:: Saturday, 29 January 2005 ::
Lousy Anti-Election Writing from Lunatic Anti-Elections Losers in Iraq
:: WB 4:28 a.m. [link+] ::
Lovely Travel Writing from Ken layne
:: WB 4:24 a.m. [link+] ::
They are not 'terrorists' they are 'guerillas'
A judge decides to follow her conscience and decide that:
A bitter row has broken out in Italy over a decision by a Milan judge to dismiss international terrorist charges against five Islamic fundamentalists.
The men, detained in Italy last year, were accused of recruiting guerrillas and suicide bombers to go to Iraq.
But a judge said they could not be prosecuted under new anti-terrorism laws as they were self-styled guerrilla fighters, not terrorists.
I am lost for words, but want to get a copy of the judgement in full. More in due course.
But in the interim, does this not make you want to howl?
:: WB 2:07 a.m. [link+] ::
This Goes With This
:: Friday, 28 January 2005 ::
That is William Shawcross and Mike Jericho (newly linked at left) in two essays, each wondering aloud what the heck is wrong with folks who do not like Democracy for Iraq.
An' it is a fair question.
For me, answer is simple: anti-election folks just do not like to see wogs do well.
:: WB 1:33 a.m. [link+] ::
Ya gotta pass it through the Wog Translator
:: Wednesday, 26 January 2005 ::
Mr Habib's return came as an inside account has emerged of interrogation techniques used by guards at Guantanamo Bay, with a former US Army sergeant soon to publish a book detailing what he witnessed there. The account appears to support Mr Hopper's claims of interrogation techniques allegedly used against his client.
The guard, Erik Saar, 29, who served at the detention camp for six months until June 2003, said he witnessed about 20 interrogations and three months after his arrival at the base he started noticing "disturbing" practices.
According to Mr Saar, female contractors used red ink to flick at a Saudi detainee, pretending it was menstrual blood. Guards allegedly turned off water to the man's cell to prevent him from washing.
WT: Nearby to the captive was a female. How bad is that? Pretty bad. And plus, the female was doing something. I mean. What is that about? And plus even, to make matters worse, she did not have a blanket on her head! When she was doing the something!! Torture. Pure an' simple.
Swear. To. Go'.
A former US army sergeant, Erik Saar, who worked as an Arabic translator at Guantanamo Bay from December 2002 to June 2003, has corroborated such claims of torture. In a draft manuscript of a planned book, obtained by Associated Press, he gives details of female interrogators trying to break Muslim detainees by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood.
And this horror:
In another case, Saar describes a female military interrogator questioning a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who had allegedly taken flying lessons in Arizona before the September 11 terror attacks.
The interrogator wanted to "break him", Saar writes, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection. The detainee looked up and spat in her face, Saar recalls.
Why am I being so flippant?
Cos I am a bit stunned by all the hysteria and sloppy thinking about this torture issue.
Have a read of this lengthy piece from Greg Djerejian:
Ultimately, I lean towards agreeing with McCain and Lieberman, that the standard for treatment of alien detainees should be that: "No prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States."
Can you believe it?
And have a read of this from Marty Lederman:
Please indulge me a modest attempt to "surmount the considerable hurdles" by proposing that Congress enact the following law: "It shall be unlawful for any U.S. employee, officer, or agent, anywhere in the world, to engage in conduct that would, if it occurred in the United States, 'shock the conscience' and thereby violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."
Now, cast your mind back to the US Election in 2000 and Florida legislation that read:
"Every vote shall be counted".
And notice the same formulation.
You do not say 'every vote will be counted' without going on to explain what a dud vote is i.e one that is so flawed it cannot be counted. Hence the hanging chad debarcle.
You do not say 'engage in conduct that would shock the conscience and thereby violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth..'. What if it 'shocks' some idiot's conscience, like the ACLU's conscience, but does not quite violate the Due Process thing? Ya reckon the ACLU would not try that on?
Swear. To. Go'.
And what if there is no 'conduct'? Eh, are omissions or non-conducts included?
Urgh. I know they are not drafting real laws here, but still. If they were lawyers working for me I think I would sack them.
But the best is from Djerejian. Good wog name. Smart bloke and boy, talented writer. But how could you write 'No prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States' and think that clears matters up?
Nice try at a constitutional edge of drafting - very weighty and harrumph - but it freakin' muddies the waters.
And didn't some of his readers let him have it too. Check the comments, they show a real robust exchange.
I mean, puhlease.
He even mentioned David Boies, the big lawyer loser from Election 2000. P'ah.
I got a philosophy for ya that works:
Too many lawyers, not enough discipline. (adapted from High Anxiety).
Torture is serious business.
And you know what is missing from these poor attempts at legal definition?
It is all about the 'torturer'.
And nothing about about who the 'torturer'is coming up against.
It is all about what is prohibited and nothing about what is permitted.
If you have a religious fanatic in your control, and you want him (and it will nearly always be a him 'cos they are religious fanatic misogynist, chauvinist poof hating racists who cannot tolerate the presence of non-conforming others in their line of sight) to spill some info, chances are you will have to pile on the pressure to get him to spill.
Maybe not. He might be a sensible sort who, having got caught, knows it is best to take the Galileo line and give 'em what they want to hear. Let the torturer then see if it good info or useless or wrong.
If he is not screaming that freakin' Allahu Akbar rubbish (yetcht, your God little man, not mine) he is probably arrogantly silent, catatonic or filled with bitey rage or a mix of all.
Here is a definition that might work:
Persons detained may be interrogated. Interrogation may only be undertaken for the purpose of obtaining information. 'Interrogation' means activities undertaken to pressure, cajole, encourage and/or reward the detainee into divulging accurate information in response to the questions put to him or her by the interrogator(s). Interrogation methods and techniques shall be prescribed in regulations.
Then, youse go off to the regulations and that is where you find your 16 methods of interrogation or whatever. I cannot be asked to look for that link right now - Heather MacDonald had it I think.
There - in the regs - you write it down. It is a countable vote only if the chad is punched all the way through, no excuses. It is an authorised interrogation only if the detainee does not end up raped, killed, or beaten to such an extent they are permanently physically injured, no excuses.
What is in the regulations is the hard part.
But the overall philosophy is not some grand lofty one. It is simple - go in hard after folks you detain for interrogation cos in the modern world there is no time to waste if they have some knowledge that can prevent terrorism and crime.
Intimidation is fine. Humiliation is fine. But only for the purpose of getting info during interrogation - ie not for hijinks and photops.
Personally, I would like the regulations to read:
If the detainee is an Islamic fanatic, interrogation shall include widespread use of Rhodesian Ridgeback, Doberman, German Shepherd and Rottweiler dogs, and chubby cheesy, cheerful sluts preferably, but not mandatorily, on the rag.
But that's just little me.
Anyhoo, this whole torture thing is super tough stuff to deal with. It would be nice if folks could take it down a notch.
Sullivan is taking as gospel any allegation of torture and tarring folks with the 'pro-torture' brush.
Na-ah. I am not pro-torture.
But I sure am anti-soft. And I do not believe a word those Islamic fascist jackass detainees have to say about anything.
Because as we have already seen, the presence of a woman is torture to them.
Found this thorough exchange all about torture and interrogationg terrorists via terrific Iraq based blog 'Cigars in the Sand'.
It is between:
John D. Hutson is Dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center and retired from the Navy in 2000 as the Judge Advocate General. Heather Mac Donald is a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of "How to Interrogate Terrorists." .
I am with MacDonald. And truly no disrespect intended to Hutson, rooly, I think you can see a too-great focus on intentions and feelings in his arguments instead of a focus on realistically getting info out of jackasses who hate our guts and who have been captured for a reason.
:: WB 6:41 p.m. [link+] ::
You Gotta Read Mahmood,
:: WB 1:38 p.m. [link+] ::
Linked everywhere cos it is worth it
And round of applause to The Aus for publishing this almost upbeat piece about the elections.
:: WB 1:31 p.m. [link+] ::
:: WB 1:26 p.m. [link+] ::
The Klansman and the Black Lady
:: WB 1:14 p.m. [link+] ::
Sullivan is at it again
:: Monday, 24 January 2005 ::
About the 'torture' I mean. He links to a piece in Washington Post which is, get this, nothing more than a press release for the ACLU, although gymnatsically rewritten by the Post's staff writers - ya, fer sure.
The American Council of Civil Liberties. No linky love for that mob but they got some docs up if you wanna read 'em. I did.
Yawn. You know why it makes me sleepy? Cos what is revealed is a bunch of criminal and violent behaviour by US troops. Extortion, property damage. Nothing to do with torture. Just bad bloody practice wholly outside the bounds of their roles.
But no biggy. The ACLU - whose whole reason for existing is to see civil rights being crushed everywhere and them and only them riding to the rescue - is happy to use this as evidence of widespread torture.
And what is the bottom line for Sullivan?
On this 'evidence' Sullivan slurs everyone Stateside and declares torture normal cos everyone is at it, with the blessing of the White House and Pentagon.
What an immoderate and hysterical overstatement.
What is normal is decent behaviour by troops.
What is abnormal is violent disgracefulness by troops.
Swear. To. God. Sullivan cannot bring himself to write that the US military has some supreme violent jackasses in it but not all are like that.
Well, g'uh. It is made up of people right? What is the likelihood they are all angels?
Here is Sullivan's compatriot on this topic, Marty Lederman, working hard to show a link from the WhiteHouse to the US troops and guards committing these acts of 'torture'. It is a lot of words and the link is still not real - it is his imagination, his conclusions. Torture is not 'normal'.
Now here is Heather MacDonald responding to Sullivan and as I have indicated before, I am with her.
The abuse we have seen by some Americans is disgusting, wrong, punishable, and not representative even remotely of the entirety of the forces or the entirety of the US Administration's approach.
Sullivan can try and try. He can say 'Bybee memo' as many times as he likes.
But Renata Tebaldi, Victoria de los Angeles and June Bronhill have sung their last. They were fat ladies, in case you do not recognise them.
And this torture stuff is real in part, bullshit in part and getting investigated.
It is not normal at all.
UPDATE: And it not an 'atrocity' for a woman to menstruate on you, Mamdouh, if in fact that ever happened. And it is not an 'atrocity' nor is it 'torture' for someone to photoshop animal heads on to pics of your kids, Mamdouh.
But I can tell what is atrocious.
Heading off to Pakistan like Mamdouh to, as he described it, find a partner for your kid - without ever asking your kid if they might like to marry a skippy. That was his excuse for being in a war zone when he got picked up by the Yanks. I do not believe a word that comes out of his mouth, he is such a pig of a bloke. His kids are just cattle to him. He is the very epitome of a toxic wog. Keeping the very worst of his cultural practices while he lives here in Oz.
Andrew Sullivan's hero, no doubt.
:: WB 11:48 a.m. [link+] ::
Interesting if pointless observations.
You do not impose democracy. You remove the shackles that prevent it.
Who said that? Somebody for sure.
Anyhoo, the world after September 11 and Bali and Madrid, after Zarqawi declares man's law is incompatible with divine law and therefore man should not vote (...and womend should wear blankets on their heads, natch...) and if he tries he is an apostate or infidel or some such and must die.
This world is not Chile, Iran or Guatemala. It is not Vietnam or Korea, Panama or Grenada. It is not the Falklands.
This world is nice for the most part but thoroughly spoiled by religious maniacs of the Islamic persuasion.
Liberty, democracy IS the cure.
:: WB 1:14 p.m. [link+] ::
Chrenky Goodness on Iraq's Political Parties
:: WB 1:12 p.m. [link+] ::
Gorgeous Italian Design
:: Sunday, 23 January 2005 ::
Apaarently going to do some flying round the skies of Iraq for the elections, presumably to tke out anyone in a car, since I read somewheres there will be no driving except for election officials.
Or something like that.
And you can keep you 'Designed by Computers. Built by Artisans. Driven by Italians' jokes to yourself.
:: WB 1:06 p.m. [link+] ::
A Kurdish blog from Iraq
This guy is real interesting. He has undergone a transformation from anti-voting to very much pro-participation in the elections. Top stuff.
Plus anyone who refers to somebody as "three-wifed" is pretty durned cool in my book.
Now, here is how Paul McGeogh of the SMH sees Kurdo's hopes for the elections in Iraq.
He spits on it. Spits on Kurdo. A big hawking loogie of contempt and malice.
A climate of utter fear has reduced the campaign to wall posters and banners, and even the wind was shredding these on Saturday.
Get Far Away, McGeogh. Really. Is there anything else to say to the man?
It's windy. Let us call this election off.
Next he will be trying to tell us that this is a legitimate electioneering stragedy. And the election should be called off..
Why the man cannot write a single sentence that is supportive of democracy in Iraq is beyond me. He is mired in cynicism, pessimism and and the horrible dick stroking of the foreign correspondent who imagines he has a handle on the zone he is covering. Like that jackass Michael Ware, the crook nosed Oz wanker always on the CNN (cannot be asked to find a link to his mug).
It is all 'Ooh, insurgents'.
Heck, read this in The Aus from William Shawcross.
Orunno about youse, but I reckon McGeogh is deserving of quite a bit of stick from Oz folks for his relentless typeytypey bullshit in favour of lousiness in Iraq. And yes, he in favour. If he was not in favour he might have written something good about the country.
Man's an embarrassment. You can almost hear the Iraqis when they hear him coming. 'Hey Mohammed, put on your sad face. Here come's that plonker from Straya".
I have been told McGeogh is a nice bloke with a healthy sense of bravery and good sport with other journos.
Pff. Like that's enuff to excuse his shitting on Iraq.
Buzz me when he writes something positive.
I will not be holding my breath.
:: WB 1:27 p.m. [link+] ::
From the Fab Big Pharaoh Check out Iraqi Election Ads
Whoo, from the Future Iraq site, that timing device ad is durned moving.
:: WB 1:49 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Saturday, 22 January 2005 ::
Lots of owls.
:: WB 1:08 a.m. [link+] ::
Press the Shiny Red Button
Man's a genius.
:: WB 4:36 p.m. [link+] ::
Iraqi Election Ad
Says it all, eh?
(Thanks to Harry)
:: WB 2:58 p.m. [link+] ::
Top Stuff from Zeyad
I reckon we all gots to be keeping a watch on the Iraqi bloggers in this week coming up to the elections. History in the making.
:: WB 4:30 a.m. [link+] ::
Dr Habib Siddiqui, Gi Fa
Get a load of the rubbish spouted by this learned man. Ooh, the West is resonsible for all horrors on earth and only the beloved East is good and multicultural and blah blah.
But just scroll down for one article more than Dr Siddiqui's spray, and you will find this gem of Easternness.
In rape cases, obviously there may not be eye-witnesses. It was a rule of practice for a long time that evidence of the prosecutrix was not accepted as sufficient by the courts in this sub-continent. However, the present day trend is that if there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix, conviction may be given relying on her solitary evidence.
Woen's evidence is worth less.
Oh yeah, Easterners.
You guys can all feel reeeal proud of being a couple hundred years behind the wogs of Western Europe, the Yanks the Brits, the Ozzies, the NZers, the Canadians.
I mean, Dr Siddiqui, you presumablyare aware that in Bangladesh - in the East:
...42 per cent people in the country do not use any form of latrine is unsettling, from the point of view of personal hygiene and public health and from the point of development. The dismal statistics were revealed at a seminar... If it is any comfort, it can be deduced from what was revealed that this is nothing unusual in the developing world where five out of every 10 people lack adequate sanitation.
Like most of the developing world, which is housed in a bunch of the East as opposed to the West.
Lordy, I cannot tolerate a wog who, in a feeble attempt to avoid criticism for his own appalling bad wogness (cos there is such a thing as good wogness and they have it in the East as well as the West) points to the flaws of others.
Does the good Doctor think that the filthy misogyny and chauvinism of the Middle East is okay? That Abu Ghraib means he has a licence now to not bother cleaning up the substantive disgraces of his society in the East?
I reckon that is just what he thinks.
And if he wants to play that game he must know he is going to lose - cos he who has the least loos always loses, yes?
Look, it is as not okay in Naples as in Ankara and Damascus and Colombo etc etc to be a women hating, poof hating, religiously intolerant man prone to violence when challenged with change.
And it is the East that has some catching up to do with the West on this score, cos it is not Westerners turning up in droves trying to get in to the East permanently.
And immigration is a great test of where is best. Cos thinking folks will go to where it is objectively better.
And ya know, as I hit the keys, I am so not thinking about Japan and Singapore and China's Shang Hai or even other its of China for 'East'. I am just thinking about Dr Siddiqui and the Middle East.
I mean read that piece.
The East has Sharia law for jeebus sake. I mean, kill yourself.
:: WB 4:07 a.m. [link+] ::
Good Lord, What is Happening in Italy?
I mean, really.
:: WB 3:57 a.m. [link+] ::
Top Stuff at the Counterterrorism Blog
Linky love for this crew.
:: WB 3:49 a.m. [link+] ::
Sully is at it Again
:: Tuesday, 18 January 2005 ::
Once more with the '5 dead at the hands of US interrogators' and now 23 other deaths getting investigated.
With no link to for the interested reader to go and find out about what Sully used to call 'mistreatment' and now calls 'a stain on the honour of tghe US'.
If it is such a freakin' stain, why not publish some links so we can all learn about it? My earlier post linked above gathers some stuff you need to read.
And I maintain, since this is what the Yanks are fighting on the ground, I do not give a good god damn whether there are 5 or 50 deaths.
I mean, you gotta read this stuff:
"Democracy looks upon everyone as equals:the Muslim and the non-Muslim, the males and the females, the righteous and the evil, the educated and the ignorant. However the laws of Allah do not look equally at these groups..."
"Ruling is for Allah alone - not for the people - and the people should merely obey Allah's commands and his Islamic law..."
And this old Rushdie fatwa chestnut? Fer cryin' outta loud ya craazy Iranian cleric idiots, give it a rest and retire this nonsense.
And how 'bout this from craazy idiot Mullah Omar?
"We want to make it clear to the aggressors and their puppet government that as long as one occupation soldier is on Afghan holy soil, Taliban leadership wil| not be willing to hold talks with them. We do need such talks," the one-eyed Taliban leader said in a message on the eve of Eid released in Afghanistan and Pakistan Thursday.
And whether or not this is true, the fact that Muslims talking to Christians about changing faith can lead to killing is, well, another reaon why the forces of Islamomadness are unscaleable walls of ignorance and violence and impenetrable walls of fanatacism and violence.
If a death happens interogating some Islamic madman, I will not shed a tear and I will not feel a stain has appeared upon my nation.
If 50 I will not care either.
If 1 death or 50 deaths were deliberate cold blooded and nothing to with interrogating, then and only then will you hear me getting outraged.
See, for me, the trouble with Sully, is that on torture, he has already given up on believing that interrogation of madmen is necessary and dirty. He has already judged the Yanks as guilty of venal venal behaviour.
I do not believe the armed forces of Oz the US the UK are stained by their actions in the Middle East. I believe they have worked as hard and as fair as their enemy will allow and even then they have acted over the odds not to engaged in more violence to captives.
It is torture and I certainly do not want to perform it. I do not want to be anywhere near it. I don't even want my troops to engage in it.
But what the hell can they do if they have some lunatic in their guard who can give information to help capture or get rid of other lunatics? Go easy? As easy as you feel is civilised. And if, in the interests of civilisation, a little incivility is required (a soft euphemism for physical violence, I know I know) then have at it.
Cripes, this is a hairy issue to consider.
:: WB 3:23 a.m. [link+] ::
Manboobs is Out.
:: Saturday, 15 January 2005 ::
NLord, I am in good mood.
He was a skippy boofhead par excellence. Not the good kind of bloke. The martyry egomaniac kind. Urgh. The worst. Plus he is a flatheaded uptalker and his ideas were deeply ordinary:
- read to your kids - g'uh, we do, fat head;
- look after trees - g'uh we do, and we do other stuff like cut them down for money;
- make sure old people can get free teeth (or some such idiocy) - wha'? They have teeth...
Got no time this a.m to find a link, but whoo hee, that footage of him walking away from his quitting statement yesterday was just awful.
If I had tits that bad I'd kill myself.
A sagging D cup of rank Green Valley blubber.
And his wife's a dog, alright. There. I will say it.
Good riddance, Manboobs. No maybe we can get a real Opposition Leader to make politics in this country an actual competition.
Or Beazley. Or Gillard. Or Rudd. Or Swan, Smith.....
UPDATE: Here's his goodbye. Or, the goodbye he coulda given if he had any class in his fat arse.
:: WB 1:54 p.m. [link+] ::
200 headless bodies in Mosque
Ya fer sure, we should have read about that.
:: WB 3:09 a.m. [link+] ::
Linky List updated a bit and archives moved outta da way
Just so's youse know.
:: WB 2:54 a.m. [link+] ::
The advertising campaign by the California Milk Producers Advisory Board had the tag line, "Great Cheese comes from Happy Cows. Happy Cows come from California."
The ads showed cows in spacious pastures on rolling hills.
They were challenged in a false advertising lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, based in Norfolk, Va.
PETA claimed that most California cows are actually unhappy and spend their lives in dry, grassless dirt lots.
:: WB 2:22 a.m. [link+] ::
Don't bother - they're here
Oh yeah. That song always was wierd. Something about circus love, eh? Orunno. But you add the cow dimension and you are on the spiral arm of wierd.
So sing already.
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the cows.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approove?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can't moove.
Where are the cows?
Send in the cows.
Just when I'd stopped
The one that I wanted was yours,
Making my entrance again
With my usual flair,
Sure of my lines,
No one is there.
Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want -
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the cows?
There ought to be cows.
Quick, send in the cows.
What a surprise.
Who could forsee
I'd come to feel about you
What you'd felt about me?
Why only now when I see
That you'd drifted away?
What a surprise.
What a cliche.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer?
Losing my timing this late
In my career?
And where are the cows?
Quick, send in the cows.
Don't bother - they're here.
:: WB 2:13 a.m. [link+] ::
:: Friday, 14 January 2005 ::
Sad. But really, did they have to be so ambitious? And where on earth did they get all that stuff?
:: WB 2:02 a.m. [link+] ::
Spending a lazy Sabato pomeriggio (that is Satdy afternoon, for you skippies) reading through Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish blog, looking for actual linky evidence of the constant assertion he has taken to making:
5 dead and 130 convictions gained cos of torture carried out by the US.
Looking, looking, looking, but no real success. My search has not been superdupa thorough, but I have tried to capture every post back to the start of November 05.
I have read the linked Heather MacDonald v Marty Lederman exchanges.
And the Publius 'case for Conservative Outrage' linked post too. And of that, a Phil Carter post with lots of linky referencing as well.
I read Sullivan's lengthy piece in the New York Times reviewing "The official government and Red Cross reports on prisoner torture and abuse, compiled in two separate volumes, ''The Abu Ghraib Investigations,'' by a former Newsweek editor, Steven Strasser, and ''Torture and Truth,'' by a New York Review of Books contributor, Mark Danner, are almost numbingly exhaustive in their cataloging of specific mistakes, incidents and responsibilities. Danner's document-dump runs to almost 600 pages of print, the bulk of it in small type. The American Civil Liberties Union has also successfully engineered the release of what may eventually amount to hundreds of thousands of internal government documents detailing the events."
The 'Abu Ghraib Investigations' book, by the way, has the interesting sub-head:
The Official Report of the Independent Panel and Pentagon on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq. Edited by Steven Strasser.
Sounds like a real shock pulpy page turner, no?
I have also read the unlinked (I think, cos I could not see them anywheres) substantive Taguba, Jones & Fay, and Schlesinger reports.
In all, what did I find via Sullivan? A LA Times article, a Washington Post article, and AP news link, maybe a couple (and I mean that - a couple only) other news links. I got a bit more out of Publius and Phil Carter.
But what I did find was a bunch of bought-it-hook-line-and-sinker reliance, albeit unlinked, to the International Committee for the Red Cross and the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International.
Sullivan, beautiful writer and passionate man, has fallen into the trap of seeing barbarism everywhere, even where there is none. This makes everything barabric, and nothing barbaric at the same time.
It happened in Oz with the Red Cross and other squealers about the non-gulaginess of our perfectly-decent illegal entrant detention centres.
It happened in Oz about our non-genocide of non-stolen well-less-than-a-single-generation of Oz half-white/half-Aborigines.
They squealed so fricking hard and long about things that did not deserve long squealing - things that were not as barbaric as they said, or even close to it - that now they cry wolf and decent folks like me and my mum cannot be asked to care what they have to say about anything.
And it is happening now over torture.
I reckon Prof Reynolds is on the money when he worries that the hysteria will drive real considerations out of view, so the true effect of torture is not properly determined.
Anyhoo, back to the question: 5 dead 130 convictions.
Cannot for the life of me find the 130 cos my google search goes round to find Sullivan's entry, and Sullivan's link is an expired yahoo news page.
But the 5 dead. That has been known about since May 19, 2004.
In the Denver Post.
Which Sullivan linked to.
And he characterised the deaths as 'mistreat(ment of) captives' back then.
But now, they are 'abuse and torture'. And the end of America's moral authority blah blah blah, you know the current tone.
No more deaths since May 2004.
Good work. So why the continued hysteria?
And this guy convicted and facing a long jail term.
Justice done and seen to be done.
A congrats to US justice working well from Andrew will hopefully (and I believe so) be forthcoming any minute.
For me, those reports are the serious deal. And they sure do read pretty awful. But less awful for me than Brett Easton Ellis's 'American Psycho'. Know why? Cos the folks in Ellis's sick vision were complete innocents and their torturer had no motive, no rationale, no nothing.
But there is war on terror going on and there has been a war in Iraq.
And the enemy is invariably out of uniform, reliously maniacal, misogynist, and all over useless to the advancement of anything on the planet or to the planet's history.
And Oz and the US and UK and Italy and Japan and others, even the French and Germans are not blase about sorting the true villains from the crazies, and the wrong place, wrong time folks. The innocents.
Our side is concerned to do right.
That reality changes, not everything, but an awful lot. It makes me not feel so hysterical about torture as Human Rights Watch et al.
It does not make me blase about it.
I do not want to hear of any Oz soldier ever ever being engaged in substantial beatings (a smack is no big deal), rape, sodomy, drowning, asphixiation. You know. You do. Skin being broken, teeth, eyes, hearing, tongues. Yetcht. You know. I do not want my military to behave like Laurence Olivier in The Running Man.
But they can go up to that line if they feel they gotta.
To protect me.
Anyhoo, enuff with the tomey business. Short and punchy that is what blogs is all about, right?
:: WB 11:12 p.m. [link+] ::