Category: War

Posted on

God Bless Qwest

Let’s say the government hired a burglar to break into your house one night and steal your laptop. No warrant, no subpoena, nothing. Nobody even knows it happens… until, some fink within the government leaks a document to the New York Times: word is out. The government hired a burglar to steal your laptop. You demand that the police arrest the burglar. The police say, by golly, burglary is illegal, and we will immediately arrest this burglar.

The government says, wait. We will pass legislation making it legal for burglars to break into houses when we ask them to. We needed to break into this house because we thought– for reasons we can’t tell you– that you were going to make a bomb and blow it up in a subway station. It would be unfair to charge this man with burglary because we told him that what he was doing was legal. We want to be able to do this frequently, whenever we feel like it, without any tedious oversight from courts or judges.

You say, if you want to break into someone’s house and seize their property– that’s allowed. All you have to do is show a judge that you have strong evidence of a crime being committed and the judge will easily and quickly grant you a warrant. And knowing our judges– they won’t even wait for you to finish your sentence before giving you the warrant.

Oh, you say. That’s too much work, and too hard to do– we want to be able to break in without having the slightest evidence of any crime being committed. Like they do in the movies.

So the government introduces legislation to make it legal for burglars to burgle if the government asks them too. Well… not exactly. It tries to pass legislation that makes it legal, retroactively, for burglars to have burgled for the government. The government makes speeches: You must pass this legislation or America will not be safe.

Would any sensible person support this idea? Are Americans so stupid that they would buy this? This is, however, exactly what Bush is trying to do, and he is half-way there. The Senate– usually the body of “sober second thought” has already passed the measure. Democrats are terrified of being accused of being soft on terror, in an election year.

Okay, so it’s not burglary. It is tapping your phone and listening in on your private conversations. One phone company (Qwest) refused the request. The fact that they were not subject to any legal action as a result shows that the Bush Administration knew what it was doing was illegal, and that the other phone companies should also have known it was illegal.

Infuriatingly, the Bush Administration appears to be getting away with the act of legalizing actions it had already taken— and for which it had not been charged! If there is any need– as Bush claims there is– for this legislation– then the government officials responsible for the actions for which this legislation absolves them should be charged with various crimes related to spying, abuse of authority, illegal possession of private information, obstruction of justice, and whatever the hell else applies to their actions.

What is even more infuriating: the Bush Administration asked for extraordinary powers under FISA to conduct special searches for information related to terrorism. They created extra-constitutional shortcuts that already alarmed most civil libertarians– and then they went ahead and ignored even those compromised rules in demanding access to phone records from these phone companies.

And just to put icing on the cake…. why shouldn’t any American have a right to sue the phone companies for turning over these records? If Bush is right, they will lose in the court: the government had the right to force the company to turn over the phone records. These law suits could only be worrisome to Bush if he knows (damn well) that the courts will find his actions illegal, and will, in turn, find the phone companies at fault for complying with illegal demands from the government.

The rest of the world should sit up and take notice. The one thing you used be able to count on from Bubba and Bobby Sue was their fanatical devotion to their constitutional freedoms and liberties, even if it meant they could be awfully stupid about health insurance and foreign policy. Now, alas, I’m afraid you can’t even count on them to stand up for their own rights. Go back to sleep, Bubba. Resume your Big Mac, Bobby Sue. Scranton Pennsylvania is safe from terrorism tonight.

If I were a burglar serving a sentence in one of America’s prisons, I would start myself a lobby group, and get a lawyer, and go to court, and claim that my rights to equality under the law has been violated because unlike George Bush, I have been denied the privilege of going to the legislature and passing a law making what I did legal, retroactively.

Why the hell have no Democrats started the process of impeaching the lying, scheming, burglarizing scoundrel?

God Bless You Qwest! The only phone company that refused the Bush Administration’s illegal requests for access to their customer’s phone calls was Qwest. Qwest’s lawyers looked at the request and came to the conclusion that what the government was asking was illegal.

Think about that— if it was illegal, then Bush Administration officials broke the law and should be arrested and charged. And then Bush would go, “oh my– I don’t want my officials getting arrested for breaking the law. Let’s change the law.” And maybe he changes the law– but only after his officials have been arrested and prosecuted for breaking it.

Trying to make it legal now– retroactively– means that it was not legal then, and the government knows it.

So why was no one arrested? Because, no government official ever arrests himself for breaking the law.

The NY Times Story

Posted on

Now It’s Legal!

I don’t think I’ve read anything in the past five years quite so infuriating as the op-ed piece by John Ashcroft in the November 5, 2007 New York Times. Ashcroft is addressing the legislation introduced by Congress to grant immunity to Telecoms who, obeying the Bush Administration, turned over private telecommunications records to the government without seeing any kind of warrant or court authorization.

Ashcroft says:

Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company’s, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong.

To deny immunity under these circumstances would be extraordinarily unfair to any cooperating carriers. By what principle of justice should anyone face potentially ruinous liability for cooperating with intelligence activities that are authorized by the president and whose legality has been reviewed and approved by our most senior legal officials?

My God. John Ashcroft has just asserted that the president has the right to require corporations to commit illegal acts whenever he feels like it, without any regard for the law, the courts, or the congress, just because the people he appointed to high public office, did what he told them to do. Because, it is clearly implied, whatever the president does is legal.

Please notice, if you will, the amazing, magical words missing from that last line: “and the courts”. The Telecoms should obey the President not because a judge or a court has legally issue a writ or warrant on the basis of actual evidence that someone might be committing or has committed a crime— oh no! But just because the President and the officials he appointed (and can fire at will) have decided that they would like to have a look. At your phone records.

If the legality of the Executive’s directives to the FBI and CIA have been “reviewed and approved” by our most “senior legal officials”– then there is no need for the immunity legislation. The courts will recognize the legality of the Executive’s actions and the civil actions will be dismissed.

(Has anybody noticed, by the way, that this kind of argument is not accepted by the courts for any other kinds of illegal activity? “A government official said I could.” So how does that change the law? Nor is the argument that any level of government can tell you what is legal accepted by the Federal Government itself: the Bush Administration Justice Department continues to go after marijuana dealers in California even though the State government has made it legal for medical use and allows dealers to operate.)

So if the FBI or the CIA goes to a phone company and says, we’d like to tap a certain individuals telephone, it is no longer incumbent upon the phone company to ask, “and do you have a warrant?” or even, “is this legal”. As long as our “most” senior legal officials– not “some” legal officials, but our “most” senior officials– say it is legal, it is legal.

The trick here, that Mr. Ashcroft wants you to be dazzled by, is the old bait and switch technique of applying one legal principle– that corporations must obey the law– to an action that really has nothing to do with it: the will of the Federal Government– of the Executive Branch, really– to spy on people without having to trouble themselves about getting a warrant and proving they have a legitimate reason to spy.

This is a load of crap. Why does Ashcroft imagine a company like AT&T, Verizon or Bellsouth is too stupid to ask whoever the government sends to their offices: “and where is your warrant? Where is your court order? What judge authorized this breech of personal privacy?”

Which is what one of the telecoms did. Qwest consulted their lawyers who told them that what the government was asking them to do was a felony. Qwest told the government to buzz off. The government, knowing they didn’t have a leg to stand on, did just that. They didn’t arrest Qwest’s chief executive for “breaking the law”. They didn’t seek an injunction from a court (duh!). They went away.

What makes this doubly infuriating is this phrase at the beginning of the quote above: “longstanding principles of law…. ” So Ashcroft is saying that Bush’s actions are already legal. Then why the hell does Congress need to grant anybody immunity! They don’t need it.

If there are lawsuits, they only need to tell the judge: “agents of the Executive Branch of Federal Government told us to do it. That means it’s legal.” And the judge will say, “Oh. If the government did it, that means it’s legal? Let me check the constitution for a minute…”

I think Mr. Ashcroft knows about this problem. Just as Bush is beginning to realize that all the waterboarding… .the torture… the renditions… GEEZ. WHAT IF WE LIVED IN A COUNTRY THAT HAD RULE OF LAW, AND COURTS, AND A JUSTICE SYSTEM… WE COULD BE ARRESTED.

Do you think Rumsveld ever worries? Cheney? Gonzales? I think they do. I think they might just be starting to realize that once the state-induced hysteria is over with and people come to their senses they are going to ask themselves why government officials were authorizing torture and extraordinary renditions and warrant-less surveillance.

The biggest trick here? John Ashcroft knows very, very will that shifting the liability to “senior” (most or not) legal officials will effectively inoculate the Bush administration from any liability at all: I guarantee you that Bush will make lavish, lavish use of the Presidential Pardon in January 2009. He won’t give a damn anymore. There never was any reason to give a damn. There was never the slightest reason to think that accusations of hypocrisy or viciousness would ever detract from that folksy, all-American, evangelistic charm: we are the boys. We handle things. We win.

Someone else will come along and clean all that up. Cash in now, while you have the chance.

In the meantime, John Ashcroft is, hilariously, asking the government to make something legal because it is already legal. He wants it to make it more legal.

If this isn’t disturbing enough, consider the fact that there is some evidence that the Bush Administration initiated at least some illegal surveillance before 9/11. Check this out.

While Ashcroft advises corporations to do whatever the government tells them to do, without question, without regard for the law or morality– Congress chastises Yahoo for turning information over to the Chinese government about the activities of dissident journalist Shi Tao!

2022-05-07:  even more infuriating: the Obama Administration, fearful of provoking a Republican backlash and crying fit, backed away from prosecuting anyone for these crimes.   This, unfortunately, is part of Obama’s legacy: gutlessness.

Posted on

Water-Boarding

Up is down and right is left and water-boarding is not torture.

And we have this from the White House:

Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, said Democrats were “playing politics” with the waterboarding issue, noting that Mr. Mukasey had not been briefed on classified interrogation methods. “I can’t imagine the Democrats would want to hold back his nomination just because he is a thoughtful, careful thinker who looks at all the facts before he makes a judgment,” Ms. Perino said.
– New York Times, October 31, 2007.

Ah! If only Mr. Mukasey were briefed on the facts, he would be able to render an intelligent opinion on the subject of torture. But until he gets that briefing, he’s not too sure. Did any Democrat think to ask him how he felt about truncheons or cattle prods? Would he have said, “well, I personally would find it unpleasant to zap a prisoner in the genitals with a cattle prod, but I can’t say whether it would actually be illegal or not until I have all the facts.” So once Mr. Cheney assures him that this bad guy has important information that can save American lives– by golly, give me that cattle prod, I’ll do the deed myself.

I refuse to waste even a single punctuation mark on the question of whether or not torture of any kind is morally wrong. I refuse to accept that we have entered an era– only 60 years after the defeat of the Nazis– in which such questions are seriously debated.

On the other hand, the depressing fact is that many Democrats– not most, and not all, but many– have voted in favor of legislative fig leaves to cover the potential liability of high ranking government officials should a future administration actually come to the shocking, devastating, astounding conclusion that torture should be illegal.

On the other hand, be it noted that the Department of Defense has issued an official directive (in the Army Field Manual) that instructs soldiers not to use water-boarding, and the CIA has apparently asked Bush for permission to not have to use it. Why? Did these officials suddenly acquire a smidgeon of decency and humanity? Or did they suddenly realize that a new administration may some day start investigating crimes committed by officials of a previous administration?

It must be acknowledged– hallelujah– that Republicans John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and John Warner, have publicly expressed the wish that Mr. Mukasey will, after confirmed, declare water-boarding illegal. If he does, there will be a lot of itchy hemorrhoids in the Bush Administration. But then, isn’t that what presidential pardons are all about? Just wait for it– that last month before leaving office– Rumsveld, Cheney, Bolten, Wolfowitz– everybody gets pardons for crimes they may or may not have committed.

And maybe this is why John McCain scored at the bottom of the straw poll taken by “Values Voters”, sponsored by Family Research Council. These “Christians” think that God is more concerned with gay marriage than torture. McCain was also high on campaign finance reform– something Jesus was distinctly against, don’t you know.

What happened to soldiers accused of water-boarding in Viet Nam?

In 1947, a Japanese Officer was convicted by a War Crimes tribunal of using water-boarding– torture– against a U.S. soldier.

>
Amazingly, when threatened with physical torture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to numerous crimes. Wow. That’s efficient and effective. Let’s use it all the time. We’ll get more truth that way.

Vice President Dick Cheney says that using water-boarding is a “no-brainer”. In his case, that’s exactly right.

Posted on

Oh We Forgot About the Shah

This past Sunday, 60 Minutes presented an interview with Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iraq.

60 Minutes is a good program– sometimes very good. But one should never forget that it is also completely controlled by a group of old white men (with the exception of the late Ed Bradley) and that, ultimately, like Time Magazine and the New York Times, it is an appendage of the corporate and governmental establishment, and thus can’t stray too far from conventional thinking on certain issues.

For 60 Minutes, it is okay to be different, but not too different. 60 Minutes devoted hours of coverage to jazz greats like Louis Armstrong and Ray Charles, and of course, they adore classical giants like George Solti and Luciano Pavarotti. But they only acknowledged the Beatles and Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen long after their significance was clearly established– but not among old white men. The counter culture was a little too counter for them, the punk movement ridiculous– couldn’t you just organize a petition? Independent films barely rate a mention– where’s the party where I get to have my picture take with Steven Spielberg? Alternative music? Alternative to what? Do you mean Stravinsky?

So Scott Pelley sat down opposite the leader of Iran and spanked him. How dare you supply weapons to Iraq, as George Bush has been telling us? How dare you try to build a nuclear bomb as those old reliables, the CIA and NSA have been telling us? How dare you display ingratitude to the nation that deposed your arch foe?

Here are some questions Scott Pelley could have asked but didn’t:

  • How does an Islamic state fit into the world’s family of nations?
  • Who are opposing you, in your quest to create a more just society that provides more benefits to the poor and disenfranchised?
  • Are there some in your country who exploit Islamic beliefs for the purpose of acquiring personal wealth?
  • What role should Iran play in the future of Iraq?
  • How close are your ties with Shiite tribal leaders in Iraq?
  • Do you believe that the U.S. will invade your country? What evidence do you have that freedom-loving America would ever consider invading an Islamic Arabic State. Oh yeah– other than that.
  • Is Iran a democracy?
  • What is the role of women in Islamic society?
  • Is there any common ground between you and George Bush– are you both religious fundamentalists?
  • Will Iranians ever forgive America for installing and supporting the Shah for all those years from 1953 up to 1979?  Why are you so upset about the torture?
  • We feel that only a subhuman monster of epic malevolence would ever consider exploding a nuclear bomb in a populated area. How would you ever learn to live with yourselves if you did that? Oh…
  • If we agree to allow international inspectors into our nuclear sites will you? Scratch that…

Scott Pelley: but the American people believe your country is a terrorist nation…

I am unaccustomed to 60 Minutes correspondents making that kind of bizarre, blanket statement.

Firstly, if a majority did believe that, it is clearly because they are told that by George Bush and the so-called “liberal” media. Most Americans couldn’t find Iran on a map, let alone know anything of it’s history, or whether it “exports terrorism” (like Saudi Arabia, from where most of the 9/11 hijackers came?)

Secondly, how illuminating is this kind of question? How about, “why does your country support the creation of a Palestinian state…” Or, if you want to be harsh, “why is it that the Islamic states won’t take in Palestinian refugees…”?

Or, even better, how about this:  Is your country still angry that the United States and Great Britain together overthrew your elected government and installed the Shah as dictator in 1953, and supported his regime right up until 1979 even though he imprisoned and tortured all political opposition and threw him incredibly expensive, lavish coronations, at the expense of the citizens of Iran?

 

Posted on

It was Always Really About the Oil

In a rather stunning disclosure, Alan Greenspan, former head of the federal reserve, admits that he urged Bush to depose Saddam Hussein for the simplest of all possible reasons: the oil.

Greenspan insists that nobody in the Bush administration agreed: they were only concerned about WMDs and democracy and human rights. But they also told him that nobody here talks about the oil. They knew that if there was the slightest suspicion of it, the other Arab countries, and the rest of the world, would go ballistic. It is quite possible that they never talked about the oil because they didn’t need to. Everyone understood it absolutely perfectly. Except George Bush who, to this day, seems to believe that it was about democracy and the safety of American citizens.

Keep in mind that America doesn’t have to actually hold deed to the oil to take possession of it. They merely have to ensure that whoever controls the oil is friendly to American dollars and technology, like Saudi Arabia.

In Greenspan’s eyes, it is right and good that the U.S. should take oil from where ever it can be found and use it to generate prosperity and a high standard of living for America and Americans. He is a former (?) disciple of Ayn Rand. America must be strong. It must do whatever serves its own interests. It can take the oil. If you’re too weak to take the oil away from America, then that’s just tough.

There is a pretty kind of logic to this spirit of individualism. It is very, very pretty. It is elegant and slim, because strategic decisions are unfettered by moral or ethical considerations, and should be guided strictly by questions of efficiency. How soon can we get rich? How many bodies do we step over to obtain our goals?

To believe in the myths of individualism and capitalism, you have to believe in “finders-keepers”, for there is no way to justify the possession of oil or air or water on any basis other than “might makes right”.

Or you can believe that we are all in this world together and nobody in particular has any kind of magical title to the world’s resources.

Or, like George Bush, you can believe your own spin: God commanded us to destroy Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a great sinner.

The disadvantage of Ayn Rand’s brand of individualism is that eventually someone stronger comes along and knocks you off the pony and takes it away. And you really have no moral grounds upon which to complain. You can only hope to make yourself strong enough so that you can take it back. And to make yourself strong is to make yourself cruel. The suicide bomber is Ayn Rand’s ultimate legacy: not strong enough to take the oil back, but fully comprehending that the world is really about raw power, individual fanatics are easily convinced that there is meaning in flailing against the machine. In George’s Bush’s gentle dreams– which are not Ayn Rand’s dreams– there can be no comprehension of individuals who give up the possibility of enjoying the fruits of raw power. The only explanation is the lamest one: they must be jealous of our affluence and prosperity and freedom.

Patriotism, in the case of Iraq, is an attempt to convince most people– who do believe we are in this together to a great extent– that the war on Iraq is a moral cause. It is a lie. It can’t be anything but a lie because the war on Iraq is about nothing more than “finder’s keepers”. We found your oil. Now it’s ours. Just try to take it from us.

Ayn Rand had nothing but contempt for religion.  Which is odd, because most of Evangelical America believes in Alan Greenspan.

 

The bizarre thing about Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and those backroom fascists who believe in it, is that even the most hard-core capitalist doesn’t practice it when it comes to neighborhoods and families and churches and schools. Everyone knows how long a family would last, or what a neighborhood would look like, or how children at school would behave, if we all actually practiced Ayn Rand’s version of enlightened self-interest. There would be no need to do chores, or clean up your garbage, or keep it quiet after 11:00 at night, or do your homework– if the world works better if I only do what is in my own self-interest.

She is consistent in one respect: there is no need of a god in her scheme of things either. We are quite enough.

Posted on

The Poetic Enola Gay

The Enola Gay

Captain Paul W. Tibbets Jr. is one of the greatest poets of the 20th Century. His work is stunning and amazing and most original, and utterly, transcendent. He is the author of the “the vilest act ever committed by a soldier is actually the purest, most noble, and kindest act ever performed by a soldier”.

Paul W. Tibbets was the captain of the Enola Gay. His mission, on August 6, 1945, was to drop the most powerful bomb ever made on the Japanese soldiers hiding in Hiroshima.

As you might think… there were also 450,000 mothers and grandmothers and children in the area of Hiroshima that ended up being under the bomb that Paul Tibbets dropped.

People who love Tibbet’s poetry, become enraged when you suggest that there was something tragic about the bomb. That’s because they can’t tell the difference between poetry and a limerick. Paul Tibbets thinks he has written a limerick. But he should learn to be a man and accept that what he has written is a poem, and a real man can use naughty words in a poem. You can forgive a great poet for his filthy language because a great poet cares more about the truth than anything else.

The only thing is… Paul Tibbets still believes he has written a limerick…

It is one thing to say the filthy language is okay, because it’s the truth. The filthy language is unpleasant and frightening and regrettable, but we are adults who live in an imperfect world and sometimes the imbalance of good and evil is so great that we need to use powerful, harsh words to put our feelings about this imbalance into a poem.

It is quite another to say, as many Americans seem to, that there is no filthy language there at all. Not a word.

And then there is the possibility that this poem was never written for the Japanese, who only wanted to keep their emperor. It was an atomic love letter to the Russians, to let them know that our radioactive hearts were overwhelmed with desire for their own filthy words.

Posted on

The Polite Commerce of Cold Blooded Murder

“The Izhevsk Machine Tool Factory acquired a patent in 1999, illegalising (sic) manufacture of the Kalashnikov rifle system by anyone other than themselves.”
From Wikipedia

That’s so quaint– the Izhevsk Machine Tool company– 50 years after it first started manufacturing the AK-47– suddenly decides to patent it, and demand that everyone else stop copying their design. Those design pirates, you see, who make these weapons so they can sell them to governments and guerrilla movements, which then use them to murder people (call it “war” if you like), are doing something illegal.

This equation, this syllogism, this logic, this reasoning, this state of affairs— this calculation of the commerce of human depravity: my patent of this machine used to kill people, to over-throw governments, to kill protestors and organizers and nuns, to stop the enraged population from storming the palace, is worth money. Pay me for the right to do evil.

The Izhevks Machine Tool Factory could never have dared to make such an assertion if we did not live in a world of raging hypocrisy. They should have denied that they had anything to do with this weapon. They should have sued for libel anyone who said, “the design of this gun is obviously stolen from the work of Mikhail Kalashnikov…”.

How dare you! How dare you assert that we would have created or built such a device, or — even worse– made a profit by selling it to people who obviously can only have one purpose in mind….”

Posted on

Write Your Own (self-serving) History: Richard Neuhaus

Richard Neuhaus was on the CBC last night with Michael Enright defending his support of the war on Iraq. The astounding chutzpah of conservative commentators! He announced that, before the invasion, there was complete consensus, even among our European allies, that Iraq had or was about to have weapons of mass destruction. Even all those critics of war agreed….

It’s as if Hans Blix never even existed. It’s as if the United States had to use all of it’s power of persuasion to hold back the U.N. from authorizing an invasion so it could check just one more time to see if the rumours were true.

And he didn’t read me, of course.  And more me.

If you believe Neuhaus, a subscription to National Review is awaiting your check, in U.S. dollars.

It’s telling– the only way the conservatives can try to exculpate themselves from the sordid mess that is Iraq is to accomplish one of two things: 1) prove that the idea was good, but George W. Bush Jr. executed it badly. George W. Bush: you are no longer my friend. Or, 2), prove that nobody else knew any better at the time.

The Democrats did not help matters by largely voting in favor resolutions in favor of the war, even if Bush now says that Congress has no right to say anything about how or when he conducts a war.

Posted on

William Wallace: Braveheart

The irrational affection with which the movie “Braveheart” is embraced by it’s fans deserves some consideration. (The film is rated #82 in the IMDB top 250.)

All right. I’ve considered it.

These fans are idiots.

How on earth could any sane person like this film? It’s completely, wildly, insanely inaccurate. It glorifies violent behavior that makes the hero of “Patton” look like Gandhi. It indulges in the most offensively masochistic scene of torture and dismemberment ever filmed. And to top it all off, it tries to convince you that it was all about “freedom”, as if William Wallace, had he won, would have imposed democracy and and freedom of conscience and a free press on Scotland. When he screams “freedom” at the British at the top of his lungs, he means, “freedom for you peons to work for me instead of them”.

But it’s a great shtick. Soldiers then and now buy it entirely, every time. “I’m fighting for freedom”. Not for Exxon or Boeing or the Bush family connections to Saudi Arabia– no, no, no: “Freedom”. Freedom. That heart-gushingly platitudinous everything and nothing that we feel every time they run our flag up a pole or sing the national anthem in a sports stadium in front of 15,723 advertisements.

It brings everyone together. We don’t all agree that George Bush Jr. should make sure the Saudi’s don’t lose control of their vast oil wealth, but we all agree on “freedom”. Freedom is everything. That is precisely because, as it used by our leaders, and William Wallace in “Braveheart”, it means nothing.

People should not make the mistake of believing that the inaccuracies imposed on the story by the author, Randall Wallace (a descendent, allegedly, of the hero) serve the purpose of improving the story. In fact, the story, what little we know of it, was better without the improvements. (Gibson dispensed with the famous bridge at Stirling and filmed the battle on a plain instead, because it was too difficult to recreate those stirring scenes of head-to-head confrontations that never happened. What happened was, Wallace’s army waited until a large chunk of the British army had crossed the narrow bridge, and then cut them off and slaughtered them, and then simply slaughtered each new group of soldiers as they rushed over the bridge to aid their comrades. Not as glorious, quite, is it?) The real purpose of the alterations are to convince you that what was, in fact, tawdry, violent, and complicated, was actually pure and noble, inspiring, and lovely. How many men died, leaving their families impoverished, starving, because of this romantic delusion that somehow their lives would be fantastically better if they were exploited and oppressed by their own upper classes, instead of the Barons and Lords of England?

Both sides killed and tortured and maimed. The leaders of the Scots would rouse their followers with great speeches, and then sell them out to cut side deals with King Edward, hoping to outflank competing Scottish interests and seize real power. To his credit, Wallace did not– from what little we know. But he was sold out instead by other Scots. His sin was the delusion he presented to his followers, that they could trust their own leaders. The lie in “Braveheart” is that there was something noble about Wallace’s delusion.

Wallace was, in truth– though you wouldn’t know it from the film– a member of the Scottish nobility.

You must watch this film and then join the army, and you will look at George W. Bush and Stephen Harper and wonder how any fool could fail to see that they have nothing in their minds and hearts except the immortal welfare of the souls of young American and Canadian men and woman who wish to die in glory in the service of Walmart and Boeing.

When the Americans withdraw from Iraq, as they inevitably shall, they will, perhaps, leave a little Arabic William Wallace behind, who will be sold out and captured and tortured, and will scream from his tiny little filthy cell somewhere, “freedom!”

How much of “Braveheart” is made up? Pretty well all of it. There is no real historical record of Wallace– just a wildly inventive 15th Century poem by “Henry the Minstrel”. Could it have been real? Yes, if you believe in fairies, and boogey men, and the international communist conspiracy to poison our drinking water with fluoride.

The point is, that the events in the film are not even likely, or, in many cases, possible. The Scots did not paint themselves blue or wear kilts (at least, not in this era, not remotely). The English did not exercise the droit de seigneur (first rights to deflower a new bride) anywhere in the British Isles, Robert the Bruce– of whom we do know plenty– was the real hero of the Scottish fight for independence, and so on and so on and so on. So it’s not the case that Gibson merely fudged a few facts to make a better story: he simply completely and ruthlessly ignored every possible fact about the entire historical era– because he doesn’t care about facts: he is promoting patriotism and religion.

And he does adore flagellation, blood-letting, and eviscerations.

Oh heck, just read THIS.

Posted on

The Fort Dix Plot

If you are George W. Bush you are delighted: “6 Arrested in Plot to Attack Fort Dix”.

That’s from the relatively sober New York Times.

“We Dodged a Bullet- FBI Says of Foiled Ft. Dix Terror Plot” says USA Today.

That’s as much as many people will read. George W. Bush to the rescue: the Patriot Act is working! We’re safe again.

Maybe.

It might be that these six men were actually, truly, really plotting to attack Fort Dix with RPG’s and automatic rifles and submachine guns.

It might be that once again a paid informant found a bunch of young Islamic loudmouths who could be infiltrated and manipulated, and cajoled into shooting off their mouths and making ridiculous statements that the FBI solemnly believe are genuine threats.

The evidence against the men is truly as magnificent as can be. They acquired guns and practiced with them. Guilty. Seriously, it’s a little odd to read this part of the criminal complaint because… well, isn’t it as American as apple pie to acquire a gun and go shoot it somewhere? The complaint notes that they did so “militia-like style” while shouting “God is great”. I suppose if they had been drinking beer instead, and shouting “Go Bears”, the FBI would have ignored them.

Do I even need to point out that the U.S. is full of “militia-like” groups who wear camouflage and go to shooting ranges?

At least three of the men are illegal aliens. The men are from Albania, Turkey, Kosovo. They are not from Indiana.

Why I don’t believe the indictment. Yet. I might. But I doubt it.

1. Two men, designated as CW-1 and CW-2 are identified as “cooperative witnesses” who willingly infiltrated the group. Doesn’t that sound nice? Good citizens, I bet. The trouble is that in many of these cases, it is eventually revealed that the “cooperating witness” is actually a paid informant, with a clear incentive to provide the FBI with the goods. They are paid some money, then more, and then more, depending on whether they find a hot suspect that can eventually be prosecuted. It is clear that the gravy train stops if he doesn’t get the goods on the suspects. So what happens is, he starts to “encourage” the suspects– always young Islamic men– to make more and more provocative statements.

Consider this: the gang asked CW-1 to lead the attack. Curious, don’t you think? If CW-1 is just dropping in and listening to a group of hard-core jihadists plot a violent assault on Fort Dix— and they just happen to think he would be a fine leader, out of the blue.

2. The conspirators allowed CW-1 to record conversations in which details of the plot are discussed. Okay– that CW-1 is a very convincing infiltrator. Or these young men are exceptionally stupid. Or both.

You are seriously plotting to attack a U.S. army base. A guy you barely know joins your group and asks, “do you mind if I record the plot?” You say, “sure.” Maybe there’s an explanation for this.

3. They chose Fort Dix because one of the men, Serdar, used to deliver pizzas there. That sinister “map of Fort Dix” they acquired to plan the attack? It came from the Pizza Shop. The FBI seemed to get very aroused by this map. They recorded the actual time of the cell-phone call that CW-1 received to tell him that Tartar had acquired the map and delivered it to him. They took the map, copied it, and then returned it. This is the map from the pizza restaurant.

4. One of the FBI informants brought up the idea of getting some firearms and told the gang he knew someone who could supply them. Once again, it is the informant who initiates the first concrete step towards a real act of terrorism.  That is textbook entrapment.

5. According to the criminal complaint, the suspects did not actually pay for the weapons nor acquire them. It would have been more interesting to me if they had handed over $5,000 or so for these weapons, and clearly demanded delivery of them. It would be logical to arrest them when they arrive for the weapons and charge them with…. ta da… trying to buy guns. In America. Okay. They could be charged with something like…. I don’t know. Making threats?

The truth is, they should be charged with the minor offenses that actually stick to them: overstaying their visas. Illegal possession of weapons. (Will the NRA step in here or not? Why are they so silent on the rights of these red-blooded men to own weapons?)

The truth is that if the FBI started investigating those red-blooded all-American white militia groups and their weapons and paintball and camouflage and confederate flags and so on, and decided to make them into something sinister, it would be easily done.  But we know why that will never happen.

The Bush administration would like you to believe that we now live in an era where we can no longer wait for crimes to be committed before arresting the…. what? The what? The person we think might commit a crime in the future?

Bullshit. It will never be right or wise or good to arrest people for crimes they have not actually committed. Never. It only took Western civilization about 5,000 years to learn it. It has taken George Bush and his governing thugs less than six months to unlearn it.

Now we start over. Why is it wise to presume innocence?

“CW-2 [one of the informants] observed that Shnewer seemed to enjoy watching the video and smiled during the viewing.” From the criminal complaint.

When CW-1 asked Shain Duka if he was with them, Shain Duka responded, “God willing, we will see.”

Eljvir Duka stated that they would need a “fatwa” before they could proceed.

Here it is– I was waiting for it: “When CW-1 mentioned that CW-1 might have a source that could supply firearms, Shnewer expressed interest.”

I will believe that a crime is committed when a person freely and willingly commits a crime. When a female undercover cop goes after men for soliciting sex, she never offers sex for money. She just stands there and waits and lets the man talk. If she offers sex for money, and he says yes– it’s called entrapment and usually the charges won’t stick. If he says, without prompting, “I’ll give you $100 for sex”, he is soliciting for sex and can be successfully charged.

“Towards the end of the meeting, Shain Duka suggested they could also join the army and ‘do them, yes we can’. ” That’s pretty amazing to me. They planned to infiltrate the army. That’s long-range planning.

The really odd thing is this: if these men were really intent on committing terrorist acts in America, against Americans, and they really were only prevented from doing so by the chance act of asking a video store owner to copy a VHS tape to DVD for them, where are all the men who were not stupid enough to take a jihadist video to a commercial video store?

What’s with the paintball? One of the supposedly incriminating acts committed by the Canadian Terrorist Conspiracy was a game of paintball– obviously, they were training for jihad.

Is a pattern emerging? Are these groups linked? Or are the authorities linked?

I’ll bet the FBI now monitors paintball games very, very closely.

There is almost nothing in the criminal complaint about what CW-1 or CW-2 said or did. That’s not surprising. If there will be a trial– and there won’t be– I almost guarantee it (there will be a plea bargain on lesser charges so the government can claim they confessed) — but if there was a trial, we would find out just how much “encouragement” they offered to this group.

It doesn’t say they were paid– I will be very, very shocked if we find out they were not. I will guess that each of them got at least $30,000 and maybe more than $100,000, and both of them will claim that the money didn’t matter at all, and both of them will be lying through their teeth when they say that, because if it were true, I would not be so sure of myself when I tell you that you will find out they were paid.

They will have been paid. It is less likely, but also probable, that either or both of them are facing unrelated charges for petty crimes and both of them will have the charges dropped in exchange for their “objective” testimony.

Furthermore, Americans will read about their convictions with satisfaction as they sing their anthems and wave their flag in fervent admiration of the rights and freedoms generations of people fought bitterly for and which they now, with the cavalier disregard of a hunter swatting an insect, discard.