|
|
|
Archives By SubjectAfghanistanArts & LettersBlogging The LouvreBlogommageChess, Jazz & EthicsChinaDear LeaderDomestic PolicyEuropean UnionFeatured LinkForeign PolicyGlobal War On TerrorGood News Of The DayHoops, Hardball & FisticuffsHuman RightsIndiaInternational RelationsIranIraqLa France PolitiqueLa PresidentielleLas AmericasMarkets & FinanceMedia CoverageMorning News RoundupOdds & EndsOpen ThreadPakistanPoliticsQuote Of The DayRace In AmericaRussiaSay What?The Middle EastThe Natural WorldTurkeyVerse & ProseArchives By DateOctober, 2008September, 2008August, 2008July, 2008June, 2008May, 2008April, 2008March, 2008February, 2008January, 2008December, 2007November, 2007October, 2007September, 2007August, 2007July, 2007June, 2007May, 2007April, 2007March, 2007February, 2007January, 2007Search Headline Junky |
May, 2007Thursday, May 31, 2007 Small VictoriesI'll always remember the day Rafael Nadal won the French Open tennis tournament at the age of seventeen. Because watching him celebrate his victory, I was surprised to catch myself wondering not what it feels like to win Roland Garros at seventeen, but what it feels like to be a father whose son has just won Roland Garros at seventeen. It was, needless to say, something of a turningpoint in my life. All of which is just to say that after two years of solid effort, the Lil' Feller earned his yellow belt in Judo this evening. And watching him kneel on the mat and tie that belt around his waist, I sure was one proud Poppa. Even better was how thrilled he was himself. Six years old sure is grand! Thursday, May 31, 2007 La Méthode SarkozyNicolas Sarkozy's first real moment in the national spotlight occured in 1993 when a man calling himself "HB" (which was later discovered to stand for Human Bomb) took a roomful of kindergarten children hostage. Sarkozy, as mayor of the city where the drama took place, negotiated directly with the hostage-taker. Every time he entered the classroom to negotiate he would agree to one of the guy's minor requests in return for releasing a child or two that he took out with him upon leaving. All the while, he refused to meet the guy's principal demand, which was access to the news media. Finally, after two days, the negotiations reached an impasse and HB refused to allow any more children to leave. At which point Sarkozy sent in the elite French commando unit known as RAID, who killed HB instantly and freed the rest of the children. As a couple of anecdotes from this past week demonstrate, his negotiating style hasn't changed much since then. Throughout the presidential campaign, Sarkozy's two major policy declarations regarding Europe were, a) his support for a streamlined "mini-constitution", passed by parliamentary vote, to replace the unreadably obtuse one rejected by referendum two years ago; and b) his opposition to the entry of Turkey into the EU. Now if you look closely at the two positions, one thing becomes clear. The first, an institutional resuscitation of the EU, is urgently needed. The second, a decades-long process that will unfold in stages, can easily be scuttled at some more convenient time in the future. So it should come as no surprise that Sarkozy, in meeting with EU President Manuel Luis Barroso last week and Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero yesterday, was willing to withhold a French veto of a preliminary round of negotiations with Turkey in order to gather momentum for his mini-treaty. Another example is his controversial campaign promise to require minimum service during any transportation strike. The unions have come out strongly against the measure, which would limit one of their most powerful weapons. Sarkozy has since backed off from passing a law immediately, stating that he would allow the unions and the employers' organization to negotiate the terms, with the relevant government ministers only stepping in if the two sides could not come to an agreement. Unilateral legislation would be reserved as the last option should negotiations fail. Sarkozy is careful to never identify what he wants (mini-treaty, minimum service) without at the same time dangling the cost to his negotiating partner (Turkey veto, unilateral legislation) should he not get it. More importantly, he's perfectly willing to postpone confrontation, as long as he can leave the room with a child in his arms. Thursday, May 31, 2007 Gaza Goes GlobalWhen Hamas won the Palestinian elections, the common wisdom was that the day-to-day challenges of governing would reveal the shortcomings of their militant ideology and before long the Palestinian people would return to the "moderate" Fatah fold. According to this NY Times article, the first part of that equation has been borne out. Unfortunately, instead of returning to moderate engagement, many in Gaza seem to be turning to even more extreme forms of global jihad and violence. And the on-again/off-again shooting war between Hamas and Fatah has left a power vacuum in which the increasingly radical groups can operate. Norway has already resumed direct aid to the Hamas-Fatah coalition government. Apparently the Israeli government, under heavy pressure from the US, EU, Russia and UN, is considering releasing PA tax revenues it's been withholding, as long as they don't wind up in Hamas' hands. I think it's safe to say this will be the new "responsible" position to adopt, even though it's a sign of how desperate the situation in Gaza has become. Thursday, May 31, 2007 Iran's Iraq Strategy, And OursIt's already clear that the War in Iraq has been a boon to the shortterm strategic interests of our two most prominent adversaries in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, al-Qaeda and Iran. As for the former, its Iraqi operations aren't likely to outlast our presence over there by very long. All indications are that they have already begun to wear out their welcome. Even if they do manage to maintain some sort of staging area in the shadows of an eventual failed state, their goal of installing a fundamentalist Sunni theocracy in Shiite-dominated Iraq doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. But what about Iran? Assuming that our rivalry with them will play a determinant role in regional geopolitics in the near future, and assuming that Iranian influence is essentially destabilizing and should be contained (both reasonable assumptions, in my opinion), their strategic goal in a post-occupation Iraq -- and Afghanistan -- is a question of vital importance. And yet, it's increasingly clear that it's a question that America's war planners don't have an answer for. For good reason. The Iranian position in a post-occupation Iraq is far from certain. It's a mistake to assume that because Iraq is Shiite-dominated, Iran's influence is guaranteed. Of the two major Shiite blocks engaged in a power struggle verging on a civil war in the South, one of them, the Sadrists, are openly hostile to Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs. The other, SIIC (formerly SCIRI) while heavily supported by the Iranians, has increasingly begun to align itself with Ayatollah al-Sistani, the powerful Najaf cleric who also opposes Iranian interference. Here's how Lt. Gen. Petraeus put it in an Army Times interview last week:
On the other hand, as long as American troops remain in Iraq, ie. as long as Iraq remains exclusively our problem, Iran has a clear tactical interest in prolonging the violence. Again, Petraeus:
The same logic holds true true in Afghanistan. According to McClatchy, despite their quiet support of the invasion that rid them of their sworn enemies, the Taliban, as well as close ties with the Karzai government, the Iranians have recently begun funneling weapons to the Taliban insurgents in the southern province of Helmand:
Take away our presence, however, and Iran's tactical interests melt away, while its strategic dilemma becomes all too clear. Faced with the possibility of being surrounded by failed states on both sides, Iran would have little choice but to accept that for the time being, their regional interests actually converge with our own, ie. some sort of power-sharing arrangement in Iraq, and a strong central government in Afghanistan. Just another example of how our presence in Iraq stands in the way of the goals we're trying to achieve there. Thursday, May 31, 2007 RSS FeedsApparently there's been a code glitch in the Feedburner RSS feed which has kept it from updating for the past month. It doesn't seem to have been a problem if you were subscribed directly to HJ's RSS feed. It should be working now. Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Time FliesIt's a detail buried in this story about Kobe Bryant asking to be traded, but one that made me do a double-take. Kobe's been in the NBA eleven years. And of course, that makes him... 28 years old. I remember seeing the Lakers play at the Forum before the three-peat championship run. Some girl was working her way down from the nosebleed seats to courtside, talking about how she just had to get next to Kobe. And, yup, that must've been about ten years ago now. Damn. Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Quote Of The Day"We have a whole social science literature on persuasion. It's mostly on how to get a person to buy a certain brand of toothpaste. But it certainly could be useful in improving interrogation." -- Randy Borum, a psychologist at the University of South Florida who served as a consultant for a Defense Department report on interrogation techniques. Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Blair Stoops To ConquerI'm all for bringing renegade regimes, like Muammar Khaddafi's Libya, back into the fold of responsible state actors. But there's something disturbing about the idea of selling him a stack of missiles, and paying him a mountain of cash for the rights to his oil fields, when he's still holding the six health workers (five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor) sentenced to death for "deliberately" infecting Libyan children with the AIDS virus. For that matter, there's something disturbing about this photo.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Not So Friendly SpatMore rumblings on the border between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. According to a report from Gulf News, the Turkish army has continued its buildup on the Iraqi border, moving 20 tanks into position:
Also, I linked to a news item yesterday about a couple of American fighter jets that "accidentally strayed" into Turkish airspace, also on the border with Iraqi Kurdistan. But according to this article in Middle East Times, it wasn't an isolated incident:
Turkey presented a formal diplomatic letter of protest, and Prime Minister Erdogan warned that "If this happens again ... if this takes a different dimension, what we will do is obvious." Obvious, that is, in the sense that no one's quite sure what he means. This is really kind of mind-boggling. Turkey's been pressuring us to address the PKK bases in Iraqi Kurdistan for years now. There's been a shooting war on the Turkish side of the border for months. The whole area is on high alert. And our idea of an appropriate response is to buzz Turkish airspace? Does "Keep your fingers crossed" count as an Iraq policy? Wednesday, May 30, 2007 A Tale Of Two Countries
Yishai is the head of the ultra-orthodox, nutjob party Shas, so he obviously knows a thing or two about delusional minorities that suffer from normative defects. And yes, I'm obviously cherry-picking, but it's important to remember that religious fundamentalism unfortunately knows no national boundaries. Tuesday, May 29, 2007 Dept. Of Unintended ConsequencesI'm trying to avoid too much Iraq War posting, because it's an easy rut to fall into. But here's a story from Inter Press Service that points out yet another potential pitfall of the Baghdad Surge: By deploying effective and neutral Kurdish military units to the capital, the Surge threatens to draw them into the sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis. According to the article, they've already been involved in some tense standoffs with the Sadrist Mahdi militia. The danger is that an eventual grudge match might spread to Kirkuk. Tuesday, May 29, 2007 Not So Petty CrimeThe Bush administration has always ridiculed the idea of fighting terrorism through police work. Too bad, because according to a study issued by the Congressional Research Service, terrorists have increasingly turned to criminal activities to finance their operations:
Why does it seem like the Bushies are always the last to know? Tuesday, May 29, 2007 Student IDI remember at times feeling like an imposter on the Stanford University campus. Like in the freshman physics survey course -- for engineers, not poets -- that I had the brilliant idea to sign up for. There was a kid who sat next to me who never once opened a notebook or removed a pencil from his plastic pocket-liner the entire semester. One day I saw him frown and shake his head as I furiously scribbled down the formula the Nobel prize-winning lecturer had just chalked on the board. "Dickweed," I muttered under my breath. Until the lecturer glanced back at the board, said, "Wait a minute, that's not right," and corrected one of the Greek letters holding down a denominator. The kid's face brightened up and he nodded furiously. And I realized that I'd better start working on my iambic pentameter. Tuesday, May 29, 2007 Spy vs. Spy?On first glance, it would seem that there are really only two possible explanations for the recent rash of Iranian-Americans charged by Tehran with spying for the West. Either the charges are false, and the three amount to hostages used by Iran as leverage in a game of geo-political brinksmanship. Or else the charges are true, in which case the arrests amount to a way for Tehran to signal that they're a step ahead of the recently revealed covert CIA program to destabilize the Tehran regime. But there's plenty of room for some gray areas in between, too. I imagine most Iranians who have taken on American citizenship are less than fervent supporters of the Iranian government. Certain political activities undertaken here to bring pressure to bear on the Iranian government might very well fall under the rubric of subversive activity over there. Still, you'd think that the folks we're talking about, two academics and a journalist, would be savvy enough to know the kinds of things that would put them in jeopardy and either avoid doing them, or else avoid returning to Iran if they did do them. Which brings us back to the true/false scenario. If you're wondering what triggered this line of thought, it was the fact that the journalist detained by Iran, Parnaz Azima, is "...a reporter for US-funded Radio Farda." That's putting it kind of mildly. Here's how Radio Farda describes itself on its website:
We report. You decide. Tuesday, May 29, 2007 Dead Trees UpdateSorry for the light posting this weekend. I've been finishing off two articles for the summer issue of WAD Magazine (articles are print only, unfortunately). The first is an interview with Martha Cooper, who's best known for her work documenting the 1980's graffiti art movement in New York. Before that, though, she focused on children at play in the streets of New York. The book, Street Play, is just now being released here in France. I highly recommend it, for anyone who loves New York , children or photography. Martha's a genius, and a really cool genius to boot. (You can take a look at some more of her photography here.) The second is also an interview, with a French rapper called Rost. You might remember the riots in the French housing projects two years ago. Rost decided to form an association to encourage the kids to register to vote, which they did in record numbers. He then organized a "citizen's tour" whereby he interviewed all the major French presidential candidates about issues affecting "les banlieues". Now he's busy organizing a political structure to keep the pressure on the politicians. Did I mention he's funding it all himself? Definitely an inspirational figure, for whom "...utopia is the reality of the future." So if you're in Paris this summer, keep an eye out for the magazine. Saturday, May 26, 2007 Police State RevisitedRemember when I mentioned that the news page on the Army's official website has a sidebar that often links to critical or unflattering media coverage of the Iraq War? Here's what's up there today:
I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to wager that that compares pretty favorably to most militaries worldwide. I'm also beginning to wonder if there isn't some disgruntled programmer working in the Army's web shop. Saturday, May 26, 2007 No BrainerAs an immigrant abroad, I've got no choice but to follow the immigration reform bill from afar. Two things I can say, though. First, inviting people to work in America while withholding the possibility of assuming an American identity (which is my understanding of what the guest worker program entails) is a mistake. That's exactly what has undermined French society which, although it offered citizenship to the immigrant laborers who rebuilt the country after WWII, never embraced them into the national identity. The result is an enormous group of people who, at the level of identity, feel that they are neither French nor of the country of origin. In other words, alienated. Second, Tom Friedman and Matthew Yglesias have got it all wrong when they call for automatically offering visas to foreign-born PhD graduates. Yglesias responds to the obvious drawback, that it encourages braindrain from the countries of origin, by proposing an "exit tax" to be paid (presumably) by the graduate to the home country:
Unfortunately, applying Major League Baseball's free agent compensation rules to international labor markets overlooks the fact that to a country in desperate need of an educated cadre, money is not an "equitable" substitute for know how. Furthermore, in a time when well-paid productive labor is increasingly outsourced and poorly-paid "unskilled" labor is increasingly done by immigrants, artificially boosting the supply of PhD labor seems to be a cruel blow. Saturday, May 26, 2007 A ToastI'd like to invite any readers who might be in the vicinity of a round table and a full glass on this Saturday evening to raise one for my Dad, who happens to be celebrating his 79th birthday today. Happy Birthday, Dad! Saturday, May 26, 2007 The Next Best ThingThere's a lot of complicated political maneuvering going on right now among Iraqi Shiite factions, with the major poles of religious authority being Tehran (ie. Ayatollah Khameini) and Najaf (ie. Ayatollah al-Sistani), and the major firepower concentrated in the hands of SIIC (formerly the Iran-leaning SCIRI) and al-Sadr's Mahdi Militia. Of course, by now we're all used to thinking of Moqtada al-Sadr as an anti-American agitator, ie. our enemy. But according to this analysis by Babak Rahimi on the Jamestown Foundation site, he just might be our best shot at averting a worst-case scenario in Iraq. Because while SIIC has advocated for a Federalized Iraq with a powerful Shiite region in Basra, al-Sadr used his reappearance yesterday to call for a broad Shiite-Sunni "reform and reconciliation project":
This is the very kind of coalition that the Maliki government has been unable to create in anything but name only. Should al-Sadr succeed, he'll have managed to endrun not only Maliki and SIIC, but also Petraeus and Bush. There's still a lot standing in his way, not least of which is al-Sistani's contempt for his firebrand style and political ambition. But keep your eyes on this. It's the next big story that could still come out of Iraq. Saturday, May 26, 2007 "Sarkozy The Activist" AlertAli Larijani, Iran's chief negotiator for the nuclear dossier, discussing how to break the current impasse in today's Le Figaro:
Rumor has it he's working on getting the blind to see and the crippled to walk. Saturday, May 26, 2007 Cleaning HouseOne of the dangers of a situation as complex as the multi-faceted Iraqi civil war is that what seems like a lethal strike might actually turn out to be a helping hand. Take this AP dispatch describing a raid on Moqtada Al-Sadr's Baghdad stronghold in which American and Iraqi forces captured the leader of a secret cell specializing in EFP attacks. From that, you might assume that the raid struck a blow against al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia. The thing is, the description of the cell matches the one Lt. Gen. Petraeus gave in an Army Times interview the other day of a network of "Sadrist special ops" units being trained covertly in Iran:
These cells have become a major focus of American anti-militia operations, both in Baghdad and Basra. The question is, are they Sadrist operatives? Or renegade units that Iran has lured away from al-Sadr's chain of command? Until we can answer that question, there's no way of knowing whether we're boxing al-Sadr in or simply doing his laundry for him. Saturday, May 26, 2007 Back In AustinWow. Texas really does do everything bigger. Including mad parliamentary power struggles. It seems that both Republicans and Democrats alike want to oust Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, a Republican, before his term expires in January. Apparently, Craddick rules the joint with an iron fist, often forcing members to line up on votes that hurt their chances back home. To toss Craddick, all they've got to do is pass a motion to vacate. Only trouble is, a motion to vacate is considered a "privileged" motion under Texas parliamentary rules. And to present a privileged motion, a member's got to be recognized by the House Speaker. Which Craddick refuses to do:
That's democracy in the Lone Star State. Obviously a product ready for export. Friday, May 25, 2007 Moving The LinesIt seems to be the consensus among liberal bloggers that Congressional Democrats could have played it a lot tougher on the Iraq War funding bill, since public opinion was overwhelmingly on their side of the issue. I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that the consensus is wrong. Now, don't get me wrong. I think that despite areas of progress, the Iraq War is globally headed towards disaster, if it isn't already there yet. And I think that policy-wise, now's the time to get our forces out of there, despite the Iraqi bloodletting that might follow. But even if the American public by and large agrees with that, I don't think the Democratic Party has sufficiently rehabilitated its national security image (rightly or wrongly deserved) to be able to close the deal on this one without opening itself up to a major pr backlash. Sometimes demand for the product isn't enough. You need to generate trust for the salesperson, too. Two things will need to happen before the Democrats can safely push this through. First, they need to establish a more pro-active national security "brand identity". That means a comprehensive program that calls for more than just withdrawing troops. And second, I'm afraid things will have to get a bit worse over there. As things stand, there are still too many (admittedly unrealistic) longshot chances for progress that have yet to be ruled out by events on the ground. Every last one of them will come back to bite Democrats on the ass should they succeed in forcing a troop withdrawal on a defiant Bush administration. This standoff advanced the lines of the debate dramatically, and it's unfortunate that the Democratic base, disappointed as it might be, should turn on the leadership so stridently. Bush will have to request more funds come September, by which time reality will have caught up to the illusions he's trying to peddle. More importantly, the Congressional GOP will provide cover for a more forceful endgame. Tragically, hundreds more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die in the meantime. But we're closer now to putting an end to the war than we were six months ago. And that's progress. Friday, May 25, 2007 silverlake (haiku)leaf-scattered sunlight Thursday, May 24, 2007 All Roads Lead To TehranIn an exclusive interview with Army Times, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus categorically declares that Iran is deeply involved in training and funding Iraqi insurgents and militias, and that it's inconceivable that Supreme Ayatollah Khameini could be kept in the dark about the "massive operation". According to Petraeus, over the past few years Iran's Quds Force has trained "secret cells" of "Sadr special ops" in Iran. One of these cells was responsible for the highly sophisticated January 20th raid in Karbala that left five American soldiers dead. In addition, Iran has funded Iraqi Shiite militias, and to a lesser extent Sunni insurgents, to the tune of "hundred of millions of dollars". Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the interview is that despite all of the intelligence we've managed to gather on Iran's covert operations, Petraeus confesses to having no clue about Iran's longterm strategic goal for Iraq. Given that by all accounts we're already engaged in a proxy war with Tehran, that would seem like an important detail to nail down. Thursday, May 24, 2007 Monetary PolicyBack in March I noticed a graphic from the State Dept's Iraq Weekly Status Report that charted the volume of American dollars sold in the Iraqi Central Bank's currency auction (denoted by the blue line). What caught my attention was the dramatic decline in dollars sold beginning in early-November 2006, a trend that didn't reverse until late-January 2007. (The pronounced "W" in the center of the graph.) I suggested at the time that the November date corresponded to the mid-term elections that many saw as a referendum on the Iraq war, and the January date to Bush's State of the Union address where he announced the Baghdad Surge. The idea being that Iraqis might have decided to hold onto their (stable) greenbacks until America's continued presence in securing the country was reaffirmed. Here's what that same chart looks like in this week's report:
In case you're having trouble reading the fine print, volume of dollars sold has roughly halved (from $90 million to $48 million per day) in the past ten days. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that number now that Congress has folded on including a withdrawal timetable in the Iraq war funding bill. From the looks of things, though, not much has changed in terms of Iraqi confidence in their country's ability to maintain stability in the absence of an American presence. Thursday, May 24, 2007 The Running ManI've already mentioned that Nicolas Sarkozy will be an activist President. What's become clear since the election is that he will also be an active President. And by that, I'm referring to more than just his ritual morning jog, which has become a daily photo op in the French press. More significantly, Sarkozy intends to transform the function of the French presidency to better reflect his hands-on management style. The French presidency has traditionally served to identify the political horizon, while leaving the captaining of the ship of state to the Prime Minister. Technically, under the terms of the Constitution, the President names only his Prime Minister, who then names the government, which is subsequently referred to by the Prime Minister's name. This is more than just a technicality. When Jacques Chirac named Dominique de Villepin Prime Minister two years ago, it was considered scandalous and a 'presidential usurpation' that in the same speech, he also confirmed that Sarkozy would become Minister of the Interior. This before Villepin had officially assumed his functions. And yet, by several press accounts, Sarkozy was so involved in the formation of François Fillon's government that on several occasions he contacted ministerial candidates to offer them positions personally. Not only did he name the ministers, though, he apparently also vetted their chiefs of staff, with whom he will also be in direct contact. By comparison with Chirac's indiscretion, today was the first time I saw a mention of it in anything but the most matter of fact terms in the French press. (And that only in a decidedly iconoclastic weekly called Marianne.) Sarkozy has also introduced a National Security Council that works out of the presidential offices in Elysée Palace and reports directly to him, something that has never existed here. And during the campaign, he mentioned amending the Constitution to allow the President to defend legislation before the National Assembly, something that currently only ministers are allowed to do. In fact, Sarkozy has made no secret of his intention to govern using an "Americanized" presidency, and the press has already referred to his ministers as "Secretaries of State". In other words, Sarkozy is centralizing his control over all governmental policy-making. So while the American press focused on his naming of centrists and Socialists to the government, what they missed is that it will still be Sarkozy who runs things. Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Cheney's FolliesDick Cheney might be something of a laughingstock to most reasonable people. But while his ability to determine policy might have waned along with his credibility, his ability to veto or sabotage it hasn't. Gareth Porter explains how Cheney's efforts to undermine the Bush administration's foreign policy "realists" (specifically Condi Rice and Bob Gates) might very well box us into a militarist corner with regards to Iran. It's a good article, well worth a look. Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Good Money After BadStuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq, did his best to show Iraq reconstruction some love today in Congressional testimony:
He pointed to the security situation and the fact that Iraq is being rebuilt "virtually under fire" as the principle reasons for ballooning costs and missed deadlines. But Chairman Tom Lantos was having none of it:
Lantos also lashed out at countries that have failed to fulfill their donor pledges to Iraq reconstruction, which seems odd to me. After all, who in their right mind would hand money over to a reconstruciton project that we're running? Even we've stopped doing it. I don't see how we can expect them to start. Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Instant Karma's......gonna getcha. Tuesday, May 22, 2007 The Misdirection?Back in March, Seymour Hersh made some waves with an article in the New Yorker titled "The Redirection", which described an American/Saudi effort to arm radical Sunni militant groups throughout the Middle East in order to contain the growing regional influence of Iran and its proxies. Among the groups Hersh mentioned was Fatah al-Islam, a Palestinian splinter group that was supposedly receiving arms and funding from representatives of the Lebanese government who hoped to turn it against Hezbollah. Hersh's piece targeted all the usual suspects -- Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, covert policy cabals of dubious judgment -- to guarantee a good reception among jittery liberals concerned about the administrations rumored plans for attacking Iran. (Here's my contribution, which on re-reading seems respectably restrained.) The question is, was it accurate? At the time the article appeared, Michael Young poked some holes in it with a piece in Reason Magazine titled "A Muckraker On The Wane?":
This week's events in northern Lebanon, where the Lebanese Army has been engaged in fierce battles with Fatah al-Islam at a Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli, would seem to bear out Young's criticism. Especially since Hezbollah has expressed support for the Army, despite it's fierce opposition to the Lebanese government of Fuad Siniora. Hersh, for his part, stands by his story, maintaining that it's just another example of an American policy that "...bit us in the rear." Monday, May 21, 2007 Is Bad Publicity Really Always Good Publicity?Did the Pentagon ban YouTube and Myspace for troops in Iraq because of bandwidth constraints, as they claimed? Or was it maybe, just maybe, because of content? You be the judge. Via The New York Nerd. Monday, May 21, 2007 L. Ron Hubbard Can't Save Your LifeThanks to Tom Cruise, most people know by now that the Church of Scientology isn't fond of psychiatrists or psychotropic medications. They're not alone of course. Various other religious sects and cults, as well as most practitioners of "alternative", "wholistic" or "complementary" medicine, feel the same way, if each for different reasons. My exposure to the psychiatric model of mental health dates back to the mid-1990's, when I worked as a non-degreed social worker with impoverished adults on New York's Lower East Side, and later with adolescent gang-bangers in Santa Cruz, CA.* And my experiences led me to believe that there are definitely valid criticisms to be made about the psychiatric model, and more specifically the ways in which it's used by public mental health authorities. First, the use of medication, instead of being a last resort, is a first response, often consisting of trial and error "cocktails" of various psychotropics until the targeted symptoms are controlled. With the adolescent boys I worked with, it was often a "prescribe ritalin first, ask questions later" approach. Lifestyle and nutrition (specifically, the enormous amounts of sugar and caffeine the kids consumed) was quite simply never addressed, which was surprising given the clear correlation that exists between sugar, caffeine and hyperactive behavior. Second, I was struck by how many of the symptoms and "disorders" I saw diagnosed every day were poverty-related. That, combined with the fact that the mental health team I worked with in Santa Cruz was part of a Children's Mental Health/Juvenile Probation pilot program, suggested that the psychiatric profession was being co-opted by the state to buffer the police response to social and behavioral tensions that are in large part a result of inequalities in wealth distribution. In other words, instead of being a societal condition with political responses, poverty has increasingly become a psychiatric condition with medical responses. But I think it's important to recognize that while the psychiatric model isn't perfect, it is in many cases very effective. Especially, as studies have shown, when used in conjunction with psychotherapy and alternative treatments. And while diet and exercise can certainly contribute to a patient's well-being and should be integrated into a comprehensive mental health treatment regime, psychotropic medications have offered hope where previously none existed for treating extreme psychiatric disorders that border on or enter into psychosis. Finally, some people just might not want to change every aspect of their diet and lifestyle in order to manage what are nevertheless debilitating symptoms. That's their right, whether Tom Cruise likes it or not. Like cancer treatment, it's irresponsible to advocate for an either/or approach to what remains a personal decision between a patient and his or her doctor. Because for all of psychiatry's faults, a good psychiatrist is still more effective than a bad guru. *At the time, I took a much more rigid, "anti-psychiatry" position than I do today. I was one of very few people (I hesitate to say the only person) advocating for the integration of complementary health practices into the public mental health system. I remember the snickers and condescending comments I got from colleagues when I proposed Yoga, Tai Chi and vegetarian cooking classes, as well as guest lectures on acupuncture, Chinese herbalism, and meditation at the residential program where I worked. And yet, not only were the programs well-received, they were effective in teaching techniques for emotional well-being that the residents found very useful. Monday, May 21, 2007 Cause And EffectYou'll remember last week's Whopper of the Day, wherein Tony Snow vaunted the Bush administration's "unparalleled" commitment to global warming. Here's Robert Sullivan, former associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, describing how that widely recognized commitment somehow managed to tone down the emphasis on human responsibility for global warming in an exhibit on climate-change:
It's funny how counterintuitive the effects of an unparalleled commitment can be. Monday, May 21, 2007 Dick's Got CompanyMaybe it's just something inherent to the office, but it turns out Dick Cheney isn't the only Vice-President who's not so keen on the US and Iran discussing the situation in Iraq. Iraq's Sunni Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashemi, spoke out against the upcoming talks after participating in the Geneva-based World Economic Forum:
Unlike Cheney, however, al-Hashemi probably doesn't want to see the US and Iran at war over Iraq either. Monday, May 21, 2007 Empty AudioThe DoD has just released a redacted audio recording of the Gitmo CSRT hearing for Abu Faraj al-Libi. The hearing was the first one held, back in March, and significantly, al-Libi elected not to participate. In the words of his "Personal Representative" (not to be confused with a lawyer):
It will be interesting to see whether the more prominent hearings, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be releasedin audio as well. Monday, May 21, 2007 The Threat Of Being DisappearedFor anyone interested in the trial of Jose Padilla, I highly recommend keeping tabs on Warren Richey's reporting for the Christian Science Monitor. Everything I've read of his so far has gone beyond just the play-by-play of the legal procedure (although that's there too), to include some of the tensions the trial presents in terms of judicial handling of terrorism cases. Today, he describes how the limitations placed on the permissible lines of questioning of a prosecution witness, one of the "Lackawanna Six" named Yahya Goba, has led to testimony more likely to further Padilla's defense than damage it. What I found more significant, though, was this background on Goba's testimony:
Now, to clarify, everything I've been able to find on Goba's plea deal suggests that he and his co-defendants indeed pleaded guilty in return for the government taking the threat of being declared an enemy combatant off the table. As part of his plea deal, he agreed to cooperate with subsequent government investigations of terrorist cases, which explains his presence at the Padillo trial. But I'm not sure if he can still be "diverted out of the criminal justice system", as Richey claims. Still, the way in which enemy combatant status and the subsequent military tribunals have tainted even the limited number of criminal prosecutions of accused terrorists is clear. It establishes a dual track "justice" system that the government can arbitrarily manipulate, depending on the strength of its case and its public relations needs. Another reason why American principles of justice demand that enemy combatant status be severely limited, clearly defined, and subject to the same legal guarantees the American legal system affords to criminal defendants. Monday, May 21, 2007 Can We Afford Another Fallujah?As a measure of how not only the situation in Iraq, but also the American military's recognition of the situation in Iraq have changed, compare and contrast these two articles regarding America's treatment of Moqtada al-Sadr. Patrick Cockburn reports in The Independent that three years ago, the American military used an invitation to negotiate a settlement to the Najaf uprising in order to carry out an assassination attempt on al-Sadr's life. The attempt failed, and played a large role in determining al-Sadr's hostile and mistrustful stance towards the US occupation ever since:
Fast forward three years to the Baghdad "Surge", where the WaPo reports that the US is so concerned about not alienating Baghdad's sprawling slum known as Sadr City, it's been delicately negotiating all operations targeting militias within the neighborhood:
Clearly, this entire year of military operations in Iraq can be seen as an attempt to clean up some of the mess we've created over the course of the previous three. But if you think the military has renounced its more counter-productive knee-jerk reactions entirely, think again. From the same WaPo article:
The plan was referred to by an anonymous officer as a "second Fallujah plan." Presumably because the first one worked so well. Sunday, May 20, 2007 One WordSunday, May 20, 2007 After The Photo OpOne of the recurring themes of all the reports and audits of Iraqi reconstruction projects I've been sifting through has been the inability of Iraqi authorities to maintain infrastructure facilities once they were completed and handed over by American contractors. The problem is so pronounced, in fact, that the Iraqi government has actually refused to take possession of the great majority of completed projects. (Only 18% had been formally turned over by last July, with very few added since then.) In some cases, the explanation was a lack of trained personnel to manage the facilities. In others, necessary parts were unavailable. One Army report cited "... a culture of maintenance that was gradually lost during the embargo years." Another GAO report pointed to higher-order issues, like the lack of "... clear institutional, legal, and regulatory structures and adequate financial management systems." (A polite way of saying the place is crooked as a re-used nail.) This brings us back to two points that have been made before but that bear repeating. First, the planners of this war tended to envision Iraq as they wanted it to be, rather than as it was. But that refusal to grasp reality didn't stop after the initial invasion, as evidenced by the billions of dollars that have now been spent on projects that, quite predictably, can not be maintained. Second, there's the question of metrics, and how to assess whatever progress we might have made in Iraq. Cutting the ribbon on a school, or hospital, or electric generator plant, makes great for a great photo op. But counter-insurgency wars are won or lost on whether the building's still in operation six months later. And by that measure, there's little doubt that we're losing this war. Sunday, May 20, 2007 The Fine PrintAs a sign of how well the transition to Iraqi security self-reliance is going, the State Dept's Iraq Weekly Status Report points to the fact that the Iraqi army began issuing US-made M-4's and M-16's to their troops this month. As always, it's the details that sting:
If that doesn't work, they can always handcuff the rifles to their wrists. Friday, May 18, 2007 Good News Of The DayEver since I was a kid, I've had a hard time with movies where the good guy (or the bad guy, for that matter) has overcome all sorts of life-threatening obstacles, and has finally gotten away with the loot, only to lose it all through some cruel twist of fate at the very last second. The bills scattering in a gust of wind. The valise loaded with cash falling out of the airplane. You get the idea. So this is a story guaranteed to bring a smile to my face. Today's Good News: Explorers haul in deep-sea treasure worth $500 million. Friday, May 18, 2007 Not So Open TrialThe flaws with the military tribunals used to determine Gitmo detainees' guilt are pretty widely commented upon. But the alternative to Bush's Star Chamber courts, ie. trying the detainees in American courts, also poses some legal challenges. Take the trial of Jose Padilla, now under way in Miami. According to the CSM's Warren Richey, a CIA agent was allowed to testify today using a pseudonym. In and of itself, that's neither unprecedented, nor unreasonable. More unusual though still not unprecedented, however, is that the jury wasn't informed at all about the pseudonym, and the defense attorneys were not told the agent's true name.
Besides cases involving national security, mafia trials also sometimes feature pseudonymous witnesses whose identities are not revealed to the defendant. The reasons are obvious, if not necessarily unimpeachable. As things stand, the Classified Information Procedures Act leaves a great deal of leeway to the trial judge to determine how to balance the defendant's right to a fair trial with the needs of national security, on a case by case basis. Which strikes me as somewhat arbitrary. One way to standardize the process would be to appoint a judiciary panel with the jurisdiction to review procedural issues surrounding classified information as they arise, similar to the FISA court used to authorize emergency wiretaps. But while making the process more consistent is inherently desirable, even that won't make the issue go away. The tension between the right to an open trial and national security is an inherent one in terrorism cases. And if critics who call for the abolition of the military tribunals get their way, it will only become more prominent as trying accused terrorists in American courts becomes more prevalent. Friday, May 18, 2007 The Sopranos, Iraqi Tribal VersionHere's another highlight from that GAO report on Iraq's oil and electricity sectors. In an effort to control rampant sabotage of the electrical grid, the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity at one point contracted with tribal chiefs to secure the power lines running through their territories, at the rate of $60-100 per kilometer:
Fuhgeddaboudit. Friday, May 18, 2007 The Post-TalibanThe frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan known as South Waziristan has gotten some attention lately. First because of the "peace deal" the Pakistani military struck back in September with "militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda". Later because of an outbreak of fighting between local tribesman, led by an Afghan named Maulvi Nazir, and Uzbek jihadists who had set up shop in the area. Although it's hard to get accurate information from the area, which is beyond the reach of journalists, the Uzbeks reportedly suffered heavy losses before being driven into neighboring North Waziristan. The Pakistanis, who took a lot of heat for their "hands off" policy, claim the development as proof that their decision to leave the job of policing the frontier badlands to the local tribesmen is bearing fruit. Not so, say Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Bill Roggio in the Weekly Standard. The fighting between Nazir and the Uzbeks had more mundane causes and doesn't represent a significant change in Waziri relations with their al Qaeda guests. But according to this article on The Jamestown Foundation website, the campaign against the Uzbeks represents the first success not of Pakistan's withdrawal from Waziristan, but of a covert Pakistani intelligence operation designed to re-integrate a new generation of Taliban leadership back into Pakistan's sphere of influence. The idea being that if the Taliban recognize that their alliance with al Qaeda runs counter to their political interests, they'll choose to cut the jihadists loose and focus on returning to power in Afghanistan. Apparently the only thing wrong with the Taliban, as far as Pakistan is concerned, was the company they kept. Friday, May 18, 2007 Hope The Brakes Don't Give OutHere's a pretty decent summary of what's driving the tensions, and what's at stake, on the border between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. Something we often forget:
I'd add that the two major dissuasive influences on a Turkish military intervention, ie. US influence and EU membership negotiations, have both weakened considerably of late. The first due to Turkey's sense that America has not taken its regional interests to heart, or seriously pressured the Kurds to rein in the PKK. The second because of the growing perception (one reinforced by Sarkozy's election) that despite years of negotiations, promises, and Turkish concessions, the EU is going to welch on admitting Turkey after all. Friday, May 18, 2007 A Man Of ActionAs an example of the kind of activism we can expect from Nicolas Sarkozy in the foreign policy arena, take the case of Ingrid Betancourt. She's the French-Colombian woman who, while campaigning for the presidency of Colombia in 2002, was kidnapped by FARC guerillas and hasn't been heard from since. She's become something of a cause célèbre here in France, to the point where I remember thinking at one point during the presidential campaign how odd it was that no one had mentioned her. Well, apparently Nicolas Sarkozy had. And yesterday, in one of his first real gestures as president, he spent a half-hour on the phone with the President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, in order to re-invigorate the efforts to obtain her release. Then today, before the first ministerial meeting of his newly formed government, he met personally with her family. If Betancourt is freed soon, luck will have had something to with it: As I mentioned yesterday, a Colombian police officer who just escaped from FARC captivity claims she was kept in the same compound, which helps to pinpoint her location. But Nicolas Sarkozy, through the strategic use of his presidential intervention, will have played a role as well. Update: According to this French language report, Uribe has now ordered the Colombian military to liberate Betancourt. I'm not sure if this is what Sarkozy had in mind. If so, it shows the danger of activism when it veers into impetuousness (see "George W. Bush", for example), because raids on the FARC's jungle camps have normally been unsuccessful and resulted in the executions of the prisoners being rescued. Friday, May 18, 2007 The Price Of AmbitionI've never been particularly impressed with Bernard Kouchner, despite him being one of the most popular political figures among the French. He's always struck me as something of a sycophant, and an ambitious one to boot. Which might explain why he was willing to campaign against Nicolas Sarkozy up until two weeks ago, and accept a position in his government as Foreign Minister today. Sarkozy had talked about naming Socialists to his government as a way of proving his willingness to seek bi-partisan solutions. Now he's got one, but not for long: As promised last week by François Hollande, Secretary General of the Socialist Party, expulsion proceedings for Kouchner have already been initiated. It's possible that Kouchner might last at Quai d'Orsay. But if he doesn't, he's finished politically. Quite a gamble for someone who entertained presidential aspirations as recently as last year. Thursday, May 17, 2007 Good News Of The DayToday's Good News: A Colombian police officer who just escaped from the FARC in southeastern Colombia reported that he saw Ingrid Betancourt alive as recently as April 28. Thursday, May 17, 2007 The Wheels Come OffThe Bush administration's Iraq policy has been reduced to crossing its fingers and hoping that come September, General Petraeus will bail them out with an assessment of the "Surge" that can buy them another 3-6 months. In the meantime, according to a briefing paper issued by Chatham House, an English public policy think tank, "It can be argued that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation." A common theme of the problems the report cites is multiplicity:
This passage on the effect of the daily violence on Iraqi youth, as reflected in blogs and YouTube postings, was especially disheartening:
Of course, after four years of "stuff happens", "dead-enders" and "last throes", we're all familiar with the Bush administration's standard operating procedure: Push back for six months against what is obvious to most objective observers, and then come up with a half-assed course correction to paper over what's already an outdated assessment. But as things stand, there are really only two possible courses of action in Iraq: A massive military escalation accompanied by an American commitment to spend the next 5-10 years securing the country. Or an immediate withdrawal. The first offers no guarantees of success. The second, the likelihood of failure. And both are, for the time being, politically impossible. Thursday, May 17, 2007 Beckett, Ionesco And The GAOMore on Iraq reconstruction, this time from from a report on Iraq's oil and electricity sectors released today by the General Accounting Office. The upshot? We've spent roughly $5.1 billion on the Iraqi oil and electricity infrastructure. There's still billions of dollars of work left to be done. And the results are disappointing, even judging by the modest goals we'd set. Among the problems cited? Corruption (between 10 and 30 percent of refined fuels are diverted to the black market), poor coordination between the oil and electricity ministries that results in inefficient electrical output, poor security conditions that increase costs and reduce production, and the Iraqi government's lack of clear legal and regulatory structures, as well as financial accounting and management systems, which serve as a disincentive for foreign investment. As to who's going to finance the work that still needs to be done, one thing is certain: It won't be us. According to the report, we've completed 88% of our oil projects, and should wrap the rest up shortly. And with the Iraqi oil revenue-sharing law in limbo, few countries or companies are willing to invest in Iraq's lucrative but unstable oil sector (although the Kurds have managed to strike a controversial deal with a small Norwegian company). Like every official government document dealing with Iraq, this one contains its share of memorable, Theater of the Absurd passages. Here's my favorite:
Meter readers in Baghdad. Sheesh. Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Président De La RépubliqueThe official changing of the guard took place today in a formal ceremony (video link) at Elysée Palace that juxtaposed the oddly poignant, regal bearing of Jacques Chirac with the agitated jumpiness of Nicolas Sarkozy. In his investiture address, Sarkozy again mentioned Europe, the Mediterranean, and Africa as priorities, and announced that he would place human rights and global warming at the heart of France's foreign policy. Which says alot about what Sarkozy really represents for France's posture in the world. Because there's been a lot of discussion of whether, how much, and in what ways he'll represent a difference from Chirac in particular, and from traditional Gaullism in general. But it's all focused on policy. And while there will be differences in priorities and emphasis, the major change won't be in terms of policy itself. The quality that will mark Sarkozy's foreign policy is activism (not to be confused with interventionism). Which might take people by surprise, especially Americans who are used to thinking of France as a "second-rate" power. But Sarkozy's genius is in seizing the initiative and determining what people are talking about to fit his agenda. He did it throughout his five years in the government. He did it throughout the electoral campaign. And watching him today I realized that he intends to do it as president. How? I don't know. But one thing is certain. While he's president, France will be an actor on the global stage, not a spectator. And French influence, which Americans tend to underestimate, will most likely grow even stronger. So in wondering how Sarkozy will align France with US policy, American analysts are missing the point. The real question is, How are we going to align ourselves with his? Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Tactical ErrorsIt's no secret that the American tactical approach in Afghanistan has been, shall we say, slightly at odds with that of its NATO allies participating in the war. The Dutch, for instance, have in the past taken the approach of avoiding engagement with the Taliban insurgents, although they have recently adopted a more offensive-minded approach (even if it is known as the "amoeba model"). The British, too, have emphasized finding a working arrangement with the Taliban, going so far as to arrange a formal truce in Musa Qala, a district in southern Afghanistan they were responsible for securing. The logic, in both cases, was to minimize the destabilizing effects of combat, both in terms of civilian casualties and infrastructure, while at the same time increasing trust and goodwill among the civilian population through reconstruction projects. As for the insurgents, the strategy was to win their allegiance, rather than kill them off. All of which doesn't sit too well with Gen. Dan McNeill, the new American commander in Kabul:
I'd sure love to hear his full views, but I think the abridged version gets the idea across pretty effectively. At any rate, he's made no secret of his favored approach, which involves more aggressive ground operations, combined with heavy air support. Resulting in, as you might imagine, increased civilian casualties. Of course, anytime you get allies fighting a war together, you're bound to have disagreements. The history of WWII is full of them, from heads of state to theater commanders, all the way down to the grunts on the ground. But this really shows the inability of the American military command to understand the nature of the war they're fighting. The British and Dutch know there's no way to pacify Afghanistan. It's been tried before and it's never worked. So they're trying to minimize the damage on both sides, in the hopes that the Afghans in power when they eventually leave haven't sworn an oath of eternal enmity against them. That's the only way to win that war. And it's the one way we won't fight it. Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Whopper Of The DayThis, too, might become a new feature. Or it might not. (I'm sure if I checked in some marketing textbook, I'd find that rolling out two new features in one day is poor promotional practice.) Anyway, here's Tony Snow, from today's White House press briefing:
At least he's upfront about which one comes first. Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Just In TimeOliver Willis wonders whether the new War Czar position is necessary, pointing out that between the Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Joint Chiefs, we should have things covered. I'd point out that he left out the National Security Advisor and Council, the Secretary of State (all reconstruction projects, including security-related ones, are coordinated out of the State Dept), and the Commanding Officer of Centcom. That said, I think the length of that list makes more the argument for the appointment of a single-tasked coordinator of the war effort than against it. Yes, it adds a layer of bureaucracy to what is already a terribly confusing and confused inter-agency effort. But if that layer is a step above the compartmentalized moving parts, it might give a useful perspective on how to maximize efficiency. Of course, at this point, there's very little upside to be gained from the position. It might come in handy, though, when it comes time to coordinate the disengagement and withdrawal. Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Good News Of The DayAs you can guess from the title of this post, I've decided to introduce a new feature here at Headline Junky. Today's Good News: Dog bites among letter carriers slightly down. Wednesday, May 16, 2007 That's A ReliefFrom an Executive Order issued today, forbidding lawyers and expert witnesses testifying on behalf of government agencies from being paid contingency fees based on the outcome of the litigation:
Seems like a pretty sound policy. Too bad no one thought of it when it came to awarding contracts for Iraq reconstruction projects. Tuesday, May 15, 2007 It's Time To Pull The PlugIt's late here, and I'm tired, and I'd wanted to go to bed. But this WaPo article on the Iraqi prison and detention system is worth a mention, even if it is really depressing. Maybe even because it's really depressing. Because you'd think that it would occur to the people running the surge in Baghdad that if you apply a massive security sweep, you're going to wind up with quite a few more detainees than you had before. About 6,500 more, to be precise, between the Iraqi prisons and American military detention facilities. Which means, of course, that you're going to need more holding facilities. But apparently, no one considered that possibility, because there's an enormous overcrowding problem, with single-person cells housing up to six inmates, and some detainees being held in facilities for convicts, where they wait up to three months for a habeas corpus hearing that's legally required within 24 hours. Reports of torture, abuse, and forced confessions are widespread. And there's little possibility for oversight due to the farflung and poorly administered system itself. But even the belated solution, the construction of a prison facility in eastern Baghdad, isn't really one:
It's like the actor reading from his script while the scenery is falling down all over the set. I'm curious to see what the vote will be on Feinberg's bill tomorrow. It's supposed to not have a chance in hell. Just like the war effort itself. Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Beyond Scraping BottomIn case you thought you'd heard all there was to hear about how perverse the Gitmo CSRT hearings are, think again. Because according to the NY Times, on at least three occasions detainees who had been cleared by an initial tribunal were later classified as enemy combatants after Defense Dept officials in Washington ordered new hearings. On at least one occasion, a detainee was cleared by two "do-over" tribunals, only to be eventually classified as an enemy combatant by a third one. As the article puts it,
A Pentagon spokesman justified the repeated hearings by saying that some detainees had actually been re-classified as "no longer enemy combatants" on second hearing, allowing them to go free. But it doesn't take a legal scholar to understand the difference between a judicial appeal and double jeopardy. The first allows a defendant to contest their conviction. The second amounts to repeated prosecution for the same offense until a conviction is produced. Which is why the US constitution specifically prohibits the practice. And why, according to government briefs in the lawsuit brought on the detainees behalf,
The 2005 law establishing the CSRT's limits judicial oversight to determining whether the military has followed its own established procedures. So it's unlikely that this case will achieve anything more than an appeal to the Supreme Court. Until then, justice delayed is justice denied. Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Facing The MusicOne of the running jokes during the 2002 French presidential election was that Jacques Chirac not only had to run for president, he had to win, if he wanted to stay out of jail. Because from 1976 until his first presidential term began in 1995, as both mayor of Paris and head of the former Gaullist political party RPR, Chirac presided over an illegal patronage system whereby party hacks were offered plum municipal positions. One of his top lieutenants and former Prime Minister, Alain Juppé, was already sentenced to a year's probation (including exclusion from elected office) for his involvement. And there's plenty of evidence that Chirac himself was perfectly aware of the system. Besides that, though, there were also a couple bid-rigging scandals, as well as an illegal party financing scheme, all dating to his years as mayor. The only thing that's kept him from being charged to date has been the presidential immunity granted by the French constitution up until a month after he leaves office. Which is why there was some speculation that he might decide to run for a third term this year out of desperation. His decision not to, and his subsequent endorsement (if a tepid one) of Sarkozy's candidacy caused quite a bit of whispering about a deal struck between the two. The idea being that Sarkozy would enact a law placing a ten-year statute of limitations on corruption cases, which would effectively cover Chirac on his most serious legal worries. Sarkozy vehemently denied the rumors at the time. But it's something else to watch for during his "first hundred days". Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Unsafe At Any SpeedMiami's drivers might be the rudest in America, but the worst drivers by far that I've ever encountered were in Dallas. Sure, in New York City, you've got to be prepared at any moment for a Yellow Cab to hang a louie from the extreme righthand lane, or vice cersa. But nine times out of ten, they do it flawlessly, so you don't even end up taking your foot off the accelerator. Whereas in Big D, people think nothing of driving three abreast on the freeway. All at the same speed. For miles at a time. No matter how many times you flash your brights. And honk your horn. And motion them wildly to the side. Which explains why they also think nothing of passing on the right at insane speeds. Because when ther |
RSS Feeds
