Category: Grave

From Thurmond Family Struggles With Difficult Truth, by Jeffrey Gettleman (The New York Times, Dec. 20, 2003):
“It’s been really hard this week… You have to turn on the TV and there are jokes about him and you’re still grieving. I just hope this woman is coming out for the right reasons.”— Robyn Bishop, 25, Strom Thurmond’s great-niece.
“The man’s dead, and he can’t speak for himself… I don’t know why this lady is doing this.”— James Bishop, 59, Thurmond’s nephew.
Um, try callling her “Aunt Essie.” It may make everyone feel better.
Sidebars: 1. “I went to a church meeting the other day and all these people came up to me and you could tell they didn’t know what to say…For the first time in my life, I felt shame.”— Mary T. Thompkins Freeman, Thurmond’s niece. She didn’t feel shame when he filibustered for 24 hours against civil rights?
2. “Mr. Thurmond Jr., known as Lil’ Strom and Stromboli…” Stromboli!

This week, fans of rational and democratically-protected civil liberties had many reasons to rejoice (or at least, wait with bated breath until the inevitable appeals process begins) as federal courts issued three striking rejoinders to Big, Bad, and Powerful Interests–notably, King George and the RIAA.
Seriously, try smiling, just this once. Because, realistically, we all know it will be frown season again when November 2004 rolls around.
1. Court: Gitmo suspects need lawyers

In another legal setback for the Bush administration, a federal appeals court has concluded terrorist suspects held in secret U.S. custody on foreign soil deserve access to lawyers and the American legal system.
…The 9th Circuit [ruled that] “even in times of national emergency — indeed, particularly in such times — it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike. … We hold that no lawful policy or precedent supports such a counter-intuitive and undemocratic procedure.”

2. Court Rules Bush Cannot Hold Padilla As “Enemy Combatant”

In New York, a divided court ruled that President Bush lacked the authority to indefinitely detain Jose Padilla – a U.S. citizen – simply by declaring him “an enemy combatant.”
The majority of the three-judge panel ruled that while Congress might have the power to authorize the detention of an American, the president, acting on his own, did not. Padilla has been held in solitary confinement for 18 months without access to a lawyer or the courts. No charges have been filed against Padilla who is a US citizen born in Brooklyn.

3. Record Industry May Not Subpoena Online Providers

The recording industry cannot compel an Internet service provider to give up the names of customers who trade music online without judicial review, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled today.
The sharply worded ruling, which dismissed one industry argument by saying that it “borders on the silly,” is a blow to the music companies in the online music wars. It overturns a decision in federal district court that favored the industry and ordered Verizon Communications to disclose the identity of a subscriber based on simple subpoenas submitted to a court clerk.

While conventional wisdom encourages bitter veterans of failed relationships to dispose of incriminating love letters and other such mementos, Donald Rumsfeld sure has proven to be quite the obstinate paramour. Or maybe they just forgot to throw these letters in the big Republican fireplace?
Today’s Washington Post runs a feature by Dana Priest examining newly-declassified (don’t you loooove that shit?) documentation of the Reagan administration’s stances on All Things Saddam, and, in particular, the efforts of special envoy Donald Rumsfeld, who supposedly experimented with Bilateralism in the ’80s (hey–who didn’t?).

When details of Rumsfeld’s December trip came to light last year, the defense secretary told CNN that he had “cautioned” Saddam Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, an account that was at odds with the declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting, which did not mention such a caution. Later, a Pentagon spokesman said Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Aziz…Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein.

Additionally, the following romantic missives were gleaned from the oh-so-sexy National Security Archive at the George Washington University:

During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq’s nuclear program, and its “preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities” [Document 57]. Several months later, a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis said that even after the war ended, Iraq was likely to “continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons” [Document 58]. (Iraq is situated in a dangerous neighborhood, and Israel had stockpiled a large nuclear weapons arsenal without international censure. Nuclear nonproliferation was not a high priority of the Reagan administration – throughout the 1980s it downplayed Pakistan’s nuclear program, though its intelligence indicated that a weapons capability was being pursued, in order to avert congressionally mandated sanctions. Sanctions would have impeded the administration’s massive military assistance to Pakistan provided in return for its support of the mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)
…Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.’s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have “any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations,” the department’s spokesperson said “No. I’m not aware of any change in our position. We’re interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq” [Document 52].
Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq’s chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of “no decision” on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq’s ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for “restraint” in responding to the issue – as did the representatives of both France and Britain.

Sadly, none of the various cables and telegrams posted on the publicly available website archive contain any of the purportedly hand-lettered notebook scribblings, “Mr. Donald Hussein, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld Hussein, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld-Hussein…”
Although some of those blottings do recall cupid’s arrows. Hope they’re not poison-tipped, ba-dum!

Get Your War On

Or at least, an admission of sorts. Well, it’s not really an “admission”, so much as it as an acknowledgement. And, come to think of it, no one’s “acknowledging” any sort of “wrongdoing”, either, at least in such plain language. Furthermore, “administration official” is a pretty far-reaching term.
Ah, fuck it.
Regardless, here’s today’s sort-of-incriminating quote of the day, courtesy of the American ambassador to Afghanistan, as detailed in today’s Chicago Tribune (reg. required):

U.S. officials promised Monday that Hussein’s capture would re-energize the hunt for [Osama] bin Laden and his Al Qaeda associates and allies.
“Saddam is no longer a problem now, so bin Laden is the focus,” U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said.

Phew! Good thing we got that year-long, $166-billion distraction out of the way!
In case you were becoming excitedly optimistic about locating the actual al Qaeda leader behind the events of September 11th, 2001–which launched the war on terror, which (shouldn’t have) led to the sojourn in Iraq, which expanded the war on terror to include new acts of terrorism in said sojourn–consider throwing some caution to those Afghanistan winds.

…There is no reason to believe U.S. forces are any closer to finding the Saudi exile than they were when he gave them the slip in the mountains of Tora Bora in 2001.
Since then, the rumor mill has put him in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kashmir and even China. He also has been reported to be dead, from kidney disease or injuries received in the intensive U.S. bombardment of Tora Bora.
Afghan and U.S. officials said they believe he most likely is roaming the frontier straddling the Afghan-Pakistani border, home to the fiercely independent-minded Pashtun tribe.

That’s quite a lengthy list of real-world, non-analogous theories. Good thing the Tribune reporter left out the entirely scurrilous rumors about bin Laden’s having died and being reborn as a glorious phoenix who soars above the mountains along the border of Kashmir, bedecked in golden armor and sporting silver arrows, squawking orders to his army of terrorist changelings as they sleep, and sometimes taking side trips to Baghdad, Tikrit and the West Bank. This phoenix embodies pure evil, it is said, and never rests.
He just takes occasional naps, much like the administration’s war on terror.

From the December 15th edition of the New York Times, “Bearing Questions, 4 New Iraqi Leaders Pay Hussein a Visit“, by Ian Fisher:

“The world is crazy,” said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Governing Council member in the room on Sunday after Mr. Hussein was captured near his hometown, Tikrit. “I was in his torture chamber in 1979, and now he was sitting there, powerless in front of me without anybody stopping me from doing anything to him. Just imagine. We were arguing, and he was using very foul language.”
…Mr. Rubaie said: “One thing which is very important is that this man had with him underground when they arrested him two AK-47’s and did not shoot one bullet. I told him, `You keep on saying that you are a brave man and a proud Arab.’ I said, `When they arrested you why didn’t you shoot one bullet? You are a coward.'”
…”And he started to use very colorful language,” he said. “Basically he used all his French.”
…”And I have to confess that the last word was for me,” he continued. “I was the last to leave the room and I said, `May God curse you. Tell me, when are you going to be accountable to God and the day of judgment? What are you going to tell him about Halabja and the mass graves, the Iran-Iraq war, thousands and thousands executed? What are you going to tell God?’ He was exercising his French language.“

Unless you’ve been living in a cave somewhere, you now know that Public Enemy No. 2, at least as appointed as such by the Bush Administration, has been caught. This must mean it’s time for some soul-searching! Perhaps it’s time for Democratic presidential candidates to reconsider the race which lies before them, and for voters to do likewise? This has been the tenor of much of Day One’s pundit roundabouts and insular media discussions, e.g. Elisabeth Bumiller and David E. Sanger’s musings in the New York Times:

“The capture was both a personal and political victory for President Bush, who had been frustrated that a man he had described as an archenemy of the United States had eluded American troops for so long. The capture also came at the beginning of the president’s 2004 re-election campaign and steals ammunition, at least for the moment, from the Democratic presidential candidates who had criticized the war and the American occupation.”

Are assertions such as those which appear in bold above even remotely as black-and-white as is lazily implied by Bumiller and Sanger? The assessors have conflated “anti-war” status with some arbitrary gauge for the end of said war, when, of course, the two issues are entirely irrelevant. If one doesn’t believe a war should have been fought, does that mean they “look bad” when the war “concludes”? Certainly not; it’s about framework.
Think a bit more carefully about the issues at hand when discussing so-called “anti-war” candidates: specifically, criticism by Democratic presidential candidates of elements such as the war itself, the unilateralism, the pre-emptive invasion, overthrow, and occupation of a sovereign nation, the insertion of Western ideology onto a distinctly non-Western canvas…have any of these issues been addressed by this largely symbolic gesture, the capture of the invaded nation’s prior leader?
No.
Of course, one can argue that the documented removal of this figurehead may lead to that oh-so-elusive rising tide of Middle Eastern democracy we’ve been hearing so much about. But not when the means to that end have sown disproportionate amounts of dissension in the hearts of those whom we would claim to be helping.
The United States still, as of last checking, has and had embarked upon each of the items in the brief checklist of unilaterlalist behavior detailed above, which are each, on their own, perfectly meritorious reasons to abstain from drum-beating war fever, circa February 2003, or circa December 2003. Or, for that matter, November 2004.
Even on their own, the aforementioned failures of American esteem and diplomacy, are, furthermore, reasons to embrace hearty politicking and rational debates on matters such as failed American internationalism and the deceptions that have led us to where we are today, namely, having left underemployed American taxpayers in possession of both a thunderously gargantuan federal deficit directly linked to our Iraqi endeavor, and economic and governmental responsibility for a Middle Eastern nation the size of the state of California.
For all of the spinning that may ensue, remember this: the “anti-war” Democratic contingent still has justice, diplomacy and responsibility in its corner, and, more significantly, the ability to contextualize fleeting moments of present jubilation amidst the larger struggle of American education and quality-of-life woes. Spin away.
As per the optimistic words spoken by President Bush Sunday morning (ostensibly to the people of Iraq, but we know otherwise), “A dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived.” Such optimism is noble, indeed, but not without realistic accountability–particularly when the “tomorrow” we so desperately anticipate comes at great cost to both “yesterday” and “today”.
This fall, the city of Boston awaits. With the 2004 Democratic Convention slated to be held In a city that prides itself on its Revolutionary role in American history, it’s time for the followup, two-and-a-quarter centuries later. Embrace the race, but frame the issues accordingly.

At Least 17 Killed in Blast at Iraq Police Station
Well, at least the Times covered these token deaths (17) alongside a negligible number (33) of injuries. CNN.com appeared to be too busy flouting the Geneva Convention.

Apparently, the occupation of Iraq isn’t going as well as you may have thought, unless your standards of success include hundreds of dead American soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, and millions of people affected by power and water shortages.
One solution? Bring in American spies to scout out so-called “insurgent activity,” according to new Central Intelligence Agency plans (leaked anonymously, as per the usual information-distribution route). According to the Los Angeles Times,

“In recent weeks, the agency has begun a buildup that one source said could add as many as 100 people to an agency presence that is already several hundred strong in the war-torn country. Among those being sent, sources said, are case officers, counter-terrorism analysts and a small contingent of senior officials from the agency’s clandestine service.
The moves come at a time when many in the intelligence community acknowledge that they are frustrated with their inability to penetrate an insurgency that continues to carry out deadly attacks on American soldiers and Iraqi civilians almost every day.”

Ah, damage control. Who wants to make odds on White House “senior administration officials” not coming forward to let Robert Novak know the identity of these mysterious agents who will be assisting in the expedition of our grand exit strategy?
If your answer to the odds question was “no chance,” you can claim victory. Which is more than can be said for the American effort in Iraq or Afghanistan.