Re #139:
If Mohammed Who Runs the Fruit Stand killed them, that's murder (or perhaps manslaughter), but not a war crime.
Quite possibly self-defense. A group of people, working together, come into your house or down your street armed to the teeth and pointing those weapons at you and your neighbors, it's about as clear a case as you can find for when self-defense is appropriate. Particularly if they've been showing up and attacking people in the neighborhod on a regular basis, and have made it clear they're going to keep doing this.
Right now we only have the word of "US officials" that they were shot in the back, and US officials there have a pretty strong motive to make US folks look good and everyone else look bad in this situation. It was also "US officials" of various sorts who said Saddam was linked to 9/11 and had WMD, so we know they might lie with sufficient motive.
Also an unnamed Iraqi official - but not knowing who this person is, or, more importantly, how he or she fits into the various factions of Iraqi politics and fighting, it's pretty hard to gauge the accuracy of what they're saying.
A group of Iraqi insurgents claims credit, but they have a pretty strong motive to do so, even if they aren't responsible, because it would demonstrate their power and improve their position within the internal Iraqi military-political sphere.
Given the known biases of the witnesses we've heard from, I don't think we know much more than that the helicopters went down and the people on it died in a way in some way related to the helicopter coming down. There are various accusations and claims from different parties involved. But each available point of view has plenty of credibility issues.
Sigh. I just saw this: http://www.emergencykindness.net/
Emergency Kindness is shutting down, due to lack of funds.
Re: Carrie S. at #152 "Also 5) There are twice as many women for the viwer to imagine screwing."
Which is why so much slash fanfic is written by and for straight women. Twice as many men to play with.
Re Cassie @ #9: It is one thing to introduce a nonnative and invasive species. It is quite another to introduce a nonnative invasive species with hands.
Invasive non-natives with hands? Isn't that the definition of human?
The universal dislike of invading non-natives with hands should be considered carefully before embarking on any invasion. It explains so much...
Has anyone yet floated the conspiracy theory that the phonecam footage was deliberately leaked to make it clear that the execution wasn't carried out by agents of the USA (be they CIA or Army)?
Since the US had custody of him, they either executed him or turned him over to those who did. Either way, the US is responsible.
And since the Iraqi government is seen as corrupt puppets, who's only purpose is to allow the US access to Iraqi oil while they suffer, the trial is seen a sham carried out with the US running things behind the scenes.
The US invaded and occupied, creating this mess, we're responsible for it, even if we can do no more to control the mess than the Germans could control the French Resistance.
#83 -
Sure, it's consistant - if he'd seen the execution that night, he couldn't have still not seen it by last night.
And since we know Shrub, we see the problem right away.
But if, say, Clinton hand not seen footage of a news event the night it happened, no one would stress, because we'd know he'd catch up with the news in the morning.
Not seeing something as it happened is not a big deal. Routinely not knowing the news days later is a big deal.
I'm not sure that it is all that significant whether or not Shrub saw the execution the same night.
What I find far more scary is that NPR reported, last night when I was driving home from work, that his people are saying that he still hasn't seen it.
Catching the news the next morning is no big deal. Not having followed the news almost a week later is deliberate ignorance. The president not seeing international news is a refusal to do his job.
That quote from A Civil Campaign has always bugged me. In the hands of someone honorable, it encourages honor in the face of political or social pressure. But in the hands of a psychopath, it merely eliminates social pressure to behave decently.
In the book, the quote works because it is spoken in the context of a family that has a tradition of struggling to do right in the face of political, social and military pressure, and who has suffered public loss of reputation when doing right, as well as public acclimation when doing wrong. And to a person who was facing public loss of reputation when, in fact, he had not done anything dishonorable in that context.
In the context of the US in Iraq, this would best apply to a soldier facing public ridicule and prosecution for refusing to obey unlawful orders. Particularly someone who refused to obey from the very beginning, when the president tried to start a "war" without Congress declaring war as required by the constitution. That's the point where the honorable thing, of following the constitution, was paired with the greatest pressure to just go along, and the lowest level of public support for those who opposed the war.
I'd like to see a bumper sticker "Support the troops - who refuse to obey unlawful orders."
Patrick @ #108:
I could easily see both scenarios at once. Some, probably lower-ranking, US officials questioning the wisdom of the timing of the execution. An official policy coming from above, allowing the Iraqi "government" to do as it pleases, for the most part. An Iraqi "government" more interested in scoring points in the internal struggle than in making sensible choices that could help build peace. And a US administration realizing after the fact that the timing was idiotic, (after the fact because it ignores its own experts) and trying to distance itself from it.
Given the sheer number of people in the US government involved, to any extent, in Iraq, for just about any bad decision made by the Iraqi "government", you'll be able to find some sensible person who could see the train wreck coming. You simply can't get that many people and have them all be clueless. But because of idiocy at the top, the clue-full people are ignored, except as a way for covering up the fact that the government is letting the clueless run the show.
P.J. Evans @ #62 And this 'success' apparently is supposed to somehow make up for not getting Osama Bin Forgotten, who actually was responsible for terrorist acts, or claimed he was - at this point, I'm beginning to wonder if that was genuine or just a publicity stunt for someone who might or might not be Osama or a terrorist.
Oh, Ossama hasn't been forgotten. Having Ossama alive at at large is absolutely essential to the administration getting what they want.
An evil, all-powerful boogyman is far more useful for manipulating people than a nuanced understanding of how foreign policy affects the way foreigners think of us, and what they want to do with us. As long as Ossama is alive, he can be made into anything, used to justify anything. If he's killed or captured, he becomes just another human, with human weaknesses.
Left on the loose, he can be used to justify anything. "He may be in Iraq! Can you prove he isn't? We must attack Iraq to stop the terrorists! He may be doing something via telephone! Can you prove he isn't? We must listen to phone conversations whenever we want, without warrants, to stop the terrorists! He may want to criticize the administration! Can you prove he ? Anyone who criticizes the administration for how they are handling this mess is a supporter of terrorists, and must be stopped!
Ethan @ #78: Stupid is about the strongest insult I ever use, towards anyone. And having spent over ten years working at group homes for the developmentally disabled, I know stupid. Most of the residents I cared for I wouldn't call stupid. Slow, certainly, but capable of making good decisions when given good information on a level they could understand. (e.g., Smart people take their medicine because they know it keeps them healthy.)
Residents who couldn't dress themselves, or feed themselves, or speak more than a handful of words, had better good sense than Shrub. Residents who spent 40+ years living in old-fashioned abusive institutions had a better sense of compassion. Residents who had trouble with the concept that you get cold if you go out in the snow without your coat had a better sense of the natural consequences of actions.
W is just terribly, frighteningly stupid. It's a matter of a lack of good judgment, good background knowledge, and the compassion to draw conclusions in a humane way.
Ethan, #67:
A clever act in furtherance of a stupid goal is still stupid.
Attacking another nation is stupid. Starting a war is stupid. Thinking you'll be welcomed as a liberator by people you've dropped bombs on is stupid. Wanting to keep a war going a moment longer than absolutely necessary is stupid. Believing that the feeding of your ego is more important than a human life is stupid.
Sigh. How many people have died on the alter to Shrub's ego?
Ignoring warnings of terrorism because he couldn't admit his predecessor could know anything, assigning the protection of the country from natural disasters to sycophants chosen for their adulation and support of him rather than their competence, deaths in Afghanistan, because he couldn't focus on it and get it done right, deaths in Iraq, because their dictator insulted his daddy...
Has his ego reached the half-million death toll yet?
And that's just the death toll in lives, there is also the attempted murder of the election process and our civil liberties.
Fragano Ledgister at #45:
It strikes me as really stupid to do the one thing guaranteed to turn a tin-pot tyrant into a hero-martyr figure. But perhaps the Shrub Administration has a vision that reality-based people such as myself can't understand.
I quite agree that it is a really stupid thing. But at this point, I take it as given that anything Shrub & Co. are doing is really stupid.
This just gives Faux news something to shout when people say things are all wrong. It's a child's tantrum after loosing a game: "no, no, I won, I won, I won! Look at what I did! Aren't I great! I won, I tell you! I won!"
All sorts of smart and sane people agree that the war, and this execution, were stupid, pointless failures. But having Saddam dead is a "success" that Shrub can't loose, and where, while people may say it is wrong and did no good, they can't say he didn't actually succede at getting SH captured and killed.
Re # 28: What good does it do? That's what I want to know. It looks like a pretty petty act of revenge (NPR has been pointing out that the Kurds are upset that they didn't have a chance to try Saddam for his crimes against them).
The "good" it does is giving Shrub & Co. a way to claim "victory." They went in to get rid of Saddam & Co., and now that they've made it impossible for Saddam to ever regain power, they've "won", and when people say they haven't, they can just answer "Yes, we did win. You don't see Saddam in charge any more, do you?"
It gives a way to redefine "winning" to the lowest element, and ensures that this "winning" can't be taken away, because dead men can't take back control when the US gives up on the mess.
Weren't a bunch of Saddam's cronies on trial with him? Were they hanged, too?
Mmmm... peameal bacon...
Back to the original idea of US troops being over stressed, I think I've noticed the exit strategy, as far as being one that makes the current administration think they've won.
Saddam's sons are dead, he's scheduled to be hanged. (Were his croneys who were on trial with him also going to be hanged?) At any point after he's dead, we can leave claiming success in the original goal of ousting Saddam and making sure he's not a threat in the future.
As long as you define "winning" as destroying the old, and ignore the establishment of a better new, we can win. You just have to give up your sense of duty and humanity that would normally not let you do harm to your fellow humans, and to make right wrongs you do to others.
wow. I know canadians are polite. But that would be about the most polite invasion I'd ever heard of. Invaded by an army of hatchbacks or something... Hm, no, it would have to be cars with trunks so they could have a place out of sight to put their weapons and packs.
Not necessarily politeness, just really, really good camouflage. Good enough to let thousands of Canadians in on any given day, without anyone in the US minding.
Add in the ample supply of advance bases already in place (in the clever guise of Tim Hortons), which are good enough that those of us on the US side who are familiar with them will fight before letting them be shut down. (Don't get between me and my large double-double.)
Ample propaganda is already in place - all along the border, natives of both sides enjoy the television and radio of the enemy, with not a twinge of patriotic guilt. Again, you'd probably have a fight on your hands if you tried to take our Canadian tv away, particularly for the Olympics, and English/French Sesame Street.
There may be plenty of hunters with guns, all along the boarder, but just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean they're going to want to stop a Canadian invasion. They'd probably be just as happy to stop anyone who interferes.
Canadian invasion? No problem. Keeping the Canadians out? Don't even think of trying it.
Re #48
Coming down over the St. Lawrence would be easy. All along the eastern Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, cross boarder life and culture has been such a big part of ordinary life for so long that a few more Canadians wouldn't even be noteworthy.
I did my undergrad up in Potsdam, NY, and the area is already quite Canadian, and has been forever. This is a part of the country that mostly ignored the War of 1812. Trade and social contact with Canadians was such an ingrained part of the culture that a minor detail like a war between the two countries was almost irrelevant.
I have a strong suspicion that most of the under-21 soldiers at Ft. Drum in Watertown spend most of their free hours in Canada, since that's where they can drink with ease.
On the other hand, Canadians come here routinely for shopping. The invasion could be half-done before anyone even noticed it happening. Just have the soldiers cross the border in their civilian cars or in tour busses, giving the boarder guards a completely believable story of a shopping trip.
When all the minimal facts come from someone who is an interested party, that party's interest has to be taken into account when considering the facts. It is really easy to take single lines out of a complex story or lengthy testimony and twist it into something completely different, if you want to. Without a solid information backing up a claim, there is no particular reason to believe the boy's story.
Particularly since a girl's story in this type of situation isn't believed unless she can back it up. In any other crime, the victim saying they didn't consent to the act, or a law where the victims consent isn't relevant, is considered enough for a conviction.
If your car is stolen, no one tears apart your entire life looking for reasons why you shouldn't be believed when you say you didn't consent to the defendant having your car, your word is enough. Even if the defendant says you consented to him taking the car.
When a banker steals money from the bank, or a CEO steals money from the company pension plan, the fact that the depositors didn't specifically say "no" isn't relevant, because the law makes the act illegal even without a specific "no."
But when it is a woman accusing a man of rape, her sworn testimony that she didn't consent, or a law that says an act is criminal regardless of consent, isn't good enough, and a defendant's claim that the victim consented is given an shocking amount of weight not seen in other criminal situations. A woman's word about what she agreed to have done to her body is given less weight than a property owner's word about what they agreed to have done to their property.
And a law intended to protect girls in a situation where their ability to consent or not is unclear is treated as something to be taken "in context" while laws intended to protect property owners in a situation where their ability to consent or not is unclear is seen as reasonable.
It's an old story playing out. Boys will be boys, even if it's illegal the girls (sluts!) were asking for it anyways, and how could you ruin a nice young man's life over a girl (slut!), anyway?
Particularly when the nice young man is the school's football hero. A second story playing out is male students who are good in sports being able to get away with doing all kinds of harm to their peers. Something you see in the sports team hazing cases, rape cases of this type, and even in the Columbine-type situations, where a school shooting targets the school's athletes and stars, with a long prior history of the targets harassing or abusing the shooter and the school and society tolerating it.
If the boy had been a goth or a loner, would people be supporting him? Probably not, from Sarah S's article again: "He would have seemed to be a model defendant. Attractive, popular and outgoing, Genarlow had been headed for a bright future. He had a 3.2 grade point average and athletic abilities that kept college coaches calling to offer football and track scholarships." He's popular and athletic, so he shouldn't be punished.
I suppose it comes from looking from two different perspectives. From a racial studies perspective, the problem is a racist court system striking out at a black man, from a more feminist perspective the problem is the public rallying around men, particularly attractive and athletic men, doing illegal things to girls.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 12 |
| 2006 | 74 |
Total: 86 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Ursula L:
Show all comments by Ursula L.