The Hutton report
Well now, the UK government comes out of this shiny white and smelling of roses; Kelly was a nutjob and should (post-mortem) shoulder all the blame together with the BBC.
The dead man and the last large, relatively independent and trustworthy western news source... I should not be surprised but am. I thought Hutton would at least attempt to appear more even-handed.
This past year, especially, the world has been subjected to the most cynical and brazen mindfuck in recent history on both sides of the Atlantic, leaving "the glove does not fit" in the dust.
It just goes on and on and on... and I for one am heartily sick of it all. Do these rulers and their obedient servants really think their populations are braindead? With all the voices calling out that the emperor has no clothes, how long can the naked emperor still walk on as if nothing is the matter?
In fact, does any of this matter? The BBC will start self-censorship which will be more effective than any government effort to do the same and people like me will increasingly tune out and get their info from grassroots sources on the web.
That may be the best solution in the end.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
The Hutton report
Well now, the UK government comes out of this shiny white and smelling of roses; Kelly was a nutjob and should (post-mortem) shoulder all the blame together with the BBC.
The dead man and the last large, relatively independent and trustworthy western news source... I should not be surprised but am. I thought Hutton would at least attempt to appear more even-handed.
This past year, especially, the world has been subjected to the most cynical and brazen mindfuck in recent history on both sides of the Atlantic, leaving "the glove does not fit" in the dust.
It just goes on and on and on... and I for one am heartily sick of it all. Do these rulers and their obedient servants really think their populations are braindead? With all the voices calling out that the emperor has no clothes, how long can the naked emperor still walk on as if nothing is the matter?
In fact, does any of this matter? The BBC will start self-censorship which will be more effective than any government effort to do the same and people like me will increasingly tune out and get their info from grassroots sources on the web.
That may be the best solution in the end.
Well now, the UK government comes out of this shiny white and smelling of roses; Kelly was a nutjob and should (post-mortem) shoulder all the blame together with the BBC.
The dead man and the last large, relatively independent and trustworthy western news source... I should not be surprised but am. I thought Hutton would at least attempt to appear more even-handed.
This past year, especially, the world has been subjected to the most cynical and brazen mindfuck in recent history on both sides of the Atlantic, leaving "the glove does not fit" in the dust.
It just goes on and on and on... and I for one am heartily sick of it all. Do these rulers and their obedient servants really think their populations are braindead? With all the voices calling out that the emperor has no clothes, how long can the naked emperor still walk on as if nothing is the matter?
In fact, does any of this matter? The BBC will start self-censorship which will be more effective than any government effort to do the same and people like me will increasingly tune out and get their info from grassroots sources on the web.
That may be the best solution in the end.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Iraq
Saw this article in today's Independent:
Coalition uses 1918 British report on tribal system
HA! Why am I not surprised ?!?
Now that Ayatollah Sistani is piling on the pressure and things seem to be on the verge of going bust, the US is trying to get the UN to jump in and organise elections.
I sincerely hope that the UN will not get involved here.
Things will end badly no matter who ends up holding the can and as far as I am concerned, the UN has not not exactly played an exemplary and independent role in Iraq in the past, what with enabling those killer sanctions.
I suspect in the end the lure/push of the US will be too strong to resist, as usual, and the UN will go in and try to salvage what they can.
From where I'm sitting, they will be lucky if the country does not end up as a repressive theocracy or in an all-out civil war, resulting in the north being invaded and occupied by Turkey. The latter of course, a 'humanitarian' effort, in the interest of bringing stability to the region.
Saw this article in today's Independent:
Coalition uses 1918 British report on tribal system
HA! Why am I not surprised ?!?
Now that Ayatollah Sistani is piling on the pressure and things seem to be on the verge of going bust, the US is trying to get the UN to jump in and organise elections.
I sincerely hope that the UN will not get involved here.
Things will end badly no matter who ends up holding the can and as far as I am concerned, the UN has not not exactly played an exemplary and independent role in Iraq in the past, what with enabling those killer sanctions.
I suspect in the end the lure/push of the US will be too strong to resist, as usual, and the UN will go in and try to salvage what they can.
From where I'm sitting, they will be lucky if the country does not end up as a repressive theocracy or in an all-out civil war, resulting in the north being invaded and occupied by Turkey. The latter of course, a 'humanitarian' effort, in the interest of bringing stability to the region.
Iraq
Saw this article in today's Independent:
Coalition uses 1918 British report on tribal system
HA! Why am I not surprised ?!?
Now that Ayatollah Sistani is piling on the pressure and things seem to be on the verge of going bust, the US is trying to get the UN to jump in and organise elections.
I sincerely hope that the UN will not get involved here.
Things will end badly no matter who ends up holding the can and as far as I am concerned, the UN has not not exactly played an exemplary and independent role in Iraq in the past, what with enabling those killer sanctions.
I suspect in the end the lure/push of the US will be too strong to resist, as usual, and the UN will go in and try to salvage what they can.
From where I'm sitting, they will be lucky if the country does not end up as a repressive theocracy or in an all-out civil war, resulting in the north being invaded and occupied by Turkey. The latter of course, a 'humanitarian' effort, in the interest of bringing stability to the region.
Saw this article in today's Independent:
Coalition uses 1918 British report on tribal system
HA! Why am I not surprised ?!?
Now that Ayatollah Sistani is piling on the pressure and things seem to be on the verge of going bust, the US is trying to get the UN to jump in and organise elections.
I sincerely hope that the UN will not get involved here.
Things will end badly no matter who ends up holding the can and as far as I am concerned, the UN has not not exactly played an exemplary and independent role in Iraq in the past, what with enabling those killer sanctions.
I suspect in the end the lure/push of the US will be too strong to resist, as usual, and the UN will go in and try to salvage what they can.
From where I'm sitting, they will be lucky if the country does not end up as a repressive theocracy or in an all-out civil war, resulting in the north being invaded and occupied by Turkey. The latter of course, a 'humanitarian' effort, in the interest of bringing stability to the region.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Afghanistan
In a TV broadcast this past Monday, a clip was played of a female artist called Parasato - singing a song without a headscarf!
The Supreme Court immediately lodged a formal complaint at the Ministry of Information and Culture.
Almost faster than it took to sing that song, the ban on television broadcasts of artistic performances by women was reimposed.
You see, even though the brand-new constitution, which was ratified earlier this month, guarantees men and women equal rights, it also stipulates that no law is above the beliefs of Islam.
Well, hey, at least women are still allowed to read the news on TV in Afghanistan.
For now...
In a TV broadcast this past Monday, a clip was played of a female artist called Parasato - singing a song without a headscarf!
The Supreme Court immediately lodged a formal complaint at the Ministry of Information and Culture.
Almost faster than it took to sing that song, the ban on television broadcasts of artistic performances by women was reimposed.
You see, even though the brand-new constitution, which was ratified earlier this month, guarantees men and women equal rights, it also stipulates that no law is above the beliefs of Islam.
Well, hey, at least women are still allowed to read the news on TV in Afghanistan.
For now...
Afghanistan
In a TV broadcast this past Monday, a clip was played of a female artist called Parasato - singing a song without a headscarf!
The Supreme Court immediately lodged a formal complaint at the Ministry of Information and Culture.
Almost faster than it took to sing that song, the ban on television broadcasts of artistic performances by women was reimposed.
You see, even though the brand-new constitution, which was ratified earlier this month, guarantees men and women equal rights, it also stipulates that no law is above the beliefs of Islam.
Well, hey, at least women are still allowed to read the news on TV in Afghanistan.
For now...
In a TV broadcast this past Monday, a clip was played of a female artist called Parasato - singing a song without a headscarf!
The Supreme Court immediately lodged a formal complaint at the Ministry of Information and Culture.
Almost faster than it took to sing that song, the ban on television broadcasts of artistic performances by women was reimposed.
You see, even though the brand-new constitution, which was ratified earlier this month, guarantees men and women equal rights, it also stipulates that no law is above the beliefs of Islam.
Well, hey, at least women are still allowed to read the news on TV in Afghanistan.
For now...
Monday, January 12, 2004
Iraq
Bit by bit, in drips and drabs, the truth is coming out.
Not that it matters one bit, but at a certain point I suspect even the most gullible American will cry out enough!!!
Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary, is extensively quoted in a book by Ron Suskind, in which he says that the invasion of Iraq was at the very top of the to-do list of the new president, as early as 10 days after his inauguration in January 2001. Since he was at all the meetings and has documentation to prove his allegations, I place a high value on what he says... even though he was sacked from his job.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq," said Mr O'Neill, who was a participant in all the meetings and provided voluminous minutes and other documents to the book's author, Ron Suskind. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
Meanwhile, Iraq's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, placed a full-page advert in a paper with the demand for direct elections, directly opposing the US plans. The Shiite community makes up 60-70% of Iraq's population. It's pretty clear why he is pushing for this and why the Shiite community is squarely backing him in this. General elections would put the Shiites in power and the Sunni's on the sidelines...
I'm wondering how long it will take before the shit hits the fan.
I don't think there is much time left any more.
Bit by bit, in drips and drabs, the truth is coming out.
Not that it matters one bit, but at a certain point I suspect even the most gullible American will cry out enough!!!
Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary, is extensively quoted in a book by Ron Suskind, in which he says that the invasion of Iraq was at the very top of the to-do list of the new president, as early as 10 days after his inauguration in January 2001. Since he was at all the meetings and has documentation to prove his allegations, I place a high value on what he says... even though he was sacked from his job.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq," said Mr O'Neill, who was a participant in all the meetings and provided voluminous minutes and other documents to the book's author, Ron Suskind. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
Meanwhile, Iraq's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, placed a full-page advert in a paper with the demand for direct elections, directly opposing the US plans. The Shiite community makes up 60-70% of Iraq's population. It's pretty clear why he is pushing for this and why the Shiite community is squarely backing him in this. General elections would put the Shiites in power and the Sunni's on the sidelines...
I'm wondering how long it will take before the shit hits the fan.
I don't think there is much time left any more.
Iraq
Bit by bit, in drips and drabs, the truth is coming out.
Not that it matters one bit, but at a certain point I suspect even the most gullible American will cry out enough!!!
Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary, is extensively quoted in a book by Ron Suskind, in which he says that the invasion of Iraq was at the very top of the to-do list of the new president, as early as 10 days after his inauguration in January 2001. Since he was at all the meetings and has documentation to prove his allegations, I place a high value on what he says... even though he was sacked from his job.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq," said Mr O'Neill, who was a participant in all the meetings and provided voluminous minutes and other documents to the book's author, Ron Suskind. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
Meanwhile, Iraq's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, placed a full-page advert in a paper with the demand for direct elections, directly opposing the US plans. The Shiite community makes up 60-70% of Iraq's population. It's pretty clear why he is pushing for this and why the Shiite community is squarely backing him in this. General elections would put the Shiites in power and the Sunni's on the sidelines...
I'm wondering how long it will take before the shit hits the fan.
I don't think there is much time left any more.
Bit by bit, in drips and drabs, the truth is coming out.
Not that it matters one bit, but at a certain point I suspect even the most gullible American will cry out enough!!!
Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary, is extensively quoted in a book by Ron Suskind, in which he says that the invasion of Iraq was at the very top of the to-do list of the new president, as early as 10 days after his inauguration in January 2001. Since he was at all the meetings and has documentation to prove his allegations, I place a high value on what he says... even though he was sacked from his job.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq," said Mr O'Neill, who was a participant in all the meetings and provided voluminous minutes and other documents to the book's author, Ron Suskind. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
Meanwhile, Iraq's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, placed a full-page advert in a paper with the demand for direct elections, directly opposing the US plans. The Shiite community makes up 60-70% of Iraq's population. It's pretty clear why he is pushing for this and why the Shiite community is squarely backing him in this. General elections would put the Shiites in power and the Sunni's on the sidelines...
I'm wondering how long it will take before the shit hits the fan.
I don't think there is much time left any more.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Iraq
... a U.S.-backed Iraqi politician said an ongoing purge of members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party had pushed 28,000 Iraqis from their jobs, with a similar number expected to follow.
In the southern city of Amarah, waves of protesters -- some armed with sticks and shovels -- rushed British troops guarding the city hall, a day after clashes here killed six protesters and wounded at least 11.
With some 400.000 jobless ex-soldiers walking around hungry and angry and an unemployment rate of around 50%, is this how the occupation will end, then: a high-tech invasion followed by an old-fashioned rout ?
I hope not, this road will lead to utter anarchy.
But if the occupiers don't wake up and smell the coffee, they may be chased out of the country by huge angry masses wielding sticks and stones... and then there will be no way back.
As soon as you let it get that far, that the population revolts en masse, that's it.
End of game. Unless you are willing to massacre huge numbers and I don't think even the USA will go that far.
... a U.S.-backed Iraqi politician said an ongoing purge of members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party had pushed 28,000 Iraqis from their jobs, with a similar number expected to follow.
In the southern city of Amarah, waves of protesters -- some armed with sticks and shovels -- rushed British troops guarding the city hall, a day after clashes here killed six protesters and wounded at least 11.
With some 400.000 jobless ex-soldiers walking around hungry and angry and an unemployment rate of around 50%, is this how the occupation will end, then: a high-tech invasion followed by an old-fashioned rout ?
I hope not, this road will lead to utter anarchy.
But if the occupiers don't wake up and smell the coffee, they may be chased out of the country by huge angry masses wielding sticks and stones... and then there will be no way back.
As soon as you let it get that far, that the population revolts en masse, that's it.
End of game. Unless you are willing to massacre huge numbers and I don't think even the USA will go that far.
Iraq
... a U.S.-backed Iraqi politician said an ongoing purge of members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party had pushed 28,000 Iraqis from their jobs, with a similar number expected to follow.
In the southern city of Amarah, waves of protesters -- some armed with sticks and shovels -- rushed British troops guarding the city hall, a day after clashes here killed six protesters and wounded at least 11.
With some 400.000 jobless ex-soldiers walking around hungry and angry and an unemployment rate of around 50%, is this how the occupation will end, then: a high-tech invasion followed by an old-fashioned rout ?
I hope not, this road will lead to utter anarchy.
But if the occupiers don't wake up and smell the coffee, they may be chased out of the country by huge angry masses wielding sticks and stones... and then there will be no way back.
As soon as you let it get that far, that the population revolts en masse, that's it.
End of game. Unless you are willing to massacre huge numbers and I don't think even the USA will go that far.
... a U.S.-backed Iraqi politician said an ongoing purge of members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party had pushed 28,000 Iraqis from their jobs, with a similar number expected to follow.
In the southern city of Amarah, waves of protesters -- some armed with sticks and shovels -- rushed British troops guarding the city hall, a day after clashes here killed six protesters and wounded at least 11.
With some 400.000 jobless ex-soldiers walking around hungry and angry and an unemployment rate of around 50%, is this how the occupation will end, then: a high-tech invasion followed by an old-fashioned rout ?
I hope not, this road will lead to utter anarchy.
But if the occupiers don't wake up and smell the coffee, they may be chased out of the country by huge angry masses wielding sticks and stones... and then there will be no way back.
As soon as you let it get that far, that the population revolts en masse, that's it.
End of game. Unless you are willing to massacre huge numbers and I don't think even the USA will go that far.
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Saddam Hussein, USA and International Law
Saddam is now officially a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions.
According to the US Defense Department, he has had this status since the date of his capture.
Wow, huge surprise. Certainly took them long enough to figure this out!
After he was (still is, as far as I know) minutely interrogated by the US army, the CIA and every other flavour of the month who wants their 5 minutes of fame.... after he was utterly humiliated on TV (yes, according to the culture he is from, that was absolutely in the worst taste!)... after this past year, where the Americans broke international law from every conceivable angle, whether looking to the invasion of Iraq or the situation in Guantanamo... after all this, they suddenly go legal...
Whatever the motivation behind it, the Americans need to start behaving according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions, at least in this one instance. Right Now!
Which means they must stop the interrogations.
They must allow him to receive mail and allow contact with his family.
They must allow him legal representation of his choice.
They also need to allow the Red Cross access to him, which so far they have not done.
Any trial that takes place, has to be under the jurisdiction of the US or the international court (which the Americans despise). The Iraqi people may not try Saddam.
The noses of the Governing Council may be severely out of joint because of this, but the Americans are not too worried about that - they have already scripted their "out".
Try this one on for size: if new information comes to light which would prove that he led post-war insurgency, he could lose his POW status and be considered a terrorist leader.
I did not think this one up, I could not think this one up!
This comes from a Pentagon official!
Not even in my wildest dreams could I come up with such reasoning!!!
A terrorist leader !?!?!?
After the country, of which he was elected leader (leaving aside for now the why and how of this 'election'), had been invaded by a foreign army??? Him being the commander in chief of the armed forces of his country, labelled a terrorist leader by dint of resisting the invasion of his country???
Even if they could sell this whopper, he simply cannot be stripped of his POW status this way. I believe the Geneva Conventions do not allow for this to happen.
It takes a lot to render me speechless....
but this does.
Saddam is now officially a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions.
According to the US Defense Department, he has had this status since the date of his capture.
Wow, huge surprise. Certainly took them long enough to figure this out!
After he was (still is, as far as I know) minutely interrogated by the US army, the CIA and every other flavour of the month who wants their 5 minutes of fame.... after he was utterly humiliated on TV (yes, according to the culture he is from, that was absolutely in the worst taste!)... after this past year, where the Americans broke international law from every conceivable angle, whether looking to the invasion of Iraq or the situation in Guantanamo... after all this, they suddenly go legal...
Whatever the motivation behind it, the Americans need to start behaving according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions, at least in this one instance. Right Now!
Which means they must stop the interrogations.
They must allow him to receive mail and allow contact with his family.
They must allow him legal representation of his choice.
They also need to allow the Red Cross access to him, which so far they have not done.
Any trial that takes place, has to be under the jurisdiction of the US or the international court (which the Americans despise). The Iraqi people may not try Saddam.
The noses of the Governing Council may be severely out of joint because of this, but the Americans are not too worried about that - they have already scripted their "out".
Try this one on for size: if new information comes to light which would prove that he led post-war insurgency, he could lose his POW status and be considered a terrorist leader.
I did not think this one up, I could not think this one up!
This comes from a Pentagon official!
Not even in my wildest dreams could I come up with such reasoning!!!
A terrorist leader !?!?!?
After the country, of which he was elected leader (leaving aside for now the why and how of this 'election'), had been invaded by a foreign army??? Him being the commander in chief of the armed forces of his country, labelled a terrorist leader by dint of resisting the invasion of his country???
Even if they could sell this whopper, he simply cannot be stripped of his POW status this way. I believe the Geneva Conventions do not allow for this to happen.
It takes a lot to render me speechless....
but this does.
Saddam Hussein, USA and International Law
Saddam is now officially a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions.
According to the US Defense Department, he has had this status since the date of his capture.
Wow, huge surprise. Certainly took them long enough to figure this out!
After he was (still is, as far as I know) minutely interrogated by the US army, the CIA and every other flavour of the month who wants their 5 minutes of fame.... after he was utterly humiliated on TV (yes, according to the culture he is from, that was absolutely in the worst taste!)... after this past year, where the Americans broke international law from every conceivable angle, whether looking to the invasion of Iraq or the situation in Guantanamo... after all this, they suddenly go legal...
Whatever the motivation behind it, the Americans need to start behaving according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions, at least in this one instance. Right Now!
Which means they must stop the interrogations.
They must allow him to receive mail and allow contact with his family.
They must allow him legal representation of his choice.
They also need to allow the Red Cross access to him, which so far they have not done.
Any trial that takes place, has to be under the jurisdiction of the US or the international court (which the Americans despise). The Iraqi people may not try Saddam.
The noses of the Governing Council may be severely out of joint because of this, but the Americans are not too worried about that - they have already scripted their "out".
Try this one on for size: if new information comes to light which would prove that he led post-war insurgency, he could lose his POW status and be considered a terrorist leader.
I did not think this one up, I could not think this one up!
This comes from a Pentagon official!
Not even in my wildest dreams could I come up with such reasoning!!!
A terrorist leader !?!?!?
After the country, of which he was elected leader (leaving aside for now the why and how of this 'election'), had been invaded by a foreign army??? Him being the commander in chief of the armed forces of his country, labelled a terrorist leader by dint of resisting the invasion of his country???
Even if they could sell this whopper, he simply cannot be stripped of his POW status this way. I believe the Geneva Conventions do not allow for this to happen.
It takes a lot to render me speechless....
but this does.
Saddam is now officially a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions.
According to the US Defense Department, he has had this status since the date of his capture.
Wow, huge surprise. Certainly took them long enough to figure this out!
After he was (still is, as far as I know) minutely interrogated by the US army, the CIA and every other flavour of the month who wants their 5 minutes of fame.... after he was utterly humiliated on TV (yes, according to the culture he is from, that was absolutely in the worst taste!)... after this past year, where the Americans broke international law from every conceivable angle, whether looking to the invasion of Iraq or the situation in Guantanamo... after all this, they suddenly go legal...
Whatever the motivation behind it, the Americans need to start behaving according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions, at least in this one instance. Right Now!
Which means they must stop the interrogations.
They must allow him to receive mail and allow contact with his family.
They must allow him legal representation of his choice.
They also need to allow the Red Cross access to him, which so far they have not done.
Any trial that takes place, has to be under the jurisdiction of the US or the international court (which the Americans despise). The Iraqi people may not try Saddam.
The noses of the Governing Council may be severely out of joint because of this, but the Americans are not too worried about that - they have already scripted their "out".
Try this one on for size: if new information comes to light which would prove that he led post-war insurgency, he could lose his POW status and be considered a terrorist leader.
I did not think this one up, I could not think this one up!
This comes from a Pentagon official!
Not even in my wildest dreams could I come up with such reasoning!!!
A terrorist leader !?!?!?
After the country, of which he was elected leader (leaving aside for now the why and how of this 'election'), had been invaded by a foreign army??? Him being the commander in chief of the armed forces of his country, labelled a terrorist leader by dint of resisting the invasion of his country???
Even if they could sell this whopper, he simply cannot be stripped of his POW status this way. I believe the Geneva Conventions do not allow for this to happen.
It takes a lot to render me speechless....
but this does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
