26 matchs for war+on:
i read very little of this technical history but have been listening to a lecture series about world war one and they were talking about the problem of mounted machine guns shooting through propellers so i sought out more information. that always seemed problematic when watching aerial combat in war movies but they pretty quickly overcame it in reality. hard to believe they could synchronize the guns and propellers at those speeds. who knew? science! (and killing machines!)
there is only one american still alive that fought in world war one. he is 107 yo.
Carlo Bonini, journalist for La Repubblica in Italy and author of Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror, describes Italy's role in the flawed intelligence that helped justify the war in Iraq.
It's so simple - why didn't I think of that? Just take out all the missile launchers on the entire Iranian Persian Gulf coast. Genius. (No doubt his plan for how to actually do this was edited out for space reasons.) Then seize the entire Iranian oil sector (yes, with Marines securing the oil platforms, refineries, etc...) and then just continue to sell the oil on the world market (presumably pocketing the money so the entire operation just pays for itself!) Once we do this (along with knocking out electricity and telecommunications in the entire country) the Iranian population will - wait for it! - look to us as liberators and turn against the Mullahs. And even better, Iranian terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Palestine (who never liked Iran anyway) will see this as a cue, not to launch all out war on Israel, but to "head for the nearest exit."
I used to like to complain about the Times, but it turns out that was just because I sometimes read it. But they got nothin' on the NYP. "Real men go to Tehran." Indeed. I'm back to thinking we're doomed.
HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.
TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.
The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.
The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,'' according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.
Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.
White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as ''nothing new.''
Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the Administration’s legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal positions were, to a remarkable degree, “all Addington.” Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was “an unopposable force.”
[....]
The Bush Administration's Legal Strategy
In “The Hidden Power; The Legal Mind Behind the White House's War on Terror,” New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer examines David S. Addington--the man many believe is behind the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 legal strategy. (w/ leonard lopate wnyc)
German authorities thought they heard a bird chirping in one of Bin Laden's audiotapes this year, and brought in ornithologists to identify the species — and its habitat — according to reports in the German media."And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling ornithologists!"
The PIPA poll report findings were the most shocking statistics for me - to see the statistics quoted in the movie go to 'Iraq' and then the report dated 'October 2, 2003,' page 15 & 16 specifically. It is not a 'great' movie, but it does a good job at hammering in the fact that Fox is bad bad bad and definitely not "Fair and Balanced" reporting. I guess if you are not use to questioning what you hear, it is worth a see.
This is a good site too.
It was European reporters who seemed most interested in pressing Bush on the torture issue, and who were not at all impressed with his continuing assertions that he was telling people to act in terms of the law. Bush has no knowledge of history, but European reporters do, and all of them at the G-8 press conference were no doubt aware how assiduously Hitler got laws passed to authorize everything he did. Hitler's government and its actions were all legal; it was a defect in moral vision that undergirded their atrocities.
Nothing about the torture questions appeared in the New York Times or any of the other major US newspapers, but European papers were full of it. Neither did the US press report that after Bush spoke, Jacques Chirac said that in the war on terrorism we should not "forget the principles on which our civilization rests, such as human rights."
Here are the torture parts of Bush's G-8 press conference:
First time Bush was asked about legalizing torture:
Q Mr. President, the Justice Department issued an advisory opinion last year declaring that as Commander-in-Chief you have the authority to order any kind of interrogation techniques that are necessary to pursue the war on terror. Were you aware of this advisory opinion? Do you agree with it? And did you issue any such authorization at any time?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the authorization I issued, David, was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations. That's the message I gave our people.
Q Have you seen the memos?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't remember if I've seen the memo or not, but I gave those instructions.
Second time Bush was asked about legalizing torture:
Q Returning to the question of torture, if you knew a person was in U.S. custody and had specific information about an imminent terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or even thousands of Americans, would you authorize the use of any means necessary to get that information and to save those lives?
THE PRESIDENT: Jonathan, what I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law.
Third time Bush was asked about legalizing torture:
Q Mr. President, I wanted to return to the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that U.S. officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say that you want the U.S. to adhere to international and U.S. laws, that's not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. If I -- maybe -- maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions out of -- from me to the government.
(Kurtz was funded recently by Creative Capital, a pretty great foundation. Sorry for the long post)
Steve Kurtz was already suffering from one tragedy when he called 911
early in the morning to tell them his wife had suffered a cardiac arrest
and died in her sleep. The police arrived and, cranked up on the rhetoric
of the "War on Terror," decided Kurtz's art supplies were actually
bioterrorism weapons.
Thus began an Orwellian stream of events in which FBI agents abducted
Kurtz without charges, sealed off his entire block, and confiscated his
computers, manuscripts, art supplies... and even his wife's body.
Like the case of Brandon Mayfield, the Muslim lawyer from Portland
imprisoned for two weeks on the flimsiest of false evidence, Kurtz's case
amply demonstrates the dangers posed by the USA PATRIOT Act coupled with
government-nurtured terrorism hysteria.
Kurtz's case is ongoing, and, on top of everything else, Kurtz is facing a
mountain of legal fees. Donations to his legal defense can be made at
http://www.rtmark.com/CAEdefense/
FEAR RUN AMOK
Steve Kurtz is Associate Professor in the Department of Art at the State
University of New York's University at Buffalo, and a member of the
internationally-acclaimed Critical Art Ensemble.
Kurtz's wife, Hope Kurtz, died in her sleep of cardiac arrest in the early
morning hours of May 11. Police arrived, became suspicious of Kurtz's art
supplies and called the FBI.
Within hours, FBI agents had "detained" Kurtz as a suspected bioterrorist
and cordoned off the entire block around his house. (Kurtz walked away the
next day on the advice of a lawyer, his "detention" having proved to be
illegal.) Over the next few days, dozens of agents in hazmat suits, from a
number of law enforcement agencies, sifted through Kurtz's work, analyzing
it on-site and impounding computers, manuscripts, books, equipment, and
even his wife's body for further analysis. Meanwhile, the Buffalo Health
Department condemned his house as a health risk.
Kurtz, a member of the Critical Art Ensemble, makes art which addresses
the politics of biotechnology. "Free Range Grains," CAE's latest project,
included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for
possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered
the Kafkaesque chain of events.
FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not
used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use
this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs.
Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such
equipment.
"Today, there is no legal way to stop huge corporations from putting
genetically altered material in our food," said Defense Fund spokeswoman
Carla Mendes. "Yet owning the equipment required to test for the presence
of 'Frankenfood' will get you accused of 'terrorism.' You can be illegally
detained by shadowy government agents, lose access to your home, work, and
belongings, and find that your recently deceased spouse's body has been
taken away for 'analysis.'"
Though Kurtz has finally been able to return to his home and recover his
wife's body, the FBI has still not returned any of his equipment,
computers or manuscripts, nor given any indication of when they will. The
case remains open.
Articles about the case:
http://www.rtmark.com/CAEdefense/news-WKBW-2.html
http://www.rtmark.com/CAEdefense/news-WKBW.html
The press is saying that there were almost 5000 people, it looked like more than that to me, course us protesters always seem to stretch the numbers. Although many of the protesters seemed to be in their mid-50's and to be old hands at marching, there were lots of seniors and teens, even the locked out brothers of the ILWU.
I've decided that almost any panel from Get Your War On would make an awsome poster. Here's GYWO page 15
What's up with the Dick Armey reference. I missed that. A little help?
WHAT really alarms me about President Bush's "war on terrorism" is the grammar. How do you wage war on an abstract noun? It's rather like bombing murder.It's about time for the comedians to take some whacks at this thing (although Jones' article is quite serious.)
