”Ten years from now, when we have the whole story, we are going to be ashamed,” he said. ”This is not us. This is not the way we do business. I don’t think in our history we’ve ever had a presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-presidential involvement, an attorney-general’s involvement in telling our troops essentially, Carte blanche is the way you should feel. You should not have any qualms because this is a different kind of conflict.”
~ Lawrence Wilkerson, in his “cabal” speech

If congress does indeed “legalize” torture — [“If congress doesn’t legalize this illegal Program, it will end.” ~ the Preznet] — would it get past the Supremes? And if congress does not legalize torture, will this “Program” — ala presidential signing statements — truly end?
Presidentally authorized horror shops — Abu Ghraib just one example of this entire obsenity.
Recall that the Pentagon is “investigating” more than (admittedly) 100 detainee deaths — “Oops! Must have shoved the baton a little too far up Haji’s a**!”
Note, too, that “Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance.”
Staggeringly stunning that this even remains “debatable” — that Bush & Co’s advocacy of torture is buttressed by a significant measure of popular, political support!
[“At first, we denied our culpability in the abominations of Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. But it polled well among a certain segment of voters! So now we’re openly pitching our blood lust in prime time speeches to the nation, and viciously castigating those who ‘don’t have the stomach for it!'”]
Utterly obscene.

SEC. 6. SATISFACTION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS…
(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
SEC. 9. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.
This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person detained at any time since September 11, 2001, and to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
~ http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Military.Commissions.Bill.pdf

Posted by: manonfyre | Sep 16 2006 17:00 utc | 4

Link to NYTimes
Further information on the torture shoot-out in the Senate.
So it’s the uniformed military and its alumni against the Executive Branch (the DOD included, of course).
This would be a good time, wouldn’t it, for the press to reconsider the long line of chickenhawks roosting in and near the White House? Except that the press itself is almost entirely populated by chickenhawks….

Posted by: alabama | Sep 16 2006 19:42 utc | 6

The masochism continues. Tho I suspect that amerikan MoA contributors will find it difficult to consider 911 objectively until the neo-cons are dead and buried I feel obliged to entrat them to read a piece by DIANA JOHNSTONE in Counterpunch. I think it has been lurking there for a couple of days.
In the interests of brevity I won’t cut and paste the whole article which I suggest people read and consider with as close to an open mind as the heat on this subject allows, but I will drop in the section on physics, not because Ms Johnstone offers any empirical evidence, she doesn’t because just like everyone else she can’t, but she does express the doubts I have about demolition evidence far more cogently than I have been able to:

“When the towers went down, it reminded viewers of deliberate building demolitions. That doesn’t prove anything. There are experts who explain why it must have been demolition, and experts who explain why the collapse was due to the structure of the buildings (especially their vertical design). The layman has no way to judge between these expert explanations — but neither do experts, since (as physicist Jean Bricmont points out) scientists cannot be sure of the cause of a single event that cannot be repeated experimentarily. So we are back to the question of plausibility and motivation.
As to plausibility, supposing the airliner attacks were really engineered by the Bushites, why add demolition? Since somebody would have to place explosives in the two towers, this would enlarge the circle of persons involved in the plot, making exposure more likely[2]. And what is the dividend from demolition to make it worth the additional risk of disclosure?.
And why demolish yet another tower? How does that strengthen what is supposed to be the effect of the attacks: to frighten the American people and justify war? . . ”

It is important that amerikans get a more ‘real’ grip on exactly what these assholes are capable of and what they aren’t, from this distance I see nothing but flaws, miscalculations and failure in everything they do outside of their quintessential deceit. Sometimes I hear the flavour of a description of satan when amerikans describe the BushCo/Cheneyite regime. By imbuing these assholes with that Mephistophelian flavour, they ascribe a level of omnipotence that these clumsy pricks don’t have in any shape or form.
The enemy has become too powerful in the minds of good citizens for them to be able to envisage their defeat and that is an obstacle which must be overcome long before the real battle begins. It is also the reason that Bushistas have avoided addressing this business head on, as they normally would.
I will end with an example of neo-con stupidity and incompetence dressed up as hard assed capitalism because to me that is the real flavour of these guys. It also comes thru Counterpunch, from Brian Cloughley’s observations of a PBS story :
“To understand why so many US representatives in foreign countries are figures of fun or even derision and contempt to their inhabitants one need look no further than a Public Broadcasting Service item of August 7.
The report goes further than showing that the main figure is an idiot. This cameo, this snapshot of the mindset of an American official in Afghanistan, demonstrates appalling lack of understanding of a country with which the US is deeply involved. The deep ignorance of the central character is terrifying. His rejoicing when he forces an Afghan van driver to pay $20 in road tax is grotesque. Here’s the PBS piece:

Miranda Kennedy [anchor] : It’s a hot, grueling afternoon at the toll plaza on the Kabul-Kandahar highway. Chris Anderson is an advisor to Afghanistan’s finance ministry. That sounds like an exalted position. Often, as today, it means standing out on the tarmac, trying to convince Afghan drivers to pay a toll to use the highway. [Scene shifts to Anderson.]
Anderson: [to his interpreter] Can you please explain to him that I understand these people need to be somewhere, but unfortunately if he wants to use this road, there is no choice but to pay. [Dialogue involving the interpreter, Anderson and the van driver]
Anderson : “I understand what you’re saying sir ; unfortunately everybody wants to pay tomorrow, and what happens is they come along tomorrow and say let me pay tomorrow so . . .”
Kennedy: Anderson is talking to a young guy who runs a taxi service between Kabul and some outlying villages. His van is loaded with half a dozen villagers, a stack of very weathered suitcases, a bicycle and a couple sheep. Because he’s driving a commercial van, he’s supposed to pay $20 for a monthly pass. But he offers up every excuse in the book not to shell out, including a sick child in the back. But Anderson is having none of it.
Anderson: “He must make a decision right now to either pay this money or to turn around, and if he refuses then we will have to ask the police to come and tell him to move.”
Kennedy : “The traffic police appear. And half an hour later, our supposedly-penniless driver finally gives in.”
Anderson : He bought it, he bought the sticker.
Kennedy: There he is, with his blue sticker!
Anderson : It was nothing to him to waste 20 minutes arguing with us rather than buy the decal.
Kennedy: But he had the money.
Anderson : He had the money the whole time.

***

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 16 2006 21:48 utc | 8

Billmon has commented on Rottie the Razor.
14th Century emperors are so 14th Century.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Sep 16 2006 22:20 utc | 10

Why don’t you Listen to the 2 most Knowledgeable Scientists on the subject – Physicist Steven Jones, & Manager of the Laboratory that certified the steel, who discusses how over-built it was, how NIST’s Summary Rpt. even lied about their own evidence, etc.
(Both guys have been canned for their candor.)

Posted by: jj | Sep 16 2006 22:42 utc | 12

As I sd, in another post, what needs to be focused on here is War games, during 911, “coincidences”, insider trading, obstructed investigations, hijackers training/living at US military institutions, among a whole host of other things. The CD (controlled demolishion) argument is an exercise in futility; and can be manipulated as a red herring.
As squashed Philosopher Sir Karl Popper once sd, “abosolute truth can never be established,because it would require a infinite number of tests,
and that absolute falsity ‘can’ be esablished since a statement in
absolute form is falsified once a single exception is found.”
One can see alot of the PRODUCTION of falsehood by the PTB in Paul Thompson’s The Terror Timeline, though, the docu ‘9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH is excellent it does not go far enough and leaves many many things out IMO.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 16 2006 23:40 utc | 14

Uncle, what does this mean?
As squashed Philosopher Sir Karl Popper

Posted by: jj | Sep 16 2006 23:49 utc | 16

Thanks to Chris Conrad who posted the link to the Pope’s text in his comment on Al Jazeera.
The most offensive part of this speech is the part right after that generally being quoted, and the Benedict XVI’s attempts to link the Christian religion with reason and Islam with unreason.
For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
As an American I need only to point to the Xtian ‘Taleban’, a major power in the cabal that has seized power in my country, to demonstrate that Christianity is every bit as liable to be used as the unreasoning goad to war and intolerance in the tweentieth century as it was in the twelfth through fourteenth.
Rather than quoting a Byzantine emperor’s opinion of Islam, Benedict XVI would have done better to have quoted, and denounced, Pope Urban II’s call for Jihad against Islam :
“I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!”
The Holy Roman Chancellor of Germany’s defense of the Pope’s shows how reflexive is the support for the underlying “rationality” of the West is.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Sep 17 2006 2:58 utc | 18

JFL- last night, after debs drew our attention to an article in the guardian on the pope’s speech, i pointed out how the guardian put words in the pope’s mouth to try and cover for him. the copy of the speech you link to doesn’t include the phrase “i quote” either.

Posted by: b real | Sep 17 2006 3:12 utc | 20

uh, er, did the story just change?
Secret Agent Man

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high — a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

The Guardian transcript has Bush saying that Khalid “described the design of plane attacks,” rather than the official “planned attacks.” The video, available from the White House website, confirms “planned.” Perhaps the Guardian couldn’t quite believe what it was hearing. Because Bush went on to say that the operatives of the planned attacks were instructed in the placement of explosives. Adding, as though it’s the clearest thing in the world, that Khalid disclosed the explosives were to detonate at “a point high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.”

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 17 2006 4:36 utc | 22

Torture lawyer Yoo provides his logic in a NYT OpEd – the President is just claiming back his original powers – in there is this about Congress: How the Presidency Regained Its Balance

A legislature’s function is to draft the laws of the land, set broad goals and spend taxpayer revenues in the national interest, not to micromanage.
…
Congress’s vague legal mandates are handed off to the states or the agencies or the courts to sort out.

Now first Congress micromanages the executive and a few sentences later Congress is vague and hands off stuff to the executive.
Which is it Mr. Yoo? A bit confusion on the torture bench I guess.

Posted by: b | Sep 17 2006 6:29 utc | 24

In case anyone’s interested –
What would you think if it was announced that Canada was to cease as an independent country as early as 2007? Would it matter to you? Would you want to know who was responsible? What would you do?
Well, during the last week there have been announcements from at least two sources that Canada will soon cease to exist as a sovereign country.
The first notice I received was in the form of an Aug. 18 email from Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party. The email includes a bulletin from the Fraser Institute entitled, “The Case for the Amero: The Institutions of a North American Monetary Union.” A statement near the end of the bulletin reads, “On the day the North American Monetary Union is created–perhaps on January 1, 2010–Canada, the United States, and Mexico will replace their national currencies with the Amero. On that day, all American dollar notes and coins will be exchanged at the rate of one US dollar for one Amero.”
Then much worst news came. On August 30 I received, indirectly from an email correspondent, an article from ‘Vivelecanada.ca’ entitled, “Timeline of the Progress Towards a North American Union”. At the end of the timeline it projected that the North American Union would be created in 2007, three years before the projection of the Fraser Institute! Stephen Harper’s “Quisling” government pursues further talks for U.S. take-over of Canada

Posted by: jj | Sep 17 2006 7:44 utc | 26

22 was your fav uncle…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 17 2006 9:14 utc | 28

@ Rowan, # 13,. Science is based on observation before experiment, which is just arranging events to observe. Scientists aren’t priests, and include you if willing. No one has observed buildings come down like WTC 7 and the albatross towers from any cause except controlled demolition before or after 911. (If you want filmed acknowledged controlled demolition rent/borrow movie Heathers. Mad dad’s nostalgia film looks very like 911 collapses.)
But yes, lots of disinformation spews. Makes people want to throw up their hands and cover their sense organs.
At all times, cui bono?

Posted by: plushtown | Sep 17 2006 12:12 utc | 30

Debs, Diane Johnstone is wonderful, but this is not her area.
Under the assumption that the attacks were engineered with the complicity, active or passive, of part of the present US admin, of elements thereof:
A plane hitting a tower with little damage is not spectacular enough. America had to be hit in her heart, and hit hard, to sear the American psyche, and create a world-shattering event.
As for WTC 7, another plane was supposed to hit it. It was even announced on CNN I think. Sorry no links – I have given up trying to wake people up. Besides that, doesn’t anyone find it curious that the number of destroyed buildings keeps going up? It was 2, now its 3… what is the real number? How come people don’t even know how many buildings were destroyed, or who died in them?
Rowan (at 9), The 19 perps or patsies are a bit of a detail – who exactly they were has not garnered much attention, and it does not matter much, except for the ‘muslim fundamentalist’ tag. You are overstretching the ‘truthers’ ideas – most assume some plot where real people (such as Atta) did desire to attack America or whatever, but were either manipulated, or helped, or left free to act. As jj points out, there was little or no effort to investigate the perps or their roots, their links, their financing, etc. It is just a list of names, with the media, yes, uncovering some elements of background where they could (Atta, Jarrah, for example…) But that was the media, not the FBI. That is also why their profiles are so confused, and the likes of Hopsicker write books about them. The Dems tried to make hay out of some of their Saudi backgrounds but that fell flat, as was to be expected. Satam al Suqami killed heaps of Americans, but most Americans don’t even know his name, who he was, etc. Even a shooting in a mall by crazed druggies (open and shut case) gets a more thorough investigation.
The point is that the perps were both ‘real’ and are at the same time characters in a story.
Rowan (at 13), conspiracy theorists, so-called, have multiple theories – theories – and many don’t state that the Bush Admin was responsible. Now that ‘the movement’ has taken hold, and many seek culprits (rather than a thorough investigation), and Bush is in the dog-house, you get one brand of conspiracy theory. Bush Knew! Bush Did it! That’s a leap of logic (say) but it is one that serious people do not make. Enough said.
The destruction of WTC 6 – pic

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 17 2006 14:04 utc | 32

WTC 6 too! is the final count 4 then?
good grief, I really can’t keep up any more. Thanks Noirette

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 17 2006 14:39 utc | 34

@Juannie
There is speculation out there that Rupert is still working for “the company” aka CIA, as the saying goes “once in the family , always in the family”. I’ve read some pretty convining claims to that affect regarding Rupert, however, I have also read “Crossing the Rubicon” which seems to have validity. Maybe he did try to be a whistleblower at one time and was leaned on enough to change his mind… double-agent? who knows…
But I do know that since HW’s time, the spy agencies have been turned on their heads. In others words, since Bush 1, the clandestine spy service’s has been on stiroids starting w/South America/Iran contra/off shorebanking etc….

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 17 2006 16:17 utc | 36

P.C. Roberts weighs in on 911. (He was asked to adjudicate D-N-‘s debate between Loose Change film makers & Pop. Mechanics chaps.) He focuses on main issues:
The Popular Mechanics editors are convinced that any explanation other than the government’s explanation is a conspiracy theory. However, the title of their new book applies equally to their view, as there is no more fantastic conspiracy theory than the view championed by the Popular Mechanics editors. How, for example, can it be possible that on one short morning of September 11, 2001, multiple failures occurred not only in airport security but also in FAA and NORAD procedures? The probability of any one of these failures is low. The probability of all of these failures occurring on one morning is very low indeed. How is it possible that essentially all US security failures of the last 5 or 10 years occurred on one morning? What probability do independent statisticians assign to such an event?
The probability is also extremely low that the only three steel columned buildings believed to have collapsed from fire all failed on the same day from three separate fires.
There are many problems with the 9/11 debate.
…
But the main problem with the 9/11 debate is that there has not really been a debate. Instead, we have had a report from a political commission run by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow. In place of a real independent investigation, we have a collection of Washington players reassuring the public by defending the government’s story line.
Studies, such as those referred to by the Popular Mechanics editors, are in fact not forensic studies of evidence but what the editor-in- chief of “Fire Engineering” called “paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”
The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.
…
Perhaps more scientists will find the independence, time and energy to become involved. But until scientists can come up with an explanation of where the energy came from to account for the total collapse of the buildings and an explanation of how the energy was evenly distributed so as to produce sudden symmetrical collapse, there is no more evidence for the official conspiracy theory than there is for the unofficial conspiracy theories. Where is the evidence?
The problem here is that it’s a lot more likely they’ll just lean on scientists on govt. dole to bury everything in a pile of obscure bullshit, rather than assemble the evidence & witnesses for all the independent explosions that went off throughout the buildings that morning. Not to mention speaking to professional pilots who laugh at the idea that amateurs could have flown the planes; or, the guy who was in the nose of one of the planes the day before in Newark Airport as it was outfitted w/the gear required for it to be flown remotely…

Posted by: jj | Sep 17 2006 18:28 utc | 38

Speaking of Totalitarian Govt….why would the EU tolerate Britain anyway?
Big Brother is not only watching you – now he’s barking orders too. Britain’s first ‘talking’ CCTV cameras have arrived, publicly berating bad behaviour and shaming offenders into acting more responsibly.
The system allows control room operators who spot any anti-social acts – from dropping litter to late-night brawls – to send out a verbal warning: ‘We are watching you’.
Middlesbrough has fitted loudspeakers on seven of its 158 cameras in an experiment already being hailed as a success. Jack Bonner, who manages the system, said: ‘It is one hell of a deterrent. It’s one thing to know that there are CCTV cameras about, but it’s quite another when they loudly point out what you have just done wrong.
‘Most people are so ashamed and embarrassed at being caught they quickly slink off without further trouble.Big Brother is shouting at you
A success…Just Wait…

Posted by: jj | Sep 17 2006 19:41 utc | 40

Speaking of the BBC, Pres. Carter Calls a Poodle a Poodle.
Former United States President Jimmy Carter has criticised the British Government’s “subservient” attitude towards the White House.
Mr Carter told BBC’s Newsnight he believed Tony Blair was a good man, but that he could have used his influence more wisely.
The 81-year-old said: “There had once been a very strong voice from London in the shaping of a common policy.
“I have been really disappointed in the apparent subservience of the British government’s policies related to many of the serious mistakes that have originated in Washington.”
And Bonzo is “addressing” UN on Tues…will the Delegates Boycott this time? (Timed no doubt to shift attention away from last week’s Senate fight over authorization of torture & unlimited unsupervised wiretapping, so senators can be strong armed in the dark while the press moves on to terrorize Am. idiots about Iran?) Iran becoming New Iraq?
A report today by veteran McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) reporters John Walcott and Warren P. Strobel warns that some of the same type of shaky intelligence that proved false in the run up to the Iraq war may be rearing its head again in regard to Iran.
“U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say Bush political appointees and hard-liners on Capitol Hill have tried recently to portray Iran’s nuclear program as more advanced than it is and to exaggerate Tehran’s role in Hezbollah’s attack on Israel in mid-July,” they write..
“President Bush, who addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, has said he prefers diplomacy to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he hasn’t ruled out using military force. Several former U.S. defense officials who maintain close ties to the Pentagon say they’ve been told that plans for airstrikes – if Bush deems them necessary – are being updated.”
As E&P has often noted in the past, reports from Strobel, Walcott and others in the former KR Washington office, proved more skeptical and accurate than those from other leading news organizations in the pre-Iraq invasion push.
“It seems like Iran is becoming the new Iraq,” said one U.S. counterterrorism official quoted by Walcott and Strobel. This official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the information involved is classified.
The article concludes: “Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they’re concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
“Officials at all three agencies said they suspect that the dubious information may include claims that Iran directed Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July; that Iran’s nuclear program is moving faster than generally believed; and that the Iranian people are eager to join foreign efforts to overthrow their theocratic rulers.
“The officials said there is no reliable intelligence to support any of those assertions and some that contradicts all three.

Posted by: jj | Sep 17 2006 22:44 utc | 42

Very mysterious events indeed Noirrette. I don’t subscribe to FTW but check their summary’s on a regular basis. I read the long communication from Rupert re his move to Venezuela and the implication was he is running for his life. (Hey, then again, Venezuela would probably be a pretty nice reward for a faithful asset who’s value has been exhausted.) But I think from what he has researched and exposed, his life may very well be in danger.
@jj,
Thanks for the head’s up on the addition of Rupert’s book to the library at Harvard’s B-School. I hadn’t discovered that yet. It adds credence to his presentation to the jury of We the People.
It’s really interesting uncle. In the house of smoke & mirrors, that all we who seek truth inhabit, it’s always a tough call whether there is credulity in any communication that our experience hasn’t illuminated. I like to say, “the only time they tell the truth is when it happens to coincide with their agenda”. But my main point is that everything Rupert bases his case on is in the “official record”, and unless someone can refute his references his case is very compelling. We don’t need experts or further scientific “opinion” (oops, that may be heresy in my circle of professional friends) to build a case against the players in the Cheney administration. We need documented facts which I believe were enough to secure my vote of guilty. If this case could be presented to more of the sheeple, then maybe we could reach a bifurcation point where the real criminals would be convicted.
But I’m not holding my breath.
I think it may all be diverting our attention away from what r’giap (thanks for being back Steel) tried to communicate in # 37. They are confounding us with so much data that we miss what they are up to right now (maybe part of Rupert’s role). So I think I need to focus more on that and do my small part to try to thwart them and bring our species around again to “jump up and live again”.
b, you have been glaringly quite on this. Have you read the book and if so, what are your comments? I respect your evaluative talents too much to hear you remain silent.

Posted by: Juannie | Sep 17 2006 23:21 utc | 44

links not working for me conchita

Posted by: annie | Sep 17 2006 23:51 utc | 46

better link, hopefully.

Posted by: conchita | Sep 18 2006 0:13 utc | 48

Thanks conchita. What timing!

Posted by: Juannie | Sep 18 2006 0:15 utc | 50

In regard to passing it on to the next generation, it aint gonna be easy. One of the ‘balancing acts’ BBC World is running this month is called “Peace Month”, last night’s contribution was a documentary on PeaceJam who are having their 10th Anniversary this weekend and during the course of the week.
I guess many Amerikans will have heard of this organisation which initially brought Nobel Peace laureates together with young people in the wake of the Columbine shooting.
The documentary focussed on a group of Columbine survivors who had become activists in the organisation and were working through their communities to teach other young people ways to be peaceful and deal with confronting issues in non-violent ways.
There is no doubt these kids are doing really good work BUT and here is a really big but, the only one of them who came from a remotely typical middle class background was a guy who had been shot multiple times during the Columbine tragedy and is now a paraplegic. The Nobel Laureates (Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Jose Ramos Horta. Mairee Corrigan and Betty Williams, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Shirin Ebadi, Jody Williams) worked with hundreds of kids from Columbine who judging from the media coverage came from pretty typical middle class amerika, yet the kids who ‘got’ it best of all were those on the fringes, victims of child abuse, addicted and homeless parents, a chicano gangbanger etc
One particularly articulate member of the group was a girl who in her freshman year at Columbine had been placed into the special needs class because she had been moved around so much that her school records were a couple of schools behind her. By the time she commenced high school she was a mess and had begun self mutilating. She said that was the first class she had ever been in where she made friends and didn’t feel threatened by other kids and where teachers actually showed an interest in her as a person.
The thing I’m trying to say is that it was these kids who responded to the concepts about reconciliation that Tutu and co were putting out, the middle amerikan kids don’t appear to have been interested in the non-violence message.
As far as I can tell that situation isn’t particular to Columbine or to amerika. I see the same thing at the schools my kids go to. The vast majority of the ‘have’ kids are far more obssessed with what they haven’t got than the kids who have sweet f.a.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 18 2006 1:49 utc | 52

Has anyone here read “Crossing the Rubicon” by Mike Rupert? Bernhard said he had a copy and was reading it but I haven’t heard form him regarding it
???
b.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2006 5:12 utc | 54

don’t ask

Posted by: annie | Sep 18 2006 5:51 utc | 56

A good OpEd by someone who seems to know what he is talking about: Talk to the Taliban

IF the past five years of increasingly violent fighting in Afghanistan have proved anything, it is this: The Taliban and their allies cannot be beaten by military means alone. Perhaps, then, the moment has come to talk to the Taliban and other insurgents.
But before we do anything, we have to understand them. Nearly half of Afghanistan’s population is Pashtun, the ethnic group from which the Taliban draw the bulk of their foot soldiers and supporters. In the international effort to shift the population’s loyalties away from the Taliban, the Pashtuns have, not surprisingly, proved more resistant than the country’s other main groups, the Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks. But for all four groups, the American and other members of the International Security Assistance Force now in Afghanistan are visitors, probably temporary and increasingly unwelcome, like the British colonizers and Soviets before them.

Posted by: b | Sep 18 2006 6:09 utc | 58

It seems that a big mob of Canadian soldiers got blown to smithereens in Afghanistan last night.

A bomb has caused “multiple casualties” among NATO-led troops in southern Afghanistan, the force says.
Civilians were also hurt in the blast in Panjwayi district of Kandahar province, scene of recent fierce clashes between troops and the Taleban.
Some reports say the explosion was caused by a suicide bomber – but these have not been confirmed.
Witnesses and local police said Canadian soldiers had been giving children gifts when the bomb went off.

Same old same old giving candy out to the local kids. If they really want to spread tooth decay amongst the Islamic population, you’d think they would have learned a better way of distributing the toxins.
Adding insult to injury some ‘media manager’ is delaying the both the numbers and the nationality of the casualties which will simply add to the pain and anger felt by their families.

A spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) would not give the wounded soldiers’ nationalities.
The force said that the bomb attack occurred about 0930 local time (0500 GMT).
It had “caused multiple casualties to an Isaf patrol operating in Kandahar province”, a statement said.

Somehow I doubt that all of the media in the coalition of the unwitting are going to be as compliant as the amerikan media were back in ’03. It won’t be long now before some journo trawls through the casualty reports in the newspapers of each country does the math and publishes whatever the number is. It wouldn’t be surprising to find that the casualty numbers since NATO took over the south from the US at the start of the year were now in the hundreds. Can’t help but feel that the reason it appears to be so much worse for NATO than it was for the amerikans is that the US had a quite small confined to base presence there, which kept the numbers low but also allowed the Afghani resistance to build up.
Although Nato is making noises about sending more troops you can be sure that the only re-inforcements will be from Poland who are learning the hard way that they came about two decades too late to the EU party:

The concerns come as Ministry of Defence officials remain ‘hopeful’ that more nations in the Nato alliance will agree to send extra troops to Helmand when urgent talks are held this Thursday. Nato generals want an extra 2,500 troops for the operation in southern Afghanistan. Poland has promised to send 1,000 troops, but they will not arrive until February.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic, but it seems that Poland is forever destined to be swapped between East and West every 50 years or so for a good old ass fucking.
Can’t help but wonder if Poland had to similarly ‘volunteer’ troops for the Russian afghani adventure. If they did this stuff will be getting pretty old.
The last straw will be the return of the Nazis in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern which is right across the border from Poland.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 18 2006 10:47 utc | 60

I just read righteousbabe’s diary on dkos (conchita’s link) and she is very talented. Shes a very aware for a 15 year old, unfortunately aware enough to already have some of that sense of disillusionment and frustration thats eventually sets into concerned people much older than her.
And theres the other kid:
I remember a boy from our class who hadn’t participated- solitary, an Ayn Rand acolyte- walking up to me. He looked me straight in the eye and said, “$400 can’t stop a genocide.”
His perspective is just as important as righteousbabe’s. But he is on a different journey from her and with much lower and more realistic expectations.
Also, its never been the case that good thoughts and good deeds can save the world or any particuclar individual. Its true that divestment played an important role in ending apartheid. And thats primarily because the Afrikaaners considered the understanding and sympathy of their European cousins indispensable and they were losing that battle amongst others. The Sudanese leadership have no affinity for the Europeans and will not be swayed anywhere as much by divestment or loss of face in Europe/North-America.
But the key reason why apartheid fell is because the Black Africans demanded nothing less. It was Black resistance to the Bantusan apartheid policy that originally provided the basis for an international anti-apartheid movement. And in the case of Darfur, the solution should be driven by what the people there want. Its a very very different situation from apartheid South Africa and to think otherwise is condescending and suggests moral-superiority.
Kids like righteousbabe and the boy should be learning as much as they can about history and other cultures. On the long run, thats what can make a real difference.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 18 2006 13:28 utc | 62

jj @26
What would we do if the US assimilated Canada? We’d pack up and leave. Already discussed it.
Harper is doing his bit to help that along

Posted by: gmac | Sep 18 2006 14:04 utc | 64

All these links are from non-conspiracists:
This report (PDF) follows the official story, and deems the damage is caused by ‘debris’ and ‘fire.’ It has some good pictures.
Buffalo U
Map from Newsday showing what was destroyed:
link
Similar effort from Tenant Wise:
link
From the Stanford U Report, eng. R. Hamburger:
He pointed out that four buildings were immediately destroyed in the WTC assault, and three others suffered irreparable damage and are in the process of being razed. Another half-dozen buildings were harmed structurally but can be repaired, and more than 50 others were damaged by the enormous debris cloud and the burning material that followed the collapse of the twin towers.
link
A 3 D-model from a yay America site – scroll down after the eagles – this is accurate in the sense it concurs with all other descriptions that list the damage (wording and pix angles differ!) – It is particularly impressive, as if one has any sense of scale at all – imagine the size of a Boeing as compared to the massive buildings – the idea that two planes could have done so much damage is outta sight lunacy.
link
Juannie, who knows. Anyway ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ is a good book, it stands, criticism always possible, was published at point x, etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 18 2006 17:36 utc | 66

some things that bother me about Darfur:
Darfur seems to have been seized on by some cadre of misguided Eurocentrics to create yet another “moral-moment” to rescue Africa.
the initial dispatches that something really horrific was going on there described mass genocides of Black Africans by Arab Muslims. A big lie. Both the Darfurians and their adversaries, the so-called Janjaweed are Black Africann Muslims. The key point of difference with respect to the conflict is the Darfurians are farmers whilst the Janjaweed are pastorals/herdsmen.
having mis-framed the conflict with the appropriate “racial coding”, the outburst of outrage that followed totally obscures important underlying issues. Access to water & grazing land is central to the dispute between Darfurians and the Janjaweed. Darfur-oil is the secondary but massively looming issue, introducing the hands of governnments of Sudan and the NATO countries into the conflict.
At this point, the whole situation is paralyzed by the level of mistrust between the Sudanese govt and the NATO countries.
Just another case of misguided Eurocentrics looking for their “moral moment” to help Blacks, only to end up screwing things up much worse. Its got to be some kind of moral superiority. There are plenty of Blacks in Europe and North America who desperately need help. They are the uniquely harmed victims, having been horrifically stripped of their culture, language and heritage.
But the narrative on Africans is so much more story-book, nice pictures are taken, the “evil” Arabs/Muslims are driven off the land, the humble & grateful “tribal” folks are fed and aided, all smiles, and we can all feel so much better about ourselves.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 18 2006 18:46 utc | 68

Interesting bit suggesting that arm-twisting going on toward transformation (or replacement by) of WTO into full blown world state, using “global warming” as the club for the recalcitrant. A world state of by & for the Kleptocrats is a fate far worse than mere “global warming”. Given the Kleptocrats agenda, how can one possibly believe the science? Or conversely, however plausible the science, the agenda definitely does not follow.
Anyhow, here’s the bit:
LISBON, September 18 (Itar-Tass) – Russia does not see a reasonable alternative to the creation of a new collective leader comprising key, highly industrialized countries in the world, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an article published in the Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias over his two-day visit in Lisbon that will begin on Monday.
According to the minister, these key countries should be “representative in terms of geography and civilisation.” “The Group of Eight (G8) may become an important aspect of an informal mechanism of a new collective leader,” Lavrov pointed out.
Russia is ready to make a contribution in the creation of a new universal system that will be safer and democratic based on the principles of law and multilateral cooperation, Sergei Lavrov said. Russia on Formation of World State

Posted by: jj | Sep 18 2006 19:52 utc | 70

Sorry Noirette but I’ve got to pull you up on this one
imagine the size of a Boeing as compared to the massive buildings – the idea that two planes could have done so much damage is outta sight lunacy.
Imagine the size of a cluster bomblet compared to some humans arms legs and head. That one could do so much damage is lunacy as well. _but it does happen.
Imagine the size of the B-29 Enola Gay and the size of Hiroshima the idea that something so small could have done so much damage is also lunacy.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 18 2006 21:32 utc | 72

we’re in iran right now

Posted by: annie | Sep 19 2006 1:10 utc | 74

ynet (via informationclearinghouse): Time: This is how US will attack Iran

Time Magazine published details regarding a possible attack, based on talks with military sources.
According to the magazine, no one in Washington is talking about a ground invasion of Iran, as was carried out in Iraq or Afghanistan. According to the report, the American goal in case of an offensive will be to delay the Iranian nuclear plan, an operation which can be carried out from the air.
Goal: Delaying nuclear plan by 2 to 3 years
The attack, the Time says, will be limited to the nuclear facilities in Iran and will be aimed at 18 to 30 different facilities connected to the nuclear program. The sites are spread across the country, some of them exposed, some operating under the guise of regular plants, and others buried deep under the ground.
Sources in the Pentagon told the magazine that among the sites the Americans are familiar with are 1,500 targets for an attack. In other words, the military offensive requires activating nearly all types of planes in the army’s possession: Warplanes and stealth vehicles, F-15 and F-16 aircrafts taking off from the land and an F-18 which takes off from an aircraft carrier.
Such an attack requires using satellite-guided weapons and laser-guided ammunition, as well as spy planes and unmanned aerial vehicles. Since many targets are hidden underground and are reinforced with armed concrete, they will have to be hit once and again in order to guarantee that they are destroyed, or at least severely damaged.
Submarines and American battleships will be able to launch cruise missiles, but the Time says that the warheads in this case are small and are not enough to cause damage to the concrete. Therefore, they will be used for other targets.
An American attack in Iran may take a few days, with hundreds and maybe thousands of sorties. According to the report, it will help in delaying the Iranian nuclear program by two to the three years.

Posted by: b real | Sep 19 2006 2:33 utc | 76

b real, wondering if the article mentioned how many iranian citizens would lose their lives. i know, dumb question. i suppose it is also futile to ask if they have thought about the radiation that will be released and where in the region it will end up.

Posted by: conchita | Sep 19 2006 2:49 utc | 78

This reminds me of a book published sometime in the 1970s by Mad Magazine, titled “History Gone Mad”. On the second-to-last page is the entry: “1961 — The Bay of Pigs invasion liberates 200 square feet of Cuban beach for almost 15 minutes.” On the last page, it says “1964 — Since the Bay of Pigs invasion turned out so well, we decide to liberate Vietnam, too.”

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Sep 19 2006 3:21 utc | 80

billmon has a new post up. i am placing my hands over my ears, my eyes are shut
LALALALALALALALALALALA
ignorance is bliss

Posted by: annie | Sep 19 2006 3:25 utc | 82

conchita, thank you, we are all learning.
its the same old struggle from time immemorial. Theres really nothing new about our struggles today. We just have the priviledge today that we can share over the internet. So, its struggle on steroids and lets hope it pays off big.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 19 2006 3:52 utc | 84

if anyone read the keddie book would know, how obscene and horrible an attack on iran would be.
fitting, for the bush administration.
“dark times,” indeed.

Posted by: slothrop | Sep 19 2006 4:21 utc | 86

b real, thanks for the keith harmon snow – two or three of the panels look like exactly what i need.

Posted by: conchita | Sep 19 2006 4:57 utc | 88