From the preface of CodePink's Stop the Next War Now, written by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans:

CODEPINK started around a picnic table when a group of wild, passionate and peace-loving women began laughing uncontrollably at George Bush's color-coded security system -- code yellow, code orange, code red. We knew that the terrorist attack of 9/11 was no laughing matter. Many of us had had friends killed in the attack. But the government's advice to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting in the event of a code orange alert had us in stitches. Should we put duct tape over our mouths or the mouths of the terrorists? And who gets wrapped in plastic sheeting -- us or them?
When the laugher subsided, we grew somber. We agreed that the terrorists attack on 9/11 should be treated as a crime against humanity, not a call for war. We grieved over the innocent Afghans killed in the post-9/11 invasion. We talked with dread about a possible war in Iraq. And then we started dreaming and scheming about what we, as women, could do to stop the spiral of violence.
Gentle Nina Utne from Utne magazine imagined thousands of circles of ordinary women gathering around kitchen tables, defining for themselves what real security meant. Radical Texas fisherwoman Diane Wilson saw anarchic clusters of unreasonable women hurling their naked bodies into the war machine. Medea envisioned a global uprising of women -- Americans and Saudis, Muslims and Jews -- linking arms and demanding that men stop the killing. Visionary astrologist Caroline Casey imagined a gathering of wise women calling for a code hot pink alert to save the earth. Jodie, picking up on the pink, dreamed of a pink tent city outside the White House, with women singing and dancing and growing so powerful that George Bush could no longer take us to war.
The imagination and creativity of many women, woven together, became CODEPINK: Women for Peace. [. . .]

Again, that's from the preface, written by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans. (And it's from page xv.) (Preface runs from xv to xviiii.)

We've noted the book, Stop the Next War Now, before and we will do so again. Dallas compiled a list of the contributors to the book for our community. And last week, we offered two paragraphs from Alice Walker's foreword Stop the Next War Now. If I had time, we'd do an excerpt every day because I think this book is that important.

On May 4th we noted this:

Code Pink has a book out entitled Stop the Next War Now. For more information, see Code Pink or BuzzFlash. The book contains contributions from a number of women this community has noted and highlighted. Among the contributors: Medea Benjamin, Amy Goodman, Barbara Lee, Naomi Klein, Eve Ensler, and Arianna Huffington.

We will continue to note the book here. Again, time permitting, we'd note it every day. Check out the list of contributors to the book that Dallas compiled for us -- trying to find other ways to address issues beyond "drop a bomb." Actually, that would be "drop a bomb on them." "On them." Because it's always about a "them," "a division."

This book is, my opinion, a very important one. If it takes a year, we'll continue to note a paragraph or two from each contributor. Hopefully, it will interest you. There are two links above that you can purchase the book from. You can also utilize your public libraries. That's by requesting the book through your library system. I think it's an amazing book providing viewpoints that we need to hear and ideas that we need to think about.

The Third Estate Sunday Review, A Winding Road, Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude and Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man have all attempted to get the word out. If you haven't checked out the book, please consider doing so.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Democracy Now! (Marcia: "always worth watching")

Headlines for May 31, 2005
- 8 U.S. & Italian Soldiers Killed In Aircraft Crashes
- Gen. Myers: Guantanamo Bay is a "Model Facility"
- Cheney "Offended" By Criticism of Guantanamo
- Demonstrators Interrupt Rice Speech in San Francisco
- CIA Creates Front Groups to Fly Suspects Around the World
- U.S. General Demoted For Warning of Overstretched Military
- Israel's Mr. TV Criticizes Occupation of West Bank & Gaza
- U.S. Refuses To Extradie Luis Posada Carriles
- Wages Fall But Number of Millionaire Homes Soars

NEW FEATURE: Democracy Now! is now offering the program's daily news summary translated into Spanish. Los Titulares de Hoy

De Villepin the Wiretapper: Chirac Names New Prime Minister Following Defeat Over EU Constitution
French President Jacques Chirac has named Dominique de Villepin as prime minister following the government defeat in Sunday's vote on the European Union Constitution. We speak with journalist Doug Ireland who says, "[Villepin] is a very traditional defender of French national interests and indeed prerogatives in its former colonial empire." [includes rush transcript]


Gay Marriage in Native America
We look at gay marriage legislation in Native America and issues of of tribal sovereignty, cultural tradition, and legal rights. We speak with the president of the Navajo nation and a Cherokee woman who is fighting for legal recognition in the tribal courts. [includes rush transcript]

Energy Exploitation and the Ban on Uranium Mining in Navajo Country
The president of the Navajo Nation approved legislation last month banning uranium mining and processing on Navajo territory. We host a debate on energy exploitation with Navajo President Joe Shirley and Earl Tully of Dine Care, a Navajo environmental organization.

When I posted yesterday, I did check The Daily Howler and I didn't see a new entry up but there was a Daily Howler for Monday. From the entry* (click here), Bob Somerby's critique of Okrent:

THE BOTTOM OF THE PILE: Amazing--absolutely amazing. In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman was allowed to reply to Daniel Okrent’s disgraceful parting cheap shot (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/23/05, 5/24/05 and 5/26/05). Here’s his letter, just as it appeared, at the bottom of a tall, stupid pile:
KRUGMAN (5/29/05):In Daniel Okrent's parting shot as public editor of The New York Times, he levied a harsh charge against me: he said that I have "a disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
He offered no examples of my "disturbing habit," and maybe I should stop there: surely it's inappropriate for the public editor to attack the ethics of one of the paper's writers without providing any supporting evidence. He responded to my request for examples with criticisms of specific columns. Those criticisms were simply wrong: in each of those columns I played entirely fair with my readers, using the standard data in the standard way.
That should be the end of the story.
I want to go back to doing what I have been doing all along: using economic data to inform my readers.
PAUL KRUGMAN
Princeton, N.J.,
May 24, 2005
Gee, really? Do you think? Do you think "it's inappropriate for the public editor to attack the ethics of one of the paper's writers without providing any supporting evidence?" Krugman's statement is true, but it's much too limiting; surely it's inappropriate for any writer to offer nasty condemnation of the kind Okrent penned without offering any examples or evidence. In fact, it's the sort of thing a public editor should criticize, from any member of a newspaper's staff. But Daniel Okrent is king of the pimps. So he typed his cheap shot. Then he ran.
But how big a fraud is the great Daniel Okrent? Try to believe what you see if you actually dare to click here; try to believe the pile of letters at the bottom of which Krugman's letter appears. That's right, rubes! Before the mighty New York Times let readers see what Krugman had written, they presented a fair-and-balanced set of twelve different letters, all of which praise Darling Okrent for the brilliant way he conducted his mission. The sheer stupidity of these writers is matched by the balls-out pandering of the paper itself. Stalin himself wouldn't play it so bold. But this insulting pile of propaganda perfectly captures the essence of Okrent. And it tells you things about the people who run the Times--things we all need to understand.
Be sure to click and gaze on the praise the Times heaps on its great Ozymandias. But before you do, let's enjoy the promise which appears in the ID line from Krugman’s letter:
The writer is an Op-Ed columnist for The Times. He and Daniel Okrent will be addressing this matter further on the Public Editor's Web Journal early in the week.
Omigod! Entertainment for days! Anyone who has read both Krugman and Okrent will emit low, mordant chuckles--in advance--at the thought of that promised exchange. Okrent is going to debate Paul Krugman? Good God! From his hapless "liberal newspaper" column right to the end, Okrent repeatedly wrote like an idiot--like a man too lazy and too self-consumed to waste his time with the simplest research. Repeatedly, he performed like the man he seems to be--like a foppish clown prince of Manhattan society, the great inventor of rotisserie baseball. He repeated fever dreams from kooky-con swamps, failing to check them in any way. And then, in parting, he let the world know that Krugman has been gaming the evidence!

Before we move on today's Daily Howler, we're going to note an e-mail that Dallas forwarded.
He's written the Times to complain about the above issue. Why?

He's very angry that Okrent never addressed issues, real issues, during his tenure. Okrent is supposed to be gone from the public editor's space. Online or in print, why is he being allowed to respond? Dallas feels that Krugman had a right to respond in that space because he was attacked there. He also feels that Dowd (or Safire) can respond there as well. But, as Bob Somerby notes in the above excerpt, this was Okrent's parting shot.

Dallas feels if Okrent has something to say, he needs to write a letter to the editor and Gail Collins can run it, in the letters section, or not. But Dallas points out this is not Okrent's space anymore. He abused readers (as Somerby has noted) when it was his space. He refused to address serious issues. In his "parting shot," he still didn't dig deep. It was always about Okrent. Dallas' e-mail makes it very clear that this could be the breaking point for him and the Times. Okrent had eighteen months to do something with the space but instead he wasted column after column. Now, when he's supposed to be gone, he's still taking up space.

Okrent embarrassed himself and, as Krugman notes, it's time to move on. Okrent needs to accept that the space is not his anymore. There will be no more essays on his summer vactions, no more self-interviews, no more calling the Tonys a "racket," no more outing readers or trashing them in other forms.

Dallas gave permission to summarzie the e-mail he sent and I think it makes some valid points.
Okrent issued a kiss off in his last column. Krugman defended himself. Anything Okrent has to say at this point should be said in a letter to the editor. He's not the public editor any longer.

Now let's move to today's Daily Howler which is dealing with many issues, but we'll focus on Bob Somerby's comments regarding "fops" and the film Interiors:


PART 1--GOTHAM'S TOP FOPS: On Friday, Kevin Drum asked an interesting question: Why do conservatives outshine liberals in our nation's spin wars? For Drum, the question goes all the way back to the days of "Jane, you ignorant slut"--the days when James J. Kilpatrick battled Shana Alexander on 60 Minutes:
DRUM (5/27/05): I remember at the time being annoyed at the fact that I thought Kilpatrick was wrong, but also that he was much the better debater. What's more, an additional 30 years of watching liberals and conservatives on TV hasn't changed my mind: conservatives usually do better.
Why?
Drum is puzzled by this phenomenon. For ourselves, we're puzzled by some of what he says, but it's all worth quoting:
DRUM (continuing directly): Why? It's not that liberals don't get a chance (as on talk radio, which was taken over by conservatives very early) and it's not that network news honchos are unsympathetic to liberals. I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the people or the quality of the thoughts. Liberals do fine on op-ed pages. Nor am I under the misimpression that liberals are unable to be nasty enough. And yet, in show after show, they're typically overmatched.
This is genuinely perplexing, and I think it's a big part of the reason that political talk shows have such heavy conservative representation: they're just livelier and more interesting on TV than liberals are. I don't have a clue why this is so, but since it goes directly to the core of recent liberal weakness at shaping public debate, it might be worth someone's time to give this some dispassionate study.
Some of that reasoning strikes us as strange. For example, are liberals "unable to be nasty enough?" The famous "Jane, you ignorant slut"--the SNL parody of Kilpatrick-Alexander-- was a comic statement of the obvious fact that Kilpatrick, the conservative, was more aggressive than his liberal non-antagonist. But Drum asks the question of the age. And since he doesn't have a clue, he makes an open cry for help. "How about it, Media Matters?" he asks, seeking assistance from a site which almost surely won't attack him as it answers his question. Luckily, though, we at THE HOWLER have been explaining this matter over the course of the past several years. Given the light we’ve incomparably shone on this problem, we're surprised that Drum is still in the dark. But let's make his important question the starting point for a week-long rumination.
Why do liberals fail in our nation's spin wars? Over the weekend, we thought about that problem as we watched Woody Allen's Interiors, a 1978 film--the director's first "serious" film--which we hadn't seen since, oh, 1978. As we watched, we were mainly struck by the self-involved foppishness of all the central characters. As it turns out, others had the same reaction, even in real time.

Now we'll note Ruth Conniff's latest at her Monday blog (which Natalie e-mailed to highlight) entitled "Memorial Day for Team Empire:"

The American flags, parades, and tributes on Memorial Day seem nostalgic in years when the focus is on wars gone by. But this year, as we endure the deepening crisis in Iraq, with no clear end in sight, it is a holiday full of mixed feelings.
For Democrats and progressives who oppose the war, defensiveness about appearing not to support the troops makes patriotic holidays especially sticky.
But as more and more Americans--and more and more military families--are critical of this war, supporting the troops and opposing their mission seem less in conflict.
Air America's lead story on Memorial Day was a tribute with the names, pictures, and circumstances of the 1,831 coalition soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq. It calls to mind the Bush Administration's suppression of coverage of returning caskets and outrage at Nightline last year for airing the names and pictures of dead American soldiers.

And we'll note two by Matthew Rothschild (who was really great on The Laura Flanders Show this weekend -- previous link takes you to the Air America archived broadcast if you'd like to listen). Wally e-mailed to note the first one, "Bush at Arlington:"

When Bush went to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, he uttered an amazing lie: "America," he said, "has always been a reluctant warrior."
Was America a reluctant warrior in the Spanish-American war?
Was America a reluctant warrior when it invaded Haiti and Nicaragua repeatedly in the twentieth century?
Was America a reluctant warrior when it went to war against Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia?
Was America a reluctant warrior when it invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965?
Was America a reluctant warrior in Gulf War I?
Is America a reluctant warrior in the current Iraq War?
After the Downing Street memo and the mountain of other evidence that Bush, far from being reluctant, was overeager to go to war against Iraq, it takes a certain degree of chutzpah for him to stand before the nation and warble that lie.

And I'll note Matthew Rotschild's "Cheney Offended:"

Dick Cheney says he's "offended."
Not by torture at Guantanamo.
But by Amnesty International's criticism of it.
Said Cheney on Larry King: "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously."
He doesn't have to.
He's one of the most powerful men in the world.
And when he says white is black and up is down, he doesn't expect to be contradicted. On the rare occasions that he is, he takes offense.
Cheney insisted that detainees at Guantanamo "have been well treated, treated humanely and decently."
But while he was saying that, more reports were coming out from U.S. tribunals at Guantanamo that echoed the torture that Amnesty International was describing.
"Americans hit me and beat me up so badly I believe I'm sexually dysfunctional," one detainee told the tribunal, according to AP. Another described how an American interrogator "threatened me with a gun to my mouth, to try to make me say something," the AP story by Paisley Dodds said.
And these aren't, by any means, the first such reports.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[* Once again, for some unknown reason, a paragraph is running into an excerpt and data is being lost. I've tried correcting it and have put the link to Monday's Daily Howler in parenthis to attempt to avoid another "merger."]

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

It's hard these days to get very excited when George Bush or his minions tell another lie. They've lied to the American people and to the world at an astonishing rate. The lies are calculated, hateful, sometimes deadly and legion. Place them end-to-end and they could reach from the Oval Office in Washington to the bluebonnets of Crawford, Texas; -- and then there would still be plenty left over to reach the sun-drenched poppy fields of Afghanistan or the burning streets of Baghdad. His is a veritable factory of lies.
In their zeal for the ever-greater fib, they are taking the "Big Lie" concept to a whole other level. Not simply happy with telling the same lie so often that those listening eventually accept it as fact; they appear to have signed on to the vile theory that if you lie all the time, the lies will metastasize, multiply, and spread, like a cancer eating at the truth, engulfing and consuming all reason until the lies become a new reality out of sheer force of gravity. In Bushworld, lies are the new truth.

The above is from Wayne Scallon's "Texas Size Lies and Ideologues" at BuzzFlash and was sent in by Billie.

Dallas e-mails (from BuzzFlash) Mike Reinholz's "The Buck Stops with Lynndie England (or Newsweek):"

A presidential administration reflects the man at the top. Harry Truman proudly displayed a plaque emblazoned with "The Buck Stops Here." Bush, on the other hand, accepts responsibility for nothing. His motto is "The Buck Stops with Lynndie England" (or whoever else is convenient, such as Newsweek.)
I knew dozens of kids like Bush when I was in school. They were bullies and blowhards, the lot of them. Zero integrity and zero intellectual curiosity. Many of these people ended up in jail because they lacked a moral compass. (For the defining portrait of a Bush-like prep school bully, watch "The Scent of a Woman" with Al Pacino.)
I can't believe we elected (appointed) one of these lazy bullies as President of the United States (remember the mockery of Bush's "Bring 'em on" taunt?). Now we are reaping the whirlwind as our reputation around the world plummets. Torture is officially sanctioned, 100,000 people are dead in a war based on a pack-of-lies, our deficit skyrockets, health care costs are soaring, energy costs are soaring, and now Bush wants to eviscerate Social Security, shredding the New Deal safety net for the working class, while at the same time giving humongous tax cuts to millionaires. My dying father can't even get desperately needed 24/7 healthcare because the insurance companies and Medicare refuse to pay for it.

And we'll note Michael Fox's "Time To Mess With Texas:"

A gay man in Los Angeles, deliriously happy as he is about to enter a joyous union with his beloved partner, has a lot to be thankful for. I have more than most to be thankful for. But on my radar comes some horrifying news from Texas. Yes, Texas, the second largest state in the nation. Granted it has been, of late, and due to some crafty and underhanded mid-census redistricting, the home to some of the most antediluvian legislation in the country, but, still, it is home to Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Surely with the bulk of its population in such cosmopolitan locales, THIS couldn't happen. Surely I jest. Surely I wish it was funny.Gay people are easy to attack, because we are, and always will be, a minority. Even if every gay man and lesbian were "out," we would still always be a minority, and therefore easily bullied by those who choose to remain ignorant, those who perniciously misinterpret the Bible, and those who simply choose to trade on hate for political expediency. Of late, the barrage of malice leveled against the gay community in this country might've sent a less thick-skinned group to the borders. But now we have an unlikely group of scarlet lettered partners: the entire unmarried heterosexual community! I couldn't have made it up.Clearly, couples seeking to live together - gay or straight - but without a piece of paper from a church or justice-of-the-peace are harming NO ONE. But in Texas, and (Heaven help us) spreading elsewhere, BOTH groups have somehow become the nation's most urgent moral crisis. In truth, of course, it is neither urgent nor a crisis, and there is nothing immoral in it, because love is never immoral!

All three are examples of original content you can find at BuzzFlash.

Wally e-mails to highlight Before Sunset Dave Lindorff's "A broad coalition is pushing Congress to rein in the Patriot Act" from In These Times:

Last October, agents from the FBI and Treasury Department, accompanied by a gaggle of TV news crews, raided the Columbia, Mo., offices of a small charity called the Islamic-American Relief Agency (IARA). Computers and records were seized, and several hundred thousand dollars in donated funds destined for relief work in Kenya were frozen. There were no arrests or charges, though federal agents visited the homes of many of the charity's local donors. IARA, according to its attorney, Shereef Akeel, was effectively shut down under a little-known provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to allow the government to freeze the assets of organizations while it investigates for links to terrorism.
"The government has not presented one shred of evidence linking IARA to funding for terror, but by seizing their funds and interviewing their donors, they have effectively destroyed the charity and created a chilling effect in the Muslim community in Columbia," Akeel says. He suggests the government may have confused IARA, founded two decades ago as the Islamic African Relief Agency (the name changed during the Bosnia conflict when demands for aid moved beyond an African focus), with a Sudan-based charity called the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the government claims has links to terrorists.
The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, signed into law six weeks after the 9/11 attacks with no congressional debate, faces review in Congress, as 16 of its provisions "sunset" at the end of the year.
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB), an unusual right/left coalition that includes the ACLU, the American Conservative Union and the Free Congress Foundation, is pressing to end some of the act's particularly egregious civil liberties abuses--specifically, the sneak-and-peek provision, which allows the government to spy on people without notifying them or obtaining a court order, and the library provision, which grants federal authorities the power to inspect library, video, and bookstore user records without a warrant, and which bars librarians and store owners from alerting customers.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

When the Central Intelligence Agency wants to grab a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas and deliver him to interrogators in another country, an Aero Contractors plane often does the job. If agency experts need to fly overseas in a hurry after the capture of a prized prisoner, a plane will depart Johnston County and stop at Dulles Airport outside Washington to pick up the C.I.A. team on the way.
Aero Contractors' planes dropped C.I.A. paramilitary officers into Afghanistan in 2001; carried an American team to Karachi, Pakistan, right after the United States Consulate there was bombed in 2002; and flew from Libya to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the day before an American-held prisoner said he was questioned by Libyan intelligence agents last year, according to flight data and other records.
While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
Behind a surprisingly thin cover of rural hideaways, front companies and shell corporations that share officers who appear to exist only on paper, the C.I.A. has rapidly expanded its air operations since 2001 as it has pursued and questioned terrorism suspects around the world.
An analysis of thousands of flight records, aircraft registrations and corporate documents, as well as interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots, show that the agency owns at least 26 planes, 10 of them purchased since 2001. The agency has concealed its ownership behind a web of seven shell corporations that appear to have no employees and no function apart from owning the aircraft.

The above is from "C.I.A. Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights" in this morning's New York Times. It is credited to " This article was reported by Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Margot Williams and written by Mr. Shane."

Lloyd e-mails to note Steven Greenhouse's "A Summer of Discontent for Labor Focuses on Its Leader's Fitness for His Job:"

At 71, after nearly half a century in the union movement and after a decade leading the nation's main labor federation, John J. Sweeney is facing his toughest time ever.
The percentage of American workers belonging to unions continues to fall, President Bush is seeking to weaken collective bargaining rights for 700,000 federal workers, and many unionized companies are cutting back once-unassailable benefits, like health insurance and pensions.
But for Mr. Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the biggest battle may be a nasty internal struggle - the federation's largest union, the Service Employees International Union, is threatening to secede if, as many expect, Mr. Sweeney wins a new four-year term this summer. And several other major unions have hinted that they, too, might leave the A.F.L.-C.I.O., a federation of 57 unions and 13 million workers.

Kayla notes that this morning's report on the two men arrested in Friday morning raids available today "offers far more perspective than yesterday's article." (Note editorial at the bottom of yesterday's entry.) From William K. Rashbaum and Benjamin Weiser's "Scheme by 2 to Train Terrorists Is Outlined in U.S. Court Papers:"

The two men, of course, have not been convicted of anything, and they are set to appear in court for the first time today - Mr. Shah in New York, and Dr. Sabir in Florida. Some who have known them over the years say they cannot fathom that they were seriously involved in an effort to harm the United States. And for its part, the government, which around the country has seen some of its high-profile arrests of alleged terror conspirators diminished over time, has made no claims the men were on the verge of any violent act.

That's the section Kayla highlighted. Like Kayla, I'll praise them for highlighting that and for the headline (and reporting in the article) being very clear that this is only one side of the story.

From "World Briefings," Eli notes this:

CANADA: MINISTER TESTIFIES IN SYRIA TORTURE CASE
Defense Minister Bill Graham said he was frustrated by the assertions of United States officials, including the former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, that someone in Canada had "given them the go-ahead" to deport Maher Arar, the Syrian-born Canadian detained in New York in 2002 and sent to Syria for 10 months, where, he said, he was tortured. Mr. Graham, who was then the foreign affairs minister, told a federal inquiry into what role Canadian officials played in Mr. Arar's deportation that he could not verify the American claims with Canadian police and security officials, although he added that he had some uncertainty about the quality of the briefings he was getting. Mr. Graham also testified that he did not know Mr. Arar's whereabouts in the months after he was deported by the United States.
Colin Campbell (NYT)

Here's Canada's CBC with a little more, "Graham 'frustrated' by lack of Arar information:"


Defence Minister Bill Graham said Monday he had no reason to believe Maher Arar was being tortured in Syria based on what he knew at the time.
Graham, who was foreign affairs minister when Arar was deported to Syria, testified at the inquiry looking into what role Canadian officials played in Arar's ordeal.
[. . .]
He also says that his American counterpart, former secretary of state Colin Powell, never wavered in insisting that Canadians were behind Arar's deportation to Syria.
"He said 'Bill, my story is exactly the same, you're not getting the straight goods from your guys. My story is there were people involved in this decision in Canada,'" said Graham.
Commission counsel Paul Cavalluzzo seized on that comment.
[. . .]
Graham also differed from his former director of consular affairs, Gar Pardy, who testified last week that it was widely assumed that Arar was being tortured.

From The Toronto Star, we'll note "Knew nothing of Arar torture, Graham says:"

Senior Bush administration officials also told Graham they had valid reasons for deporting Arar to Syria.
Arar was held for over a year on suspicion of terrorist activity before finally turning him loose in the fall of 2003.
Alarm bells were beginning to go off at the Foreign Affairs Department under Graham. Gar Pardy, then chief of consular services, has testified that diplomatic reports early in Arar's captivity aroused suspicions that he was being tortured or abused.
But Graham said he had no recollection of that information making its way up the chain of command to him.
He said he knew Arar was imprisoned in less than ideal conditions and was "not being treated the way we would treat people" in Canada.
But Graham said the bottom line of his briefings was that there was no actual torture.
[. . .]
Documents previously censored for security reasons, but made public Monday, confirm that CSIS discussed the Arar case with Syrian intelligence officials on a visit to Damascus shortly after he was imprisoned there.
But details of the discussion remain shrouded in mystery.
Previous evidence indicates the Syrians may have concluded, as result of the talks, that the Canadian government didn't want Arar returned to this country. CSIS has denied ever making such a suggestion.
Lorne Waldman, one of Arar's lawyers, welcomed the release of the documents but said they raise troubling new questions.
"It's very important for the Canadian public to know what was the nature of the discussions between the CSIS officials and Syrian intelligence," said Waldman.

There's nothing in the main section on Michael Smith's "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war" from London's The Sunday Times. For anyone who missed the article or The Third Estate Sunday Review's editorial, from Smith's article, here are the opening three paragraphs:

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

On the topic of The Third Estate Sunday Review's editorial, Kayla e-mails Robert Parry's "For Bush, Iraq Lies Are Fundamental:"

More than two years and 1,600 dead U.S. soldiers later, George W. Bush’s defenders concede Iraq may not have had weapons of mass destruction, but the defenders still get their backs up when someone accuses Bush of lying. A mistake maybe, but a lie never!
That defense is anchored in their assessment of Bush’s fundamental decency as a born-again Christian who would never knowingly mislead the American people, especially on something as important as sending U.S. soldiers off to war.
Which is why it’s important to look at Bush’s assertions about his supposed desire to avert the war through good-faith diplomacy in late 2002 and early 2003. Since the entire world watched those events unfold, the known facts can be matched against the more recent words of Bush and his senior advisers.
If Bush has lied about that pre-war history as a way to justify his actions – especially after the WMD rationale collapsed – it follows that he shouldn’t be trusted on much of anything about the war. That’s especially true when contemporaneous records contradict his version of the facts.

Parry, rightly goes on to address the Downing St. Memo. The Sunday Times of London's most recent piece hadn't been published yet (Parry's article was published on May 22nd).

Here's Parry on the Downing St. Memo:

The memo added, "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. … The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."
The British memo corroborates earlier statements from former Bush administration insiders, such as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, that Bush had long wanted to invade Iraq, a determination that hardened after al-Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Parry's asking the question of when is the mainstream press going to stop reporting carefully chosen, isolated tid-bits and present the overall picture. It's a damning picture for the Bully Boy, no question.

But while the pieces are being assembled, let's note (again) Democracy Now!'s "Arab American Publisher Says Bush Told Him in May 2000 He Planned to "Take Out" Iraq:"

OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?
OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

That's an excerpt from the segment that aired March 11, 2005. It's another issue the mainstream media has ignored.

There's a great deal in the public record that's being ignored.

From the Downing St. Memo the Sunday Times published on the first of May, we know that evidence was shaped to make the case for war. From the Sunday Times most recent article yesterday, we know that bombings were increased pre-war in 2002. At a time when Bully Boy and his co-horts were speaking of weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological), drone planes and other nonsense that didn't bear out. But while alarming the people (and some in Congress) with this talk of peril, the reality is that we increased bombing with the hopes of inviting a war.


To look at the two reports from London's Sunday Times is to realize the difference between "mistake" and "lie." Those who feel the Bully Boy was "mistaken," need to explain why his actions appeared to invite an attack from Saddam Hussein. If he truly was mistaken, he believed Iraq had the "mushroom cloud," et al capabilities that he and his cohorts endlessly talked about. If that's the case, why invite Iraq to use them in 2002?

And why the silence on the assertion made by Osama Siblani (publisher of The Arab American)?

It's past time for the mainstream press to report on what foreign newspapers and journalists like Amy Goodman, Robert Parry, et al have been reporting on in this country.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

The mayhem continues in Iraq, with today at least 40 people dead, including five US soldiers in Diyala province as the meltdown of the failed US-led occupation continues.
Two suicide bombers detonated themselves after walking into a crowd of police officers in Hilla, south of Baghdad. The policemen were demonstrating outside the mayor's office to protest a government decision to disband their Special Forces unit.
In yet another horrible PR move (or attempt to raise sectarian tensions?) by the US military the head of Iraq's largest Sunni political party, Mohsen Abdul Hamid was detained from his home early this morning in western Baghdad. Of course his head was promptly bagged and his hands tied before he was taken away to be interrogated. His three sons were also detained with him. Stun bombs and bullets were said to be used during the raid, according to his wife.
It just so happens that his party, the Islamic Party, opposes the new US-backed security operation now engulfing Baghdad because they believe the security forces will disregard the rights of innocent Iraqis.
Later today he was released and the military admitted it made a mistake.
The military statement concerning the matter said, "Coalition forces regret any inconvenience and acknowledge (Abdul-Hamid’s) cooperation in resolving this matter."
Abdul Hamid refused their apology in the Arab media, and stated that he was humiliated when US soldiers held their boots on his head for 20 minutes.

The above is the latest from Dahr Jamail and is entitled "Things are getting worse by the day."

From The Independent, we'll note Elizabeth Davies' "Iraqi suicide bombers kill dozens in show of defiance against crackdown:"

Insurgents determined to flout an Iraqi-led security offensive in Baghdad put on a bloody show of defiance with a dual suicide attack which left up to 30 people dead and more than 100 injured.
The attacks, carried out in the predominantly Shia town of Hillah, south of Baghdad, came on the second day of Operation Lightning, the biggest security sweep in the capital since the war ended in 2003.
Two insurgents loaded with explosives mingled with a crowd of Iraqi policemen protesting against a decision to disband their unit. They staggered their attacks to maximise the number of deaths.
One of the bombers blew himself up in the midst of the 500-strong crowd shortly before 9am, causing chaos in the street outside the mayor's office. A minute later and 100 yards further along the road, his comrade detonated his charge, striking many of those running from the first blast.

Also from The Independent, Marcia e-mails to highlight Helen McCormack's "Claims of abuse at Guantanamo are revealed:"

Confidential papers detailing tribunal hearings held at Guantanamo Bay have revealed a further raft of allegations of US mistreatment of detainees held at the detention camp.
Detainees, including Jamil el-Banna, the Jordanian national who has lived in Britain since 1994 and is still held at the camp, alleged a range of mistreatment during tribunal hearings. One man said that the authorities' interrogation practices had rendered him incontinent. Another alleges that dogs were used as a means of intimidation.
The transcripts of tribunal hearings were released by the US Department of Defence after an application under the US Freedom of Information Act by the American news agency Associated Press.
The agency said it had received 1,000 pages of documents after a lawsuit with the US government. It was not clear whether allegations of mistreatment shown in transcripts of tribunals had been either logged or investigated, the news agency said.

From the ACLU, we'll note "Guantánamo Prisoners Told FBI of Qur'an Desecration in 2002, New Documents Reveal:"

New documents released by the FBI include previously undisclosed interviews in which prisoners at Guantánamo complain that guards have mistreated the Qur'an, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. In one 2002 summary, an FBI interrogator notes a prisoner’s allegation that guards flushed a Qur'an down the toilet.
The disclosure comes on the heels of controversy over a Newsweek report saying that government investigators had corroborated an almost identical incident. Newsweek ultimately retracted its story because a confidential government source could not be confirmed.
"The United States government continues to turn a blind eye to mounting evidence of widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "If we are to truly repair America's standing in the world, the Bush Administration must hold accountable high-ranking officials who allow the continuing abuse and torture of detainees."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Democracy Now! (Marcia: "always worth watching")

Memorial Day Special: Preventive Warriors
Today on Memorial Day, the traditional day to honor all US military veterans, we bring you the full documentary about the Bush administration’s national security strategy: "Preventive Warriors," produced by Michael Burns and Greg Ansin.
The film features many of the leading thinkers and intellectuals of our time including Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Tariq Ali and more.

We'll note Katrina vanden Heuvel's Editor's Cut today:

Did you know that on the eve of the Iranian presidential election, that country--with 70 percent of its population under 30--has 75,000 bloggers? I find that pretty stunning--and I'm usually skeptical of blog-hype.
Blogging has gone international in a big way. And in Iran, blogging means that news, ideas and rumors are bypassing traditional censors. As one of Iran's leading bloggers recently pointed out at opendemocracy.net, Iran's blogs are generating "an unprecedented amount of information [and] pre-election news has...been much more transparent." In fact, Hossein Derakhshan argued, " it will probably be one of the most open and transparent elections Iran has ever seen."
The internet is playing a major role. This is the first time, for example, that most of the major candidates (except the oldest ones) have their own websites. And with an estimated three or four million internet users in Iran, blogs are opening up Iranian society and culture--despite the enduring threat of government censorship and imprisonment of journalists and activists.

From CounterPunch, we'll note Sharon Smith's "The Road to Abu Ghraib:"

Even before the Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003, human rights organizations were raising allegations of torture at U.S. prisons in Afghanistan.
At the time, the State Department dismissed their allegations as "ridiculous" (just as the White House recently feigned outrage when Newsweek claimed that Guantanamo interrogators flushed the Koran down the toilet--even as evidence surfaced that they urinated on it). As recently as December, military spokesperson Lt. Col. Pamela Keeton claimed an Army investigation "found no evidence of abuse taking place" in Afghanistan, according to the BBC.
All that changed last week, when the New York Times exposed the sadistic killing of two Afghan detainees in December 2002--both kicked to death, while chained to the ceiling by their wrists at the Bagram air base--based on the Army's own leaked investigation. The Army investigation is just the tip of the iceberg, however, as mounting evidence exposes an expansive and overlapping system of torture and killing at U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.
Afghan prisons, along with Guantánamo, provided the hands-on training for the interrogation techniques made famous at Abu Ghraib. Many of the same interrogators who honed their skills at Bagram ended up at Abu Ghraib in 2003--both times under the direction of Capt. Carolyn A. Wood.

From CounterRecruiter, we'll note "Texan Says Military Recruiters Threatened to Kill Him:"

From KHOU in Texas: "More people are coming forward with Army recruiting horror stories after the 11 News Defenders investigation that exposed a recruiting scandal. They're sharing similiar stories about military recruiters using hardball tactics to persuade young people to enlist.
Will Ammons, 20, signed up for delayed entry at the Lake Jackson Army recruiting station last year. But soon afterwards, he fell in love and changed his mind before he ever shipped out. That's when, he says, Army recruiters crossed the line and started harrassing him.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

From Democracy Now!:

'Nightline' leerá nombres de soldados fallecidos
Más de un año después de la controversia que generó lalectura de Ted Knoppel de los nombres de más de 800soldados estadounidenses muertos en Irak, "Nightline"planea un programa sobre el Memorial Day (día de loscaídos) donde se leerán los nombres de 900 soldadosmuertos desde entonces.

Resistencia iraquí derribó helicóptero
En Irak, un helicóptero militar estadounidense fuederribado cerca de la fortificación de la resistenciaen Baquba, tras recibir disparos de armas de bajocalibre. El helicóptero presuntamente apoyaba afuerzas comandadas por Estados Unidos en la zona. Lascadenas de noticias CNN y CBS informaron que elhelicóptero llevaba a dos tripulantes. Combatientes dela resistencia atacaron otro helicóptero, pero nolograron derribarlo.

Maria selected the two items above from Friday's Democracy Now! Headlines. When we decided to do that last week to spotlight the new feature at Democracy Now! (NEW FEATURE: Democracy Now! is now offering the program's daily news summary translated into Spanish. Los Titulares de Hoy ), I hadn't even thought about the holiday was approaching. Due to various committments on members who speak Spanish, we elected to hold off on Friday's Headlines until today. Thanks to Maria for selecting two items. Please try to pass on the word that Democracy Now! is now providing their Headlines in Spanish (that's in text and audio).

Here are the two items that Maria selected in English:

Nightline To Read Names Of Dead
And, more than a year after a firestorm of controversysurrounded Ted Koppel's reading of the names of morethan 800 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, ''Nightline''plans a Memorial Day broadcast where they will readthe names of the 900 who have died since then.

Iraq Resistance Downs Us Helicopter
In Iraq, a US military helicopter was brought downnear the resistance stronghold of Baquba after comingunder small arms fire. The helicopter was reportedlysupporting US-led forces in the area. CNN and CBS newsreported that the downed helicopter had been carryingtwo crew members. Resistance fighters also hit asecond helicopter but failed to bring it down.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

In Baghdad there's talk of the latest "Operation Lightning".
It hasn't yet been implemented in our area but we've been hearing about it. So far all we've seen are a few additional checkpoints and a disappearing mobile network. Baghdad is actually split into two large regions- Karkh (west Baghdad) and Rasafa (east Baghdad) with the Tigris River separating them. Karkh, according to this plan, is going to be split into 15 smaller areas or sub-districts and Rasafa into 7 sub-districts.
There are also going to be 675 checkpoints and all of the entrances to Baghdad are going to be guarded. We are a little puzzled why Karkh should be split into 15 sub-districts and Rasafa only seven. Karkh is actually smaller in area than Rasafa and less populated.
On the other hand, Karkh contains the Green Zone- so that could be a reason.
People are also anxious about the 675 check points. It's difficult enough right now getting around Baghdad, more check points are going to make things trickier. The plan includes 40,000 Iraqi security forces and that is making people a little bit uneasy.
Iraqi National Guard are not pleasant or upstanding citizens- to have thousands of them scattered about Baghdad stopping cars and possibly harassing civilians is worrying.
We're also very worried about the possibility of raids on homes.

The above is from Riverbend's blog Baghdad Burning. Note, she goes on to critique Thomas Friedman's recent column and community members won't want to miss that.

From Haaretz, Brad e-mails Roni Singer's "Top Israeli execs held in industrial espionage case:"

Dozens of leading commercial companies and leading private investigators were named Sunday as suspects in a massive industrial espionage investigation that local police have been conducting for the past six months.
The companies suspected of commissioning the espionage, which was carried out by planting Trojan horse software in their competitors' computers, include the satellite television company Yes, which is suspected of spying on cable television company HOT; cell-phone companies Pelephone and Cellcom, suspected of spying on their mutual rival Partner; and Mayer, which imports Volvos and Hondas to Israel and is suspected of spying on Champion Motors, importer of Audis and Volkswagens.
Spy programs were also located in the computers of major companies such as Strauss-Elite, Shekem Electric and the business daily Globes. Police are currently investigating several other companies that may have been involved in the affair, which was under a court gag order until Sunday.

From Scotland's The Herald, we'll note Vicky Collins' "Wind of change sweeps Scotland:"

A QUIET revolution is sweeping the country.
It has involved hundreds of schools, community groups and small businesses turning to wind turbines and solar panels to provide their power.
According to new figures, there has been an upsurge in small-scale renewable energy projects, with a 14-fold increase over the past five years.
They are supported by the results of a new survey showing that about 70% of Scots would consider installing a renewable energy device in their home.
The survey and figures were released after Friday's announcement that Windsave, the Glasgow-based firm, has signed an exclusive agreement with British Gas to install wind turbines on private and local authority-owned properties.

From Australia's ABC, we'll note "QCs believe Corby's innocent:"


Lawyers recruited by the Federal Government to help represent Schapelle Corby say they have a growing feeling that the woman convicted of smuggling drugs into Bali is probably not guilty.
One of the QCs appointed by the Federal Government, Tom Percy, says he has met Corby's legal team in Bali.
Western Australia lawyer John Davies is a junior barrister to WA QCs Tom Percy and Mark Trowell, who accepted a request from the Federal Government to assist in Corby's appeal against a 20-year jail term for smuggling marijuana.
The WA lawyers were originally approached to assist in the Corby defence in March.
Speaking on ABC Radio, Mr Davies said the lawyers were concentrating on how they could assist Corby's appeal.
"From what I've seen of the way the case has gone and from what I know of the evidence at this stage, which is by no means comprehensive, I have a growing sick feeling in my stomach that we have somebody who's very probably not guilty sitting in Kerobokan Prison," he said.

Also from ABC, we'll note "Abu Ghraib protest interrupts Rice speech" because we love CodePink (this was reported Saturday by Australia's ABC):


Amid tight security at San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall, three women and one man pulled on black hoods and cloaks and stood on their seats.
Ms Rice initially continued her speech on American foreign policy under President George W Bush.
However, she paused when the protesters shouted "Stop the torture. Stop the killing. US out of Iraq," as police led them out of the auditorium.
[. . .]
"We feel we made our point," said Ms [Medea] Benjamin, a founding director of the human rights group Global Exchange.

There are a number of great articles at Open Democracy. We'll highlight three that Gina noted but there's a great deal up at that site.

First, Chandra D. Bhatta's "Nepal’s civil war: from security to politics:"

The politics of Nepal in the first five months of 2005 have been dominated by a spiralling series of events: King Gyanendra's coup in February, the state of emergency and the imprisonment of political leaders and activists. The international community (led by India, the United States and Britain, Nepal's chief backers), responded by suspending development and military aid to Nepal, though in India’s case the ban on military supplies proved short-lived.
After nearly three months, Gyanendra in theory lifted the state of emergency and released key political leaders. It appears that the royal government may regain some sort of working "legitimacy" with the international community who have been backing the Nepali war for nearly a decade.
[. . .]
Any solution now rests entirely on the maturity of the actors involved: the traditionalists headed by the king (who wants to keep patrimony as the source of power) parliamentary political parties (who in theory believe in representative democracy, but have neglected to assimilate social movements into the system), and the Maoists (who have not yet been able to convince the majority of their strategy of state transformation and have largely discredited themselves by their terrorist approach). In these conditions, and with a Nepali population and diaspora hungry for democracy, the only chance for peace in Nepal lies not in "stability" but in a genuine democratic politics.

Second, Manjushree Thapa's "Democracy in Nepal and the 'international community:'"


The international reaction following King Gyanendra's military coup on 1 February 2005 has been mostly heartening for Nepalis. Until that date, we felt doomed to be characterised as simple, happy mountain folks inhabiting a Shangri-la, who deserved to be ruled by a deity-king, no matter how unjust. Maoist insurgency tended to be viewed as an anachronism, even fey: trouble in paradise. Meanwhile, Nepal's real story – the decades-long (and continuing) struggle to establish and retain democracy – seemed destined to be overlooked. It was just not picturesque.
But the world's condemnation of King Gyanendra's military coup has made Nepalis feel that we are not being abandoned at this, the most traumatic and transformational era in our history. Still, Nepalis are wary about the international community's trustworthiness, for any vestigial commitment to democracy in Nepal it has shown in the past has proved fickle.
In part this unreliability is because the outside world simply could not understand Nepal after democracy was won in 1990. It has been difficult enough for Nepalis to clarify this chaotic period even to ourselves. We were not prepared for the challenges of democracy. There were no democratic institutions, and very little democratic practice in either public or private spheres in 1990. The caste structure – with the Chettri, Bahun and "high-caste" Newar groups at the top – remained rigidly in place. It was widely felt that any move in the direction of equal rights for women would destroy Nepali culture. Any mention of ethnic rights could be met with accusations of harbouring separatist, anti-national, even treasonous sentiments.

Third, we'll note Brian Cathcart's "Polio: a war not yet won:"


One day it could rank among the greatest collaborative achievements of humankind, the fruit of decades of work by millions of people across the globe, at a cost of billions of dollars – but today, with triumph almost in sight, it may be in jeopardy. The campaign to rid the world of polio is suddenly on the defensive, with the virus popping up in countries previously thought clean and the flow of money to fund immunisations running dry.
Only a few years ago there were hopes that this year, 2005, would see the final case, the very last of all the many millions of children to be crippled or killed by this virus down the centuries. But instead the number of countries where people are catching polio has doubled to twelve and just this month a fresh pocket of infection turned up in Indonesia, where no one had caught the disease for a decade.
Proving that sickness, too, is globalised in the modern world, a strain of the virus from northern Nigeria travelled first to Sudan, on to Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and then across the ocean to Java – perhaps carried by migrant workers, perhaps by Muslim pilgrims going to and from Mecca; no one knows.
And just as it becomes clear that the huge effort to immunise millions of young children must be redoubled, the coalition of organisations leading the drive – the World Health Organisation (WHO), Unicef, Rotary International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States – announce that they are $50 million short of the funding they need to carry on the effort past July.

This is an issue that Rebecca's noted and noted at her site Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude.

From the Irish Examiner, we'll note Amy Teibel's "Israel releases prisoners in overdue gesture:"

ISRAEL'S Cabinet yesterday approved the release of 400 Palestinian prisoners, a long-overdue gesture Israel had agreed to as part of a Mideast truce package. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the Cabinet that the prisoner release would strengthen Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and "the moderate forces in the Palestinian Authority."
Sharon's appeal meshed with recent US efforts to shore up Abbas in the face of severe challenges from Palestinian militants. The ministers voted 18-3 to approve the release. A ministerial panel will now meet to compile a list of those eligible to be freed.
No one directly involved in deadly attacks on Israelis would be released, but Israel might be more flexible than in the past and free prisoners who haven't completed two-thirds of their terms, a government official said.

Also from the Irish Examiner, we'll note Ann Cahill's "FRANCE SAYS NON:"

FRANCE overwhelmingly rejected the European Union's constitution in yesterday's referendum, plunging the EU into crisis. The heavy defeat dreaded by EU leaders could weaken France in the 25-member bloc, stall European integration and unsettle some financial markets. French President Jacques Chirac, who urged voters to approve the charter, announced the result in a short televised address. He said the process of ratifying the treaty would continue in other EU countries."France has expressed itself democratically," Chirac said. "It is your sovereign decision, and I take note." Earlier, the Interior Ministry said that with about 83% of the votes counted, the constitution was rejected by 57.26% of voters. It was backed by 42.74%.

Lynda e-mails, from Germany's Der Spiegel, "Francois Mitterrand's Widow Says, 'I Will Vote No:'"

SPIEGEL: Madame, how are you going to vote at the EU constitution referendum on May 29?
Mitterrand: I continue to adhere to the logic of my commitment over the years for human rights, the Third World, and the fight against poverty. When I travel around the world, I always try to act as advocate for the victims of the economic system. I denounce the power of the economy over people, a system that turns individuals into elements in an economic equation, does not respect the poor and excludes everyone that does not live up to the principle of profitability.
SPIEGEL: Hasn't the globalization you are still fighting against long since become a reality in Europe?
Mitterrand: I can only reject a European constitution that emphasizes competition and profit as primary values. I am therefore going to vote No, but without taking part in any political campaign. Party politics hasn't interested me for a long time now.
SPIEGEL: Apparently, you are much further to the left than the majority of the Socialist Party...
Mitterrand: ...I often stood even farther to the left than my husband, because I was free of the restraints that come with being in government. He never resented that in me -- nor, by the way, did (former German Chancellor) Helmut Kohl despite my having reproached him for Germany's supplying of weapons to Turkey -- arms which were, in turn, then used against the Kurds. He didn't want to hear anything about it, but we remained on friendly terms.

Lynda also notes (from Der Spiegel) Ralf Beste and Alexander Szandar's "Europe's Atomic Anachronism:"

In early May, Germany's government said it was high time the US got its last remaining nuclear weapons out of Germany. Now -- out of fear of more trans-Atlantic strife -- the Germans are hesitating and hoping the situation will quietly solve itself.
The attractions of the small German town of Buechel, population 1,200, are neatly listed on the town's home page: an ancient beech tree called the Schmitzbuche ("a gem for hikers"), the Easter bazaar, Buechel's carnival celebrations and, last but not least, St. Josef's Chapel, built by "Gretchen Thome, a former knitting teacher and Buechel's postmaster for many years." But the Web site conveniently ignores another salient feature of this small community, located not far from the city of Cochem on the Mosel River: Buechel has the potential of transforming the world into a nuclear inferno.
Beneath the local military airfield, about 20 American B-61 nuclear bombs are stored in underground bunkers, heavily guarded by the 702nd Munitions Special Support Squadron, a special unit of the US Army.
At the command of the president of the United States, these weapons of mass destruction can be attached to German Tornado fighter jets within a very short period of time. The aircraft, flying low to avoid enemy radar, are capable of carrying their deadly payloads to targets deep within Russia, essentially spiriting them into the country "beneath the fence," to quote the manufacturer's enthusiastic marketing prose.
With 17,000 tons of explosive force, each weapon is at least ten times as destructive as the atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
The Cold War ended more than 15 years ago, and yet the bombs of Buechel still have the potential to turn vast portions of Eastern and Central Europe into a nuclear wasteland. A total of about 480 nuclear weapons are currently being stored in Europe, with experts estimating that about 150 of these bombs are on German soil.
Seemingly unfazed by the fact that the Warsaw Pact countries have long since ceased to be enemies of the West, the United States, the supreme power within NATO, continues to support and practice the doctrine of "nuclear participation." What this means is that non-nuclear states like Germany are at least permitted to play a supporting role in handling the US' destructive arsenals. But these weapons, once intended to strengthen the bonds among NATO members in the face of the threat from the East, have since become an absurd relic of days gone by.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

Editorial: Sunday Times says we attempted to goad Iraq into war in 2002, is Bush a liar or just willing to risk the safety of American citizens?

The Sunday Times has an article by Michael Smith entitled "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war." It opens with the following:

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make "regime change" in Iraq legal.
Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime".

We realize that our readers are far more intelligent than the mainstream press corp but indulge us as we address the above. The Bully Boy and his cohorts went around screaming that we didn't want a "mushroom cloud," that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons.

To accept those lies today, in the face of The Sunday Times of London's story, you have to accept that the Bully Boy was perfectly okay with the United States being attacked with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. If that were true, then the only response would be to call for an immediate impeachment. The leader of the country is not supposed to actively court the destruction of our nation.

But to believe the lies we were told, that truly is the most obvious conclusion.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that we were lied to. Everything we were told leading up to the invasion and everything that's followed can be characterized as lies and more lies.

Lying a nation into war is a pretty serious offense.

Now there are some who feel that the recent defense of Newsweek has awakened our press corps. We'd love for that to be the case. However, it can also be argued that the press is just closing ranks, protecting their own and still willing to swallow every lie the administration feeds them and duly spit it back out in a report.

Look, this is a serious matter. We'd even be willing to hold our tongues regarding Judith Miller and other stenographers if The New York Times or any other institution wanted to do now what they should have been doing in the lead up to the invasion, investigating the administration's claims and telling the people the truth.

Scott Shane, Douglas Jehl or Monica Davey (or anyone else) could be front paged with stories about the difference between what we were told and actual reality and we'd be willing to hold our tongues about Miller and the others. (Miller's the most infamous, she was far from the only one. And to date, no television program has issued any mea culpa that we're aware of.)

Why could a group of smart asses like The Third Estate Sunday Review do that? Because the bigger picture demands that Americans start getting some truth with their journalism. It's past time for some truth. We spent thirty minutes discussing this (Ava, Jim, Jess, Ty, Dona, Rebecca, Betty and C.I.) and we all agree that the truth coming out now (strongly and on the front page -- not tucked safely inside the paper where it can be ignored) is a great deal more important than Miller's head on a platter at this moment in time.

What we're saying is that we could take The Times running truth-telling stories without requiring them to note "by the way Judith Miller reported this differently." (Or any newspaper or TV program doing the same without making a point to name their reporters who got it wrong.) And here's a thought, who knows the lies that were told better than Miller? Get her committed to exposing reality and team her up with someone more trust worthy and let it rip. We're willing to bet that the sympathy she's been unable to garner for her current court issues, despite repeated attempts to garner sympathy, would suddenly emerge.

We're not going to spin here and say that all is forgiven and forgotten regarding Miller (to focus on The New York Times). That's not the case. It never will be. But if The New York Times wants to get back into the news business, we're perfectly willing to table our criticism of Miller for several months. Because we feel, and we can only speak for us, that the truth on the invasion/occupation is far more important than any individual reporter.

The latest from London's Sunday Times is explosive (as was the Downing St. memo). The press seems to have awakened a bit after the attacks on Newsweek. Our guess is that the way the domestic press handles the very serious issues emerging from across the Atlantic will tell us whether recent press coverage was about truth telling or protecting one of their own.

Lastly, we'll give credit to BuzzFlash for making The Sunday Times article their main headline.

As always, the editorial is the last feature (other than our "note") that we work on. As soon as we finish everything else, we rush around online (BuzzFlash is always one of the stops) to come up with potential topics for our editorial. There was no debate this week. All eight of us agreed that the only topic was The Sunday Times revelations. Congratulations and thanks to BuzzFlash for catching the story and prominently running it at their website.

posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, May 29, 2005

Note: This editorial was linked to yesterday. Jim, Ava, Jess, Ty and Dona gave permission for it to be reprinted in full. As noted, Betty, Rebecca and myself worked on it and you'll see it at their sites as well. Though The Third Estate Sunday Review was kind enough to give permission to run it in full at our sites yesterday, we all felt we would wait until Monday to allow the readers of The Third Estate Sunday Review to discover it first.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]