts, NYT and Xinhua:
A main police station in the middle of a 200,000 inhabitant city. Somewhere on city border there is also a camp with US and Iraqi troops.
The insurgents set up machinegun points and prepared IEDs on the main roads to cordon of and isolate the police station against reinforcement from the outside.
They had snipers on higher ground (buildings) around the police station. They attacked with coordinated RPG and machinegun fire plus mortar support. They were prepared to fend of helicopters and did so successfully.
They took the building, killed some 20 policemen and freed some 30 prisoners. Then they took what they could need, weapons, uniforms, radios, identifications etc., burned the police cars and retreated by foot and vanished.
All objectives were achieved, casualties were light.
The police was not warned, so the insurgents did had good operational security.
There was good planing, coordination and high discipline. I’d say at least an experienced major in command plus a dozent of professional officers and sergants. You can not do such things without some training and rehearsal.
Now they didn´t had much of an enemy, but the police at least had a building to defend which is much easier than to attack one.
It took me two years of training to learn how to rudimentally coordinate a reinforced platoon, some 40 men.
So these were not rag-tag guerillas, or “terrorists” by any means. This was a high disciplined, well lead professional military force. Something we have not yet seen often, at least not in this size. The next level is to coordinate three to four companies as a batallion. That would probably be enough to run over most “new Iraqi army” units.
No wonder the US has retreated all its forces into relative isolated bases by now. (That’s why less GIs get killed recently). There they are safe as long as the enemy does not have some decent artillary or at least heavy mortars.
But the supply routes are always endangered. As an insurgent commander, I would now start to think about destroying some strategic bridges to slow down the US supply. Then the US would have to put some troops out of the bases to protect the bridges.
There they would be woundable.
Not long after Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished,” my then-14 year old son asked me, “Dad, whatever happened to the Saddam Division?” Remember them — they were the Special Republican Guards, the ones who were going to fight to the death in the ruins of the Presidential Palace?
Now I think we know.
Posted by: Aigin | Mar 21 2006 19:49 utc | 11
Is this what Dick Cheney’s “insurgency in its last throes” looks like?
Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 21 2006 20:07 utc | 12
I’m sorry if this is a stupid question – but I didn’t notice any mention in the NYT of who did this, other that a reference to Sunni territory. Is it common knowledge that this was a Sunni group? Doesn’t this merit some mention in the stories? Were the police Sunnis?
Posted by: correlator | Mar 21 2006 20:31 utc | 14
Without knowing more details, b’s analysis sounds about right. It is interesting that the police station was over-run so quickly, without a prolonged seige (in hours) period. Suprising that in such an (rapid) assult on a “fortified” position they would only take 1 casualty. Clearly they are working with superior intellegence, and no doubt a developing nightmare for the occupation forces, the ambush(s) set up for reinforcments rushing to the scene would be particularly troubling, I think the Afgani’s were masters of this tactic.
Posted by: anna missed | Mar 21 2006 20:38 utc | 15
thanks b
i know this level of detail might be tiring but i found/find it of capital importance
the resonance is clear
Posted by: r’giap | Mar 21 2006 21:58 utc | 17
Just another thought on the raid.
Most GIs in Iraq sit in huge bases with BigMac’s and Pizza available. But some sit in batallion, company or even platoon size outposts. Those folks will freak out after reading the NYT piece. They know they will be next on the line. That makes for some nerveous triggers.
can the soldier’s even access the MSM? yesterday’s spin of the day at pr watch was about a blog post by a now-slightly-less-clueless grunt that only heard about the mosque bombing & civil war from his parent’s phone conversation.
A soldier who blogs from Iraq is upset that he didn’t hear the country was on the brink of civil war until he happened to phone home to his parents. “That was the first I’d heard about the mosque getting blown up and this was two or three days after it happened,” he writes. “I’m IN Iraq and have no idea what’s going on. A few months back I came to the conclusion that I’m fed nothing but propaganda and now it seems like my theory is dead on.” He says that Stars and Stripes, the newspaper published for soldiers by the military, largely ignores reports on the fighting and instead talks about “how ‘great’ the Iraqi Army/Police are becoming, how we built some school or water plant and how Haji is so grateful for it, or how such and such a unit found the mother of all weapons caches in some garden in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere. …
Posted by: b real | Mar 21 2006 22:53 utc | 19
He says that Stars and Stripes, the newspaper published for soldiers by the military, largely ignores reports on the fighting and instead talks about “how ‘great’ the Iraqi Army/Police are becoming, how we built some school or water plant and how Haji is so grateful for it, or how such and such a unit found the mother of all weapons caches in some garden in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere.
I guess that explains the model of media coverage our local media critiques have in mind as the norm to strive for.
Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 5:47 utc | 20
I realize flu epidemics are off the news radar just now, but since those internment camps being built by KBR (linked elsewhere) are not for nothing, I thought we could use a bit of expert opinion on just how wrong the idea of quarantines are as a counter to any flu epidemic.
Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 7:20 utc | 21
I can’t remember who or where I read this but, the comment was put out there that (paraphrasing) “I don’t want these soldiers coming home”, w/regards to pulling out of Iraq. I understood what they were conveying because, if this is what we have to look forward to we are going to be in a world of hurt. I wrote a research paper in 95/96 Entitled:
Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units
In it I explain the close ideological and operational alliance these two entities have in handling domesic (civilian) social problems. Where a significant feature of this trend is the movement not just toward the police-ization of military but also toward the militarization of civilian law enforcement in the form of police military units, otherwise called PPU’s. (Police Paramilitary Units). We saw a dramatic increase in the eighties by the enterprising rhetoric of the imfamous war on drugs. The escalating and normalizing of PPU’s have exploded since then and much of my data is out of date, but what fuels it is often asset confiscation that the state and local police departments get to keep. These PPU’s see themselves as elite. “The elite self perception and status granted these police units stems from the high status military special operations groups have in military culture”. (Gibson 1994; Kraska 1996).
During the late 1980’s drug war , the Bush Administration established several Departments of Defence “Joint Task Forces” responsible for coordinating drug interdiction operations at the borders , abroad and domestically. This arrangement required substantial overlap and cooperation between military and civilian police forces to the point of having the armed forces elite special operations teams cross-train with U.S. civilian police forces.
Emerging Trends in Formal Social Control
Our research found a sharp rise in the number of PPU’s , a rapid expantion in their activities, the normalization og PPU’s into mainstream police work, and close ideological and material connection and U.S. armed forces. These findings provide compelling evidence of a national trend toward in turn , the militarization of corresponding social problems handled by police. The data also reveal a continuing upward trend in proactive paramilitary policing activities. Before attemping to make sense of these phenomena in a broader context, it is important to review some policy-specific dangers associated with the rise and normalization.
First, the militarization inherrent in PPU’s escalates to the new heights the new cynical view that the most expedient route to solving social problems is through military style force, weaponry and technology.
Second, the heightened ethos of militarism in these “elite” police units is potentially infectious for police institutions; many police departments have created specialized PPU’s for patrol, narcotics, and gang “suppression”. Acording to some commanders PPU’s are also testing ground for incorporating tactical equipment, such as percussion grenades, into mainstream policing.
Third, despite the belief among tactical officers that PPU’s enhance officer and citizen safety, numerous incidents and common sense raise questions about the dangwerousness of these units to oficers and citizens. Contemporary PPU’s do not just react to pre-existing emergencies that might require highly train teams of police officers. Instead, most PPU’s proactively seek out and even manufacture highly dangerous situations. Finally, paramilitary policing is not just urban “inner city” phenomenon. These units target what the police define as high crime or disorderly areas, which most often are poor neighborhoods. Whatever the city or state.
Needless to say, that was six years ago.
Also see, New York Times: “The Guard take on gangs” (July 13th 1994 :A14, where PPU’s stormed up to fifty housing projects in Puerto Rico. Police Evict NYC Squatters in Heavily Armored Raid 1995
Mother Jones Vol 13 April 1988 p.60
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 22 2006 8:21 utc | 22
I’m sure you all know Scroogle.org, but in case anyone doesn’t: From the ‘Why Donate to Scroogle?’ page
It’s time to stop pretending that Google’s revenue model is anything more than a temporary bubble, and it’s time for Google to start developing more socially-responsible sources of income. Showing Google’s results without the ads amounts to more public-interest advocacy. It says that the web spam situation is intolerable.
We remain vulnerable to blocking, throttling, or breaking by Google, which unfortunately is legal if they decide to stop us. But the longer Scroogle exists and the more our traffic grows, the stronger our statements become. We cannot survive many more months without at least one more server, even if Google leaves us alone. While we could apply for foundation grants, our experience tells us that foundations are about ten years behind on Internet and other high-tech issues. Any funding proposals we send out would strike them as bizarre and incomprehensible. It’s not worth our time to send out proposals to foundations.
That leaves us asking lots of Scroogle users for small contributions. Searchers who prefer Scroogle are making a unique statement about important issues. Nothing else we know of is making the same points as effectively.
Posted by: Argh | Mar 22 2006 9:26 utc | 23
@Argh:
Good grief. What an idiotic site.
There are good reasons to distrust or hate Google. Scroogle mentions them. But Scroogle (a) plays up the financial side of Google, which is not one of the good reasons, and (b) only provides a service by piggybacking on Google. (It also (c) has an intolerably ugly design, but that’s not really important.)
Apparently, Scroogle would like us to forget what search engines were like around, say, 1998. Before Google, search engines tended to return porn sites as 9 out of the first 10 answers. They were programmd in a brain-dead fashion, and were generally pretty worthless. And Google Ads, though not particularly pleasant, are a heck of a lot better than the ads used by most other services. (They load faster, and since they are text-based, they render faster too.) Apparently, the fact that Google offers an ad service at all makes them impure according to Scroogle.
Scroogle then has the nerve to criticise Mozilla.org for being tax-exempt but having a deal with Google, but are themselves tax-exempt and utterly reliant on Google. At least Mozilla actually provides an independent service for which they do some work. Scroogle, on the other hand, does nothing original, provides no actual independent service.
As for Google’s data retention: yes, it’s evil. On the other hand, it’s also the key to accurate results. Even very good computers have no comprehension of the meaning of language. If a search engine merely returns pages which contain the words being searched for, the results will stink. To improve results, you need to know which pages people view when they get the results back. There are ways to do that without assigning IDs, but they are generally more intrusive than just using the ID. And when does the information go bad? “Never” isn’t actually totally unjustifiable, once you start to think about how the Internet works. I’m not saying that Google should be keeping all information, but that Scroogle, as far as I can tell from their setup, has no clue how information retrieval or search engines work, and they are criticizing something they don’t comprehend. It’s like watching Bush trying to talk about Victorian Literature.
It’s sad, because there are good points to be made about Google, and Scroogle weakens the good ones in favor of the stupid ones. They are a repellant bunch of leeches.
Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Mar 22 2006 10:28 utc | 24
Fuck, I am so sorry kids, the above should have read:
I wrote a research paper 96/97
Entitled:
Geometry Of A Police State: The Elite War on the poor.
Where I quoted heavily from the research and work of Sociologist’s Peter Kraska and Victor Kappeler’s, Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units From Social Problems 44:1 (Febuary 1997):1-17. I had several windows opened and hit post before preview I guess. Also, it was ten years ago that I wrote it.
I promise to redouble my efforts to preview before posting from now on. However the information is quite valid, and I’m a dumbass.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 22 2006 10:36 utc | 25
from william blum’s march 22nd anti-empire report:
Inasmuch as I can not see violent revolution succeeding in the United States (something deep inside tells me that we couldn’t quite match the government’s firepower, not to mention their viciousness), I can offer no solution to stopping the imperial monster other than increasing the number of those in the opposition until it reaches a critical mass; at which point … I can’t predict the form the explosion will take.
So I’m speaking here of education, and in my writing and in my public talks I like to emphasize certain points which try to deal with the underlying intellectual misconceptions and emotional “hangups” I think Americans have which stand in the way of their seeing through the bullshit; this education can also take the form of demonstrations or acts of civil disobedience, whatever might cause a thaw in a frozen mind. Briefly, here are the main points:
(1) US foreign policy does not “mean well”. It’s not that American leaders have miscalculated, or blundered, causing great suffering, as in Iraq, while having noble intentions. Rather, while pursuing their imperial goals they simply do not care about the welfare of the foreign peoples who are on the receiving end of the bombing and the torture, and we should not let them get away with claiming such intentions.
(2) The United States is not concerned with this thing called “democracy”, no matter how many times George W. uses the word each time he opens his mouth. In the past 60 years, the US has attempted to overthrow literally dozens of democratically-elected governments, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, and grossly interfered in as many democratic elections in every corner of the world. The question is: What do the Busheviks mean by “democracy”? The last thing they have in mind is any kind of economic democracy, the closing of the gap between the desperate poor and those for whom too much is not enough. The first thing they have in mind is making sure the target country has the political, financial and legal mechanisms in place to make it hospitable to globalization.
(3) Anti-American terrorists are not motivated by hatred or envy of freedom or democracy, or by American wealth, secular government, or culture. They are motivated by decades of awful things done to their homelands by US foreign policy. It works the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s in Latin America, in response to a long string of Washington’s dreadful policies, there were countless acts of terrorism against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of US corporations. The US bombing, invasion, occupation and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan have created thousands of new anti-American terrorists. We’ll be hearing from them for a terribly long time.
(4) The United States is not actually against terrorism per se, only those terrorists who are not allies of the empire. There is a lengthy and infamous history of support for numerous anti-Castro terrorists, even when their terrorist acts were committed in the United States. At this moment, Luis Posada Carriles remains protected by the US government, though he masterminded the blowing up of a Cuban airplane that killed 73 people and his extradition has been requested by Venezuela. He’s but one of hundreds of anti-Castro terrorists who’ve been given haven in the United States over the years. The United States has also provided close support of terrorists in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere, including those with known connections to al Qaeda, to further foreign policy goals more important than fighting terrorism.
(5) Iraq was not any kind of a threat to the United States. Of the never-ending lies concerning Iraq, this is the most insidious, the necessary foundation for all the other lies. This is the supposed justification for the preemptive invasion, for what the Nuremberg Tribunal called a war of aggression. Absent such a threat, it didn’t matter if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it didn’t matter if the intelligence was right or wrong about this or that, or whether the Democrats also believed the lies. All that mattered was the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to wreak some kind of great havoc upon America. But think about that. What possible reason could Saddam Hussein have had for attacking the United States other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide?
(6) There was never any such animal as the International Communist Conspiracy. There were, as there still are, people living in misery, rising up in protest against their condition, against an oppressive government, a government usually supported by the United States.
(7) Conservatives, particularly of the neo- kind (far to the right on the political spectrum), and liberals (ever so slightly to the left of center) are not ideological polar opposites. Thus, watching a TV talk show on foreign policy with a conservative and a liberal is not “balanced”; a more appropriate balance to a conservative would be a left-wing radical or progressive. American liberals are typically closer to conservatives on foreign policy than they are to these groupings on the left, and the educational value of such “balanced” media can be more harmful than beneficial as far as seeing through the empire’s motives and actions.
Posted by: b real | Mar 22 2006 15:49 utc | 27
Thanks, b real. I have thought a lot about this and I very much share Blum’s analysis that education is the only solution.
Issues are very complex, and simple talking points like Blum has created are the beginning.
Many of us have felt so marginalized that we are afraid to talk to others about what we know, how we see the world. But if you can’t convince your neighbors, then what hope is there? San Francisco will not rise up and save us.
I have planned to develop a post about this. I hope b will publish it.
Posted by: Malooga | Mar 22 2006 16:49 utc | 28
@My favorite uncle, Uncle $cam:
60 Minutes did a long puff piece glorifying this type of militarization of the N.Y.C. Police, “in response to 9-11,” this past Sunday. It was chilling. Of course, it has nothing to do with protecting some poor schlub who lives in Brooklyn; and if it is about “protecting” anything at all, it’s about protecting the infrastructure of Global Capitalism. No questions were asked about the potential problems with this miliary approach. Just fear, and military resolution/solution.
Posted by: Malooga | Mar 22 2006 16:57 utc | 30
On paramilitary police, the Washington Post was on a case aa while ago: SWAT Tactics at Issue After Fairfax ShootingA SWAT team was used to serve a warrent to an unarmed amateur bookie and they shot the guy.
CATO
During the past 15 years, The Post and other media outlets have reported on the unsettling “militarization” of police departments across the country. Armed with free surplus military gear from the Pentagon, SWAT teams have multiplied at a furious pace. Tactics once reserved for rare, volatile situations such as hostage takings, bank robberies and terrorist incidents increasingly are being used for routine police work.
Eastern Kentucky University’s Peter Kraska — a widely cited expert on police militarization — estimates that SWAT teams are called out about 40,000 times a year in the United States; in the 1980s, that figure was 3,000 times a year. Most “call-outs” were to serve warrants on nonviolent drug offenders.
That statistic is troubling enough, but it is compounded by the raids, particularly in drug cases, being based on tips from notoriously unreliable informants, often with no corroborating investigation. This leads to the “wrong address” raids we frequently hear about in the news.
Now police military-style units are increasingly being deployed on gambling raids, too. Last November, police with guns and K-9 units raided a charity poker game in Baltimore. Police in New York are using similar tactics against gambling clubs. Last April, a SWAT team of 52 officers raided a small-stakes poker game in a Denver suburb. An alternative weekly, the Cleveland Scene, reported last year that Jaycees and American Legion clubs in northeastern Ohio “are being raided with the kind of firepower once reserved for drug barons and killers on the lam.”
It is idiotic and dangerous to use SWAT teams in these cases. Police work is essentially a social job, not a military one.
The difference: Any military needs an enemy. For a “domestic military” like SWAT teams, the population is the enemy.
A 3-5 decision
[Chief Justice] Roberts asserted, “The centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over.”
Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 21:51 utc | 32
@ citizen: In the comments – Roberts may have meant that but I don’t believe he siad it. Justice Souter stated that under the dissent’s view “The centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over.”
Justice Robert’s holding, in the dissent, may have that effect but he is certainly smart enough not to come right out & say it.
Well Souter called him out.
Posted by: beq | Mar 23 2006 1:22 utc | 34
on the militarization of the fuzz, this reading from the april edition of harper’s seems appropriate
C.H.I.M.P.S.
From a proposal for the SWAT unit of the Mesa, Arizona, police department, submitted last year by Detective Sean Truelove. Costs for the program were estimated at $100,000 over four years.
URBAN WARFARE AND LOW INTENSITY OPERATIONS
Using a tactically trained primate (monkey), you have the ability to bound up the stairs, open closed doors, quickly respond to noises in the room and maneuver in very tight areas. Since they are a biological entity, there is no need for an auxiliary power supply.
Monkeys can be trained for simple evaluations and retrievals, and are able to respond to commands such as “Open door” or “Go upstairs.”
They are not only quick but quiet, and they provide a nonthreatening silhouette. An armed officer is immediately processed as a threat, whereas a monkey would more likely be quickly interpreted as a small animal, such as a cat, and dismissed.
The initial investment in a Tactical Primate is substantially less than that in a tactical robot. Tactical upgrades are simply a matter of training; thus, unlike a robot, an animal would not become obsolete.
hey boss, there’s a cat eating a banana lurking around in the hallway…
seriously though, i haven’t started reading it yet, but this new issue of harper’s looks pretty good. the cover feature is “american coup d’etat”, a forum on “the state of our own military – its culture, its relationship with the wider society, and the steadfastness of its loyalty to the ideals of democracy and to the US Constitution” – iow, they’re discussing whether this there is a ‘creeping coup’ happening now – featuring andrew bacevich, brig. gen. charles dunlap, jr. (the author of The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012), richard kohn, & edward luttwak. there’s also an essay entitled “the spirit of disobedience: an invitation to resistance”, an essay on the bloodshed in the congo, and some literary piece involving HST.
Posted by: b real | Mar 23 2006 4:08 utc | 37
rotflmao!
” whereas a monkey would more likely be quickly interpreted as a small animal, such as a cat”
I don’t know about that, you don’t see monkeys opening doors too often, as a matter of fact, when was the last time you saw a monkey in your house?
“Tactical upgrades are simply a matter of training”
Can I get the training in how to produce another ‘tactical upgrade.’ Sounds like fun.
Somebody wants to get paid for having a pet. Wish I had the cojones.
Meanwhile, monkeys do very important work for the handicapped. I’m sure they could use that sort of money.
Posted by: Malooga | Mar 23 2006 4:29 utc | 38
Couple of links you economy/economic buffs might find interesting:
“Fannie Mae, Your Name is MUDD!”
and
Congressman Ron Paul Talks About Gold, Oil & the Economy
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 23 2006 10:01 utc | 39
With Hurricane season 2006 upon us, I was struck by the following post by Michael J. Smith from over at ‘Stop me before I vote again’ blog. He writes, JSP’s last post sent me running off to look at Louise Slaughter’s report It really deserves a thorough exegesis, but staying awake might be difficult. My favorite item — much dicussed of late in our comments here:
Americans have no confidence that their government will be able to adequately respond if a disaster (natural or man-made) strikes their community, because its agencies are staffed not by professionals, but by political cronies and lobbyists….
I got a fine, salutary, cardiovascular laugh out of this. The public will turn out in droves to vote for — “professionals”? I think the public might be happier to hang ’em from the nearest lamppost.
But it’s really pretty telling, isn’t it, that this endearing, earnest folly is right up there in the bullet points of the press release. It says a lot about what the party of Jefferson and Jackson has become — namely, the party of the diploma rentiers.
via
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 23 2006 10:40 utc | 40
Am enjoying the music this morning. Thanks groucho and anna missed.
Posted by: beq | Mar 23 2006 12:20 utc | 41
Part II of Tom Engelhardt’s interview with Chalmers Johnson is online:
Part I, part II
Recommended!
To me, one of the most interesting spectacles in our society is watching uniformed military officers like General Michael Hayden, former head of the National Security Agency, sitting in front of Congress, testifying. It happened the other day. Hillary Clinton asked him: Tell us at least approximately how many [NSA warrantless spying] interventions have you made? “I’m not going to tell you” was his answer. Admiral Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was asked directly about a year ago, are we still paying Ahmad Chalabi $340,000 a month? And his reply was, “I’m not going to say”.
At this point, should the senator stand up and say: “I want the US Marshall to arrest that man”. I mean, this is contempt of Congress.
…
From George Bush’s point of view, his administration has achieved everything ideologically that he wanted to achieve. Militarism has been advanced powerfully. In the minds of a great many people, the military is now the only American institution that appears to work. He’s enriched the ruling classes. He’s destroyed the separation of powers as thoroughly as was possible. These are the problems that face us right now. The only way you could begin to rebuild the separation of powers would be to reinvigorate the Congress and I don’t know what could shock the American public into doing that. They’re the only ones who could do it. The courts can’t. The president obviously won’t.
The only thing I can think of that might do it would be bankruptcy. Like what happened to Argentina in 2001.
…
There are smart young American PhDs in economics today inventing theories about why this will go on forever. One is that there’s a global savings glut. People have too much money and nothing to do with it, so they loan it to us. Even so, as the very considerable economics correspondent for the Nation magazine, William Greider, has written several times, it’s extremely unwise for the world’s largest debtor to go around insulting his bankers. We’re going to send four aircraft-carrier task forces to the Pacific this summer to intimidate the Chinese, sail around, fly our airplanes, shoot off a few cruise missiles. Why shouldn’t the Chinese say, let’s get out of dollars. Okay, they don’t want a domestic panic of their own, so the truth is they would do it as subtly as they could, causing as little fuss as possible.
What does this administration think it’s doing, reducing taxes when it needs to be reducing huge deficits? As far as I can see, its policies have nothing to do with Republican or Democratic ideology, except that its opposite would be traditional, old Republican conservatism, in the sense of being fiscally responsible, not wasting our money on aircraft carriers or other non-productive things.
But the officials of this administration are radicals. They’re crazies. We all speculate on why they do it. Why has the president broken the constitution, let the military spin virtually out of control, making it the only institution he would turn to for anything – another Katrina disaster, a bird flu epidemic? The whole thing seems farcical, but what it does remind you of is ancient Rome.
part two of tom engelhardt’s interview w/ chalmers johnson, What Ever Happened to Congress?
TD: So put our problems in a nutshell.
Johnson: From George Bush’s point of view, his administration has achieved everything ideologically that he wanted to achieve. Militarism has been advanced powerfully. In the minds of a great many people, the military is now the only American institution that appears to work. He’s enriched the ruling classes. He’s destroyed the separation of powers as thoroughly as was possible. These are the problems that face us right now. The only way you could begin to rebuild the separation of powers would be to reinvigorate the Congress and I don’t know what could shock the American public into doing that. They’re the only ones who could do it. The courts can’t. The President obviously won’t.
The only thing I can think of that might do it would be bankruptcy. Like what happened to Argentina in 2001.
Posted by: b real | Mar 23 2006 15:40 utc | 43
That’s why I have no patience for those like Kos and Atrios and other liberals who endlessly argue about Bush’s incompetence. In terms of achieving his goals, he may well be the most successful President ever.
Argue policies and their effects on people, not ad hominems.
Posted by: Malooga | Mar 23 2006 19:37 utc | 45
Robert Mugabe must be doing something right.
Coca-Cola dries up in Zimbabwe
Thursday March 23, 2006
The Guardian
For the first time in at least 40 years supplies of Coca-Cola dried up in Zimbabwe yesterday, in yet another sign of crippling economic crisis in Zimbabwe.
Harare agents for the cola company said local production of the drink had stopped earlier this month, but refused to give a reason. Bar and cafe owners said they had been promised deliveries at the end of the month, but were told hard currency shortages had prevented licensed bottlers importing the concentrate used to mix the soft drink.
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 23 2006 19:43 utc | 46
beq,
Thanks for the correction. I noticed it myself reading the NYT this morning. So I went and read most of the dissent. Pdfs of dissent available here.
This was disturbing to hear from the Chief Justice and his 2 (soon 3) teammates : p.10 The law acknowledges that although we might not expect our friends and family to admit the government into common areas, sharing space entails risk. …[they] might consent to a search of areas over which they have access and control.
Moreover he proceeds on page 6 to reason from a case in which a man was already arrested and handcuffed in the back of a squad car after which his wife assented to a search – he proceeds to call this analogical with a man guilty of no crime who specifically refuses entry but whose wife had just stated her permission. I can’t type all the relevant quotes up just now, but the consistent reasoning I note follows two nasty lines:
1) The Chief Justice does not distinguish between the rights of the guilty and the innocent. I.e., under him we are all guilty.
2) He makes a blanket claim that once people have shared privacy in various forms such as information, things, or spaces, they have no claim to privacy.
This gives the state a whole new angle on the usefulness of infiltrating competing political parties. Or, more personally…
This will presumably inform future official logics of why men get to control women’s bodies. The man is an enemy of human intimacy. And so an enemy to society, quite literally.
Judicial Coup
Posted by: citizen | Mar 23 2006 20:29 utc | 47
Let me be clear: I am asserting that our judiciary is increasingly headed by men who have in one form or another crossed their fingers when they swore to protect the Constitution. They, I say, are counting coup on us.
Posted by: citizen | Mar 23 2006 20:32 utc | 48
1) The Chief Justice does not distinguish between the rights of the guilty and the innocent. I.e., under him we are all guilty.
Or all innocent until found guilty by a court which would be the correct way.
I agree on 2)is a very, very dangerous step.
Last nite channel surfing at 3.00am GMT +13hr I came across a ‘debate’ between some big wig (dean or somesuch) of Columbia Journalism Review and a bloke with a beard from a, I quote; “non-partisan think tank”.
The subject was the media coverage of Iraq and I thought I musta gone through some sort of shift event where time and space had been warped so that everything looked as per usual but had in fact changed. Sorta like that movie about the Nazis winning WW2.
Cause the ‘non-partisan’ chap was criticising the media for being unsupportive of the Invasion of Iraq! All these picture of bodies and bombs and yet none of american heroes having bits of cheap metal pinned to their chests. He quoted Daniel Pipes as an example of a unquestionably expert commentator on this. The host moderator agreed and gave the Columbia person insufficient room to reply. IE the old interrupt halfway through making an irrefutable argument.
I moved on rather quickly because Voice of America whilst undeniably rah rah USA at least normally wouldn’t tell out and out lies (like the bearded chap being ‘non-partisan’)
Anyway Dan Froomkin spells it out in WaPo today:
“Signs of Change
As it becomes more evident that the country is simply tuning out President Bush’s shopworn talking points on Iraq, there are increasing signs that the White House is considering a change in approach — in the form of new blood and a new script”…..
…..”Meanwhile, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman suggests that with the current “global war on terror” script bombing, White House image makers are tuning a new script in which the president reprises his role as an American hero by declaring war on faint-hearted Democrats and the unpatriotic media.
“The revamped story line is WATITH (the ‘war against terrorists inside the homeland’)” and Bush’s “enemies will be different: not just the terrorists themselves, but also [faint-hearted] lovers of legalistic niceties that get in the way of investigations and MSM news organizations that focus obsessively on explosions and mayhem in Iraq, even as they print or broadcast classified information and ask nasty, argumentative questions at hastily called press conferences. . . .
“It takes some chutzpah to do this rewrite,” writes Fineman.
It also takes a resistance to the facts on the ground.”….
So y’all stand firm if possible for the first time since he’s stolen Florida Dubya is now in a position where any outrageous lies he tries to sell, can be overturned by people putting in a concerted effort at poking them with a stick.
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 23 2006 22:28 utc | 50
One thing that has struck me about MOA has been it’s evolution from being shell shocked refugees from the WB to fully coming into it’s own sentient being. This is not merely a blog, but a compilation of some of the best thinkers, writers, humanists, and investigators in cybosphere.
In short, we have become one of the best online newspapers that there is. We definately have a publisher, we have editorial staff,
we have reporters, we have guest columnists, we have features columnists. We even have an arts and music section!
HOWEVER!
All newspapers worth their papyrus have a comics section.
That being said, I want you to see something that totally made my last Sunday.
About those cartoons about the Prophet…
Posted by: possum | Mar 23 2006 23:37 utc | 51
“The revamped story line is WATITH (the ‘war against terrorists inside the homeland’)” and Bush’s “enemies will be different: not just the terrorists themselves, but also [faint-hearted] lovers of legalistic niceties that get in the way of investigations and MSM news organizations that focus obsessively on explosions and mayhem in Iraq, even as they print or broadcast classified information and ask nasty, argumentative questions at hastily called press conferences. . . .”
Seems they are ready to role out fascism 101. The Chief Justice and Attorney General should be proud of the excellent work they are doing.
Posted by: Malooga | Mar 24 2006 0:46 utc | 53
—,
…..”Meanwhile, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman suggests that with the current “global war on terror” script bombing, White House image makers are tuning a new script in which the president reprises his role as an American hero by declaring war on faint-hearted Democrats and the unpatriotic media.
Does this mean Bush is going to be givin his talking points by Hannity, OReilly, and Limbaugh, instead of the other way around?
Posted by: anna missed | Mar 24 2006 4:05 utc | 54
@Possum:
Thanks. I didn’t know that Breathed’s Opus was available on line.
Here’s one for you:
LINK
Posted by: Groucho | Mar 24 2006 4:37 utc | 55
CNN Poll
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 81% 6441 votes
No 19% 1469 votes
Total: 7910 votes
Posted by: DM | Mar 24 2006 10:35 utc | 56