Phlegma weblog

237 misleading statements from the Bush administration

Henry Waxman have just brought us the the Iraq on Record Database, which contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by George Bush Junior, Dick Chaney, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, Foreign Secretary Powell and Security advisor Rice.

Thanks to Manic at Bloggerheads for finding this. I will surely use it - as should you all.

At seminar

I'm currently at a seminar about Investigative Journalism. It's very interesting - but that leaves me with little access to this blog. Thus the blog won't be updated untill friday.

Russians and the polling stations

Today the Russians are heading for the polling stations to elect a president for the third time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one seems to think that any of the five candidates who are running for the precidency have a chance against Putin. He is going for a landslide victory. But his victory may not be valid.

To have a valid russian election, the turn-out has to be higher than 50 percent. This may be the only thing that stops Putin from cruising to a second term in office.

This is a problem that Putin has allready foreseen. A couple of weeks ago, Putin dismissed his own cabinet, and thus created a bit of excitement in an extremly dull campain.

We'll see if this is enough to secure a valid victory. Because as long as there isn't any candidate that can beet Putin, his opponents have to rely on the constitution - and stay away from the polling stations.

I just cried

It's several years since last time. But seeing the appalling atrocity in Madrid is just horrible. My tears are shed for the 199, the 1,400, the spaniards and our virginity. Where's the glory?

Where's the glory in that?

Today I need help to express my emotions. I turn to U2-lyrics for that help:

They don't talk about the glory of killing for the revolution What's the glory in taking a man from his bed And gunning him down in front of his wife and children Where's the glory in that?

Where's the glory in bombing a rememberence day parade
Of old age pensioners their medals taken out and polished up for the day
Where's the glory in that?

To leave them dying, or crippled for life, or dead
Under the rubble of the revolution

Taken from Sunday, Bloody Sunday. A different conflict - but the broken ideals are the same.

Hard cases

Given that so much confusion exist about whether to apply wartime or law-enforcement rules to a given situation, a better approach would be to make decision based on its public policy implications. Unfortunatly, the Bush administration seems to have ignored such concerns.

Consider the cases of Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. Federal officials arrested Padilla, A US citizen, in May 2002 when he arrived from Pakistan at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, allegedly to scout out targets for a radiological bomb. As for al-Marri, a student from Quatar, he was arrested in December in 2001 at his home in Peoria, Illinois, for allegedly be a "sleeper" agent; an inactive terrorist who would help others launch attacks. Invoking war rules, President Bush Junior, has declered these two to be "enemy combatants" allowing the US government to hold them without charge or trial until the end of the war against terrorism - whenever that is.

But even if they have done what the government claims, could they be called enemy combatants? Aren't they more like ordinary criminals?

If they are considered enemy combatants under the war time rules, they could be shot on sight, regardless of whether they posed any imminent threat to the United States. Of course the White House has not proposed to kill the men. They only plan to detain these two men indefinetly.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

5th Amendment to U.S. Constitution

Parts of this text is taken from an article by Kenneth Roth in the January/February edition of Foreign Affairs

Law at Peace, Law at War

By literalizing its «war» on terror, the Bush administration has broken down the distinction between what is permissible in times of peace and what can be condoned during a war. In peacetime, governments are bound by strict rules of law enforcement. Police can use lethal force only if necessary to meet an imminent threat of death and serious bodily injury. Once a suspect is detained, he or she must be charged and tried. These requirements are codified in international human rights law.

In times of war, law-enforcement rules are supplemented by a more permissive set of rules: An enemy can be shot without warning (unless he or she is incapacitated, in custody, or trying to surrender), regardless of any omminent threat. If a combatant is captured, he or she can be held in custody until the end of the conflict.

So is the war on terror a real war? It might be that. If one looks at al-Quidas actions on September 11th, its bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, its attack against USS Cole in Yemen and the bombing of residential compounds in Saudi Arabia. Eeach of these attacks was certainly serious crimes warranting prosecution. But, technically speaking, was the administration right to claim that they add up to a war? I say no.

For terrorist it's difficult to say who take active part in fighting. Roles and activities are clandestine and a persons relationship to a specific violent act is often unclear. In a traditional war, the war has an end - but that doesn't seem to apply to the war on terror. When is it «safe» to let the prisoners at Guantanamo bay free?

Four british prisoners were actually let go yesterday. But four are still held at Gitmo. The four British Muslims who are to remain at Guantanamo Bay are too dangerous to be released, an American official was last night reported as saying. All four trained at al-Qa'ida camps where they learned bombmaking, methods of assassination and urban warfare techniques, making them a "serious threat" should they be released, the source said. The highly unusual step of releasing details of the charges against the men had been taken to counteract opinion expressing concern over the conditions in which detainees were being held at the prison camp in Cuba.

As Manic says at Bloggerheads: I love how the public has been made aware of the charges (for reasons of political convenience) when this same information has been kept from these men for upwards of two years.

I repeat: Only one detainee needs to be innocent for this to be a tragedy. All of them could be guilty, but their treatment over the last two years would still be illegal.

Part of this text is taken from an article by Kenneth Roth in the January/February edition of Foreign affairs

The Wisdom of Blake

I've been asked why I - a European - use so much time scorning the so-called president of the United States. Well, there are the obvious reasons - like that I think that he and his administration are the biggest threat to civilization. But there is some wisdom to be shed from a poem by William Blake:

The poison tree

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears,
Night and morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine.
And he knew that it was mine,

And into my garden stole
When the night had veiled the pole;
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

The poem is taken from memory, and may contain a few errors, though I hope not.

I'm not going to do the same mistake as Blake.

The Importance of a Word

"Our war on terror will be much broader than the battlefields and beachheads of the past. The war will be fought wherever terrorists hide, or run, or plan." George W. Bush junior, September 29th, 2001.

What are the bounderies of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism"? The battles against the Afgahn and Iraqi governments were classic wars between organized military forces. But George W. Bush junior has suggested that his campaign against terrorism goes beyond such conflicts.

In his speech Sept. 29th, 2001, George W. Bush junior streches the meaning of the word "war". He seems to think of the war against terror quite literally - as a real war. This has worrisome implications. The rules that bind governments are much looser during wartime than in times of peace. The Bush administration has used the term "war" to give itself the extraordinary powers enjoyed by wartime fovernment to detain or even kill suspects without trial. Thus the administration is threatening the most basic due process rights.

Part of this text is taken from an article by Kenneth Roth in the January/February edition of Foreign affairs

Who'll be Kerrys running mate

John Kerry is the Democratic candidate for presidency in this years election. But who's going to be the one running with him? John Edwards have some of the charisma that brought Bill Clinton to Pennsylvania Avenue. But in a sheer mathematical evaluation, Edwards looses. It would require a landslide to shift either of the Carolinas into a Republican column come November.
With the sheer logic of the Electoral College John Kerry will have to choose someone who might bring with him a state. Bill Nelson or Bob Graham might help in Florida. The Indiana senator Evan Bayh would strengthen Kerrys ticket in the industrioal mid-west. Dick Gephardt would both inprove Kerrys chances in Mossouri and consolidate his support with big labour. Max Cleland might make John Kerry compatitive in Georgia - and being a cruelly disabled Vietnam veteran, he's going to get a lot of sympathy votes.

Hillary Clinton might be the one that will bring most into a ticket - both for John Kerry and George Bush junior. But she might become the spear head of a campain - even while being candidate for the vice-presidency. And that wouldn't be good for the one running for the big office.

Part of this text is taken from the March 6th edition of The Economist