March 31, 2003
Powerful prose by the inimitable Jimmy Breslin:
… Blood from a bombed baby in Baghdad goes over the wide choking sands and it crosses mountains and then great land masses and then suddenly, over a channel, it is in Westminster, in London, and people look at the sidewalk and wonder where these large blood spots came from, and the officer on duty in front of 10 Downing Street looks at the door handle and worries, how did this get here without me seeing this and having it cleaned? He has a servant rush to the door with cloth and polish and he wipes the blood and polishes the door handles and then walks off and the guard happens to glance at the door handle and the blood is back, smeared bright new red over the polished handle.
The baby’s blood is off to rush over the ocean, a strange red cloud poised to rain and it floats over the green of the Washington parks and goes down a sloping street to the State Department, where as a man opens a car door for Colin Powell he suddenly notices blood on the door handle and he quickly unfurls a handkerchief and wipes the handle and Powell gets in and the car goes off and the man who held the door is left in the driveway and he sees the red that is still on Powell’s door handle. …
The red cloud then comes down on the White House lawn and it does more than sprinkle, it splashes the helicopter of the president and he strolls out with his wife, his dog and his chesty walk and slight smirk and the wife at his side is smiling, for it is the end of the week and we are good, decent Christian people, God bless us and God bless everybody, and as they are about to get into the helicopter, an Air Force officer rushes up in alarm and says, please, just give us a moment, and he has three people scrubbing so quickly to clean the blood from the helicopter and then Bush and his wife get aboard and they fly off to Camp David, for where else would you go on a weekend, and as they have neglected to have two men hanging out of the windows and inspecting the sides of the craft in midair, nobody can see the blood back on the helicopter. …
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Colin Powell, Iraq
March 30, 2003
The piece of metal is only a foot high, but the numbers on it hold the clue to the latest atrocity in Baghdad.
At least 62 civilians had died by yesterday afternoon, and the coding on that hunk of metal contains the identity of the culprit. The Americans and British were doing their best yesterday to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile destroyed those dozens of lives, adding that they were “still investigating” the carnage. But the coding is in Western style, not in Arabic…
In the Al-Noor hospital yesterday morning, there were appalling scenes of pain and suffering. A two-year-old girl, Saida Jaffar, swaddled in bandages, a tube into her nose, another into her stomach. All I could see of her was her forehead, two small eyes and a chin. Beside her, blood and flies covered a heap of old bandages and swabs. Not far away, lying on a dirty bed, was three-year-old Mohamed Amaid, his face, stomach, hands and feet all tied tightly in bandages. A great black mass of congealed blood lay at the bottom of his bed.
… The missile sprayed hunks of metal through the crowds _ mainly women and children _ and through the cheap brick walls of local homes, amputating limbs and heads. Three brothers, the eldest 21 and the youngest 12, for example, were cut down inside the living room of their brick hut on the main road opposite the market. Two doors away, two sisters were killed in an identical manner. “We have never seen anything like these wounds before,” Dr Ahmed, an anaesthetist at the Al-Noor hospital told me later. “These people have been punctured by dozens of bits of metal.” He was right. One old man I visited in a hospital ward had 24 holes in the back of his legs and buttocks, some as big as pound coins. An X-ray photograph handed to me by one of his doctors clearly showed at least 35 slivers of metal still embedded in his body…
“This is a crime,” a woman muttered at me angrily. “Yes, I know they say they are targeting the military. But can you see soldiers here? Can you see missiles?”
“I had five sons and now I have only two _ and how do I know that even they will survive?” a bespectacled middle-aged man said in the bare concrete back room of his home yesterday. “One of my boys was hit in the kidneys and heart. His chest was full of shrapnel; it came right through the windows. Now all I can say is that I am sad that I am alive.”
… Hussein Mnati is 52 and just stared at me _ his face pitted with metal fragments _ as bombs blasted the city. A 20-year-old man was sitting up in the next bed, the blood-soaked stump of his left arm plastered over with bandages. Only 12 hours ago, he had a left arm, a left hand, fingers. Now he blankly recorded his memories. “I was in the market and I didn’t feel anything,” he told me. “The rocket came and I was to the right of it and then an ambulance took me to hospital.”
Rasoul Hammed Najeed stood outside his home sobbing uncontrollably for his five-year-old son, who was killed while playing near a busy Baghdad vegetable market when an air raid struck.
“After this crime, I wish I could see [US President George Bush] in order to cut him to pieces with my teeth,” he cried.
Another man, identified as Saad Abd Qasim, stood as if in a trance, unable to speak.
Friends said his wife, his child and the wife of his son had been among the 50 to 60 people Iraqis say were killed in the raid…
The raid took place in the run-down, working-class district of Shula in north-west Baghdad, inhabited mostly by Shi’ite Muslims.
Most of the one-storey shops in the immediate area were demolished. The ground was covered with blood and broken glass. Reporter Hassan Hafidh said he saw 10 corpses…
“Is this the humanity that Bush is talking about? He has no mercy at all. May God make him fail,” said Ali Kadhin, whose three-year-old son was badly injured in the attack…
Dr Sakhari said he had counted 15 children among the dead - one had died in his arms.
“I ask Bush and Blair to imagine how they would feel if their child died in their arms,” he said.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Iraq
ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, March 28 (Reuters) - American pilots who bombed Baghdad on Friday spoke of the thrill of a successful attack in the teeth of fierce anti-aircraft fire.
“It was exhilarating,” Commander Jeff Penfield said after landing his F/A-18E Super Hornet back on the Abraham Lincoln, which is supporting the U.S.-led invasion force from the Gulf.
“It was all nice and calm in the city,” he said. “Once those bombs hit all hell broke loose. I bet we saw 15 SAMs (surface-to-air missiles), about three or four up our way so we had to defend a couple of times.
“What I felt more than anything was exhilaration.”
… Up in the skies over the Iraqi capital, Penfield led a “strike package” of three planes that dropped 1,000-pound laser-guided bombs on mobile targets near the city.
“…[Y]ou get an element of excitement because that’s where the best targets still are and those targets have to go away so the ground forces can go in.” …
“I can’t sleep yet,” said Penfield. “I’ll go down and get something to eat, unwind, bask in the glory a little bit.”
At the base camp of the Fifth Marine Regiment here, two sharpshooters, Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, 28, and Cpl. Mikael McIntosh, 20, sat on a sand berm and swapped combat tales while their column stood at a halt on the road toward Baghdad. For five days this week, the two men rode atop armored personnel carriers, barreling up Highway 1.
They said Iraqi fighters had often mixed in with civilians from nearby villages, jumping out of houses and cars to shoot at them, and then often running away. The marines said they had little trouble dispatching their foes, most of whom they characterized as ill trained and cowardly.
“We had a great day,” Sergeant Schrumpf said. “We killed a lot of people… We dropped a few civilians, but what do you do?”
To illustrate, the sergeant offered a pair of examples from earlier in the week.
“There was one Iraqi soldier, and 25 women and children,” he said, “I didn’t take the shot.”
But more than once, Sergeant Schrumpf said, he faced a different choice: one Iraqi soldier standing among two or three civilians. He recalled one such incident, in which he and other men in his unit opened fire. He recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down.
“I’m sorry,” the sergeant said. “But the chick was in the way.”
Regardless of whether or not I condone their actions, I have no illusions: I fully expect my country’s servicemen and women to take pride in their jobs. I expect them to feel proud they have performed to their highest degree of skill.
But that a human being could be so devoid of emotion, so deep in denial about the consequences of that job, that he rejoices in the “exhilaration” of being the one responsible for “hell breaking loose” in a city that moments before was “all nice and calm” frankly sickens me.
When a man’s idea of “a great day” is killing “a lot of people,” my compassion for that man and my “support” for him ends.
I have no doubt this kind of brain-dead, barbaric gung-hoism is limited to a small minority of troops. At least, I hope so.
I pray Commander Penfield and Sergeant Schrumpf are the last of a dying breed. But I know they are are not.
With visions of William Calley in my head, it sometimes takes extra effort to “forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Penfield and Schrumpf do not make the task any easier.
And I don’t know if I can ever forgive them. Even we bleeding-heart liberal pacifists have our limits. And those, like Penfield and Schrumpf, who revel in this sort of perverted, inhuman bloodlust push me far beyond my limit.
“The chick was in the way” - ?
My disgust for these individuals defies words.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Iraq
March 28, 2003
The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas.
— George W. Bush to a Slovak journalist, after meeting
with Janez Drnovsek, Prime Minister of Slovenia
Knight-Ridder News Service
June 22, 1999
This just in from Ljubljana! Hundreds of Slovenians hit the streets Wednesday to protest their country’s inclusion in President Bush’s $75 billion Iraq war budget as a partner in the war against Iraq. The White House asked for $4.5 million for Slovenia as part of the grants to members of the vast “coalition of the willing.”
Small problem: The lovely Alpine nation isn’t a member. “When we asked for an explanation, the State Department told us we were named in the document by mistake,” Prime Minister Anton Rop said at what Reuters called “a hastily arranged news conference.”
This of course would not be the first time someone confused Slovenia and Slovakia…
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Europe, George W. Bush, Random Stupidity
The war against Iraq was going extremely well, Prime Minister John Howard said today…
“I believe in all the circumstances (it is) going extremely well,” he told reporters.
“To those who are suggesting that because it hasn’t in effect resulted in complete victory in the space of a week, I suggest they take a reality check and understand a number of things.”
“Complete victory”? Those boys rationed down to a single bottle of water per day would probably settle for one lousy supply convoy getting to its destination.
Or do you mean it’s going “extremely well” because the only Australian casualty so far has been a news cameraman?
Bush has said he believes, as commander-in-chief, that he should be the last person in the chain of command to express doubts or worries about what his administration is doing, fearing that would quickly demoralize his team.
So, Georgie, you’re afraid to hurt somebody’s feelings by questioning the massive screw-ups in Iraq? Or were you ever in the driver’s seat at all? Well, at least we know who’s not in charge. Call to tell us who’s really calling the shots? Rove, Cheney, Rummy, Perle? Or all of the above?
Oh, wait a minute! If Georgie isn’t really running the show, that’s what John Howard must have meant by things going “extremely well.”
US-led forces have yet to get their hands on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but they may have hit him where it hurts — sinking his luxurious yacht, a British commander said.
And I was worried that we weren’t making any progress. Now, let’s blow up his SUV — that’ll really hurt!
Despite official statements that everything is fine on America’s southern border, the Bush administration seems to be giving cold treatment to Mexican President Vicente Fox after Mexico’s decision not to back the U.S. stand on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council.
In sharp contrast to their much-publicized friendship two years ago, when they bragged about being on the phone constantly to consult on major issues, President Bush waited four days before returning a call from the Mexican president, senior U.S. officials told me.
“Fox wanted to test the waters, to see how the relationship was,” says one U.S. official familiar with the conversation. “He should realize that the relationship has been affected.”
That’s right, Georgie, piss off both our nearest neighbors. At least Fox has the class not to stay mad about Javier Medina.
Felicitaciones, Señor Presidente, para tener los cojones para hacer el primer gesto de amistad. Me disculpo por el “hissy fit” de Señor Bush.
Despite the desert conditions of the Iraqi campaign, many American soldiers are sporting deep-green combat fatigues. Why are some troops donning woodland camouflage?
According to published reports, the Pentagon simply goofed by not anticipating the demand for sand-colored desert fatigues, formally known as battle-dress uniforms. When Army and Marine units were preparing for deployment, several discovered that they lacked enough desert BDUs to outfit each soldier with the requisite three outfits. The UPI reports that the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas, chose to dress all its troops in the more traditional green fatigues — commonly referred to as woodland BDUs — rather than have only some don desert dress. Homogeneity is generally preferred among military commanders…
Oh, heavens, that makes all the sense in the world! Mixing dark-green camouflage and desert-sand would be like wearing white after Labor Day! We simply can’t sacrifice good fashion sense for a little safety, can we?
Military leaders insist that the shortage of desert BDUs will not affect the safety of American soldiers. They point out that Iraq’s terrain is not entirely Sahara-like, and that green camouflage may actually work better near the banks of the Euphrates River, where vegetation and mud are present.
What a relief. Now we just have to hold our collective breath until they make it to the river. But considering their progress so far…
Ignoring a presidential ban, Afghanistan’s farmers are growing more opium poppies than ever throughout the country, including areas previously free of the crop, officials said Thursday…
The production of opium, from which heroin is refined, was wiped out under the hard-line Taliban regime, but farmers began planting it again when the religious militia was deposed in 2001 during the U.S.-led war on terror. Some farmers ripped up their wheat fields to plant the lucrative drug-producing plant, which brings in hundreds of times the revenue.
Oh, so that’s what we “liberated” Afghanistan for!
Or is there some sort of dirty deal in the works?
April, 1978: Soviet-backed coup in Afghanistan sets stage for explosive growth in Southwest Asian heroin trade. New Marxist regime undertakes vigorous anti-narcotics campaign aimed at suppressing poppy production, triggering a revolt by semi-autonomous tribal groups that traditionally raised opium for export. The CIA-supported rebel Mujahedeen begins expanding production to finance their insurgency. Between 1982 and 1989, during which time the CIA ships billions of dollars in weapons and other aid to guerrilla forces, annual opium production in Afghanistan increases to about 800 tons from 250 tons. By 1986, the State Department admits that Afghanistan is ‘probably the world’s largest producer of opium for export’ and ‘the poppy source for a majority of the Southwest Asian heroin found in the United States.’ U.S. officials, however, fail to take action to curb production. Their silence not only serves to maintain public support for the Mujahedeen, it also smooths relations with Pakistan, whose leaders, deeply implicated in the heroin trade, help channel CIA support to the Afghan rebels.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Afghanistan, Australia/NZ, George W. Bush, Iraq, Latin America
Time magazine reports that the president poked his head into the office of Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, in March 2002 and told three senators sitting there: “[Expletive deleted] Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
Now, that’s just wrong. Georgie would never say “expletive deleted.” Heck, he probably couldn’t even pronounce the word “expletive.” What he really said was, “F–k Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
That word, he can pronounce. Just ask Al Hunt. In fact, you’d be surprised at some of the two-syllable words Georgie can pronounce, with very little effort.
What do you mean, I missed the point of the article? As they say in Texas, not hardly. You think the idea of invading Iraq — inspections be damned — just popped into Little Georgie’s head in March of 2002?
Haven’t you been listening? The plans have been in the works for ages; Wolfowitz’s people finally put it on paper in early 1992, and the newly-formed PNAC presented the plan to Bill Clinton in 1998.
Hey, don’t get on Bill’s case — King George I had plenty of opportunity to take out Saddam, and declined. The momentum from the “win” in Kuwait would have been enough to garner support both at home and abroad — and might have even won Poppy another four years in office.
(Come to think of it, if we’d known all along Iraq was such a threat, why didn’t Little George make it a major talking point of Campaign 2000?)
And don’t give me that tired old excuse that congressional Democrats wouldn’t let George I act on his own. The CIA director-cum-Veep and his ex-boss waged unconscionable war, trained, funded, and armed terrorists (hint: initials include OBL and SH), and installed puppet dictators throughout the Mideast and Latin America without so much as a “screw you” to Congress or the American people, for far less legal or ethical reasons (and with far more disastrous results) than Poppy could have armed himself with.
(And they accuse peaceniks of “aiding and comforting the enemy”?)
So don’t try to feed me that old line about Bush I being “prevented” from doing any damned thing he wanted.
What Poppy did do was miss his window of opportunity — and the neo-cons had to wait for Junior to hit the trifecta.
So, the big, whoop-de-doo Franks “revelation” is old news — at least to those of us who have been paying attention.
Still, one wonders if Georgie Boy has fingers enough to plug any more leaks.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Iraq, Latin America, Misc. Bush Lackeys, PNAC & PNACers, Ronald Reagan
…who wrote a letter to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whining about “left-wing” media, calling us peaceniks “America bashers” who “spend their nights burning flags” (oh, yeah, right, can’t walk through my living room for all the ashes!) and “starting fights with those who oppose their views” (sure — and you oughta see the other guy!), yada yada yada ad nauseam — the same paranoid crap I’ve heard a thousand times… but for one difference:
Today, I salute YOU, Mr. William R. Schaffer, for giving me the opportunity to say something I have longed to say, all my life, to an ignorant, brainwashed, hysterical, reactionary, hypocritical, First-Amendment-usurping, robotic, Limbaugh-parroting, garden-variety extremist warmonger who has never entertained an original thought in his life.
You wrote:
I’m ashamed to be living here and ashamed to be part of the fighting force protecting their rights.
And I reply:
Mr. Schaffer…
Love it or leave it!Damn, that felt
good!
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Uncategorized
March 22, 2003
Regarding the use of napalm in Iraq, I have found exactly ONE other supporting link:
There is a lookout there, a hill referred to as Safwan Hill, on the Iraqi side of the border. It was filled with Iraqi intelligence gathering. From that vantage point, they could look out over all of northern Kuwait.
It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.
This was also broadcast yesterday by CNN reporter Martin Savidge.
What’s disturbing is this: A Google search returns numerous links to a single article from Realcities.com (which serves news to dozens of different newspapers in the U.S.), containing the phrase: “In addition, about 20 GPS-guided 2000-pound bombs, cluster bombs and napalm…”
[IMG]
But apparently the only reference to napalm is in Google’s snapshot of the link. You can click the links and search the news archives all you want, but you won’t find any mention of napalm.
Can you say “dedacted”?
(Incidentally, I’m confident that the mention of napalm is in reference to Iraq, and not Vietnam. There was no such thing as a “GPS-guided” bomb during the Vietnam era.)
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Iraq
March 21, 2003
So, they think they got Saddam?
Nah. I didn’t believe it the first, or third, or fifth time they said it, and I don’t believe it now. Seriously, folks, exactly how far are we expected to suspend our disbelief after the 3,497,649 reported slayings of bin Laden? He’s dead. He’s not. He’s on the run. He’s dead. He’s…
But then, Osama’s not important anymore. Hey, I didn’t say it; Mr. Bush did. Of course, he said a lot of things about Osama in the first six months after 9-11…
The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.
— George W. Bush
September 13, 2001
I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him.
— George W. Bush
March 13, 2002
Hmm.
Well now, really… It must be awful gosh-darn hard for such a busy, important man to remember everything he says — he must be purty darn well near exhaustion, what with all them weekends at Camp David. Heck, he was so plum tuckered out after giving the order to start bombin’ them wicked heathens Wednesday night, he was tucked in with his teddy before 11:00 p.m., lettin’ that good ol’ boy Tommy Franks bomb away while visions of Tomahawks danced in his head.
Anyway, just for kicks, let’s say Osama– I mean Saddam! is dead. Let’s say they hit him in the first strike (although ABC News identifies last night’s lone dead civilian as a taxi driver in the wrong place at the wrong time).
More TV news tells us that members of Saddam’s Republican guard are surrending “in droves.” And they’ve got the video to prove it. Okay, let’s take that at face value too.
Now, you righties might think we lefties would be our awful little hypocritical selves and suffer some sort of deranged disappointment at the swift accomplishment of Mr. Bush’s current primary objective (at the moment it’s “regime change” — although that objective can switch to “disarmament,” “Iraqi liberation,” or “kickin’ hell outta them all’s what’s harborin’ terra-ists” at any moment).
See, some righties (not all of them, mind you — just a few loud ones) think we peaceniks secretly want to see a protracted, bloody conflict, so that we can look down our long, bony, elitist noses and spit, “I told you so.”
Sorry to let you down, but if we thought this invasion was actually over, we’d be out in the streets again — only this time, we’d be weeping for joy that the conflict was so short, with (under the circumstances) a truly minimal loss of life.
But, when the celebrations were over, we would say this:
If the conquest of Saddam really was so quick and easy, then it appears Saddam wasn’t the big, bad threat y’all made him out to be.
Nevertheless, this is all fantasy. I’d bet my 11-year-old economy car that Saddam is very much alive and well — and has been absent from Baghdad for weeks. (I expect the moment Dan Rather exited the palace, Saddam darted out the back way, through the kitchen.)
The point? Nobody wants a long “war” — but a protracted conflict would benefit the warmongers, not the peaceniks.
After all, the more difficult it is to conquer Iraq, the more justified the reiteration that Iraq is a threat.
And — while I’m not a tinfoil-hatter — the prospect of never finding, capturing, or killing Saddam (or Osama, for that matter) would be an even greater benefit to the warmongers.
No, no, dear reader, I’m not suggesting that either Saddam or Osama has been accidentally-on-purpose allowed to get away (although if I were to suggest it, it would hardly be my own original thought). I’m saying that never knowing what happened to either Big, Bad Wolf would simply benefit the ongoing cause of Mr. Bush & Co.
That is all I am saying, so don’t anybody dare twist my words.
And why would it be a benefit?
If you’re a leader — of a nation, a Boy Scout troop, or the Marketing Department where you work — your employment depends on making yourself indispensible. And when you’re leading a nation, in order to justify your own existence, you need a perpetual state of war — and for that, you need a bogeyman.
And that’s hardly an original thought, either. Every great thinker and every successful warrior knows that.
Sun-Tsu knew it:
The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
Edward Abbey knew it:
All governments need enemies. How else to justify their existence?
And Herman Göring certainly knew it:
People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism.
Now, one last time: I’d never accuse anybody in the Bush admin of planning such a thing. All I’m saying is that the eternal disappearance of Saddam and/or Osama would only benefit those who need an excuse for keeping us in fear, and thus at war.
Every country needs its Emmanuel Goldstein. We have two.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: George W. Bush, Iraq, September 11
If you think you can’t be shocked or awed, try this:
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.
A legal expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not illegal “per se” because the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons convention which prohibits and restricts certain weapons. “But the US has to apply the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take all precautions to protect civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air bombs, these are special precautions because these are area weapons, not specific weapons,” said Dominique Loye, the committee’s adviser on weapons and IHL.
I don’t know about you, but I am not reassured by the “International Humanitarian Law” disclaimer. (And how did we get away with squirming out of yet another international treaty?)
The question is not whether the use of napalm by U.S. troops “legal,” but rather, is it moral?
What is napalm? Officially, it’s a defoliant — which we dropped all over Vietnam, to firebomb vegetation, housing, and people.
Why would we use a defoliant in a desert? Beats me. But there is no question that napalm is one of the most effective — and cruel — eradicators of human life (warning: graphic and disturbing):
Napalm itself is a jelly obtained from the salts of aluminium, palmitic or other fatty acids, and naphthenic acids. These acids give a viscous consistency to gasoline so that an incendiary jelly results. We have developed the habit of calling ‘napalm’, not only the napalm itself, but also the material resulting when it is mixed with gasoline to form the incendiary weapon…
Since napalm is essentially an incendiary product, it sets fire to any combustible matter with which it comes in contact. A human being in the open cannot protect himself against it. Napalm acts not only by burning but has an equally devastating effect which consists of a complicated process whereby shock, absorption of oxygen from the air [deoxygenation], smoke and noxious gases become lethal. The Surgeon-General of the French Army has described the massive poisoning by carbon monoxide after a napalm attack and points out that none of those burned in the central strike area survives because of this phenomenon. Only those who have been on the periphery of the strike zone can survive the massive deoxygenation.
During the Second World War, troops found Japanese shelters which had been struck by napalm bombs in which all the occupants were dead without having been burned at all. These soldiers had died, apparently without pain, and with an expression of fright and surprise frozen on to their faces; they had been instantaneously and massively poisoned by carbon monoxide. The only way to escape the asphyxiating effects of napalm is to flee into the open air - where the direct destruction by burning from flaming splashes is greatest. In a strike zone it is almost impossible to escape the effects of napalm by taking shelter, for one cannot hold one’s breath for the time it takes napalm to burn off. The carbon monoxide poisoning itself paralyses the will and robs the victim of the ability to move…
Survivors of poisoning who have received emergency treatment exhibit permanent neurological after-effects which range from mild to very severe…
The second and most evident effect of napalm is the burn. The explosion of a 200-litre napalm incendiary bomb precipitates massive destruction by flames in a circle about 240 feet in diameter. In that zone the heat is from 1,800-3,600°F and the carbon monoxide release is massive; within this zone, there will be no survivors. Outside this zone unsheltered individuals will suffer burns from flaming splashes of napalm of a gravity in proportion to the amount of cutaneous surface affected. Parts not protected by clothing - face, hands, often the upper and lower members will be burned. The fire affects the clothing also, which can contribute to localized burning, rendering the effect worse…
Besides the extent and depth of burning, age is a determining factor since the effects are more severe on children and the old…
Any adult burned on more than ten per cent of the body, or any child burned on more than eight per cent, is considered critically burned…
In napalm burns, a final element is of great importance; this is the gravity of facial burning. Eye burns can lead to loss of one or both eyes. Nasal and ear passages involved develop extended suppuration and necrosis which abscess with unbearable pain to the patient. The face becomes hideous with psychological trauma of formidable proportions. There are other lingering damages: lesions of the bone, which do not show up on X-rays, and appearance of cysts of certain joints and bones of the hand - for instance, the metacarpus - which persist for many years after the initial burning…
It can be seen that in countries with good medical organization it is possible to reduce the mortality from severe burning. In underdeveloped areas, or during great cataclysms such as war, this is another matter…
It is obvious that under repeated bombardments which destroy structures which might be used for evacuation - when medical personnel are overworked and subject to lethal attacks themselves - these ideal conditions we have described are impossible. There is no resemblance between conditions prevailing when treating accident victims during peacetime and victims of deliberate attacks. The emergency treatment of a mass of burn victims in areas remote from medical centres and without adequate means of evacuation presents insuperable problems. It is therefore inadvisable in such conditions to try to save the worst case, who will, no matter what is done, die within a week…
I do not have definitive statistics, but it seems that only about thirty per cent of those wounded by napalm and not killed outright can be saved. If the victim does survive, the dermatological consequences of napalm burns are especially serious…
Lastly, concerning the medical effects of napalm recovery, there is the spectre of secondary cancers. Old burn scars show a frequency of skin cancer out of proportion to such appearance in normal skin. This cancer consists of a spino-cellular epithelioma with a negative prognosis because of the rapid invasion by the malignant cells of the related ganglion areas.
Napalm, to conclude, whether it is used strategically on the battlefield or in the bombardment of urban areas or village collectives, is a means of extensive undiscriminating destruction. It affects primarily human beings, livestock, crops and light inflammable structures such as houses. Its use in heavily populated areas will produce immense loss of life from burning and asphyxiation. In survivors, corporal injuries of the greatest gravity with functional sequels which prevent the resumption of normal life are the rule.
And then, of course, there is always Kim Phuc.
The question is: What are we doing using napalm? We supposedly destroyed the last of it two years ago:
At a low-key ceremony this morning at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station in San Diego County, the final two canisters of Vietnam-era napalm will be recycled and sent on their way to Texas and Louisiana, where they will be blended into fuel used in industrial furnaces.
The Navy says this appears to be the last napalm in the U.S. military. Asked why the military seems to be discarding napalm as a weapon, a Navy spokesman said “there are more modern and efficient means to use in war these days than napalm.”
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Iraq
March 20, 2003
I do understand the necessity of being tough when confronting a potential POW / potential threat, BUT… I am very disturbed by this:
If an Iraqi soldier is lying on the ground when troops come upon him, they are told to kick him in the testicles, hard, so that they can evaluate whether he’s conscious, [2nd Lt. Tim Faulkner] explained.
“The first time you see it, it may seem a little over the top, but they’re not getting hurt,” said Faulkner, who commands an armored Humvee platoon in the 101st Division’s second brigade.
No, I am not passing judgment on the actions deemed necessary for soldiers to do their jobs. It’s not my place to judge (unless we’re talking war crimes — and then, I honestly have no idea if nut-busting is mentioned in the Geneva Convention).
But I am a peace-loving human being. I abhor violence. I am deeply pained by such reminders as this of the brutish, primitive, warring mentality that makes a literally “consciousness-raising” kick in the nuts an apparent necessity.
This is not a rant against soldiers. This is a cry of pain over what they are trained to do, and the reasons they are forced to do these things.
And this, I know, is so very minor. I haven’t even begun to dwell (at least, not for your perusal — yet) the true atrocities of war. I haven’t yet decided if I want to share some links that, when viewed, would drive home the concept of man’s inhumanity to man, even to Mr. Bush himself.
Oh, I want to share those links, because I’d like to shock the crap of out the warmongers who think this attack is just one jolly, bloodless video game (and to give my fellow peaceniks extra resources for doing the same).
But I know there are more than a few families of Gulf War II soldiers reading this, and I don’t want to cause them any greater stress than they’re already under.
No, I have no one close to me in combat. Not yet, anyway. I have a cousin, who at 30 years old, after a sudden life-altering upheaval (that began with the breakup of a longtime reationship), went out and enlisted post-911. It wasn’t out of patriotism (although his patriotism is hardly in question), and he didn’t need the money, like so many recruits. He’s one of those who needed direction.
I expect his “direction” will be into the thick of it at some point in the near future. I hope not. But I fear for him — more, I know, than his own parents do. Oh, yes, they love him — they adore all their children. But — bless their little conservative, major-Bush-campaign-donating hearts — they are among the sleepwalkers.
I guess the lesson is that if you can be in such deep denial about the root cause of all the nation’s problems, you must be skilled enough in self-hypnosis to believe that you and yours are invincible.
That’s the collective “you,” of course.
But I digress, as usual.
The point is, I realize a kick in the cajones (even though I do not own a set myself) is nothing compared to, oh, say, the sort of carnage merely hinted at in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.
Nevertheless, it is not something civilized people are meant to do.
Again, I understand why our soldiers are trained to do such things. I simply bemoan the mentality that necessitates such up-close-and-personal violence.
Human life is human life, and human dignity is human dignity. Your life is worth no more than mine, and mine is worth no more than an Iraqi’s, and an Iraqi’s is worth no more (or less) than the Pope’s.
Call me a softie (and I’d rather be a softie who still knows how to feel, rather than some hardass who’s lost all touch with human emotion), but one fact is never lost on me: Whether a person is a wino or a Windsor, every human being was once somebody’s child.
Just like you.
And, no, I’ve never been in combat. Yes, I’ve had to defend myself physically, on more than one occasion. And while I possess ovaries rather than cajones, I am well aware that a well-placed kick in a man’s tender bits does indeed hurt; it is, in fact, debilitating.
How do I know that? Because I’ve been trained to debilitate an attacker with a well-placed kick.
Is it something I’m proud of? I’m proud only of my confidence in my own ability to do as much as I can, under most circumstances, to protect myself.
And yet, I am as deeply pained by the state of modern society that necessitates my need to know this.
I also know, from experience, that one’s entire persona can undergo a radical, even shocking, metamorphosis at the first moment of conflict. I wouldn’t call mano a mano combat “exhilarating” (although many do), but there is indeed a kind of out-of-body “high” — the classic fight-or-flight adrenalin rush that allows (or perhaps compels) one to perform certain acts that under any other circumstances would repulse any civilized human being.
That is why I cannot in good conscience judge the kick-in-the-nuts scenario.
But I can be disturbed by it — for the simple reason that I understand it. All too well.
Now do you see why the above article disturbs me so much? It hits too close to home. It makes me think about how much violence one absorbs into one’s own being as a quite-unconscious matter of fact.
But I am a peaceful person, I say. I am nonviolent. I could never hurt another human being…
Oh, yes, I could.
Plato said it, but I didn’t really understand it until recently:
If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Iraq
“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.”
— George W. Bush, referring to Afghanistan
Newsweek
September 24, 2001
You know that “highly-targeted” first strike on Baghdad last night? The one that was supposed to take out Saddam in one hit?
Well, we hit something all right: “empty buildings belonging to television and the radio stations and another empty building for Iraqi customs.”
Killed one Iraqi civilian and injured 14 others.
Uh-huh.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Afghanistan, George W. Bush, Iraq
The Chinese have a saying: May you live in interesting times.
It is not meant as a blessing, but as a curse.
Let’s fast-forward to March 20, 2003, and see what China is saying today:
In a phone conversation late Thursday, Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan told U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that China “strongly urged an end to military actions against Iraq so as to avoid hurting innocent people,” the official Xinhua News Agency reported.
Tang also told Powell that China is “deeply worried about humanitarian disasters, regional turbulence” and other ramifications of the war, the report said. … [Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan] didn’t immediately say what, if anything, China’s leaders might do in protest, but stressed that they would “take their own actions to reflect” the country’s goals. … China’s response had a milder tone than it could have had, said Zhang Yebai, a government adviser on U.S. policy with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.
Sounds pretty ominous, doesn’t it?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Asia, Colin Powell, Iraq
You know those syrupy “inspirational” daybooks your mom, or aunt, or Christian-camp counselor is so taken with? Don’t you wish there was some sort of truly inspirational reading matter for those of us who aren’t sleepwalking through life?
I’m much too cynical to write such a thing for you. And I’m afraid no one else has created such a thing — at least not on a daily basis — that will keep your hope alive in these darkening days. (I almost wrote “darkest of days,” but I am realistic; these are not the darkest of days yet. Not by far.)
I do have a little secret, however, for buoying my own sagging spirit as I watch my beloved country fall to the forces of aggression and fear. It’s not a secret I wish to keep — and if you find this offering as valuable and soul-lifting and life-affirming as I do, then I beg of you to pass the URL around.
Allow me to introduce you to Granny D.
Granny D (a.k.a. Doris Rollins Haddock) is 93 years old. She has been an activist for peace since long before you or I were born.
On January 1, 1999, she took a walk. A long walk. At 89 years old, she left Pasadena, California, on a solo demonstration on the issue of campaign finance reform.
She walked ten miles a day for the next 14 months, bearing down even through a blizzard in the Appalachian Range, until she reached Washington, D.C.
Granny D has made more speeches, more eloquently, than you or I could ever aspire to. Listening to or reading Granny D’s words is like sitting down with your grandmother (or great-grandmother) to be blessed by the keen knowledge and priceless wisdom gained only through nearly a century of living, straight from a heart whose matter is composed of nothing but pure love, peace, and respect for humanity.
But make no mistake — there’s nothing flowery or idealistic about Granny D. At 93, she is sharper than I was at 20, and more insightful, realistic, and pragmatic than the entire Democratic Leadership Council. (On second thought, my cat is more insightful, realistic, and pragmatic than the entire Democratic Leadership Council — but never mind, you get the point.)
Read her words. Bookmark her site. Tell your peace-loving friends about her.
Trust me: Granny D will breathe life into your flagging spirit, and inspire you to carry on the nonviolent quest for peace.*
Granny D Home PageA few of my special favorites:
Will We Represent Love in the World? Aren’t we privileged to live in a time when everything is at stake, and when our efforts make a difference in the eternal contest between the forces of light and shadow, between togetherness and division? Between justice and exploitation? Oh, be joyful that you are a warrior in this great time!
The Takeover Artists. If we Americans are split into two meaningful camps, it is not conservative versus liberal. The two camps are these: the politically awake and the hypnotized — hypnotized by television and other mass media, whose overpaid Svengalis dangle the swinging medallions of packaged candidates and oft-told lies.
Like a Tree Standing By the Water. [W]e must each in our own creative ways give testimony to who we are, that we have the courage of our Constitution to live free on our garden Earth as brothers and sisters — to live free or die; That we are members of the human community and that we stand for love; That for the dead we light candles, not fuses; That against death and exploitation and the lie of projected evil, we link our arms; That we shall not, we shall not be moved. Just like a tree that’s standing by the water, we shall not be moved.
The Monster at the Door (pre-911!). It is nothing for raw power to thumb its nose at the interests of world peace or the earth’s environment for the sake of corporate expansion and political power. It is nothing for raw power to mistake the flowering of political ideas and dissent in democracy’s garden as a dangerous tangle of garden plots and disloyalties. It can happen quickly. It can happen in America. Open your eyes.
* Isn’t it odd that I should feel compelled to qualify the phrase “quest for peace” with the word “nonviolent”? I suppose it is a safety mechanism so that there is no confusion between true peace, and the quest for psuedo-”peace” through the armed aggression we are witnessing on our televisions today.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Uncategorized
Last night, U.S. Navy warships fired the following at Iraq:
40 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a cost of $1 million* each
Your cost: $40 million
Let’s think about $40 million for a moment.
Instead of shooting a bunch of killer missiles into the desert, what else could you do with $40 million?
You could:
• build a five-star hotel in Riyadh, Libya;
• buy 28 “average” homes in Beverly Hills;
• rent a typical apartment in New York City — for 1,270 years;
• build nine research centers for the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to find and catalogue all the protein structures in nature;
• fund the education of 7,977 public-school students in Mississippi for an entire year…
• …or 3,984 students in New York City;
• give $14.54 to every single homeless man, woman, and child in the United States.
That’s a lot of bread. Literally.
* The Navy once estimated that the current crop of “next-generation” Tomahawks would be about $575,000 — yet estimates of the actual cost of current Tomahawks varies wildly, from $600,000 to $1.3 million, depending on the source. If you’d like to use the lowest figure (of $575,000) for each missile, you still spent $23 million last night.
Note that the U.S. Air Force’s Tomahawks are considerably more powerful, which is reflected in their cost: $2 million each.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Iraq
Here’s a little spine-strengthener for those of us who were in “shock and we” long before the first bomb dropped:
[W]e should be prepared now for what the pro-war camp will say… Gloatingly, they will tell us our “credibility is destroyed”…
When the time comes, we will have to remind our accusers that we did not question this war because we believed Saddam was a cuddly grandpa: we knew the depths of his depravity. Our doubts resided elsewhere. For one thing, we never believed that Iraqi liberation was the real motive of this war…
It will be hard to say all this once the killing begins in earnest: the drama of war will make opposition look pale and passe. But doubters should hold their nerve. Our reason for opposition was never that victory would not come easily: most predicted it would. We feared instead for what that victory would cost and what would happen afterwards — and those fears still stand.
The Guardian is unquestionably one of my all-time favorite sources of news and commentary. It has a greater effect on me now more than ever; I never forget that the Brits are in the same boat as we Yanks — dragged into a military action a vast number of citizens abhor, and ignored, dismissed, marginalized, and demonized by a leader who refuses to listen, and will not be dissuaded.
Same goes for the Aussies — save for the fact an even greater percentage of Australians are outraged by this attack in their name.
It’s easy to understand, especially if you know a little Aussie history: Save for the kangaroos (and an extraordinarily high ratio of gorgeous blondes rivaled only by Sweden), Australia is a country more similar to the United States than most Yanks realize. Our countries are about the same age, and share certain odd historical quirks — we had cowboys, they had sheepherders; our West was buoyed by a gold strike in 1848-49, their East was buoyed by a gold strike around 1849-50 (in fact, an Australian who came to California looking for gold was struck by the similarity of the Antipodean landscape, and dashed home to find there really was gold right in his own backyard); they’ve been looked down upon by the Brits as somehow inferior (and still are), we’ve been looked down upon by the Brits as somehow inferior (and still are)… There are lots of similarities; the end result in each country is a people known as loud, casual, friendly, and obsessed with popular culture.
None of which is necessarily a bad thing, mind you. The Aussies more than make up for their mass consumption of fun-fun-fun by their much more European view of the world; the most unschooled Australian is far more aware of lives and cultures far beyond its sun-soaked beaches than the average American. And far more respectful.
But I digress. We were talking about the Aussie people and their reaction to having 2,000 of their youngest and finest sent to Iraq, against the general will of the people.
Not being Australian myself, I can speak only as a friend to (and major fan of) Aussies. And what I glean is a terrible sense of confusion, shame and shock. With the sole exception of the early treatment of Aboriginals (which was little different from our treatment of Native Americans — although Oz has made much greater strides than we in healing that ugly rift), Australia is not, and has never been, a warring nation. The U.S. has. The U.K. has. But not Australia.
I think there must be a special, particularly stinging tinge to the Aussies’ grief over the Iraq invasion that even the most peace-loving, 1960s-vintage, American hippie could not even begin to fathom.
Incidentally, if you’re not familiar with the macchinations of Down-Under politics (and have any interest in politics whatsoever), Australia is a fascinating study. They have a Prime Minister reviled by what appears to be the majority of Aussies (as one acquaintance put it, John Howard and his entire base of support could hold a meeting in a phone booth right now), a brilliant, eloquent, and charismatic opposition party leader (Simon Crean, almost certainly destined to be the next PM), and rousing, uninhibited sessions on the Parliament floor. (If you think the British MP’s create a scene with their shouting and interruptions, you haven’t seen anything until you’ve watched Aussie senators in action.)
Curious, isn’t it? While the warmongers feel a bond with the U.K. and Australia as the three nations’ unite military forces, so we who desire peace feel a bond (a greater and more lasting bond, I sincerely believe) with the commoners across two oceans, who, just as impotently and helplessly, are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the history books as the unwilling pawns of aggressor nations.
God, please do allow the history books to recognize us as unwilling pawns.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Australia/NZ, Iraq, United Kingdom & N.I., United States
Americans Face Check Points As War Begins
On interstates and at airports across the country, law officers scanned car trunks and truck beds for signs of anything suspicious.
In Maryland, police stopped trucks weighing more than 5 tons along Interstate 95, creating a rush-hour backup for morning commuters. …
Hundreds of troopers and National Guard members were dispatched to patrol rail tunnels and ride subways in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.
On Thursday, officers with bomb-sniffing dogs roved New York’s Grand Central Terminal. …
Security concerns cast a shadow over many events where crowds were expected…
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Homeland Insecurity
March 19, 2003
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Don’t believe it? It’s on the White House site — which I won’t link from here, but you can copy & paste the URL (minus the spaces) into your browser if you need proof:
www . whitehouse . gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
Now…
THIS is Mr. Bush’s official reason for his invasion?
Repeat after me, America:
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Got it? No? Then I’ll let Ted Rall explain it:
Now it’s official: most Americans are idiots.
Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN’s poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
There is no reason to think that. None. True, George W. Bush has asserted the existence of indirect links between low-level Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officials — a lame lie repeatedly denied by the CIA — but even our professional prevaricator has never gone so far as to accuse Saddam of direct involvement in 9-11. Despite their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality, not even the Bush Administration’s most fervent hawks deny that the secular dictator of Iraq is a mortal enemy of the Islamist extremists of Al Qaeda. No mainstream media outlet has ever reported otherwise.
So why do these pinheads think such a thing?
Simple: the official Bushie pretexts given for launching a unilateral invasion of Iraq don’t stick. If Saddam was going to launch nukes or anthrax missiles in our direction, he would have done so during the last dozen years, while American warplanes were pulverizing his military installations with weekly bombing raids. …
Furthermore, no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America’s role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators — as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan…
Sure, we’re about to begin killing innocent men, women and children over in Iraq. It’s not self-defense, so let’s just call it “vengeance for 9-11.” Does that work for you? Great. Osama’s gotta be laughing like a hyena now that the heat’s off. …
Win or lose, Iraq will probably be Bush’s Waterloo. …
As always, however, the fools will save us from themselves. The 51 percent who currently believe what is patently false will ultimately conclude that they were duped by Bush (though it’s not really true). … And they’ll have lots of time to think about it, what with not having a job and all.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: George W. Bush, Iraq, September 11
First, take a gander at the photos of our fearless leaders in The Bush War Room. Keep that window open, then come back.
Either someone at ABC News has a ripping sense of humor, or there simply are no photographs of the militants in charge of the Iraqi slaughter even remotely resembling homo sapiens.
Dubya is cross-eyed and slack-jawed. ‘Nuff said.
Unka Dick “Dick” Cheney looks the same as always — like a snarling bowling ball.
Colin Powell looks like he’s about to vomit. (Perhaps the gravity of his own sudden hard turn to the right has had the same effect as the last gut-wrenching curve on Disney World’s Space Mountain.)
Don Rumsfeld? There’s never been a decent picture of Rummy. This is not the worst. Pass.
Condi Rice: What unseen matter has caused her skull to succumb to such a severe gravitational pull? (I also like Condi’s black-and-white background pic, behind Dubya in the uppermost image — although it drives me mad not to know whether she’s waving, saluting, or flipping somebody the bird.)
George Tenet, you’re looking more and more like J. Edgar Hoover every day. Here, take my copy of the latest Vicky’s Secret catalogue — there’s a sale on fishnets.
Andy Card appears constipated.
Tom Ridge either just woke up, or has finally caught the parked car he’s been chasing.
Franks & Downing: Has anyone ever seen these two in the same picture together? I think they’re either the same person, or were separated at birth. In any case, they both appear to be dozing off.
Finally, the photo of Howie Schmidt — director of the Office of Cyber Security — is broken. How appropriate!
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Iraq, Misc. Bush Lackeys, Republicans
“The Constitution just sets minimums,” Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. “Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.”
Scalia, one of the court’s most conservative judges, was responding to a question about the Justice Department’s pursuit of terrorism suspects and whether their rights are being violated. …
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Civil Rights, Homeland Insecurity, SCOTUS
So, what are you going to do when we go to “Red Alert”?
We’ve been ignoring the color-coded alert like so much gibberish out of the mouth of the Boy Who Cried Wolf — and (pardon me while I don my tinfoil hat) perhaps that was just the purpose of issuing so many false alarms in the first place.
After all, you’re comfortable with it all now, aren’t you? No doubt you’ve heard or passed around a joke or two about Tom Ridge’s color-coded alert system, because it either scares you, or embarrasses you. (While still stalled at Code Orange, I remain in the latter category.)
You pay about as much attention to the alert system as you do an annoying mosquito bite; it’s there, it’s bothersome, but it’s not about to distract you from browing through the new Victoria’s Secret catalogue, is it?
Trouble is, you may have finally been bitten by that one mosquito carrying malaria — or West Nile Virus, or whatever the disease of the day — and not know it.
Yet.
Honestly, I’m more afraid of being killed by some idiot paying more attention to his cell-phone conversation than to his driving than I am of some suicide bomber blowing me to kingdom come.
However, I am indeed concerned about the escalation to Red Alert — not because of what it might mean (run! hide! terrorists in the streets!), but because of its threat to us as a once-free people.
Oh, now, stop rolling your eyes like that. I don’t care if you’re sick and tired of hearing how your civil liberties have been gutted, or whether you believe that anyone who worries about such things must be a hysterical reactionary.
After all, all that handwringing over the USA PATRIOT Act was for nothing, wasn’t it?
None of it has affected you personally, has it?
Well, my dear anonymous reader, it’s time to wake up out of that CNN-induced coma.
You see, when (and I say not if, but when) the U.S. goes on Red Alert, it will affect you. Quite personally.
Or maybe you’re the sort who won’t mind be confined to the inside of your own home for the duration:
If the nation escalates to “red alert,” which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state’s anti-terror czar says…
Now do I have your attention?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Civil Rights, Homeland Insecurity, Iraq
