I do not breathe your politics

"Comment is free but facts are sacred." (C.P. Scott)
Saturday, December 31, 2005

Hand it over, Mandy

The title of 'comeback king' truly belongs to Ahmed Chalabi. You're comfortable in your EU job, Mr Mandelson, so you don't really need the crown, right? Truly, the new Iraq is the land of opportunity. You can become a minister in government over a country that loves you so little it gives your coalition party less than 1% of the vote. If it really is modelled after western democracy, there's even hope for Veritas! I can hear Kilroy-Silk now, calling his secretary into his office: Can you find out if there's a phone number for the Project For The New American Century?

posted by Michael at 12/31/2005 02:06:00 AM 4 comments  

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Phew

'nuff said, I think.

posted by Michael at 12/29/2005 01:18:00 AM 0 comments  

Thursday, December 22, 2005

On Potter, Aslan, Darwin, and the Fox Sisters

A quick-ish, largely random thoughtpile that I cannot seem to shake loose. It has been building up over an evening of festive present wrapping (and best-left-unimagined jittering about to an old tape of Glenn Miller tunes). I figure if I set it down here now, it might let me finally fall asleep. In a nutshell: If one of these evangelical Christians urging us to go see the Narnia film was unaware of C.S. Lewis's christian roots, what would they see in such a film? I suggest they would see a witch (gasp!) and people pledging allegiance to and hero-worshipping a lion who we are given to believe has a soul. A false saviour. Not to mention references to a dangerously habit-forming stimulant called Turkish Delight. Surely that has to be evil somehow. Conversely, if the same individual was informed that J K Rowling was a likeminded evangelical christian, might they not rush to look past the constructed world of wizards and magic to see faith-affirming allegories of heroism, sacrifice, moral leadership, compassion and destiny in the Harry Potter stories? (And no Turkish Delight, either. Though some of the confectionery is a bit suspect). Indeed, they might even celebrate the clever use of popular themes. Vaguely relatedly, this evening I read a comment on Groklaw about the Pennsylvania 'Intelligent Design' case. The commenter's delusional pro-ID case was brought to a conclusion with the Darwin-in-deathbed-conversion canard, stated as fact. The slightly dissonant chord struck: If Darwin's supposed latterday conversion and recanting of evolution is taken as empirical evidence against the theory itself by evangelical Christians, why do these same sorts of people not take to the various confessions of fraud and deception by spiritualist hoaxers like the Fox sisters with the same confirmatory vigour? Darwin made no such confession. The 'witness' to his supposed conversion was not even there at the time, while several members of his family were, and they maintain it never happened. The Fox sisters made their admission in a very public manner. It occurs to me that it comes down to this: the continued fanning of hysteria around the nonsense which is the occult is a useful recruiting tool for a certain brand of christian fundamentalism, whereas Darwinian evolution was a threat to start with. Similarly, the conclusions drawn about Narnia and Potter are ultimately related to the supposed intent of the author. Rowling is not identified as a christian writer, therefore there are to be no possible 'healthy' themes to be found in her books. Because Lewis was a christian, we are supposed to see straight through the medium to the message, while failing to see the mysogyny at all. In short, these people have decided what we are to think, and there can be no discussion. Much like the Pennsylvanian school board, they have to be booted out, somehow. Hmm. I'm still awake, and you're falling asleep. Can you read it again, backwards this time?

posted by Michael at 12/22/2005 05:12:00 AM 3 comments  

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

On surveillance and the glorious precision of words

Yet again, the internet provides me with one of those "I love language" moments. This time, President Bush's phone tapping scandal, and the question of what he is alleged to have done. Some background: Apparently, since 2001, the President has been authorising extra-judicial surveillance of American citizens communicating with overseas entities needing investigation. He's unashamed of the fact that he's done this in secret with little oversight, and is trying to maintain that bizarre state of 'non-recognition' of criticism (Charles Clarke would be proud) over whether he has deliberately avoided using a legal mechanism put in place for him to do what he has done. Essentially, he claims he had to bend the law because there was no quick enough way to do what he wants. In any case he contends that if he puts on his Commander-in-Chief hat, he has unlimited authority. Critics say there is an act (the FISA legislation) which convenes a court (FISC) which normally oversees this process, they will grant retroactive warrants (that is he can start without asking permission), and they have a history of basically granting every request. They also say that it's not true that the commander in chief has unlimited authority, and even if he did, stretch marks are appearing on the whole 'war on terror' concept. Enough background. Here's why this is cool to geeky ol' me. It comes down to the difference between two closely related terms for describing dubious official actions: misfeasance and malfeasance. It is misfeasance if he is illegally pursuing a course of action which could have been pursued legally (through FISC). That is, if all he is saying he needs is speed, then the FISC process really meets that requirement, with retroactive warrants. It is malfeasance if he is doing something which is flat-out illegal. That is, he is acting in full knowledge of the fact that FISC would not be able to grant him permission, which suggests that he is not spying on people who are legitimate targets of espionage. Think: peace campaigners, diplomats, pesky Hollywood types who campaign against the war. The word 'unamerican' springs unbidden to mind. We can, I think, expect plenty of effort to be spent first on this entirely wonky 'unlimited powers' bit, and when that finally falls flat, his supporters will assert that the end justifies the means, and will claim that Congress and in particular the Democrats were briefed anyway. (Which is true. But it turns out they were briefed in such a way that made it impossible for them to act without breaking the law.) And throw this into the mix: this intriguing speculation that what happened was in fact mass e-mail analysis. Into which definitive bucket does that drop? So:
MIS OR MAL? MIS OR MAL? MIS OR MAL? PLACE BETS NOW! BETTING ENDS!
I know which one I think it is.

posted by Michael at 12/20/2005 04:18:00 AM 0 comments  

Thursday, December 15, 2005

The Newsnight "Allies On Trial" thing

What a peculiar thing. The BBC generally seem to do these mock trials fairly well, but this one was just plain odd. The premise is that in prosecuting the war (wrong or right), the behaviour of the allied forces was questionable, and that behaviour is on trial. The 'defence' of the US position was done by a barrister called John Cooper, who I conclude was finally found at the bottom of a barrel of television lawyers, with scrapemarks on his head. A David Starkey wannabe but without the intellectual rigour (yes, I really did say that), he singularly failed to do anything but pull on heartstrings, or boom about the potential deaths of thousands, in a headmasterly tone. At no point did he even begin to provide any solid support for the neoconservative position that the GWOT truly requires methods falling outside of traditional international norms, even when dealing with an enemy known for not respecting those norms. He totally failed with Moazzam Begg (resorting to prosecutorial tactics when he is acting in defence, in the face of the quiet lucidity of Mr Begg's testimony), and was unconvincing in the face of a barrage of emotes from Shami Chakrabati. Indeed he seemed not to be able to capitalise on the fact that Ms Chakrabati couldn't give him chapter and verse on why rendition is illegal under international law. I'm sure there is a single concise difference he could have pointed to between extradition and rendition, even in the short time available to do so. The real insult was the use of the parent of a victim of the 7th of July bombings - someone he could rely on for gutwrenching sadness. This witness could not, of course, provide anything other than 'impact' testimony. It is inappropriate to ask him for his stance on torture of people who might or might not have been tangentially responsible for the death of his child. The 'prosecution' asked him no questions, effectively short-circuiting this slimy tactic. Now, indeed, to the prosecutor: the brilliant Clive Stafford-Smith, a British-born lawyer, famed for his defence of death row inmates in the USA. My first thought was that this was an odd choice for a prosecutor, but as I watched it occurred to me that this is a man known for very precise interpretation of the law, in genuine life-or-death situations. He essentially prosecutes failings in the legal treatment of his clients. Mr Stafford-Smith should, I think, have concentrated on the ultimate questions about rendition, extraordinary or otherwise, as they are at the heart of this notion of illegal conduct. Any of these would do it:
  1. If we take a British man out of Pakistan, in secret, without an extradition procedure or any kind of notification of relatives or consulates, ship him to Guantanamo Bay and then, in interrogation, threaten to send him to Egypt or Morocco, and this process is not about skirting international or national law, or conventions on torture or ill-treatment, then what is it for?
  2. The US and Britain have effective legal systems. If there is prima facie evidence that the detainee in question committed crimes against either state or its citizens, justifying their detention, what reason is there to render at all?
  3. What was it about 'The American Taliban', John Walker Lindh, which made shipping him off to Egypt less acceptable, when he was most definitely more culpable? (OK so I threw this one in for fun)
It is possible that the Beeb opted to broaden the scope of the trial simply to avoid concentrating on rendition while it is such a political hot potato. Either way, the format did not provide fertile ground for Mr Stafford-Smith's particular approach. The one really interesting witness (for both sides) was the very consistent Colonel Tim Collins. He provided a fair defence of the need for military action in Fallujiah. I don't think anyone doubts that in the context of the war they are (rightly or wrongly) trying to fight, some action on Fallujiah is necessary, and he put this across fairly clearly for the defence. He also provided a (slightly lenient) critique of Abu Ghraib for the prosecution. It is not, I suspect, the contention of many people on either side that everyone involved in torture at Abu Ghraib has been effectively punished. We would have seen many more prosecutions, to account for the many more as yet unreleased torture photos that Donald Rumsfeld is so desperate for us not to see. The television-friendly Colonel also provided an extremely bleak humour moment, in response to a question from Clive Stafford-Smith regarding just such an unprosecuted act of torture (seemingly a copycat of the treatment of Abner Louima at the hands of the NYPD):
'I'm afraid I know nothing about your client or his bottom'
A sentence I am unlikely to forget hearing on television.

posted by Michael at 12/15/2005 04:20:00 AM 5 comments  

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

A wild stab in the dark

So there's a lot of buzz, it seems, in the US blogosphere that Joe Lieberman is now considered a close confidant of George W Bush. Additionally, there are considerable rumours (endorsed by the Washington Post so it must be true) that Lieberman is being lined up to replace the completely stark raving bonkers Donald 'unknown unknowns' Rumsfeld. This would be marginally clever. Rovian. Get rid of one of the focal points of Democratic criticism (that Rumsfeld is a psychopath who is not fit for command, and who has been consistently wrong on issues involving the life and death of US troops) and replace him with an Iraq hawk who is (at least nominally) a Democrat. A Fox News Democrat, but a Democrat. Personally, I think that it is not suitably Rovian, even for a Rove who is off his game, what with that Plame affair picking up steam again. Here's what I think this could just be really about. You might want to be sitting down, because it's either near-genius punditry or you'll laugh so much that standing is dangerous. Besides, this is going to be long. Tiredness kills. This is about Joe Lieberman for VP. Yeah, I know, we had that already, and he didn't get the job. But this time the Supreme Court aren't involved, so hold your horses. Here's the reasoning: Cheney is now a political liability. Every time something bad happens, more turdblossom fertilizer sticks to him. In the weeks and months ahead we have a few nice developing stories that will make life interesting for him, and might just put enough stress on his heart to have him resign for health reasons:
  • The Energy Task Force. You know, that thing where the vice president worked out a national strategy for the US, and got the help of loads of oil company executives to work it out. He refused to release any documents, the oil CEOs were not forced to testify under oath to the Senate, but somehow it has still emerged (ugh, WashPost again) that they were involved. This was probably illegal, is certainly going to prove unpopular, and is a clear misuse of executive privilege. If any of those CEOs decides to testify under oath, expect Mr Cheney to clutch his right arm and say "My ... my ... hea-"
  • The AIPAC trial. We haven't heard much about this one: several Pentagon staffers are being tried for allegedly leaking classified information (what, them?) to Israel. It's almost a year since one of Cheney's cronies, Douglas Feith (the "fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth" according to General Tommy Franks), was forcibly resigned from the administration. The people on trial worked with or for him. Expect a lot of interest to head Feith's way, and the year of political distance from Cheney to be not quite enough. "No it's not my arm... you numbskull... it's... my.. hea-"
  • Abramoff. Who knows? The inquiry reaches pretty high up by all accounts, and if Bush/Cheney didn't know he was helping them with support, it would be surprising. Just a guess. "Could someone fetch the vice president a glass of water?"
  • Those torture tapes from Abu Ghraib. The ones Seymour Hersh said are really bad, and the Pentagon has been trying to block. Sooner or later, they will surface or be released, and Cheney's insistance that CIA folks be allowed to lean on people a little will look pretty bad. "Has anyone seen the remote control for the VP's defibrillator?"
  • As we've seen, Patrick "Elliot Ness" Fitzgerald is still on Karl Rove's case, and there is renewed pressure there. Do we expect Rove not to rat on the already "mostly dead" Cheney if it'll get him and his boss off the hook? Investigations into Libby suggest that Cheney knew about the plan to out Plame. If Rove has said anything new, expect US hospitals to begin rubbing their hands at the notion of a Dick Cheney Cardiac Wing. "... need... a... new... heart!"
So we have a few things that might come up in the next few months that will make Mr Cheney a bit uncomfortable. With Cheney's approval rating as low as 19% already, it seems plausible that Bush could Throw Cheney From The Train. And then, what to do? The president needs a new VP. Condi is looking like a prize idiot in Europe. Rumsfeld is surely on the way out. You have to pick someone good, first time, someone nobody will have any questions about. (There's no Senate vote, but this is about rebuilding credibility). People are pressing him to clear the decks, appoint new people, like his real father (Ronald Reagan) had to do after Iran/Contra. Who to choose? There's pretty much nobody in the Cabinet who is untarnished by some sort of scandal. There's Abramoff and doubtless many other scandals in the wings. How can you pick a VP who is sure to be free of it? First, pick someone Tom Delay never helped out. This narrows down the field. Mostly to Democrats. Then there's the incumbency issue. When it comes to an election, or (heaven forbid!) Bush's impeachment, whoever is in the VP's seat has incumbent advantage. Being Dubya's annointed successor is not exactly a PR godsend right now, so expect Republicans not to be in a hurry to fill that seat. Next, approval ratings. Bush is on the verge of needing a 'national unity' administration to pull him out of the ratings hole he is in. Picking from across the aisle would really help with the PR problem. Even though Joe Lieberman's seat on that side of the aisle is usually empty, he's still a Democrat, and let's not forget that Wolfowitz and Perle were too, so the man has form. The pick would need to be someone with a low risk of ever being elected president (see above re: incumbency - the last thing Bush will want to do is piss off the base by annointing a Democratic successor). So someone who is loathed by most of the Democratic party would be a good choice. Perhaps someone who is on Fox News a lot. Finally, Iraq. Bush needs someone who shares the philosophy. Someone who has been criticising John Murtha's call for a withdrawal. (OK so John McCain fits the bill here. But McCain wants to be president. See incumbency problem above). Now here's the Rovian twist. If any Democrat criticises the choice of Lieberman for VP, they can say you were for him before you were against him. A perfect way to bring up flip-flopping again. So let's wait and see if Bush gets any more kissy kissy with Senator Joe Lieberman (D-FOX). A final note: Lieberman replacing Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense in no way makes this scenario less possible. In fact, it might even make it easier. He's then picking from his cabinet, after all.

posted by Michael at 12/07/2005 09:42:00 PM 1 comments