Several items of note:
(1) Here's another item to discuss in the next newspaper article about the "Angry Left": members of the Little Green Footballs community last night celebrate the death by Israeli bombing of four UN peacekeepers (UPDATE - the proprieter of LGF is apparently (and understandably) embarrassed by the comments appearing on his site and has therefore re-directed the link I had to that page to another blog. He has not, however, removed the comments from his blog).
5- I would not put it against the Israelites, nor hold it against them, to have targeted this position based on the revelation, yesterday, that Indian UN 'peacekeepers' were complicent in the kidnapping/murder of Israelites, earlier.
20 - Too bad Kofi wasn't there, too.
22 - So what is Koffi going to do about it even if they did? I understand the paper cuts from a strongly worded letter can really hurt if desert sand gets in them. We are all at war with the UN, time to admit it.
37- I'm finding it hard to feel bad for these so-called peacekeepers. Most of them blindly shilled for Hezbollah while attacking Israel.
I do not believe that Israel intentionally targeted them, but even if they did, their anti-Israeli propaganda made them a fair target in this war. Much like the trial and execution of people like Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose. Anything that would help bolster Hezobllah's morale has to be seen as a weapon.
38 - I know it sounds a bit harsh, but I wish that it were deliberate, and that Israel came right out and said so.
All the UN seems to do is rape children, enable terrorists and act openly hostile towards Israel, If I'm Israel, I say any UN 'Peacekeeping' teams in the region will also be subject to attack.
63 - On the other hand, who could blame Israel for not shedding great big tears for the blue-helmeted terror enablers?
70 - I never wish death on anybody (well, most anybody) and it is a tragedy that two people died but...
I be laughing my ass off if somebody launched one right in Kofi's office while he was groping his secretary.
That was just from the first 100 comments (more here). Consider the mindest required to celebrate the death of U.N. peacekeepers. It's time for another news article on the Angry Left.
(2) Don Rumsfeld gave a little noticed press briefing yesterday after meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister and, rather remarkably, refused to deny that Iraq is in the midst of a "civil war" (but he explained that whatever one wants to call it, it's not all that bad, because it's only raging wildly and uncontrollably in 3 of 17 Iraqi provinces):
Q. Is the country closer to a civil war?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is -- there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there's very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it's a -- it's a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.
If even Don Rumsfeld acknowledges the possibility that Iraq now has a civil war, that is a rather potent indication of what is going on in that country.
(3) The significance of the Bush administration's defeat last week in the EFF/AT&T federal court case was illustrated by yesterday's dismissal by a federal court in Chicago of a different lawsuit brought by the ACLU against AT&T, this one challenging the legality of AT&T's cooperation with the Bush administration's domestic telephone data-collection program. The Bush administration, as always, invoked the "state secrets" doctrine in this case to claim that the federal court could not litigate the claims without risking disclosure of state secrets, and the federal judge accepted -- as federal judges almost always do -- the administration's assertion that "state secrets" would be revealed merely by AT&T's confirmation or denial of their participation in this program. That is why it was so remarkable when the EFF/AT&T judge outright rejected that claim last week -- because it was such a rare departure from the federal courts' deference to the executive's invocation of this doctrine.
This Chicago case presented a more difficult challenge than did the EFF case for the plaintiffs to overcome the "state secrets" assertion. Whereas the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program has been confirmed by the administration (thereby making it hard to argue that its existence is a "state secret"), the administration has never confirmed the existence of the data-collection program. Nonetheless, well-sourced news reports, along with Republicans in Congress, have confirmed the existence of this likely illegal effort to chronicle all domestic calls made or received by all Americans. But the administration has, yet again, prevented a judicial determination as to whether its behavior is legal.
The administration plainly believes that it is entitled to engage in conduct which violates the law while blocking courts from ruling on the legality that behavior. What is the point of having laws if political officials can violate them and then immunize themselves from being held accountable in a court of law -- as the Bush administration, at least thus far, has successfully done?
(4) It is difficult to chronicle at once all of the dangers and abuses of the Specter FISA bill because they are so numerous. One of the more pernicious aspects of it that has been overlooked is that, as Bill Weaver points out, it mandates that all legal questions surrounding warrantless eavesdropping -- including the question of its constitutionality -- be decided by the FISA court, which means that (a) only one side will be present in court to argue these issues (the Bush administration) and (b) all proceedings, including the decision itself, may very well be secret.
It is one thing for specific warrant applications to be conducted in secret, with only one side present, and with even the decision itself always sealed from the public -- the standard operating procedures for the FISA court. But those procedures are so plainly inappropriate for deciding critical questions of constitutional law which determine the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to all Americans against the Government. The parameters of the Fourth Amendment and decisions as to whether our highest government officials have been continuously violating it cannot possibly be determined in secret and then kept secret from American citizens.
But that is what would likely happen with the Specter bill. Add that to the list of reasons as to why defeat of the Specter bill is so urgent.
UPDATE:
(5) Oddly, the very pro-Israel New York Sun says that the Israel-U.N. incident "could prove a turning point in Israel's war to rid its northern border of Hezbollah." I don't see why that would be the case. Almost every war has incidents of this sort. The U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killed a group of Canadian troops in Afghanistan in an F-16 strike, and shot missiles at media offices in Baghdad. Incidents of this type are not uncommon.
Additionally, it was somewhat surprising that Kofi Annan would so quickly and impulsively make such serious accusations against Israel -- namely, that the bombing of the U.N. observation post was "deliberate," rather than accidental. That may well be the case, but it may very well not be, and it is hard to see how Annan could know that already.
Either way, I don't see how this incident will have much of an effect on what Israel is doing. Those who were already opposed to Israel's conduct will use this incident to confirm their views, and those who defend Israel's conduct will simply dismiss its importance as an unfortunate and inevitable part of war, and they'll blame Hezbollah (and the ambitious ones will blame Syrian and Iran). Israel and the U.S. have already decided that world opinion will not impede what they are doing here, rendering this incident inconsequential, at least in terms of the effect it will have on the war.
UPDATE II:
(6) As Steve Benen notes, the The Washington Post this morning has published an editorial responding to Arlen Specter's frivolous Op-Ed on Monday. The whole editorial is devoted to explaining basic constitutional law principles to Specter and warns: "would thereby legitimize not only whatever the NSA may now be doing but lots of other surveillance it might dream up." For whatever reasons, Democratic Senators listen to the Post editorial page, and if the Post is going to be serious and devoted in its opposition to that bill, that would unquestionably be helpful in inducing the Senate Democrats to consider a filibuster.
UPDATE III:
(7) I wouldn't say that this factual account of the Israeli bombing from the Guardian justifies Kofi Annan's accusation that the bombing was "deliberate" -- that is an accusation which ought not to be made absent definitive proof, especially in such volatile circumstances -- but if the facts in the Guardian story are accurate, it would certainly lend support to the claim that the Israelis were, at the very least, completely reckless with regard to the lives of the U.N. peacekeepers.
the administration wrote the spector bill, basically. but they don't stop there. now they've written a military tribunal bill. i suppose they'll ask spector to introduce it to congress once the white house and all bush's personal lawyers (on the taxpayer's payroll) pound out the details:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/washington/26detain.html
Regarding point 1, I have to agree to a point. However, I always feel that comments on blogs are poor evidence of anything because you can never be sure who really posted them and because the author doesn't have to take any responsibility. When this argument is made by the right-wing bloggers to show evidence of the "angry-left," I always discount it unless they're reporting on articles from well-known or well-read blogs, instead of comments on articles.
ReplyDeleteOf course, what's good for the goose, etc.; I'm just saying that I think both styles of arguments are bogus and show little other than that there are crazy, anonymous people out there on both sides.
Of course, what's good for the goose, etc.; I'm just saying that I think both styles of arguments are bogus and show little other than that there are crazy, anonymous people out there on both sides.
ReplyDeleteThat all depends. I understand the argument, but two points about that -
(1) Both journalists and blogs (especially LGF) frequently use comments, especially (though not only) at Kos, to attribute sentiments to "the Left" and "liberals" and even Democrats generally. There is an article up right now at Weekly Standard which uses random diaries (the Kos equivalent of comments) to attribute anti-semitism and Israel-hating to liberalism. If that method is going to be used, it is misguided to suggest that it should be used in only one direction.
(2) There is a difference between (a) digging and digging until one finds a random, unrepresentative comment to misleadingly exploit as representative and (b) pointing out a sentiment which finds support among a certain group. If you peruse the LGF thread where this issue is discussed, I don't think there will be any doubt that this falls squarely into category (b). Additionally, comments are deleted and commenters banned over at LGF at the drop of a hat, giving added weight to the contributions of the regular commenters there.
Glenn, at LGFWATCH we have documented the "lizards" comments on the UN Deaths.
ReplyDeletehttp://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/pajamas-medias-lizards-celebrate-un.html
Glenn, with regard to the update:
ReplyDeleteI remember watching CNN, I think it was, as U.S. troops were entering Baghdad. There was a long sequence, apparently shot from the hotel where many TV journalists were staying at the time, of U.S. tanks approaching the opposite bank of the river, and Iraqi troops throwing away their weapons, and screened from the tanks by trees, running away several hundred yards down the bank.
Very shortly thereafter, as I remember it, a 120 mm. tank round was fired at one of the upper floors of the hotel, killing a journalist, and wounding several others.
I remember wondering then if the commander of the tank platoon wasn't aware that the world was observing his unit's movements from the hotel TV feed, and decided, for the safety of his men, to force the cameras to focus on something else.
There's no way to know, of course, and opinions may vary as to the morality of such a decision if, in fact, that was what happened, but it is certainly possible to imagine that such things can, and do happen in war.
In other words, your point is well taken.
Well, you know, I got to just musing over the words, the phrase "civil war", and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, the current violence in Iraq isn't really very different. Our Civil War wasn't an actual civil war either, and you shouldn't refer to it as one. I mean, the violence in the American Civil War only ever took place in a couple of states at a time, most of the fighting occured in only a handful of states, and there never was any fighting in most of the states. It's pretty obvious that there never was a civil war in the United States.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteMy "good for the goose comment" was intended to mean that using this in reverse was justified. I just think the argument is basically bogus in either direction when it's based on comments, not articles for the reasons I gave. Sometimes you do have to fight fire with fire, though.
Your point on 2 is well taken. After reading this guy for awhile, I don't understand why the "angry right" isn't a bigger story than the "angry left".
Thanks for the response.
Billmon was right-on with his prediction last night: "Man, there's going to be some serious erections at Little Green Footballs tonight!"
ReplyDeletehttp://billmon.org/archives/002571.html
anonymous at 10:34 a.m.: "I mean, the violence in the American Civil War only ever took place in a couple of states at a time, most of the fighting occured in only a handful of states, and there never was any fighting in most of the states."
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm confused at your definition of civil war. The 1861-1865 event that resulted in over 600,000 casualties, more U.S. casualties than all the other wars we've been involved in combined was . . . just a little dust-up? What term would you use to describe it?
I'm genuinely curious: is this what you believe, or am I missing the sarcasm or what?
"It's pretty obvious that there never was a civil war in the United States."
Um . . . what?!
Just because the fighting was limited to a certain number of states? Is there an "official" number of regions that fighting has to occur in order for something to qualify as civil war?
Help?
Rob
Anan was not speaking impulsively, he had very good reason for what he said.
ReplyDeleteFrom The BBC:
UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.
The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say.
snip
The four unarmed UN observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, died after their UN post was hit by an Israeli air strike on Tuesday.
The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop.
Why would the Israelis do this? No doubt they thought they were sending a message of some sort, about the fecklessness of UN peacekeeping forces or something.
As for your conclusion that this incident is of no consequence, it may not have any direct or obvious sequelae except to work as intended -- make the possibility of rounding up some sort of an international force to divide the warring parties even more remote. It's a sign of the basic insanity of the Israeli plan, which will fail, and suggests that the danger of this situation is even greater than I previously feared.
I don't know what the big deal was about 9/11. I mean, sure a couple of buildings were attacked in one or two cities, but there's thousands of cities across America where no buildings were attacked at all. So it was a highly concentrated thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd that criminal, terrorist attack by a handful of crazies should have been treated as such, publicly at least. To respond as we did has played right into the hands of lunatics. It put the "sole superpower" in the world on the defensive and in a permanent reactive mode. The idea that we are dealing pro-actively with this problem is another myth that is designed for public consumption to make certain people look decisive and powerful. Obviously the only thing they still aren't completely clueless about is domestic politics, political campaigning tactics that do more harm than good to the country and trying hard to hold on to political power and dominance domestically. They have seen the last of their best days on that front as well.
Anan was not speaking impulsively, he had very good reason for what he said.
ReplyDeleteEven precision bombs can go off target. Miscommunication about locations can occur. All sorts of mistakes get made in war. I'm not saying it's impossible that this was deliberate, just that it's not possible to know that within hours after it occurred.
Having "good reason" to make an accusation of that degree of seriousness, in such volatile situation, is not good enough. Conclusive proof ought to be required.
It's a sign of the basic insanity of the Israeli plan, which will fail, and suggests that the danger of this situation is even greater than I previously feared.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a Hell it's a certainty that Hitler is there. And if that's the case, he's down there marveling as the Israelis engineer destruction of their own state. They won't complete his mission for him, because anti-semitism isn't the hate du jour it once was, having a contender for that spot, Muslims globally and the left in America. As it was in Germany, only a small minority generates the hate.
Rumsfeld's comment on the Iraq civil war is more of his usual bullshit. He's trying to downplay the seriousness of the violence by saying it only affects a mere four provinces, while ignoring the fact that Baghdad province alone contains a quarter of the entire population of Iraq, some 6.5 million people out of about 26 million total. The four most violent provinces are home to about half of all Iraqis.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's just not true that the violence is restricted to those four provinces. Yesterday's carnage report at Today In Iraq documented almost 200 violent deaths in Baghdad, Mosul, Samarra, Taji, Baquba, Balad, Falluja, Saqlawiya, Kirkuk, Daquq, Ishaki, Diwaniya, Kut, Ramadi, Suwayra and Mussayib. Those cities span at least 8 provinces. That was in a report that covered a mere three days. And we know our reports are incomplete, we estimate we document no more than 30-50% of the casualties in Iraq day by day.
Rumsfeld and his fellow war criminals will say anything to try to minimize the Iraq disaster. But it's a civil war, alright.
matt
Today In Iraq
Glenn:
ReplyDelete(4) It is difficult to chronicle at once all of the dangers and abuses of the Specter FISA bill because they are so numerous. One of the more pernicious aspects of it that has been overlooked is that, as Bill Weaver points out, it mandates that all legal questions surrounding warrantless eavesdropping -- including the question of its constitutionality -- be decided by the FISA court, which means that (a) only one side will be present in court to argue these issues (the Bush administration) and (b) all proceedings, including the decision itself, may very well be secret.
It is one thing for specific warrant applications to be conducted in secret, with only one side present, and with even the decision itself always sealed from the public -- the standard operating procedures for the FISA court. But those procedures are so plainly inappropriate for deciding critical questions of constitutional law which determine the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to all Americans against the Government. The parameters of the Fourth Amendment and decisions as to whether our highest government officials have been continuously violating it cannot possibly be determined in secret and then kept secret from American citizens.
Huh? You don't see the utter contradiction in that argument, do you?
You have repeatedly argued that the secret warrant process of the FISA court is the ideal way to deal with the NSA Program.
Exactly what do you think goes on when the Government seeks a warrant?
The government is asking the court to review its evidence and determine whether the 4th Amendment permits a warrant.
The process is performed in secret and out of the presence of the target or his attorneys.
This process is conducted in the FISC and other federal and state courts tens of thousands of times a year.
The Specter bill asks the FISC to perform the equivalent of the 4th Amendment warrant process for the entire NSA program and for individuals claiming that the NSA spied on them.
There is nothing at all radical about this.
A handful of Title III courts have already reviewed classified information on the NSA Program in camera and out of sight of the plaintiffs and the American people to make similar rulings without disclosing the classified information.
All the Specter bill does is move jurisdiction for all of these cases to the FISC court, which has the experience in these matters.
The decision of the FISC is not final and can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is where you wanted this issue to end up in any case.
Where is the danger?
Concerning the "civil war" comment by anonymous at 10:34am -
ReplyDeleteThe comment's author is free to correct me, but I took this as rather pointed comparison with Secretary Rumsfield's attempt to minimize the ongoing civil war in Iraq.
I don't believe the comment's author was attempting to minimize the scale or tragedy of the American Civil War as much as show how utterly ridiculous Rummy's comments were.
That's how I took it, anyway. Ditto with michael's 10:52am comment concerning 9/11 (again, no laughing matter but a very pointed comparison).
Even precision bombs can go off target. Miscommunication about locations can occur. All sorts of mistakes get made in war. I'm not saying it's impossible that this was deliberate, just that it's not possible to know that within hours after it occurred.
ReplyDeleteTraining for war is a dangerous exercise. You don't hear about all the deaths that occur during training exercises like college campuses hush up crime on campus. So what you are say is true. However, this is highly suspect. In the case of the Chinese embassy, we were told that CIA targeting data was out of date. Perhaps, but perhaps there was a reason we are not aware of that required the embassy was hit, but it was necessary to publicly claim it was an accident. The attack on the USS Liberty was not an accident. It was treated as an accident for political reasons.
The first draft of the bill to reverse Hamdan is being circulated around the Congress and the JAGs at the Pentagon.
ReplyDeleteWith a couple tweaks, it ratifies the current procedures and expressly removes the Geneva Conventions from the UCMJ.
The article discusses the major procedures which would be established and the reasoning behind them in a rather sober way for the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/
washington/26detain.html?ex=
1311566400&en=
8892d2de73f3ef9c&ei=5088&partner=
rssnyt&emc=rss
Perhaps Annan knew some of the details included in the following (via Mojo Blog):
ReplyDeleteThe Death of UN Observers: "The BBC's Daniel Lak at the UN in New York says that the observers had taken shelter in a bunker under their base because there had already been 14 Israeli artillery attacks on their position, causing a French general in charge of the UN observers to call Israel's military asking them to desist. However, as they sheltered, the bunker was hit by a single heavy bomb from an Israeli war plane and four unarmed observers, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, were killed. A UN rescue team also came under fire as it searched the rubble for survivors.''
Is there an "official" number of regions that fighting has to occur in order for something to qualify as civil war?
ReplyDeleteHelp?
Heh. You'll have to look to Rumsfeld for the official definition of civil war.
Or not.
Desert Son: It's called sarcasm, also known as irony, and sometimes satire. Compare the comments you are questioning with Rumsfeld's comments about the Iraqi civil war. See the parallels?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
"And that criminal, terrorist attack by a handful of crazies should have been treated as such, publicly at least. To respond as we did has played right into the hands of lunatics."
--Right on. The Clinton Administration tracked down, prosecuted, and convicted those who bombed the World Trade Center in '93, plus thwarted Saddam Hussein's plot to kill George H. W. Bush, and stopped Al Qaeda before they could bomb the Holland Tunnel or LAX, all without having to use an unconstitutional Patriot Act.
I guess I'm confused at your definition of civil war. The 1861-1865 event that resulted in over 600,000 casualties, more U.S. casualties than all the other wars we've been involved in combined was . . . just a little dust-up? What term would you use to describe it?
ReplyDeleteThe last throes of the terrorists and dead-enders.
From shooter242 at 10:35am:
ReplyDeletePerhaps most people don't know that the UN had a military force of 2000 "troops" already in place charged with protecting Israel after they withdrew. Needless to say that was worth exactly whatever Kofi is peddling today. Nothing.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) wasn't put there to "protect" Israel, but to try to help the Lebanese government stabilize and control its southern border after the 1978 Israeli incursion into Lebanon.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html
Needless to say, only a complete idiot would think 2,000 lightly-armed Blue Helmets from China, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Ukraine, all led by a French Major-General and dependent upon a very slender logistics train, would be able to effectively patrol and control several hundred miles of very rugged terrain where two very, very well-armed forces of beligerents are still shooting at one another.
But then, look who I'm talking to.
tom, anonymous, and yankeependragon, thank you for the clarification. I was honestly unable to detect the sarcasm (I'm a little dense that way sometimes), so was genuinely puzzled.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the help.
anonymous at 10:34 a.m., the misunderstanding was mine. I apologize if I was confrontational.
Rob
The chances for accidents of this type happening have been greatly decreased in the intervening 40 years. About 20 years ago I took my young son to Fleet Week and was speaking with a young Marine Cobra pilot. He told me he could lob a 20 mm round from his chin gun into any window in Oakland from where we were across the bay in SF. That's still a dumb munition and those were the days before the advent of GPS. Accidents do happen. Sometimes they "happen" on purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe matter is officially closed for purposes of Israeli-American relations, but remains controversial in the public debate.
Israel's official position remains to this day that the attack was an accident, claiming that it was assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area. Israel has also claimed that its air and naval forces mistakenly identified Liberty as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir. Proponents of the accident explanation add that mistakes were inevitable in the tense atmosphere of the Six-Day War, and that no concrete motive existed for Israel to initiate a surprise attack against a country that was quickly becoming its most powerful and important ally.
Others claim that the attack was premeditated and deliberate; they note, among other things, that the Liberty was four times larger than the El Quseir, and was clearly designated with Latin rather than Arabic letters and numbers. Proponents of deliberate attack theory include the surviving Liberty crewmen, [1] and some former U.S. government officials, including then-CIA director Richard Helms and then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk as well as Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The United States and Israel exchanged diplomatic notes after several inquiries. Though the United States never officially accepted the Israeli explanation, it agreed to accept indemnities of $13 million, for damage and casualties.
anonymous at 10:34 a.m., the misunderstanding was mine. I apologize if I was confrontational.
ReplyDeleteNo need to apologize for providing the morning's amusement.
how does arlen sphincter keep his calendar straight - his "I'm for it" and then "I'm against it" flip-flops are truely astounding. Even for a repug-neocon tool that created the lie that covered up the JFK assassination, his constant reversals on chimpy's signing statements and spy programs are amazing.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of morons elect a tool like this?
But then, look who I'm talking to.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to resist responding but think about this: How difficult is it to shoot fish in a barrel?
Resistance is never futile. Responding is too easy.
The closer you get to Orwellian doublethink, the more difficult it becomes to recognize snark.
ReplyDeleteHaving "good reason" to make an accusation of that degree of seriousness, in such volatile situation, is not good enough.
ReplyDeleteCome on, glenn, this is a stupid statement for a lawyer to make - like there really is such thing as "Conclusive proof" on most things - our legal system does not even have that standard and you know it.
How hypocritical to proclaim that we should not even be allowed to have this dialog without an abstract, virtually impossible standard of "proof."
You really make no sense today and this certainly doesn't seem consistent with your book.
From Bart at 11:23am:
ReplyDeleteWith a couple tweaks, it ratifies the current procedures and expressly removes the Geneva Conventions from the UCMJ.
And I suppose you're actually pleased with this.
Your two minute hate du jour:
ReplyDeleteRight-Wing ‘Guide to World War III’: ‘Kill ‘Em All, Let Allah Sort ‘Em Out’
I was slightly bogggled by the judge in Chicago basically saying that in order to sue over the government getting your phone call information, you have to prove that they got the phone call information. Um, isn't part of the *problem* that the government is refusing to say who they're listening to, and invoking state secrets to prevent *that* information being released? So that people (like Terkel) can't sue because they can't get the information they need to file the suit? Catch-22, anyone?
ReplyDeleteCome on, glenn, this is a stupid statement for a lawyer to make - like there really is such thing as "Conclusive proof" on most things - our legal system does not even have that standard and you know it.
ReplyDeleteAccusing one country in a war of "deliberately" bombing a UN tower and slaughtering 4 UN peacekeepers on purpose is an extremely serious accusation with the potential to create all sorts of explosive consequences. I don't think it's too much to ask that the top diplomat in the world have actual proof rather than speculation before making that accusation.
How hypocritical to proclaim that we should not even be allowed to have this dialog without an abstract, virtually impossible standard of "proof."
I never said the "dialog" shouldn't happen. I said that the accusation shouldn't be made as fact until there is conclusive proof for it. And it seems you think that "conclusive proof" means something other than what it means.
shooter242,
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Yankeedragon's comments, which I was about to make, with the very same link on the background of that mission, I want to ask you this:
Lebanon is a fledgeling state, that has only recently shorn itself of Israeli occupation (in 2000) and Syrian control (2005). Why are you willing to support the President's mission in Iraq, where the fledgeling Iraqi state is being given as much time and US money as it needs to "stand up" but are so unwilling to see Lebanon get that benefit?
Seriously, the UN background report continually shows UNAMIR telling Lebanon to get a grip on Hezbollah, and applauds each tentative step they took. If Iraq is to get "as long as it takes" for their forces to be able to battle the insurgents without US help, maybe Lebanon deserves the same luxury?
At any rate, the attacks of Hezbollah on Israel were low-intensity and mostly consist of small border incursions, a few largely ineffective rockets (until the recent crisis that is) and rhetoric. For Israel to claim taking 2 soldiers is sufficient provokation for a generalized assault on the entirity of Lebanon is self-evidently deficient.
Why the double standard?
Anonymous...You really make no sense today and this certainly doesn't seem consistent with your book.
ReplyDeleteBart makes no sense at all. Ever. Glenn, OTOH, reinforces the same points until even a person with average intelligence like myself can understand them. He gets complaints about this all the time. You must be exceptionally dull.
anon @ 11:56am: Your two minute hate du jour:
ReplyDeleteTry this.
I have to agree with Glenn regarding Annan's comments.
ReplyDeleteIf Annan has evidence the attack was deliberate beyond the obvious inferences and logical examination of Israeli capabilities, he needs to come out with it quickly.
Otherwise he plays into the hands of opponents of the UN, who already largely regard the whole institution as having an anti-semitic or anti-Israel bias. It's one thing for that moniker to stick on the General Assembly, where large blocs of nations do vote consistently against Israel, but another for the Secretary-General to get tagged as such.
Bad for the UN's credibility, even if it is true.
Thanks to yankeependragon for the corrective information on UNIFIL. Yesterday, before the UN post was hit, while looking for something else entirely, I encountered an article from Canadian CTV, an email from a Canadian who is part of the UNIFIL observer unit at the very site that was hit. I haven't checked the Canadian news sites yet to see the name of the Canadian who was killed. It could have been him. I saved the article but not the link, will post when I find it.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I agree that Annan's language is unusually strong, but I believe that he would not have said that without information that backs it up. The UN had (or thought they had) an agreement about the UNIFIL base, it was large and clearly marked, and it came under simultaneous, coordinated air and artillery fire. Hard to see how that wasn't deliberate.
In the Canadian UNIFIL observer's email, he talks about being under Israeli fire several times, but did not believe they were being targeted.
If the attack was not deliberate, then the best face that can be put on the attack is that Israeli forces are bombing and shelling indiscriminately -- that they consider everything inside some distance from the border (best known to the IDF) to be a free fire zone.
Can someone explain the legal manoevre which might allow the UCMJ to remove Geneva stipulations and yet not have the US withdraw from the Geneva conventions?
ReplyDeleteAren't treaties approved by 2/3 of the Senate considered "Law of the Land" - meaning no explicit US legislation is required, the treaty itself, as written, is equivalent to US law? I thought this was ironclad, but it seems not to be so.
Glenn, I agree that Annan's language is unusually strong, but I believe that he would not have said that without information that backs it up. The UN had (or thought they had) an agreement about the UNIFIL base, it was large and clearly marked, and it came under simultaneous, coordinated air and artillery fire. Hard to see how that wasn't deliberate.
ReplyDeleteI've added an update with some evidence that certainly supports Annan's claim. I still think it's imprudent for him - and, as someone above suggested, perhaps counter-productive - to make the accusation so quickly. It seems impetuous.
But he was probably angry and emotional, as is understandable. And if the facts from the Guardian story are true, there is a pretty strong case that, at the very least, the Israelis were quite reckless.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAhem.
ReplyDeleteit was somewhat surprising that Kofi Annan would so quickly and impulsively make such serious accusations against Israel -- namely, that the bombing of the U.N. observation post was "deliberate," rather than accidental.
No, actually, he never said that it was deliberate--he said it was "apparently" deliberate. And the outpost did call the Israeli military ten times over six hours, telling them to cut it out--so I'm with Kofi on this one: "apparently deliberate". If this is negligence, then it's the grossest of gross negligence, and the Israeli army is usually more competent than that.
This is from Pat Lang's blog.
ReplyDelete"That UN Military Observer post at Khiyam has been in that same place for decades. Its position was well known to the IDF. It was well marked. There had been continual liaison wth the IDF in the past and in the hours leading up to the fatal attack.
"Why would the IDF attack a UN observer post? Who, in their right mind would think such a thing," says Gellerman, Israel's UN ambassador." An Irish Army captain assigned to UNDOF or UNIFIL answered the question succinctly in a television interview this morning. "We are the Secretary General's eyes and ears," he said."
"and the ambitious ones will blame Syrian and Iran"
ReplyDeleteshould probably read "and the Courageous and Uber-Patriotic ones will blame Syrian and Iran"
Glenn, the Specter bill may be your only hope for judicial review...
ReplyDeleteJudge dismisses lawsuit against AT&T: reports
By Ana Campoy, MarketWatch
Last Update: 9:14 PM ET Jul 25, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A federal judge in Chicago on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against AT&T Inc. to stop the company from providing telephone records to the government, according to reports.
U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said requiring AT&T to disclose if it has turned over telephone records to the federal government could provide insight on the country's intelligence activities to its adversaries, the reports said.
Several similar suits have been filed across the U.S. following news media reports that AT&T and other phone companies had provided records to the National Security Agency, which specializes in communications intercepts.
The Chicago suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who said an NSA program that gathered phone company records violated their constitutional rights, according to the reports.
Justice Department attorneys argued for the case to be dismissed because AT&T would violate the law against divulging state secrets by denying or confirming whether it had provided telephone records to the spy agency, the reports said.
Earlier this week, a U.S. district judge in San Francisco denied the government's and AT&T's motion to dismiss a similar case, saying that the existence of the surveillance program could not be considered a state secret because it has been widely reported by the media, and both the government and AT&T have indicated it exists.
The San Francisco lawsuit, which was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, accuses AT&T of illegally working with the NSA to eavesdrop and track phone calls without warrants.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/
Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=
%7B2B40006A-91CE-4874-8EE6-
D4112011C4DA%7D&keyword=
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 11:23am: With a couple tweaks, it ratifies the current procedures and expressly removes the Geneva Conventions from the UCMJ.
And I suppose you're actually pleased with this.
So far as seeing an activist court slapped down by the democratic branches, I am immensely pleased.
So far as trials for these terrorists go, I am agnostic. They are already effectively serving life sentences because it will take that long to finish this war with Islamic fascism. Since the government is not seeking the death penalty, this is all a waste of time IMHO.
Having "good reason" to make an accusation of that degree of seriousness, in such volatile situation, is not good enough. Conclusive proof ought to be required.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you consider "conclusive proof" Glenn?
When I read the same article that Cervantes cited, I also was struck by the statement that the UN had called the top military people in Israel to tell them the bombs were hitting too close to them ten times. Each time they were assured the bombing would stop. It didn't.
If it wasn't deliberate I think it could be said to be conclusive that Israel doesn't appear to have tried very hard to prevent such an occurance. A middle explanation was that it wasn't "deliberate" but Israel had no intention of taking precautions to prevent it as they were intent on carrying out that particular maneuver.
Some would call that "deliberate"
and take it out of the "accident" category.
PS. I have never liked the UN either. Corruption is only one part of it. Apparently some of the UN observers, unlike the diplomats who gather at the UN building, are sincere and trying to do some good in this world. I say apparently because obviously I'd have no way of knowing.
.
Glenn, OTOH, reinforces the same points until even a person with average intelligence like myself can understand them.
ReplyDeleteI could make this same comment about myself. I have a hard time to grasp "lawyer speak", and Glenn explains the law in a way I can easily understand.
Glenn, I just have one nitpick. Kos diaries are the equivilant of short essays, or articles. A diary usually garners actual comments.
Thanks for doing what you do.
What would you consider "conclusive proof" Glenn?
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian story is getting close, if the facts are accurate and there is no convincing Israeli response to them.
If the UN was really deliberately targeted, there are presumably documents which reflect that, people inside Israel who know of it. These sorts of things have a way of coming out.
The point I'm making has nothing to do with whether it's more likely that the Israelis did this deliberately. I recognize the possibility that they might have. My point is about the propriety of the Secretary-General making accusations of this sort.
The U.N. is supposed to be a neutral referee, not a participant in conflicts. Therefore, the standard of proof required for it to make an accusation of this sort is higher than it would be for an enemy of Israel or even a country not participating. If the U.N. looks like a partisan in any of these conflicts, its purpose and fucntion completely disappear.
Can someone explain the legal manoevre which might allow the UCMJ to remove Geneva stipulations and yet not have the US withdraw from the Geneva conventions?
ReplyDelete(are you listening Democratic campaign strategists?)
*ahem*
"Fuzzy law."
Glenn, I just have one nitpick. Kos diaries are the equivilant of short essays, or articles. A diary usually garners actual comments.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who joins Kos can write a diary or leave a comment. For the purposes of the point, I was discussing, diaries are no different than comments at other blog. Kos no more approves of the content of diaries than any blogger approves of the content of comments at their blog. Just because it takes the form of a "diary" rather than a comment doesn't mean it's any more fair to attribute the content to Kos, let alone to a wider political movement.
I be laughing my ass off if somebody launched one right in Kofi's office while he was groping his secretary.
ReplyDeleteBecause, see, if the secretary allows this sort of thing to happen, she's nothing but a filthy UN-enabler, and therefore a legitimate military target.
The point I'm making has nothing to do with whether it's more likely that the Israelis did this deliberately. I recognize the possibility that they might have. My point is about the propriety of the Secretary-General making accusations of this sort.
ReplyDeleteOne last time Glenn: apparently deliberate. Read it with me now--that's a qualifier. Normally I'd expect better of you. Kofi's being more careful with his words than you are--but then, I guess that's why they pay him the big bucks.
bart: because it will take that long to finish this war with Islamic fascism.
ReplyDeleteBart, could you share your thoughts with me about our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, a country that seems to harbor more hard core islamic facism than any of the others about which I have read. Many of the 9/11 attackers were from there also, weren't they? Not to mention Chop Chop Square, a reflection of their insane fundamentalist "religious" system of (in)justice.
Are we at war with them? Are we planning to invade them? Do we hear on TV that we are planning to nuke them? Did Clinton or Bush say they were the axis of evil?
If not, why?
Now what is this you keep talking about concerning a global war against extremist Islamic fascist fundamentalism?
The Canadian UNIFIL observer's email from July 18 is here. There is no word in the Canadian press on the name of the observer killed by the Israeli bombing; I'm assuming that we will learn shortly, after the family is notified.
ReplyDeleteOne last time Glenn: apparently deliberate. Read it with me now--that's a qualifier. Normally I'd expect better of you. Kofi's being more careful with his words than you are--but then, I guess that's why they pay him the big bucks.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that changes the point at all. If anything, it is a concession that he really doesn't have facts to back up the accusation that it is deliberate. He's only basing his assessment on appearances, not on what he knows.
That, to me, makes the comment less justifiable, not more so. Whether Israel deblierately or accidentally bombed the UN tower is a very grave matter, and there is no reason for anyone - let alone him - to be leaping to highly inflammatory conclusions without waiting to first gather all the facts.
prunes said...
ReplyDeleteCan someone explain the legal manoevre which might allow the UCMJ to remove Geneva stipulations and yet not have the US withdraw from the Geneva conventions?
"Fuzzy law."
Talk to the Supremes who rewrote both the geneva Conventions and the UCMJ to create this mess.
The Geneva Conventions by their own terms do not apply to these illegal combatants.
However, the Supremes wanted to apply part of the Geneva Conventions to support their position, so they wrote out the limitations on the Third Article then "interpreted" the UCMJ to enforce this particular part of the Third Article.
Given that the Supremes limited its rewritten Article III to what was enforced in the UCMJ, the elected branches are simply going to remove this misbegotten insertion by the Supremes from the UCMJ.
Anyone who joins Kos can write a diary or leave a comment. For the purposes of the point, I was discussing, diaries are no different than comments at other blog. Kos no more approves of the content of diaries than any blogger approves of the content of comments at their blog. Just because it takes the form of a "diary" rather than a comment doesn't mean it's any more fair to attribute the content to Kos, let alone to a wider political movement.
ReplyDeleteI missed your original point. I understand what your saying now, thanks.
I don't think that changes the point at all. If anything, it is a concession that he really doesn't have facts to back up the accusation that it is deliberate. He's only basing his assessment on appearances, not on what he knows.
ReplyDeleteRight, so instead of saying that it definitely is deliberate, he's saying that it looks deliberate, and obviously he wants to get to the bottom of it. I'll await your corrections above.
That, to me, makes the comment less justifiable, not more so. Whether Israel deblierately or accidentally bombed the UN tower is a very grave matter, and there is no reason for anyone - let alone him - to be leaping to highly inflammatory conclusions without waiting to first gather all the facts.
Right, so it's a good thing that he didn't say that it was deliberate, unlike your characterization of his remarks--there's no reason for anyoneto be leaping to such highly inflammatory conclusions here, you know. And based on the facts that have been gathered thus far, I'm on board with 'apparently deliberate'. So what's the problem?
Treaties to which America is a signatory ARE the law of the land, as stipulated by the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as generations of indigenous Americans can tell you, in reality such treaties aren't worth the air they're written on. We have been a violater of "the law of the land" from the very beginning.
The UN "peacekeepers" were allowing Hezbollah artillery spotters to use their post to call in fire on the IDF forces, even after they were warned multiple times to cease and desist. They were perfectly justified in flattening the site.
ReplyDeleteBartbarian, Boy Lawyer, revealingly said, "So far as trials for these terrorists go, I am agnostic. They are already effectively serving life sentences because it will take that long to finish this war with Islamic fascism. Since the government is not seeking the death penalty, this is all a waste of time IMHO."
ReplyDeleteOf course, condemning men to "effective life sentences" with no evidence provided to support the contention that they're terrorists, or allowing them to appeal such imprisonment before a court of law is just the sort of America we want to be.
The UN "peacekeepers" were allowing Hezbollah artillery spotters to use their post to call in fire on the IDF forces, even after they were warned multiple times to cease and desist. They were perfectly justified in flattening the site.
ReplyDeleteNow that's an interesting tidbit. Do you have a source for that, or were you there?
Right, so it's a good thing that he didn't say that it was deliberate, unlike your characterization of his remarks--there's no reason for anyoneto be leaping to such highly inflammatory conclusions here, you know. And based on the facts that have been gathered thus far, I'm on board with 'apparently deliberate'. So what's the problem?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the justification for making accusations based on appearances, rather than waiting for the facts to be assembled and then making statements based upon facts? You're ignoring the context. Statements by the Secretary-General of the UN of this type in the middle of a war have huge weight. Making them without all of the facts is irresponsible.
The UN "peacekeepers" were allowing Hezbollah artillery spotters to use their post to call in fire on the IDF forces, even after they were warned multiple times to cease and desist. They were perfectly justified in flattening the site.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know this? Wheres the evidence?
From bart: "They are already effectively serving life sentences because it will take that long to finish this war with Islamic fascism."
ReplyDeleteYou heard it here: Global War On Terror estimated to last the span of a life sentence.
Which is to say, for life.
Rob
What is the justification for making accusations based on appearances, rather than waiting for the facts to be assembled and then making statements based upon facts?
ReplyDeleteIn this case, probably to properly convey the seriousness of this event to Israel in the face of their apparent inaction or lack of concern for UN observers. China isn't too happy about it either, for one. As for assembling the facts, that'd be why Kofi called for an investigation as well, so it's not like he ignored that.
You're ignoring the context. Statements by the Secretary-General of the UN of this type in the middle of a war have huge weight. Making them without all of the facts is irresponsible.
I'd argue that, given that weight, distorting those very remarks is far more irresponsible. If you want to make the case that Kofi Annan didn't have all the facts and had the temerity to speculate that this looked deliberate, then fine, make that case. But that's not the case that you made--you made it sound like he flat-out passed judgement on Israel already, and he didn't. He didn't say it was a deliberate attack. He said it looked like a deliberate attack, which is why he wants an investigation of it.
shooter spewed
ReplyDeleteThe satisfaction of some that the UN gets a taste of the dangers it professes to combat, but doesn't, is forgivable.
OK. So the UN attempts to combat violence by neutrally observing it. So that everyone knows they are neutral and won't bother to kill them, they are deployed unarmed. That puts them in great danger when fighting starts, but not as much as if they were armed with a few rifles and were therefore legitimate targets.
A war starts. Four are killed. And you are "satisfied" that they got a "taste" of the violence they are supposed to be monitoring in the hopes of preventing?
Shooter, forgive me if I sincerely hope that, one day, you walk down the wrong alley and get a taste of the anal rape you have always, in your cowardly fashion, sought to avoid.
My point is about the propriety of the Secretary-General making accusations of this sort.
ReplyDeleteI understand but disagree. If the UN historically had been a little more honest and a little less politcal and hypocritical, maybe it would have retained some shred of respect from the world.
There CANNOT be any conclusive proof here. That would take a confession, because even if the event were filmed, it wouldn't prove intent.
What do you think the liklihood is that any member of the Israeli top military brass would "confess"? I would hope we can agree that is zero.
A very good reason to have spoken out quickly and forcefully is that perhaps Kofi wanted attacks on UN personal to stop right there. The best way to effectuate that would be to be the first one out of the gate, as long as he was virtually certain of his facts. If he waited for "conclusive" proof he'd still be waiting to find out who killed Kennedy.
If he hadn't spoken out so quickly, the first statement out of the box would have been the Israeli one, which accused Hezbollah of being responsible for the attack. In ten minutes that falsehood would have been written in stone and attention diverted to the next story.
The U.N. is supposed to be a neutral referee, not a participant in conflicts.
Exactly. Neutral referees call them like they see them and are not supposed to be influenced by political considerations. It is you who are asking Kofi to be a politician by refraining for "political" reasons from issuing a statement which could save other UN peacekeepers' lives.
Lives.
If the Israelis were so careless in causing the deaths of these UN workers, only a world wide public outcry would stop them from doing it again.
Therefore, the standard of proof required for it to make an accusation of this sort is higher than it would be for an enemy of Israel or even a country not participating.
I disagree. Standards of proof apply equally to everyone. Also, just because you didn't have enough facts to reach a conclusion, why do you assume Kofi didn't? Even in the course of this thread you state you have learned new facts by reading further accounts. How do you know he doesn't know ten times more than you now do? The UN people were in there for hours. They had repeated interaction with the Israelis. How do you know what was said between them? You don't.
If the U.N. looks like a partisan in any of these conflicts, its purpose and fucntion completely disappear.
Truth is not partisan. Measuring the truth out delicately is partisan depending on whose interests you serve by doing so.
If the U.N. looks like it will take $13 million to shut up and disappear, it would look like a whore.
The demand for "conclusive proof", a standard that cannot realistically be achieved in this situation, sounds more like Alan Dershowitz than you Glenn! It's a mandate to say nothing. Think about this a little more before you stick firm with your position. Maybe you'll decide to shift your initial take a bit :)
If not, that's what makes horseraces, but I don't think the issue is clear as you initially set forth.
From anonymous at 11:43 a.m.: "No need to apologize for providing the morning's amusement."
ReplyDeleteLOL I'd like to accept this morning's gullibility award and I'd just like to thank the academy!
Some days, I'm the walking embodiment of "If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a terrible warning."
;)
Rob
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteprunes: "Fuzzy law."
ReplyDeletebart: Talk to the Supremes who rewrote both the geneva Conventions and the UCMJ to create this mess.
This from the guy who pretends the AUMF is really, really a declaration of war that activates numerous heretofore unheard-of and inviolable Royal powers.
And favors waterboarding these "illegal combatants." It's not "really" torture.
Fuzzy lawyer.
That, to me, makes the comment less justifiable, not more so. Whether Israel deblierately or accidentally bombed the UN tower is a very grave matter, and there is no reason for anyone - let alone him - to be leaping to highly inflammatory conclusions without waiting to first gather all the facts.
ReplyDeleteGosh Glenn.
IF Kofi had actual proof, wouldn't he be doing the very thing you wanted him to do in the first place, issuing a less inflammatory statement than a more forceful one?
What did you want him to do? Come out shouting "murderers! murderers!?"
I am reading between the lines that you may think Kofi is anti-Israel and you suspect he made a statement without proof to back it up.
If he has proof, there is certainly no way in the world he could offer it up to the press without starting the third World War.
You want him to start naming names of which Israeli officer said what to which UN person stationed at that site?
Let's postulate Kofi had proof. His ONLY option would be to:
l) Say the attack was apparently deliberate to give Israel a little wiggle room, not supply any facts, as that would incite Israel and condemn Israel even further in the eyes of its enemies, and hope Israel gets the hint that if it happens again, there will be a tremendous outcry from the world community so Israel better eliminate that particular war tactic from its repetoire.
If you think he is anti-Israel, you'll see it as you do.
If you assume he is professional and impartial, I think you'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had the proof but chose to handle it in the way he did.
Also, don't assume that the rest of the world would agree with you that if it was deliberate as opposed to a careless lack of regard for those lives, it would be a "very" grave matter. I would agree with you, but it appears the citizens of the world take a lot in stride when "warfare" is involved and pretty much accept that anyone will do anything to win.
BTW: I don't follow the UN so can someone tell me if Kofi is generally considered to be anti-Israel?
anon said
ReplyDeleteHow hypocritical to proclaim that we should not even be allowed to have this dialog without an abstract, virtually impossible standard of "proof."
This is entirely correct. We should consider ourselves free to make accusations without worrying too much about facts. In fact, off-the-cuff accusations are more honest. Calls for more facts, and facts themselves, are dishonest.
Well, for what it's worth, I think Glenn makes a perfectly reasonable point about the Secretary General's statement, although I do agree that the standard of conclusive proof is a bit overstated.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, U.N. officials should be well aware of the accusations of bias favoring the Palestinian cause made against them by the U.S., and that consequently, they're in the position of Caesar's wife when speaking of Israel's motives.
Being seen by all sides to be impartial is essential to the success of the U.N.'s mission. Now, to be sure, accusations of bias will no doubt be made by interested parties no matter what Kofi Annan says, but there's no point in seeming to confirm them.
From my perspective, accusations of bad faith are an over-used tool in political argument -- one has only to look at the comments in this thread to see how common it is -- but it doesn't hurt to do what one can not to give those determined to find an ulterior motive in everything one says as little opportunity as possible.
baldie eagle,
ReplyDeleteCalls for more facts, and facts themselves, are dishonest.
So Kofi Annan is dishonest now? After all, he did call for more facts...
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThe proprietor of LGF appears to have redirected your link to them to some post accusing you of sock puppetry.
Just thought you should know.
If he hadn't spoken out so quickly, the first statement out of the box would have been the Israeli one, which accused Hezbollah of being responsible for the attack. In ten minutes that falsehood would have been written in stone and attention diverted to the next story.
ReplyDeleteTherein lies the crux of the situation. Why did Israel at first try to blame Hezbollah for this incident- when in fact they had been receiving calls for hours from the UN post, begging Israel to stop the bombardment?
Not the first time this has happened:
Saturday, July 22, 2006; Posted: 12:00 a.m. EDT (04:00 GMT)
Also Friday, a U.N. observation post was struck in southern Lebanon. Israeli forces said a Hezbollah rocket hit the post, near the northern Israeli town of Zarit and that there were no immediate reports of casualties. But a U.N. officer told The Associated Press that an Israeli artillery shell hit the outpost.
The attempt to blame Hezbollah for the latest UN attack has been scrubbed from news accounts.
(See the google search for: Israeli army blamed Hezbollah for hit on UN post.)
Why does Israel keep hitting the UN and trying to blame Hezbollah?
Israeli forces received ten warnings from the UN to stop firing on the post before it was destroyed by a precision guided missile. It had been shelled 14 times by Israeli artillery over a period of 6 hours.
Being seen by all sides to be impartial is essential to the success of the U.N.'s mission. Now, to be sure, accusations of bias will no doubt be made by interested parties no matter what Kofi Annan says, but there's no point in seeming to confirm them.
ReplyDeleteYou really seem to have gone through the looking glass. "Being seen by all sides to be impartial is essntial to the success" of the U.S. as an honest broker in this dispute. Kiss that good-bye, William. The U.N. is a "more or less" democratic body. There are two competing and contradictory concerns in the anti-UN faction. The Birchers, (old school paleos, isolationists and xenophobes), who are afraid of a "one world government" with "black helicopters" and the neocons who want one world government with the US at the head and the UN as another rubberstamp body for US imperialism, like our current Congress. Which one of those groups do you belong to?
Well, for what it's worth, I think Glenn makes a perfectly reasonable point about the Secretary General's statement, although I do agree that the standard of conclusive proof is a bit overstated.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, U.N. officials should be well aware of the accusations of bias favoring the Palestinian cause made against them by the U.S., and that consequently, they're in the position of Caesar's wife when speaking of Israel's motives.
WHAT???
Excuse me WT, despite my frequent appreciation of and respect for your typically learned posts, this one stikes me as out in left field.
With regard to your first point: EITHER Glenn is l) right that "conclusive proof" could have been obtained in this situation and 2) was not obtained OR his point was not reasonable. Either/or. Not both.
As for your second statement, where have you been? U.N. officials should be well aware of the accusations of bias favoring the Palestinian cause made against them by the U.S
Are you Rip Van Winkle?
You think there is anyone serious in this world who still puts any stock in whom the US accuses of bias in favor of the Palestinians?
Even if that party were biased it would be irrelevant because the US is not allowed to say anything critical of Israel with regard to the Palestinian situation so their words are like someone reciting a mantra. It could be true but as there is no reason to accept that it's true as they would say it even if it were not true, their words mean nothing.
So why on earth should the UN's actions be influenced by US accusations of bias?
Should they be influenced by Iran's accusations of bias?
The UN is not corrupt enough already? Now they have to be careful of what they say so as not to offend the amen corner?
After you figure out how the UN could be "seen to be impartial by all sides" I would suggest you then figure out how to tri-sect an angle. That should be a lot easier:)
Which one of those groups do you belong to?
ReplyDeleteWow. How did you get from point A to B like that, Anonymous?
Fuzzy logic?
In case anyone cares, this is why people like to avoid writing about Israel. If you don't recite the exact party line of one side or the other, you get attacked.
ReplyDeleteI have received tons of e-mail over the last week accusing me of being an Israel-hater and having an axe to grind against American neoconservative Jews.
Today I write a post saying that although it's certainly possible that Israel did this deliberately, I think it's premature to accuse Israel of an act this atrocious without waiting for the evidence - and now suddenly I'm Alan Dershowitz and a blind defender of Israel who refuses to face facts.
As I said in my first post a week or so ago once this war broke out, any debate involving Israel is dominated by extremists - those who think Israel is the angelic victim and those who think it's the root of all evil - and if you don't fall into one of those two camps, writing about Israel is a thankless task.
md: One final point: the Israelis historically have always resisted the proposal to place UN "peace keepers" between themselves and their opponents, whether Egyptian, Palestinian, Syrian, or Lebanese. It limits their "freedom of action."
ReplyDeleteIt's well-known how much many Israelis and pro-Israel Jews despise the UN> It's common in discussion with them to disparage the UN as "United Nothings." Could it be this attitude that contributed to the apparent targeting of the UNFIL outpost?
I love the Rumsfeld quote. It is impossible not to imagine him answering questions similarly in the near future:
ReplyDelete"Lost the war? Oh, I don't know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it, and I wouldn't say we 'cut and ran', more of a 'strategic redeployment'."
A question doesn't go from point A to point B, even though it may assume facts that may not be evident like, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
ReplyDeleteIf the UN's mission is peacekeeping, and it decided
tomorrow, by a vote, that the best way to keep peace in the middle east was for Israel to do X, you would accuse it of bias? Why?
glenn: As I said in my first post a week or so ago once this war broke out, any debate involving Israel is dominated by extremists - those who think Israel is the angelic victim and those who think it's the root of all evil - and if you don't fall into one of those two camps, writing about Israel is a thankless task.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your courage and devotion to turth in taking on this subject. As you say, very few people want to take on the issue head-on. I don't know how you view my own comments--extremist or otherwise--so my expression of appreciation might not be welcome. If so, I apologize; yet, I still find your honesty and sincerity in investigating this divisive, polarizing topic worthy of emulation by all.
You might be heartened to know--if you do not already--that the topic and the various views expressed here are commonplace in Israeli media.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteThe satisfaction of some that the UN gets a taste of the dangers it professes to combat, but doesn't, is forgivable. Can everyone remember how the UN ran away from Iraq after a bombing?
Oh, yeah, I can. I know, I know, pick meeeeee.....
Those weren't peace-keeping forces. They were relief workers and such:
"The 55-year-old Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian, also was U.N. high commissioner for human rights, having taken office in September.
The United Nations has long performed many roles in Iraq along with weapons inspections, including humanitarian, development and refugee programs.
There are 300 U.N. staff members in Baghdad and 646 throughout the country. Among those killed in the bombing was Canadian Christopher Klein-Beekman, 32, UNICEF program coordinator in Iraq, who had been in the country since May 2002."
Guess they got what they deserved, eh, Shooter?
You have to wonder about the ignerrence or just outright lack of humanity of a person who would say what Shooter said here.
Cheers,
I presume Kofi's information about the attack came directly from the scene, where troops presumably are qualified to judge whether they are in the middle of a coordinated artillery and air assault. It is simply not credible to believe that the Israelis did not know exactly what it was that they bombarded for several hours. The Israelis have a long history of antipathy toward UNIFIL. IMHO they attacked this post purposely either because they suspected the UN forces of somehow aiding Hezbollah, or because they did not want the UN troops to witness and report on possible war crimes being committed by Israeli forces.
ReplyDeleteanonymous: Which one of those groups do you belong to?
ReplyDeleteSurely you jest. If not, see the part of my comment about accusations of bad faith....
Eyes Wide Open:
A week or so ago you were accusing me of advocating the murder of civilians. Now you're accusing me of being Rip Van Winkle. (I have to admit that your second accusation is more on target. I am old, but I assure you that I haven't been asleep for the last twenty years. :-)
I don't agree with you, it's really just that simple. There's no point attributing to me arguments I didn't make, unless you're either slow-witted or malicious. In any case, you're entitled to your opinion.
any debate involving Israel is dominated by extremists - those who think Israel is the angelic victim and those who think it's the root of all evil
ReplyDeleteI hardly think that is fair. First of all, as a critic of Israel, I do not think they are the root of all evil. I am criticizing their apparent lack of regard for human lives-(In fact, I am in contact with a Jewish woman in southern Tel Aviv who feels exactly as I do, even tho she may soon be a target herself) whether the attack on the UN post was an accident or deliberate, they were warned repeatedly to stop what they were doing.
Red Cross ambulances destroyed in Israeli air strike on rescue mission
When one party is acting more dishonorably than the other, the "fair and balanced" doctrine should be jettisoned.
Great follow up post Sunny. I consider your analysis to be the definitive one, at least for me.
ReplyDeleteWhat is creepy is that the Israelis, after an incident like this when UN lives were lost because of their persistant bombing, whether deliberate or not, come out and accuse Hezbollah.
That's the kind of amoral, pathetic, unprincipled action I deplore.
When I see someone telling a brazen lie of such magniture, you know what I do?
I never believe another word they say.
Liars lie. They choose a path to success which involves the distortion of reality. One must assume they do so because reality is not on their side. Falsely accusing another for a crime you yourself committed is a particularly low type of lie.
I want to like Israel and believe in their cause for all the obvious reasons. I have done so all my life. In recent years their actions have made that almost impossible.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteA question doesn't go from point A to point B, even though it may assume facts that may not be evident like, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
If the UN's mission is peacekeeping, and it decided
tomorrow, by a vote, that the best way to keep peace in the middle east was for Israel to do X, you would accuse it of bias? Why?
I think that may have been addressed to me, but I still can't figure it out.
My original question, rephrased:
What makes you think WT is anti-UN? Let alone a Bircher or neocon?
And when did you quit the Communist Party?
Glenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone cares, this is why people like to avoid writing about Israel. If you don't recite the exact party line of one side or the other, you get attacked.
I have received tons of e-mail over the last week accusing me of being an Israel-hater and having an axe to grind against American neoconservative Jews.
That's why your blog is the best. I respect your position. You are accepting of the Israeli position. I am always a skeptic. How do we know an Hezbollah operative hadn't infiltrated the UNIFIL post? We don't. By the same token, there are lies and propaganda and intrigue on both sides. Comes with the territory, the ME, and the context, war.
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
Karl Popper
Today I write a post saying that although it's certainly possible that Israel did this deliberately, I think it's premature to accuse Israel of an act this atrocious without waiting for the evidence - and now suddenly I'm Alan Dershowitz and a blind defender of Israel who refuses to face facts.
I'm sure you did get that from some, but not from me, nor most of your loyal readers. It's not an easy subject to discuss.
As I said in my first post a week or so ago once this war broke out, any debate involving Israel is dominated by extremists - those who think Israel is the angelic victim and those who think it's the root of all evil - and if you don't fall into one of those two camps, writing about Israel is a thankless task.
That's precisely the kind of thinking a cynic and a skeptic doesn't concern himself with. In this matter, there are no white hats nor innocent parties. both sides the victims and the victimized at one time or another.
FRIENDLESS, adj.
Having no favors to bestow. Destitute of fortune. Addicted to utterance of truth and common sense.
Ambrose Bierce
I hardly think that is fair. First of all, as a critic of Israel, I do not think they are the root of all evil. I am criticizing their apparent lack of regard for human lives-(
ReplyDeleteDo you say the same for Hezbollah and Hamas - "criticizing their apparent lack of regard for human lives."
And I didn't say everyone who participated in this discussion was an extremist, and I certainly didn't say you were. I just said the debate is dominated by extremists who will attack you for the slightest deviation from the absolutist line.
All I wrote today was that I think it would be more prudent for Kofi Annan to wait for all the evidence before making an accusation this grave. That's it. I didn't say the accusation was wrong. I didn't say I found it hard to believe. I even said the evidence does seem to suggest that the Israelis were, at the very least, totally reckless with regard to the lives of the UN. And as I saw more evidence come in, I posted it and made clear that it supported the criticisms of the Israelis.
But I know from experience how incomplete one's knowledge is when one has only one side of the story. I'd like to hear the Israelis' claims, see the facts all laid out, and THEN reach a conclusion as to whether this is deliberate. What could possibly be wrong with wanting to see the relevant evidence before launching accusations?
Just because you (used generically) believe that Israel bears the bulk of the blame for hostilities in the Middle East doesn't justify immediately believing any accusation made against it, any more than those who believe Israel's enemies are to blame are justified in rejecting every accusation made against Israel.
Today I write a post saying that although it's certainly possible that Israel did this deliberately, I think it's premature to accuse Israel of an act this atrocious without waiting for the evidence
ReplyDeleteEven that summary is more reasonable than what you actually did post (especially at first), but even that is not quite what Kofi Annan actually said. What he actually said is not far from what you are saying at all--that "it's certainly possible that Israel did this deliberately" (maybe "apparently deliberate" goes slightly beyond that, but it's still worlds away from an unqualified "deliberate" as you would have had him say), and that they should be "waiting for the evidence"--i.e., conducting an investigation.
So if you're going to agree with Kofi, agree with Kofi. If you're not, then don't. But don't mischaracterize his position and his statements,and then attack him for it--that sort of behavior is what I'd normally expect from your detractors, not from you, Glenn.
HWSNBN swings and misses ... by a mile:
ReplyDelete[Glenn]: It is one thing for specific warrant applications to be conducted in secret, with only one side present, and with even the decision itself always sealed from the public -- the standard operating procedures for the FISA court. But those procedures are so plainly inappropriate for deciding critical questions of constitutional law which determine the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to all Americans against the Government. The parameters of the Fourth Amendment and decisions as to whether our highest government officials have been continuously violating it cannot possibly be determined in secret and then kept secret from American citizens.
Huh? You don't see the utter contradiction in that argument, do you?
You have repeatedly argued that the secret warrant process of the FISA court is the ideal way to deal with the NSA Program.
No. HWSNBN completely misses what Glenn has been repeatedly saying for half a year here. Glenn has argued that the FISA law is the law, and that the preznit needs to either follow it, or amend it if he thinks it's hampering legitimate surveillance efforts. The FISA law specifies that a court (the FISC) review individual applictations for a 'warrant' (actually a FISA court order) on a case-by-case basis. The NSA program started by Dubya does not do so. A court case on the merits and legality of this program as a whole is not the same as a court case as to whether some individual surveillance should be approved (although such an individual case involving such an application might be the basis for addressing more global overall issues, as did happen in In re: Sealed Case, and as Jao has been pointing out for many months now too). While In re: Sealed Case was a decision of the FISA Court of Appeals, the decision was made public (at least as to the more general issues involved, but the "sealed case" that formed the basis of the decision was not), and in that case, the NACDL and ACLU was allowed to brief the case as well (although perhaps not quite as effectively as if they had been allowed to be a party with discovery, oral argument, etc.).
You know, for someone who likes to cite In re: Sealed Case so much, HWSNBN would know what happened in it.
Cheers,
Glenn, thanks for wading through the sewer at LGF so we don't have to!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the boys at LGF and others will unfairly attack you for being "anti-semitic." Gosh- they might even call you a "fag." Those folks have all the moral development of 10-year old kids.
Keep up the good work. Your columns are always thoughtful, informative, and polite.
HWSNBN is either ignerrent, stoopid, or lies:
ReplyDeleteAll the Specter bill does is move jurisdiction for all of these cases to the FISC court, which has the experience in these matters.
The decision of the FISC is not final and can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is where you wanted this issue to end up in any case.
No. It limits the subject matter of such a decision to consideration of whether the program comports with the Fourth Amendment. And allows such courts to dismiss such a case at any time for any reason.
Cheers,
Eyes Wide Open: why on earth should the UN's actions be influenced by US accusations of bias?
ReplyDeleteOne more reply, if you don't mind. Do you remember the long period when the U.S. refused to pay its U.N. assessment, and the reasons given for not doing so? Do you remember what became of Boutros Boutros-Galli, and why?
The U.S. has a rather larger cudgel than most members to beat the U.N. with, and to date, has not been shy about using it.
Glenn has been repeatedly saying for half a year here. Glenn has argued that the FISA law is the law, and that the preznit needs to either follow it, or amend it if he thinks it's hampering legitimate surveillance efforts.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a parallel there, actually--aren't there also international laws regarding not bombing UN observers and outposts, civilians, ambulances, hospitals, villages...
So if you're going to agree with Kofi, agree with Kofi. If you're not, then don't. But don't mischaracterize his position and his statements,and then attack him for it--that sort of behavior is what I'd normally expect from your detractors, not from you, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteOh, OK - so if someone says that Person X is "apparently guilty of embezzlemant and rape," they can object and the accuser can just say - "Oh, I wasn't saying you ARE guilty, just that we should wait unitl the investigation is complete to find out." That's what you think "apparently guilty" or "apparently deliberate" means - that we'll just wait for the investigation to find out? I don't think that's what it means and it's certainly not the impression it conveys.
And as I've made clear, I think Kofi Annan has a greater responsibility than just about anyone else, because of his position, to refrain from opining without all the facts. People who are on one side of this war or the other are going to express opinions based on what side they're on (those on Israel's side will reject the accusations and those on the other side will support the accusations, both groups not waiting for all the evidence to decide).
If Annan is going to behave like a participant in the war rather than an neutral party - and a neutral party would, by definition, wait for all the facts before condeming someone - all that's going to do is undermine the UN's value, and it is inconsistent with what the Secretary-General is supposed to do.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a "global association of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity." It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing The League of Nations which was founded in 1919.
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify it for WT and Baldie Eagle. The UN is not a "magic bullet". It was poised to become an effective body in geo-politics under the Secretary Generalship of Dag Hammarskjöld. Then he died in a plane crash. The UN has been mediocre at best ever since. It's a truism that the good die young. It's also a truism that if the UN were to be an effective world body, certain factions with specific concerns would find that in conflict with their interests. The UN was a good mediator at one time, and a counterbalance against one form of global hegemony or another. Those days are over because people just aren't perfect and corruption is usually at the root of it.
The UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious allied powers with the hope that it would act to prevent and intervene in conflicts between nations and make future deadly wars impossible or limited, by fostering an ideal compromised of collective security. The organization's structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding. For example, the five permanent members of the Security Council, with veto power, are the five main victors of World War II or their successors: People's Republic of China (which replaced the Republic of China), France, Russia (which replaced the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteFor the last time: "apparently deliberate" is not a condemnation, "deliberate" is. Kofi said the former. You removed that qualification and quoted the latter. As for the rest, SusanHu at Daily Kos says it better than I can: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/26/135316/130
I do see your point about holding Kofi to a higher standard because of his position, but I think you went beyond that, to attacking him for unqualified statements which he did not make, much like Wolf Blitzer has done. I do expect more of you than that, because you have shown yourself to be more qualified than that in the past--which is why I generally hold you to a higher standard as well.
HWSNBN doesn't like the Fourth Amendment much, but he can do without the Sixth Amendment as well (wonder if he explains that to his clients?):
ReplyDelete[yankeependragon]: And I suppose you're actually pleased with this [abrogating the Geneva Conventions].
So far as seeing an activist court slapped down by the democratic branches, I am immensely pleased.
Interesting view on what the law ought to be: personal pique and the sticking out of tongues.
None of this namby-pamby 'certain minimal standards' must at least be followed in treatment of detainees. That's gotta go, if we're to spread freedom across the face of the planet....
But the money phrase:
So far as trials for these terrorists go, I am agnostic. They are already effectively serving life sentences because it will take that long to finish this war with Islamic fascism.
The Court Nazi strikes again: "No trials for you...."
Cheers,
anonymous: Let me clarify it for WT and Baldie Eagle.
ReplyDeleteClarification noted. What you say makes a lot more sense than inquiring whether I'm a John Bircher or a neocon, if you were, in fact, the anonymous who did so.
To accuse the U.N. of ineffectiveness isn't unreasonable in terms of the hopes people at one time had for it, but it's still arguably useful, even in areas specifically related to it supposed ineffectiveness. That, at least, is what I believe. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Tsk Tsk Glenn. Don't get all offended. I think you are about as far away from being Alan Dershowitz as William Kristol is from being Ghandi.
ReplyDeleteAnd that was my point. That's why when I disagreed (which I very rarely do) with a statement of yours which I felt was different than most of your statements, I pointed out it was the statement I disagreed with that sounded more like him. I never agree with anything he says and don't even read much he writes anymore because it isn't necessary to read him to know what he is going to say.
The Isreali issue is horrifically complex. It's very difficult to know what to believe. I don't know a single person in my own life, right or left, religious or atheist, who is not pro-Israel. It's the one issue that cuts across all divides.
So I think you have been extremely courageous in the posts you have written even taking up this issue when doing so is fraught with such danger because passions on both sides run so high.
I don't consider myself a critic of Israel, although I often post articles that are written by some who most certainly are. I do that because those articles are a handful on the Internet, whereas the vast majority tell the story from the opposite side.
Unless one reads both sides, one cannot hope to figure out what the truth is.
I don't remember too many commenters on this blog accusing you of being anti-Israel. The usual trolls stop by to accuse you of anything and everything but that's obviously part of an organized campaign to discredit you because you are such an eloquent and impartial voice on the scene now that it makes certain quarters uncomfortable.
But some of your most loyal readers all had the same reaction to your post of today so that should cause you to examine whether maybe their reactions to what you wrote might be worthwhile.
BTW, if Hezbollah had in fact been the one to attack that UN center and Kofi had said they apparently did that deliberately and you had said he shouldn't have said that until he had the facts, you would have seen what critism really looks like. It would have been all over the Internet that you were a terrorist supporter.
Some of us who don't like to see the cards stacked one way or another may indeed be more inclined to sway to the side we think is doing the most distortion.
But I think most of us still try hard to always keep an open mind the way you do.
This is an extremely interesting article in Rolling Stone. Sunny, be sure to read this.
Iran: The Next War
by James Bamford.
Does anyone know anything about Bamford? Is he a respected writer?
Let me clarify it for WT and Baldie Eagle. The UN is not a "magic bullet".
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you clarifying, and why on earth are you addressing me? You seem to have a point, but I don't see it.
Perhaps if you signed your posts we might connect your positions. You seem to think I'm anti-UN but you will have a hard time proving it from my posts.
Similarly, others have thought me pro-Israel because of observations I've made about Israeli actions. Let me say that I respect the methodical and disciplined approach they apply, and I even understand why they bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers' families.
But I do not approve. Israel is the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. They attacked the US in 1967 to cover their attacks on Arab countries, and they clearly have attacked the UN now.
They are very much like pumped-up neocons with guns instead of keyboards, which is why the neocons envy them. They wish they, too, had the moral clarity that allowed them to lie and kill, and to attack allies unprovoked.
Israel sees itself clearly, even if it doesn't see everything. It doesn't see, for example, that this invasion will not bring success.
Glenn, the terms "guilty" and "deliberate" are different. One must be "deliberate" to be guilty of certain crimes (intent and planning for first degree murder, for example).
ReplyDeleteIn this context, I think Annan's remarks, while inflammatory, appear to be justified. A UN outpost (that apparently has existed since 1948, that is, since the birth of Israel) was repeatedly shelled, then bombed, despite repeated phone calls to the Israelis telling them of the risk to UN lives.
Deliberate is the correct term. Accidental might also be the correct term, but Annans use of the word "deliberate" is not the same as "guilty."
Also, it appears to be a bit wrong to tell Annan to wait for the facts. Clearly he had access to all of the facts that we are just learning about today regarding the length of time the outpost was shelled and the multiple phone calls, etc.
Does anyone know anything about Bamford? Is he a respected writer?
ReplyDeleteYes, he is. His "Puzzle Palace" was (maybe still is) the canonical book on the NSA.
Tsk Tsk Glenn. Don't get all offended. I think you are about as far away from being Alan Dershowitz as William Kristol is from being Ghandi.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, there are few people whose views I found more reprehensible at the moment than Alan Dershowitz's, so that comparison - even made in the non-comparison way you made it - had a particuarly sharp edge to it.
The Isreali issue is horrifically complex. It's very difficult to know what to believe. I don't know a single person in my own life, right or left, religious or atheist, who is not pro-Israel. It's the one issue that cuts across all divides.
Agreed. IT's precisely because of the complexity which is always there - made all the murkier by the war - that I thought it made sense to be more careful rather than less so.
I write about the issue because I don't want to be driven away from it just because it's unpleasant to write about it. On this issue, one expects disagreement, even from those with whom one generally agree. That's all fine and great. And it's only natural that this issue is going to provoke strong emotions on all sides. That's true for multiple reasons.
I just think the disagreement has a tendency to spill over into accusations about motives and such things much more quickly with Israel discussion than with most other issues. And much smaller amounts of deviation and disagreement are sufficient to find oneself declared to be on the "other side," as it were.
Boy, making front-page news out of LGF comments, now there's a hot item.
ReplyDeleteHere's some real news:
http://www.sweetness-light.com/
Glenn, if those comments are still on the LGF blog just take a screenshott and post them as images.
ReplyDeleteClarification noted. What you say makes a lot more sense than inquiring whether I'm a John Bircher or a neocon, if you were, in fact, the anonymous who did so.
ReplyDeleteThat was snark. Baldie needs his snark-o-meter calibrated.
Baldie,
If I was a joiner, I'd rather be a member of the Communist party than either a Bircher or a neocon any day. No doubt about it. What surprises me is that some of you seem to think this time it's worse than usual.
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.
If you flip over the rock of American foreign
policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...
invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing
governments ... suppressing movements
for social change ... assassinating
political leaders ... perverting
elections ... manipulating labor unions ...
manufacturing "news" ... death squads ...
torture ... biological warfare ...
depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ...
mercenaries ...
It's not a pretty picture.
It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.
Glenn-
ReplyDeleteI am with Ghandi, who said the following in 1939, but is particularly appropriate today:
My sympathies are all with the Jews, but my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
I have to agree also with the following quote, tho I cannot find the author:
"The notion of being "neutral" is soothing to most people because it is ostensibly fair, it is optimistic, it is positive, obviating the need for negativity and unpleasantness. But a balanced position in an unbalanced situation inevitably is a miscarriage of justice.
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDeleteTalk to the Supremes who rewrote both the geneva Conventions and the UCMJ to create this mess.
Wow. The Supes rewrote the Geneva Conventions! Newsflash for HWSNBN: No, they applied them.
"For, regardless of the nature of the rights conferred on Hamdan, cf. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407 (1886), they are, as the Government does not dispute, part of the law of war. See Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 520-521 (plurality opinion). And compliance with the law of war is the condition upon which the authority set forth in Article 21 is granted."
and
"At least partially in response to subsequent criticism of General Yamashita's trial, the UCMJ's codification of the Articles of War after World War II expanded the category of persons subject thereto to include defendants in Yamashita's (and Hamdan's) position,47 and the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 extended prisoner-of-war protections to individuals tried for crimes committed before their capture. See 3 Int'l Comm. of Red Cross,48 Commentary: Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 413 (1960) (hereinafter GCIII Commentary) (explaining that Article 85, which extends the Convention's protections to "[p]risoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture," was adopted in response to judicial interpretations of the 1929 Convention, including this Court's decision in Yamashita). The most notorious exception to the principle of uniformity, then, has been stripped of its precedential value."
As for the UCMJ, it wasn't a "rewrite". What they said what that what the preznit wanted to do wasn't in the UCMJ. It is clear what the UCMJ says about trial procedure, and the problem, despite HWSNBN's being to clueless to see it, was that these already written procedures were not being followed. The people trying to "rewrite" the UCMJ were Dubya and the maladministration.
The Geneva Conventions by their own terms do not apply to these illegal combatants.
None of the Geneva Conventions ever refer to "illegal combatants". None.
For what they do say, see here, in the commentaries on Article 3.
Cheers,
William Blum (Killing Hope) has another book, a collection of essays called Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire .
ReplyDeleteGreat title.
Here she is, Sunny. The author.
ReplyDeleteA CounterPunch Special Report
The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
anonymous: Baldie needs his snark-o-meter calibrated.
ReplyDeleteSo do I, apparently. :-( My only excuse is the neighborhood I appear to be living in. The image of myself being returned to me in these comments is by turns funny and horrifying.
I mean, it's not like I know everything there is to know about myself, even at my age, but I'd like to think I was at least relatively honest.
Thank you anon @ 3:56!
ReplyDeleteIt seems the quote was cut off when I came across it-adding it in makes an even more powerful statement:
.."In Palestine-Israel, it is a profoundly immoral stance to maintain neutrality between powerless Palestinians (who have the ability occasionally to murder innocent Israelis but no power to regulate or save their own lives) and an overpowering, overbearing Israel possessing all the military power, controlling all the land. Neutrality here is no different from refusing to take a stand between slaves and slave owners, or between children and abusive priests."
If I was a joiner, I'd rather be a member of the Communist party than either a Bircher or a neocon any day. No doubt about it.
ReplyDeleteMe, too!
So, no beef, then?
eyes wide open:
ReplyDeleteby James Bamford.
Does anyone know anything about Bamford? Is he a respected writer?
He's very good. A recognised authority on intelligence issues (wrote "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets" about the NSA; perhaps the best [unclassified] accounts of what the NSA is; they tried to block the first one originally). Wrote "Pretext for War" more recently.
All good; all mandatory reading for those on Glenn's blog.
Cheers,
Glenn said:
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone cares, this is why people like to avoid writing about Israel. If you don't recite the exact party line of one side or the other, you get attacked.
I have received tons of e-mail over the last week accusing me of being an Israel-hater and having an axe to grind against American neoconservative Jews.
Wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of them accused you of anti-Semitism....
Cheers,
baldie eagle said:
ReplyDelete[anonymous]: Which one of those groups do you belong to?
Wow. How did you get from point A to B like that, Anonymous?
By jumping the shark, of course. ;-)
Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeletebaldie eagle said:
[anonymous]: Which one of those groups do you belong to?
Wow. How did you get from point A to B like that, Anonymous?
By jumping the shark, of course. ;-)
Or jumping the snark...
anonymous linked this:
ReplyDeleteKilling Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.
They've been at it for much longer. Read Stephen Kinzer's fine book Overthrow. (feel free to support your local independent bookseller if you're averse to Amazon).
Cheers,
Baldie... Me, too!
ReplyDeleteSo, no beef, then?
I draw the line at vegetarianism.
Beef, chicken and pork. Occasionally lamb, but I'm not an islambo-fascist.
Hi Glenn,
ReplyDeleteFirst time poster here - I've been following the thread on the death of the UN personnel in Lebanon.
Let me show my cards first:
I'm a big fan of your site, and especially appreciate your coverage of the Bush Administration's attempt to seize power for the executive branch.
More specifically to this conversation, I deplore the violence of Hamas and Hezbollah, especially their use of suicide bombers and the targeting of civilians.
I also deplore the excessive violence of the IDF, and the collective punishment it imposes on the Palestinians and now the Lebanese.
Now, to the reason of my post.
Glenn, you asked one of the posters on this thread:
"Do you say the same for Hezbollah and Hamas - 'criticizing their apparent lack of regard for human lives.'"
How is this possibly relevant?
Broadly speaking, the facts we now know suggest the Israeli attack on the UN compound is highly suspect. The base has been in the same location for many years, was well marked, and when it was taking fire it called the IDF about a dozen times to complain. Yet the shelling continued for hours prior to the lethal hit.
My reading of the situation is that the Israelis were, at best, negligent.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these are the actual facts. You seem to be saying in your comments that, if true, these facts would prove Israeli negligence. Let's finally assume, for the sake of argument, that you agree that facts of this kind would prove Israeli negligence.
Given that, would it make any difference whatsoever whether or not the person arguing that the Israelis were negligent was Ehud Olmert or Sheihk Hassan Nasrallah?
In other words, whether or not Israel was negligent (or perhaps even guilty of targeting the UN), should not depend on the political position of the person arguing the case. It should depend upon the quality of the case presented. That is, does the evidence support the conclusion?
Normally I think you are very clearheaded about that principle, and I was surprised to see you make the implied point that unless you explicitly denounce Hamas and Hezbollah, that you somehow lose credibility when discussing this issue.
Based on your comments on this thread and some comments on your recent posts threads, you've given me the impression that you are a mild supporter of Israel. I don't believe you are an "Israel is always right" kind of idealogue, but your natural tendency seems to be to identify with Israel, especially when it is in direct conflict with its most extreme enemies Hamas and Hezbollah.
In the words of Jerry Seinfeld, "not that there is anything wrong with that." Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But you might want to think about that a bit, because I think your natural tendency is getting in the way of your normally sharp reasoning when it comes to the subject of Israel.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a non-profit with under 30 employees. That they are a small non-profit hasn't been mentioned in too many articles on their win last week.
ReplyDeleteObviously AT&T and the gov't are going to appeal hard against Judge Walker's ruling.
As an EFF supporter, I'd like the EFF to get more widespread acknowledgement for the 7 months of hard work resulting in Walker's refusal to cave in on state secrets. And I'd really like them to get support for the appeals ahead.
They've successfully taken cases up to the Supreme Court before. But they're fighting this case (and against disenfranchisement and all the rest) on a budget smaller than many single political campaigns.
anonymous at 5:06 p.m.: "I'm not an islambo-fascist."
ReplyDeleteYou've been waiting a long time to use that one, haven't you?
:)
Rob
Arne,
ReplyDeleteIt's true. Blum focused on the post war period but it goes back much further. Blum also wrote Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. He got in some trouble when OBL quoted from the book in one of his communiques. Speaking engagements on campuses stopped but book sales shot through the roof. He had been a popular speaker on college campuses prior to that. A quote from Rogue State:
"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine".
I figure the same rule can be applied to almost any government or nation, like Israel. Even Switzerland. New Zealand? Maybe not so much.
Based on your comments on this thread and some comments on your recent posts threads, you've given me the impression that you are a mild supporter of Israel. I don't believe you are an "Israel is always right" kind of idealogue, but your natural tendency seems to be to identify with Israel, especially when it is in direct conflict with its most extreme enemies Hamas and Hezbollah.
ReplyDeleteSo my "natural tendency seems to be to identify with Israel", is it? Great - I'll give you the e-mail addresses of all the people who have been writing to tell me that I'm an Israel-hater and asking why I have an axe to grind against American Jews. You can tell them that they have it backwards - I really naturally identify with Israel and am a supporter.
If you opine on Israel matters without taking one of the two extremist views, you will be accused of being anti-semitic or biased in favor of Israel - usually both.
I've spent the last two weeks arguing that the U.S. has no role whatsoever to play in this war, that it is reckless and stupid for us to be supplying Israel with weapons to bomb Lebanon, and that neoconservatives who are arguing for U.S involvement are either completely irrational or have a primary allegiance to Israel. How did you infer "natural support for Israel" from those opinions?
I think the Middle East is extremely complicated and there are no angels. Israel is a democracy with real (albeit imperfect) rights for its citizens, something which is not true for most of the countries in that region. I think Israel acts wrongly and with excess violence and I think its enemies - including Hamas and Hezbollah - often do, too.
Those who revere Israel and think it can do no wrong will see Israel-hatred in those views. Those who hate Israel and think it always oppresses its poor, innocent neighbors will see a "natural tendency . . . to identify with Israel." In reality, I think it's just the by-product of not having excess attachments to either extreme.
Based on your comments on this thread and some comments on your recent posts threads, you've given me the impression that you are a mild supporter of Israel.
ReplyDeleteGlenn is Jewish, and if anyone has a right to be a vocal supporter of Israel, he does. He is also an attorney and his standards of proof and evidence are obviously rigorous. I only wish all vocal supporters of Israel were as fair-minded, impartial and free of obvious bias as Glenn. I'm a supporter of Israel when they do the right thing.
Poor Glenn. You just can't win when you are attacked from all sides for refusing to choose a favorite child. Parenting is "hard work". Just look at Jenna and Not-Jenna.
ReplyDeleteI've been through this before with the Irish.
In other words, whether or not Israel was negligent (or perhaps even guilty of targeting the UN), should not depend on the political position of the person arguing the case. It should depend upon the quality of the case presented. That is, does the evidence support the conclusion?
ReplyDeleteI think that is perfectly true. However, moral equivalency doesn't operate on that level, as you say. It operates on the conclusions one draws. What do you do next?
With Hizb'allah, you don't even HAVE the issue of negligence. When they miss their civilian targets and hit soldiers by accident, they cheer just the same.
Hmmmm? Is this a sock puppet, or just a case of right wing blogola?
ReplyDeleteShooter:
ReplyDeletenoone in the Iraqi government is invading another sovereign nation. As I recall that used to be a big deal for the left, but I guess no more.
Shooter is confused about liberalism again. Will someone help him up?
It has been established without a doubt that Hezbos are aggressive, vicious, and will not accept peace. The only remedy is to hunt such people down and seperate them from those that wish peace.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm? Why didn't we do that with the Christian fundies? I'll tell you why. If those lunatics were wiped out as you suggest, the GOP base would be cut in half over night.
Shooter is confused about liberalism again. Will someone help him up?
ReplyDeleteShooter is confused. Senility. Dementia...
I thought Kimba was measuring you, not Glenn's blog.
ReplyDeletebaldie eagle,
ReplyDeleteHezbollah doesn't have much in the way of targeting capability to begin with, for that matter.
Shooter... Anybody here think this comment should be the measure of Glenn's blog?
ReplyDeleteWe try to restrain ourselves. It's not easy. You are boring, clumsy and mostly wrong or dishonest or both. If you find it unpleasant, you can always leave, or get some new material.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, while I imagine that it's been a very hard week for you, I think you need to develop much thicker skin if you want to put yourself out there on this issue. It's an issue that inspires great passion on all sides, and I'm a little surprised to see how defensive you've become even with people who are writing rather supportive things about you.
Putting out the "Well, what about Hezbollah and Hamas and their disregard for human life?" is a seriously simplistic statement, I would expect better from you.
One doesn't need to think that Israel is the root of all the evil in the world to understand that they have occupied and have actively kept down the Palistian people. One doesn't need to say it's fine to kidnap soliders to know that it didn't justify the destruction of the Lebonese people. There are now 800,000 more refugees than there were last week how do you see this as an equal situation?
Back when South Africa was under apartheid there was great outcry against it on the part of most progressives and eventually it could no longer be attained. Decent people didn't try to see the "balance" between the white and black South African people. Well, that's what's going on with Israel, this is a backlash, it's only going to grow stronger. You see it on the blogs, not the MSM, according to them the US and all its citizens are 100% pro-Israel. Clearly this isn't the case and for the first time ever, we who condemn the cruel racism of the Israeli government have a collective voice. Not one that can be heard in the mainstream yet mind you, but this is an important start.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDelete[Glenn]: It is one thing for specific warrant applications to be conducted in secret, with only one side present, and with even the decision itself always sealed from the public -- the standard operating procedures for the FISA court. But those procedures are so plainly inappropriate for deciding critical questions of constitutional law which determine the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to all Americans against the Government. The parameters of the Fourth Amendment and decisions as to whether our highest government officials have been continuously violating it cannot possibly be determined in secret and then kept secret from American citizens.
Bart Replied: Huh? You don't see the utter contradiction in that argument, do you?
You have repeatedly argued that the secret warrant process of the FISA court is the ideal way to deal with the NSA Program.
Exactly what do you think goes on when the Government seeks a warrant?
The government is asking the court to review its evidence and determine whether the 4th Amendment permits a warrant.
The process is performed in secret and out of the presence of the target or his attorneys.
This process is conducted in the FISC and other federal and state courts tens of thousands of times a year.
The Specter bill asks the FISC to perform the equivalent of the 4th Amendment warrant process for the entire NSA program and for individuals claiming that the NSA spied on them.
There is nothing at all radical about this.
A handful of Title III courts have already reviewed classified information on the NSA Program in camera and out of sight of the plaintiffs and the American people to make similar rulings without disclosing the classified information.
All the Specter bill does is move jurisdiction for all of these cases to the FISC court, which has the experience in these matters.
Arne: A court case on the merits and legality of this program as a whole is not the same as a court case as to whether some individual surveillance should be approved (although such an individual case involving such an application might be the basis for addressing more global overall issues, as did happen in In re: Sealed Case, and as Jao has been pointing out for many months now too).
Hero, did you even read Glenn's post above? Glenn never criticized the scale of the reviews - case vs. program wide. Rather, Glenn criticized the secret procedures as some sort of an abomination to due process.
I merely pointed out his hypocrisy of pimping the original FISA law which has the same secret procedures while criticizing the Specter bill.
You, meanwhile, are lost in space...as usual.
Shooter,
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps Glenn's blog should be judged by this commenter.
If you had a blog, should everyone judge it by one or two comments, made by another poster, that may not represent your view?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletebaldie eagle,
Hezbollah doesn't have much in the way of targeting capability to begin with, for that matter.
Exactly. And which, to be fair, would be a fine excuse if they chose to use it. Katyushas are cheap and plentiful, and they suck. But Hizb'allah doesn't even try to pretend, as far as I know. Which may be something we should give them credit for. Israel has some of the best-trained soldiers in the world. They don't really make mistakes.
The Specter bill asks the FISC to perform the equivalent of the 4th Amendment warrant process for the entire NSA program and for individuals claiming that the NSA spied on them.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing at all radical about this.
WTF?! The very idea of an "equivalent of the 4th Amendment warrant process for the entire NSA program" is un-Constitutional, un-American, and appallingly sophistic. A blank check to wiretap whomever you deem a threat does not constitute a warrant. It constitutes an exemption from oversight.
I mean, I may not be a lawyer, but I know bullshit when I smell it.
Rather, Glenn criticized the secret procedures as some sort of an abomination to due process.
I merely pointed out his hypocrisy of pimping the original FISA law which has the same secret procedures while criticizing the Specter bill.
There is no comparison between the Specter bill's secret one-sided measures to undermine the Constitutional and secretly issued warrants. Apples and oranges. And you know it.
Fuzzily yours,
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps Glenn's blog should be judged by this commenter.
Quote me if you want, coward. But quote the whole thing, including your own psychopathic rambling.
Funny thing, I haven't heard Shooter cheer the deaths of any guerrillas. Is it possible that doesn't suit his purposes? I wonder what, then, his purposes are.
Hi Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI'm the anonymous guy who accused you of having a natural bias towards Israel.
Look, I have a great deal of respect for you, and perhaps I've jumped the gun by accusing you of not being neutral. I don't know your positions that well yet, and I've only read a couple of your posts on Israel and a few of your comments. So I realize I'm judging based on limited evidence.
Also, I heartily agree with the positions you cite in your response - we shouldn't be sending weaponry to Israel, etc. They do you credit, as does your denunciation of terrorist violence from Hamas and Hezbollah. On the whole, I'd say you are approaching this situation in a much more rational and evenhanded way than most people do.
Nor do I doubt the fact that you are regularly called an anti-semite by lots of folks, and also a zionist by others. I've been involved in these debates enough over the years to understand the kind of craziness that can result.
For the sake of full honesty, my natural inclination is to identify with the Palestinians and the Lebanese. The Israelis are the more powerful side in these conflicts, and my instinct is to root for the underdog.
I also believe, in a larger cosmic sense, the Palestinians have received a raw deal ever since Israel was created, and that over the years the Lebanese have largely been pawns in the struggle between Israel and its more powerful adversaries (PLO, Syria, Iran, etc.)
I would bet everyone has such natural tendencies. While people are capable of critical thinking, we are also very emotional beings, and it is easy for our emotional sides to gain the upper hand. And this is an incredibly emotional topic.
The best we can do is try to recognize our own inclinations and to check ourselves from getting overly emotional about things. I find it easy to see things from a Palestinian perspective, and a little more difficult to see the Israeli perspective. But I use that knowledge of myself to try to give extra consideration to the Israeli side of any given argument before reaching a conclusion. Hopefully this prevents me from reaching a knee-jerk conclusion.
It's imperfect - I don't always get it right, but this helps me get it right more often. It's all we can do, after all.
With that long intro, I stand by my original post nonetheless.
#1 - You did not address the fundamental criticism I levied at you. How is it relevant to ask someone, when talking about the Israeli bombing of the UN installation, whether or not they denounce Hamas and Hezbollah?
other reasons for my opinion, which I did not mention originally:
#2 - your criticism of Kofi Annan strikes me as weak. He did say "apparantly deliberate." He is the head of the organization that was attacked. He should say something, if for no other reason than to shame Israel into being more careful in the future.
#3 - this is from memory, so I may be getting the details wrong. But you came down awfully hard on Hezbollah for being in violation of UN resolutions. True. But Israel is only protected from being in violation of a lot of UN resolutions since the US usually vetos such resolutions. If Syria or Iran had a veto, Hezbollah would not be in violation of UN resolutions either. There is a fundamental asymmetry here, and taking it into account makes perfect sense. Something which you seemed not to want to do.
First of all, while I imagine that it's been a very hard week for you, I think you need to develop much thicker skin if you want to put yourself out there on this issue. It's an issue that inspires great passion on all sides, and I'm a little surprised to see how defensive you've become even with people who are writing rather supportive things about you.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm just stating the fact that writing about Israel without taking either the pro-Israel or anti-Israel extremist position will subject you to mutually exclusive accusations made by each side. I'm not whining or complaining about it. To the contrary, I made clear I'm not going to let that drive me away from discussing this issue the way many bloggers and other people - by their own admission - avoid this issue because they don't want to have to try to reason with extremists on each end who see everything in black and white.
Putting out the "Well, what about Hezbollah and Hamas and their disregard for human life?" is a seriously simplistic statement, I would expect better from you.
That comment was in response to a statement by someone claiming that they care so much about human life, but who then proceeded to mourn only the lives lost as a result of Israeli bombings, not by Hezbollah rockets or Hamas bombs *(just as you did - see below). Thus, I asked whether they apply their life-concern standard equally. What is "simplistic" about that?
In my view, the hallmark of extremists on this issue is that they proclaim adherence to certain principles -- protection of human life, reverence for U.N. resolutions, opposition to civilian-targeted violence - but then apply those prinicples only to one side of the conflict but not the other. More than anything else, that is what makes Israel debates so tiresome.
One doesn't need to think that Israel is the root of all the evil in the world to understand that they have occupied and have actively kept down the Palistian people. One doesn't need to say it's fine to kidnap soliders to know that it didn't justify the destruction of the Lebonese people. There are now 800,000 more refugees than there were last week how do you see this as an equal situation?
I never said it was equal. Wars are usually not equal. Usually, one side inflicts more damage on the other.
I agree that Israel's decimation of Lebanon is totally unjustified and morally indefensible. That makes me an Israel-hater.
But I also think that Israel is a country surrounded by other countries which, by their own acknowledgemnt, have as their goal the eradication of Israel. Many of those countries act on that goal by purposely slaughtering Israeli civilians.
Somehow, that didn't make it into your equation. It makes it into mine. Saying that makes me a blind Israel supporter who defends evil and shows balance where doing so is inappropriate.
Back when South Africa was under apartheid there was great outcry against it on the part of most progressives and eventually it could no longer be attained. Decent people didn't try to see the "balance" between the white and black South African people.
This is exactly my point. You think that it's morally repugnant to see "balance" because Israel is so clearly the wrongful party - to you, they are the South African apartheid regime repressing the innocent black population. Many others agree with you that it's morally repugnant to see "balance" -- because Israel is clearly the party that has been wronged by violent enemies which want to destroy it.
For those who don't see the situation as being so morally black and white - in other words, for those who don't see the middle East with the simple Manichean Good/Evil clarity of George Bush -- balance is appropriate because there are no angels or pure victims among the parties. But that isn't a position which either group of extremists accept.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHWSNBN is noplessly confooozed:
ReplyDelete[from before]: You have repeatedly argued that the secret warrant process of the FISA court is the ideal way to deal with the NSA Program.
Nope. HWSNBN, as usual, ignores what I said and snips it.
Exactly what do you think goes on when the Government seeks a warrant?
Ummmm, the NSA program doesn't "seek[] a warrant". That was kind of the whole point.
The government is asking the court to review its evidence and determine whether the 4th Amendment permits a warrant.
Ummm, nope. It's reviewing the application to make sure that it corresponds to the requirements of the law, to wit, 50 USC §§ 1804 and 1805.
The Specter bill asks the FISC to perform the equivalent of the 4th Amendment warrant process for the entire NSA program and for individuals claiming that the NSA spied on them.
There is nothing at all radical about this.
Nope. For reasons state previously in my first comment, and immediately above. HWSNBN ignores this, though.
A handful of Title III courts have already reviewed classified information on the NSA Program in camera and out of sight of the plaintiffs and the American people to make similar rulings without disclosing the classified information.
Really. Of course, HWSNBN doesn't provide any cites. But I'd point out that if In re: Sealed Case can review procedures and publish their opinions without damage to "nash'nul see-kurituh", there shouldn't be any problem with an open case of the NSA program, adn public discussion of our policy options.
All the Specter bill does is move jurisdiction for all of these cases to the FISC court, which has the experience in these matters.
No. As stated, it limits the subject matter to just the question of Fourth Amendment compliance. HWNBN ignores this, however.
[Arne]: A court case on the merits and legality of this program as a whole is not the same as a court case as to whether some individual surveillance should be approved (although such an individual case involving such an application might be the basis for addressing more global overall issues, as did happen in In re: Sealed Case, and as Jao has been pointing out for many months now too).
Hero, did you even read Glenn's post above?...
Yep. Whether HWSNBN did is irrelevant to the proceedings here, however; he wouldn't understand it if he did.
... Glenn never criticized the scale of the reviews - case vs. program wide. Rather, Glenn criticized the secret procedures as some sort of an abomination to due process.
Really? Must have missed it. Of course, HWSNBN won't say where Glenn did any such thing.
I merely pointed out his hypocrisy of pimping the original FISA law which has the same secret procedures while criticizing the Specter bill.
I merely pointed out HWSNBN's cluelessness in claiming the two are one and the same. They are not, for reasons I've explained, and which HWSNBN has ignored.
You, meanwhile, are lost in space...as usual.
LOL. Says the space candidate from Uranus....
Cheers,
shooter242: do a regime change
ReplyDeleteIs this like doing lunch, then, or changing your oil?
I suppose you might think it unfair to extrapolate a world view from a single phrase, but at best this is flip.
Considering the gravity of the events do a regime change purports to describe, saying it makes you sound like a teenaged smart-ass talking to his parents.
I know you don't like us, and have for some reason decided we're fools, but how on earth do you expect anybody to take this tough-guy hipster pose seriously?
And can you really blame me if I think you're here principally to moon us? And that I see no reason why it's incumbent on me, or anyone else here, for that matter, to give you the time of day?
ZEROWORKER - I appreciate the attempts to discuss the issue rationality. Many of the points you made are ones I addressed in the comment above. So I will add this to the points you raised:
ReplyDelete#1 - You did not address the fundamental criticism I levied at you. How is it relevant to ask someone, when talking about the Israeli bombing of the UN installation, whether or not they denounce Hamas and Hezbollah?
I explained the context of that question and why I made it in the comment above. I never suggested that how one views Israel's bombing of the UN tower is dependent in any way on the behavior of Hamas or Hezbollah.
#2 - your criticism of Kofi Annan strikes me as weak. He did say "apparantly deliberate." He is the head of the organization that was attacked. He should say something, if for no other reason than to shame Israel into being more careful in the future.
I don't blame him for being angry and wanting to defend the UN workers who were killed. I'm sure he was emotional and that's understandable. But the UN has no real army. They only have one attribute which makes it effective - its neutrality/reputation for evenhandedness. Annan could have made a lot of strong, appropriate statements without making such an inflammatory accusation (even with the modifier "apparently") until all the facts are in.
Why is that such a controversial position? It's such a mild criticism. But there is long-standing animosity between the UN and Israel and I get the sense that criticizing Annan for this single statement is viewed by those who are hostile to Israel as taking Israel's side generally in that dispute. That is not a fair inference from the criticism.
#3 - this is from memory, so I may be getting the details wrong. But you came down awfully hard on Hezbollah for being in violation of UN resolutions. True. But Israel is only protected from being in violation of a lot of UN resolutions since the US usually vetos such resolutions. If Syria or Iran had a veto, Hezbollah would not be in violation of UN resolutions either. There is a fundamental asymmetry here, and taking it into account makes perfect sense. Something which you seemed not to want to do.
I was very clear in my argument -- from those who constantly point to and rely upon UN Resolutions to make judgments about who is right and wrong, there should be nothing but condemnation for Hezbollah since its very existence is prohibted by 1559.
Those who like to wield UN Resolutions frequently point out that Israel is in multiple violations of them. I was simply making the point that those who do that should be unequivocally opposed to Hezbollah.
The rules of the UN are the rules of the UN. You can't use its "law" selectively by enforcing the resolutions you like but then claiming that others are unjust because the rules of the UN are unjust. Those rules were agree to by all parties who joined.
From Bart at 6:21pm:
ReplyDeleteHero, did you even read Glenn's post above? Glenn never criticized the scale of the reviews - case vs. program wide. Rather, Glenn criticized the secret procedures as some sort of an abomination to due process.
There is a fundamental difference between (a) asking a panel of judges to grant a legal warrant authorizing covert surveillance upon targeted foreign nationals based on evidence of highly sensitive nature that may or may not result in eventual prosecution, and (b) asking the same panel of judges to simply rule on the legality of a surveillance program of dubious nature and content, with no further review allowed nor any guarantee of appeal of their decision.
How is it I can see the difference and you can't?
I merely pointed out his hypocrisy of pimping the original FISA law which has the same secret procedures while criticizing the Specter bill.
Nobody was "pimping" FISA as a cure-all. The issue was the Administration refusing to comply with the provisions of the statute in question.
You, meanwhile, are lost in space...as usual.
I'll leave Arne to respond to that one. I would simply point out you appear more comfortable with the thought of a new Star Chamber being convened and having the courts replaced with Drumheads Panels.
Hope you can live with that.
shooter242: I've just had an anal raping wished upon me
ReplyDeleteBeyond the pale of course, but when you go around mooning people, there'll always be some who mistake it for an invitation.
Shooter has now devolved into commenting about the comments. It's mini-meta. Need I remind you, Shooter, that minute you stop shooting of your mouth around here, the attacks on you will drop to zero.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Timberman said...
ReplyDeleteshooter242: I've just had an anal raping wished upon me
Beyond the pale of course, but when you go around mooning people, there'll always be some who mistake it for an invitation.
That's called "presenting" among the lower primates when the females do it.
SHOOTER SAID - No, but that seems to be the standard for Glenn and other folks around the blogosphere. You may have noted Glenn being focused on the "angry right" lately as a foil for the ubiquitous "angry left".]
ReplyDeleteI answered this already - (1) LGF, on an almost daily basis, picks out some random Kos diary and attributes those views to "Kos" and often to "the Left" - if that's the standard they want to apply to others, it should be applied to them (even more so in their case, since he deletes almost every comment and bans almost every commenter who expresses views he dislikes, thus suggesting endorsement for the views he allows); and
(2) The media frequently quotes random comments to make a point about "liberals" or the "left" and that standard should be applied equally.
(3) To quote myself in the third comment here - "There is a difference between (a) digging and digging until one finds a random, unrepresentative comment to misleadingly exploit as representative and (b) pointing out a sentiment which finds support among a certain group. If you peruse the LGF thread where this issue is discussed, I don't think there will be any doubt that this falls squarely into category (b)."
My comment section, like every one, has a stray expression of hatred or violence-wishes, but nobody honest could say that it represents anything close to the prevailing sentiment here. The comments I quoted from LGF plainly do represent a signficantly held view over there.
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteWT says:
Beyond the pale of course, but when you go around mooning people, there'll always be some who mistake it for an invitation.
That's your image not mine. Freudian slip?
Weak. Just weak. You should keep practicing, though.
shooter242: Freudian slip?
ReplyDeleteA metaphor, actually.
All things considered, Shooter, anal rape might be preferable to what you'd get if you left the country. If murder was legal, you'd already be dead because well over half of your neighbors hates you more than the South Koreans do.
ReplyDeleteMull that over for awhile.
Distaste for America runs so deep that, for example, at the recent World Cup in Germany the American team was the only one asked not to display its national flag on the team bus. In South Korea, traditionally a U.S. ally, two-thirds of people under 30 said in a recent poll that if there were war between North Korea and the United States, they would side with North Korea.
"Anti-Americanism runs deeper and is qualitatively different than in the past, when it was largely attributable to unpopular U.S. policies," Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, says in a new book on the subject, "America Against the World."
From anonymous at 7:53 p.m.: "Distaste for America runs so deep . . ."
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to think this is exactly what the royalists want, that they actually find satisfaction in an increasingly hostile sentiment leveled at U.S. foreign policy, because it allows the circle of self-justification to continue. It feeds the very fire of passionate imperial conquest that finds voice in sentiments such as, "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
Rob
Was it Machiavelli who wrote that it is better to be feared than loved? I honestly can't remember, and am too tired to hunt down the actual quote at the moment.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I sometimes wonder if so much of the royalist/authoritarian approach to foreign policy stems, not from a desire to cohabitate with other states, but to be feared by other states, or even, to have one state, under which all others are subject, and those subjects regard the overarching state with fear.
It's spooky how this starts to sound a lot like the Soviet Union sometimes.
Rob
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDesert Son: It's spooky how this starts to sound a lot like the Soviet Union sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI think it was John Lennon, not Vladimir Il'ich:
All you need is FEAR,
FEAR is all you need....
Glenn said:
ReplyDeleteThat comment was in response to a statement by someone claiming that they care so much about human life, but who then proceeded to mourn only the lives lost as a result of Israeli bombings, not by Hezbollah rockets or Hamas bombs
Again, extraordinarily unfair. You essentially accuse me of being a hypocrite in my concern for human lives because you claim I am not mourning the deaths of Israelis. Not so. I am criticizing the sheer volume of civilian casualities of Lebanese and Palestinians civilians, and the manner in which they are being inflicted by the 4th most powerful military in the world, armed with an estimated 200 nuclear weapons, who are using white phosphourous weapons in this conflict, who "apparently" deliberately targeted an unarmed UN post, and who have inflicted massive damage to essential infrastructure, both in Palestine and Lebanon. In the face of this, what would you expect people to do? Lay down and die? If America were being targeted in this way, even I would have to do something drastic. Who among you wouldn't? I am afraid I am not so much a pacifist that I would not understand if an abused and molested child killed his abuser.
I do mourn for innocent Israeli civilians, who have as much power and control over their gov't actions as I do over mine, which is exactly zero. I can assure you with whatever credibility one can have in a comment to a blog post, that if the situation were reversed, my sympathies would be entirely with the Israelis. But the situation is what it is.
One of these days, our innocents will once again pay for our gov't's foreign policy as well, as they did on 9/11. One cannot expect abuse to pile upon abuse, injury after injury, slaughter
after slaughter and never be answered.
I do not see how it is relevant whether or not the UCMJ is part and parcel to the Geneva Conventions. No matter what the UCMJ says, the Conventions hold. They are, as per Article 6 of the US Constitution, the Law of the Land.
ReplyDeletePissing around with UCMJ wording doesn't change the fact, inescapable and inarguable, that the Geneva Conventions (and the Common Article 3) apply. No ifs, ands, or buts. The ONLY way out is to exit the Conventions and, at that point, become a criminal state in the eyes of the entire world and watch the facade of the fake American Empire crumble to dust at warp speed.
UCMJ, UCMShmay. The Conventions are the Law of the Land.
Was it Machiavelli who wrote that it is better to be feared than loved?
ReplyDeleteHeh. He was wrong. If you are feared, the instant you make a misstep and stumble, everyone around you will either bolt away from you and let you rot in your own filth or will pounce on you in your moment of weakness. At every moment of every day everyone is looking at a way to bring you down.
If you are loved, everyone is behind you and will do their utmost to prevent you from stumbling, or if you do, will pick you up or cover your back while you get back up. Everyone will stand there to protect you rather than seek to eat the meat off your bones.
Ann Coulter is questioning Bill Clinton's sexuality.
ReplyDeleteDo you need to wonder why? The "woman" with an Adam's Apple expresses the fond wish that Clinton were gay. Me thinks she's trolling for a date.
desert son said: "It's spooky how this starts to sound a lot like the Soviet Union sometimes."
ReplyDeleteyeah, Rob, we have met the enemy and he is us....
as for shooter, maybe if we ignore him, he'll just go away.....i mean, we don't see much of that crazy major these days, right? And at least the bartman isn't usually obnoxious---dead wrong maybe, but not totally obnoxious, yes?
Glenn, Charles Johnson at LGF LOVES to try and cover his tracks by either 1) deleting incriminating material from his blog, and/or 2) messing with the code on his site so any attempts by sites he doesn't like to link to incriminating info wind up being redirected. (He thinks this sort of juvenile behavior is cute. Just like he thinks mocking Rachel Corrie is cute.)
ReplyDeletebucktheliberaldog: And at least the bartman isn't usually obnoxious---dead wrong maybe, but not totally obnoxious, yes?
ReplyDeleteThat's how I see him. Not always dead wrong, either, but he argues with a kind of plodding rigidity that's unusual in socratic dialogues, and he seems unwilling, or perhaps unable, to concede points scored against his arguments.
Consequently, some folks here think he's dishonest. I don't, but arguing with him sometimes seems to me like arguing with a wounded bear, or a bull who's been worked over by the picadors so thoroughly that he can't turn his head far enough to see the matador who approaches from an oblique angle. Dangerous, but definitely not nimble.
Popular support for President Bush's Iraq policy surging. See the latest Harris Poll
ReplyDeleteHi Glenn,
ReplyDeleteJust a quick note. Thanks for the response. Sorry if I made my original post too personal. There really was no need to do so.
Anyway, I'll agree to disagree with you on the points I mentioned. I respect you opinion, and you are definitely trying to be fair about everything. I think our differences are relative minor anyway, especially considering the chasm that separates the extremes on this issue.
From anonymous at 10:06pm:
ReplyDeletePopular support for President Bush's Iraq policy surging. See the latest Harris Poll.
Yes, yes, yes. The Carpetbagger Report covered this a day or so ago.
I personally don't put much stock in this, less because it comes from Moon's money-loosing rag than the simple fact this is a poll. Its a snapshot of attitudes and a moment that have already passed.
The fact 50% of respondents (which means next to nothing given the sample size and the lack of demographic data) believe Hussein had working WMDs at the time of the invasion doesn't speak well of a certain slice of our country. But then I'm sure I could find a chapter or two of the Flat Earth Society here as well.
Hi Baldie,
ReplyDeleteyou said
"With Hizb'allah, you don't even HAVE the issue of negligence. When they miss their civilian targets and hit soldiers by accident, they cheer just the same."
First off, the evidence seems to point to a little more than negligence on the part of the Israelis. Just one man's opinion there, but that's how I see it.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it was mere negligence and not in any way intentional.
Having said that, what is your point, exactly?
This whole Israeli/Hezbollah dustup started when Hezbollah attacked the Israeli military. Not a civilian target, mind you, a military target.
Hezbollah only started attacking Israel with rockets when Israel began attacking civilian targets in Lebanon.
And before you mention that Israel is only going after the rockets, that is certifiable bullsh*t. No rockets have been fired from downtown Beirut. Bombing the airport was a gratuitous attack against civilian infrastructure. And blowing up an apartment building because you believe a rocket was fired from that location is still hitting a civilian target, becuse the 200 other people in that building are civilians.
I'll admit Israel has a problem. Hezbollah fighters mingle with the Lebanese population. And Hezbollah has a great deal of support among the people in southern Lebanon.
But despite what John Bolton says, it is not OK to cause civilians casualties in order to get at the Hezbollah fighters. And it isn't effective anyway.
The only way to peace is through diplomacy. Causing so much trauma among the Lebanese merely tilts public opinion even more away from Israel, strengthens Hezbollah's support and further radicalizes young Arab men. What Israel is doing is counterproductive.
jao: This is how a rational American citizen who knew his rights and understood the Constitution and didn't have a loch in kop would would look at it:
ReplyDeleteWTF?! The very idea of an "equivalent of the 4th Amendment warrant process for the entire NSA program" is un-Constitutional, un-American, and appallingly sophistic. A blank check to wiretap whomever you deem a threat does not constitute a warrant. It constitutes an exemption from oversight.
I mean, I may not be a lawyer, but I know bullshit when I smell it.
Right on, Prunes.
Hey guys, guess who said this:
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between comments of this sort coming from people who have influence and are known opinion leaders (like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, StopTheACLU, etc.) and some random individual who starts commenting on a blog.
h/t: Confederate Yankee
Give up?
Honestly, there are few people whose views I found more reprehensible at the moment than Alan Dershowitz's, so that comparison - even made in the non-comparison way you made it - had a particuarly sharp edge to it.
ReplyDeleteOh Gosh. I hadn't thought about that when I wrote that. It was a big mistake of mine to put it in a way that could be interpreted the way you did. I am very sorry, Glenn. This was stupid of me. Please accept my apology. You are one of the last people in the world I would want to even inadvertently cause a tinge of injury because of something I said.
Lesson learned. I will try to be a more careful about how I phrase things so I don't land up offending or being unfair to someone for whom I have such undiluted respect and admiration.
PS. I stick with my position but eliminate all the stuff that made it seem like I was attacking you. I should have just written "I disagree with that one statement" and given my reasons why, like abjectfunk did in his excellent post and a few of the very well argued "anon" posts did also.
From now on I will reserve my attacks for jao.
Hee Haw. Just kidding.
Better to be feared than loved is not exactly what Niccolo said but people who saw A Bronx Tale remember that because Chaz Palminteri's character Sonny the mob boss attributes that to Machiavelli. What Machiavelli said was:
ReplyDeleteIt is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.
I think respect is better than either, or even both, but if you have power it doesn't much matter whether people fear you, love you or respect you. As long as you remember that your friends and enemies will keep their friends close and their enemies closer, and if anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone. And leave the gun. Take the canoli.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHey guys, guess who said this:
Clemenza?
zeroworker said...
ReplyDeleteHi Baldie,
you said
"With Hizb'allah, you don't even HAVE the issue of negligence. When they miss their civilian targets and hit soldiers by accident, they cheer just the same."
First off, the evidence seems to point to a little more than negligence on the part of the Israelis. Just one man's opinion there, but that's how I see it.
I totally agree, and I said so above, or was it yesterday?
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it was mere negligence and not in any way intentional.
Having said that, what is your point, exactly?
I don't agree with that, so I won't take up your hypothetical.
This whole Israeli/Hezbollah dustup started when Hezbollah attacked the Israeli military. Not a civilian target, mind you, a military target.
Hezbollah only started attacking Israel with rockets when Israel began attacking civilian targets in Lebanon.
That's not true. They have targeted civilians for years. I wouldn't mind if they DID only target the military, but they don't. Attacks of both kinds were stepped up when the bombing started. Also, the new, larger rockets from Iran are a recent development. I don't blame Israel for trying to attack the rockets, but I don't think that's all they are doing.
The "dustup" started when Israel decided it had the casus belli it needed to attack Hizb'allah.
And before you mention that Israel is only going after the rockets, that is certifiable bullsh*t. No rockets have been fired from downtown Beirut. Bombing the airport was a gratuitous attack against civilian infrastructure. And blowing up an apartment building because you believe a rocket was fired from that location is still hitting a civilian target, becuse the 200 other people in that building are civilians.
I have said before that one reason for some attacks was probably to keep Hizb'allah from moving the soldiers to Iran. In addition, the guerrillas don't exactly have silos for their rockets, so they keep them in houses. That explains some attacks but not others.
I'll admit Israel has a problem. Hezbollah fighters mingle with the Lebanese population. And Hezbollah has a great deal of support among the people in southern Lebanon.
But despite what John Bolton says, it is not OK to cause civilians casualties in order to get at the Hezbollah fighters. And it isn't effective anyway.
The only way to peace is through diplomacy. Causing so much trauma among the Lebanese merely tilts public opinion even more away from Israel, strengthens Hezbollah's support and further radicalizes young Arab men. What Israel is doing is counterproductive.
Yes and no. Certainly Israel's attack will probably prove pointless and counterproductive, as I have said above. I think destroying Hizb'allah completely would certainly justify some civilian deaths, from Israel's point of view. But it would not solve Lebanon's problem of inadequate representation for Shiites and therefore Israel's northern security problem. As I have said before. And the inevitable result of that political problem is the cancer on the Lebanese body politic called Hizb'allah.
Diplomacy may be just as ineffective. It depends on the environment. It depends on who is running the diplomacy and who wants to sabotage it. I doubt that the current administration could even succeed in diplomacy even if they suddenly decided they wanted to try. Which they don't. So, for the next 2.5 years, diplomacy is probably not any way to peace at all, let alone the only way.
The neocons do have one small point in their favor when they see this war as an "opportunity." It's very easy to talk about how wonderful peace is. But a lot depends on what kind of peace. Some kinds of peace breed more resentment and more war. You may remember what happened in 1918.
Israel is attempting to break the deadlock and create a new peace under different conditions. That is surely better than the neocons' lust for perpetual war. But I doubt the new conditions they desire will help anyone in the long run, let alone the conditions that will result if they fail. See "Iraq."
praedor:
ReplyDeletePissing around with UCMJ wording doesn't change the fact, inescapable and inarguable, that the Geneva Conventions (and the Common Article 3) apply. No ifs, ands, or buts. The ONLY way out is to exit the Conventions and, at that point, become a criminal state in the eyes of the entire world and watch the facade of the fake American Empire crumble to dust at warp speed.
Actually, the Supes said that. They said the commissions violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions:
The charge's shortcomings are not merely formal, but are indicative of a broader inability on the Executive's part here to satisfy the most basic precondition--at least in the absence of specific congressional authorization--for establishment of military commissions: military necessity. Hamdan's tribunal was appointed not by a military commander in the field of battle, but by a retired major general stationed away from any active hostilities. Cf. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S., at 487 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (observing that "Guantanamo Bay is ... far removed from any hostilities"). Hamdan is charged not with an overt act for which he was caught redhanded in a theater of war and which military efficiency demands be tried expeditiously, but with an agreement the inception of which long predated the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the AUMF. That may well be a crime,41 but it is not an offense that "by the law of war may be tried by military commissio[n]." 10 U. S. C. §821. None of the overt acts alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the agreement is itself a war crime, or even necessarily occurred during time of, or in a theater of, war. Any urgent need for imposition or execution of judgment is utterly belied by the record; Hamdan was arrested in November 2001 and he was not charged until mid-2004. These simply are not the circumstances in which, by any stretch of the historical evidence or this Court's precedents, a military commission established by Executive Order under the authority of Article 21 of the UCMJ may lawfully try a person and subject him to punishment.
and:
The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The Court of Appeals dismissed Hamdan's Geneva Convention challenge on three independent grounds: (1) the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable; (2) Hamdan in any event is not entitled to their protections; and (3) even if he is entitled to their protections, Councilman abstention is appropriate. Judge Williams, concurring, rejected the second ground but agreed with the majority respecting the first and the last. As we explained in Part III, supra, the abstention rule applied in Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, is not applicable here.55 And for the reasons that follow, we hold that neither of the other grounds the Court of Appeals gave for its decision is persuasive.
Cheers,
Anonymo: Clemenza?
ReplyDeleteMi fa ridere, caro, ma attenti ai pescecani.
I hesitate to say it, but it seems clear that Kofi Annan is a very careful man. If he wasn't, he never would have lasted through the Bush years. If he says it was deliberate, that means his people have given him a thorough account of what happened -- the bombardment went on for hours, the Israeli Army was called several times, many shells landed near the location, the Assistant Secretary phoned himself, and then a precision guided missile lands on a well-known and marked location. What does it take to be very suspicious? Why? Well, their job is to observe and report. Why would the IDF want the UN to be blind and dumb in that sector?
ReplyDeleteThank God the men weren't killed by those evil terrorists.
Zeroworker: great posts.
ReplyDeleteArne, thanks for the info on Bamford. Since it is you who recommends his books I will order them immediately.
Sunny, I just really, really love you. If I could choose one person from the whole Internet to have as my best friend in real life, I would choose you. I'm sure I'd even be able to talk you into being a vegetarian for moral reasons.
Question to the commenters here: Is there any other blog on the Internet that has a host like Glenn and commenters like these who discuss things the way it is done here?
I looked at a lot of them and never saw another even remotely like it. If anyone knows of one (or more) could they post the link here? Thx.
eyes wide open:
ReplyDeleteWhile "The Puzzle Palace" is interesting, it's also the oldest and some of the material is covered (and more up-to-date) in the later books. But I'd recommend that anyone that wants to delve in read it as well.
There's also The Codebreakers by David Kahn, who the NSA tried to censor and block his book. He's a cryptanalyst, and gave a lot of information about cryptoloy that the NSA didn't want to get out. At the time, NSA also was trying to suppress all discussion of public key encryptation (RSA, Hellmann-Diffie, etc.) as being dangerous by giving out easy-to-implement and very secure systems that would frustrate the NSA's ability to snoop. They tried putting classification orders on this stuff, even though the scientists had developed the stuff on their own; Kahn beat the NSA and got his book published. Bamford's crime wasn't giving out technical details, but rather in simply decribing NSA capabilities (at that time).
Cheers,
Is there any other blog on the Internet that has a host like Glenn and commenters like these who discuss things the way it is done here?
ReplyDeleteWho knows, but there are a lot of good blogs out there, for a lot of different things.
Crooked Timber
Booman Tribune
Groklaw
e pluribus media
Mystery Pollster
etc.
Hi Baldie,
ReplyDeleteI said:
First off, the evidence seems to point to a little more than negligence on the part of the Israelis.
You said:
I totally agree, and I said so above, or was it yesterday?
Oh, OK. I must have misinterpreted your response to my initial post.
I said:
Hezbollah only started attacking Israel with rockets when Israel began attacking civilian targets in Lebanon.
you said:
That's not true. They have targeted civilians for years. Also, the new, larger rockets from Iran are a recent development. I don't blame Israel for trying to attack the rockets, but I don't think that's all they are doing.
Yes, Hezbollah has fired rockets into Israel before, but not immediately prior to its recent capture of Israeli soldiers. I was merely referring to the current flare up (although I'm happy to talk about the relevant history as well).
Anyway, I disagree that bombing civilian targets to get at a missle launcher is justified. It's collective punishment, which I reject.
Just for the record, firing rockets indescriminantly into Israeli cities and towns is equally reprehensible. Probably more so, because at least Israel has can make the argument that it is trying to eliminate a threat.
No matter how Glenn attempts to wiggle and justify his position about Israel, it is clear to this reader at least that he cannot be very objective about the topic and he defends himself by "demonstrating" that he is a centrist. Asking him to take an honest look at his reasoning is not working because he is defensive. He will only remark that the right wing is calling him anti-Israel. That's to prove that he's really balanced on the entire topic. I humbly join in the previous suggestion of recommending http://www.counterpunch.org/
ReplyDeletechristison07102004.html
A CounterPunch Special Report
The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
It's safe to assume neither side is capable of behaving rationally anymore. There is no high ground in the Middle East. All parties inhabit a disgusting shit-filled ditch of their own making and every time they drop more bombs they make it deeper and guarantee a never-ending cycle of violence.
ReplyDeleteIf they could see past their idiotic chest-thumping, which is as plain as day to anyone outside the Middle East, they might be able to achieve some form of peaceful co-existence. But they can't, because they are all too happy to wade into their shitty, stinking morass of a shit-hole and do nothing but finger-point and assign blame.
I'm sick of hearing about it on the radio every morning and wish they would fix their problems so I don't have to hear about them anymore.
Glenn--not being intellectually consistent again--You fail to mention that the Canadian Prime Minister (one of the dead UN peacekeepers is Canadian) wants an explanation from Kofi Annan why he didn't remove the peacekeepers from the battlefield. He essentially accuses Annan of leaving these men in a battle zone knowing they were being used by Hizbollah as a shield. Further, you failed to note the e-mail sent by the Canadian peacekeeper a few days earlier documenting this. Kofi Annan has always been anti-Israel. There are photos of the UN outpost being next to a Hizbollah outpost. Their flags are practically on top of one another. What is the UN doing there? They have been ineffective for years in reporting the arming of Hizbollah. They serve no purpose and now Kofi Annan leaves them in harm's way on purpose. What could possibly be the rationale to leave them there? And in light of the Canadian PM's comments, and the fact that today Kofi Annan backed off his statements of yesterday, it is apparent that the real person to blame is the person who failed to evacuate UN personnel, knowing they were being used as a shield in an active battle zone. Why don't you share all sides of the story Glenn? How about the fact Howard Dean called Maliki an anti-Semite? Where is the news of that?
ReplyDeletePS I know the Howard Dean comment isn't relevant to this post...I mention it to underline the fact that there is a serious problem with the extreme and unbalanced left as much as with the right. Little Green Footballs may have extreme right wing comments, but the comments here are just as a extreme and sometimes worse. The left cannot even bring itself to comment on one of the most courageous leaders in the Democratic Party, Howard Dean. Always truth to power. And even he is outraged that Maliki refused to condemn Hizbollah. In fact, the MSM reports that the strongest comments came from Howard Dean,calling Maliki anti-Semitic. Isn't there something wrong when the people commenting here are completely out of step with Howard Dean? What does this say about this place, Glenn? You lose credibility when you don't present rationale arguments, when you are clearly one sided.(except of course with regard to Specter--a lying piece of crap pretending to be moderate--more evil than the openly right wingers and more capable of doing damage because he is such a snake.) I applaud you for exposing Specter for the snake that he is. And I am so furious with your position of this war because I fear it damages your credibility on the things that matter so much to this country--to with, this Specter bill. Every time you take a one sided approach to Israel, when there is little rationale for doing so, you chip away at those who respect you for your other work. I love Howard Dean. And his remark about Maliki was honest and true and showed what hypocrites the Rethugs really are. Stand up like a man with balls where Israel is concerned. Don't pander to the anti-semites and ill informed on this site, to say nothing of the appeasers, apoligists, and out right terrorist sympathizers that show up regularly here. There are reasons why so many Arabs remain in the 7th century. Until they start examining themselves, there will be no salvation but the violence they wreck on everyone. I know there are a few moderates out there, but they are weak and unable to oppose the terrorists who reign.
ReplyDeletePSS I know the last few sentences of mine were incendiary to some...but I am so tired of Arabs never taking responsibility for their part in all of this. Hamas never acknowledged Israel's right to exist. There is no impliedly anywhere. It is part of their charter--Israel's destruction--so is Hizbollah's. So it is hardly unfair that Israel take them seriously and not only defend themselves, but offensively remove them as a threat. It's sad...but the Arabs always choose this method of advance...teaching children to grow up this way is their fault....the fact that Israel is actively defending herself and offensively removing them will not increase the hate....the hate is a constant that is fed by these crazy backwards radicals. It is irrational and should be deplored by all. They don't want peace and and find every excuse not to advance as a society. Tell me all the great things Arabs have done for world civilization in the last 50 years. The rich states have oil and use the money to enrich a few and pacify the others by supporting terrorism. Syria has no oil and therefore is a conduit for the states that do and want to stir the chaos and terror pot. So what are the accomplishments of this fine group of Muslims in the last 50 years, except their hate of Israel being an excuse for everything. I have no sympathy. If Bush attacked China and China attacked us back, I would blame Bush, and be furious with all the stupid Americans who supported him. Clearly that logic doesn't apply to all of the victims here.
ReplyDeletePathetic.
Thanks, arne and anon of 1.05 A.M.
ReplyDeleteHow about the fact Howard Dean called Maliki an anti-Semite? Where is the news of that?
Excuse me but if it were "news" everytime someone called someone an anti-semite there wouldn't be room for any other news.
wg:
ReplyDeleteAt the hearing he claimed that a presidential prerogative to engage in warrantless spying on US persons can be read into some provisions of the original FISA and that he only made it explicit in his FISA rewrite. This, I'm sorry to say, is a gross misrepresentation of the original FISA.
Quite true. The exception is in 50 USC § 1802, the "gentlemen do in fact read each other's mail" provision that allows spying on "foreign powers" without warrant when what is being spied on is the "exclusive[]" communications between agents or principals of foreign powers. IOW, we get to keep spying on the microwave communications links between the Washington, D.C. Russian embassy and their U.N. delegation in New York.
But that's hardly what is being done with the NSA program in question, or what is proposed to now be allowed under Specter's bill.
And any spying, if it is done on people who are all outside the United States, even if it is done through taps done physically within the United States, is not even covered by FISA and requires no warrant. But once again, that isn't what is being done by the NSA program.
Cheers,
So the UN historically helps kidnap Israelis on at least one and perhaos two occasions, actually aids hizobollad stations with water and electrical connections from their own station, and stays in place when hibollah launches rockets from directly in or next to UN stations... and it is Israel that is reckless?
ReplyDeleteThe UN station was a legitimate military target. It is not a peaceful or diplomatic thing. It is a human shield. If the UN peacekeepers knew that they were next to a legitimate military target and did not leave, then they had to know the hizbollah were using them as a shield to drum up sympathy.
The use or tolerance of human shields is a war crime.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo the UN historically helps kidnap Israelis on at least one and perhaos two occasions, actually aids hizobollad stations with water and electrical connections from their own station, and stays in place when hibollah launches rockets from directly in or next to UN stations... and it is Israel that is reckless?
That would be "historic" and even "reckless" if it were true. Do you have anything other than the "tin foil impression" that it is the case, any "evidence" of it to share with us? Perhaps the UN was behind 9/11.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn--not being intellectually consistent again--You fail to mention that the Canadian Prime Minister (one of the dead UN peacekeepers is Canadian) wants an explanation from Kofi Annan why he didn't remove the peacekeepers from the battlefield. He essentially accuses Annan of leaving these men in a battle zone knowing they were being used by Hizbollah as a shield. Further, you failed to note the e-mail sent by the Canadian peacekeeper a few days earlier documenting this. Kofi Annan has always been anti-Israel.
Harper is a neocon stooge, like Blair. Oh, lovely! More fake e-mails! Care to provide a link? I thought not. Anyone is "anti-Israel" if they don't think the Palestinians should be wiped from the face of the earth.
PS I know the Howard Dean comment isn't relevant to this post...I mention it to underline the fact that there is a serious problem with the extreme and unbalanced left as much as with the right.
I think you are mistaken. Actually, I think you are unbalanced, insane... a moron.
July 13, 2006
Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Dear Prime Minister Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca)
In response to the capture of an Israeli soldier, who was part of a military force launching attacks against Palestinian civilians and imposing collective punishment of the population of Gaza, Israel has stepped up its illegal siege of more than 1.4 million people. Israel has also been illegally holding over 10,000 Palestinians’ prisoners many who have been imprisoned without charge. These prisoners include women and children. The Palestinians have offered to exchange the Israeli soldier they captured if Israel releases women and children prisoners being held illegally by Israel.
Israel has been shelling Gaza, has imposed a blockade on the population, denying medical supplies, causing food shortages and starvation. Israel is imposing collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza. This is a war crime which has been condemned by the Swiss Government, the custodian of the Geneva Conventions. Israel also has been expanding illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied West Bank.
Israel’s actions in Gaza have been condemned by countries around the world. Many prominent individuals including London England’s Mayor, Ken Livingstone, joined by 14 British Members of Parliament and a number of British Jewish academics, have also condemned these Israeli attacks against the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Many Israelis are opposed to the violent acts of their government.
These Israeli acts of an aggression amount to war crimes and come on the heel of the war crimes already being committed by Israel in Gaza, where the 1.4 million Palestinians are presently being starved, bombed and terrorized. Over the past two weeks at least 74 Palestinians, many of them children, have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. UN Secretary General, Koi Anan, has strongly condemned Israel’s actions. Canada should do the same.
The crisis is escalating. Israel war planes violated Syrian airspace and buzzed its capital Damascus. This violation of another country’s sovereignty is very provocative and can be seen as an act of war. Israel is also still illegally occupying territory belonging to Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. Israel has been illegally holding Lebanese prisoners for many years. Israel has also been assassinating political leaders in Lebanon as shown in an Israeli spy ring which was recently uncovered in Lebanon.
In response to these Israeli provocations Hizbollah launched an operation that killed two Israelis soldiers, which according to one Israeli source that I have seen may have been in Lebanon, and captured two Israeli soldiers. Now Israel is seeking to impose collective punishment on innocent Lebanese civilians in response to this independent Hizbollah operation.
Israel is heavily shelling Lebanese towns from land, sea and air. In past two days the Israeli assault has already killed 40 civilians in Lebanon, 10 of who were children. The Israeli attacks have hit 10 bridges, a television station, and Beirut International Airport, the only international airport in the country. Israel has massed six thousand reservists on the Lebanese border and appears to be preparing for a major invasion of Lebanon. The Canadian government should issue a warning to Israel and demand that Israel halt its military assault against Lebanon and to stop any plans to invade the country.
It is clear from recent events that as long as the illegal occupation of Arab lands in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine continues, the violence in the Middle East will persist. Israel must stop its continued aggression and Canada must speak loudly against it. The human rights of the Palestinians and Lebanese must be respected.
The Canadian government’s silence on these acts of aggression is encouraging Israel to continue committing war crimes against innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. As such, Canada is morally responsible for the bombing and invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, and for its complicity in Israel’s plan to isolate and starve the Palestinians and to destroy the democratically-elected Palestinian government.
The Canadian government should demand the release of the democratically elected members of the Palestinian Parliament which are being held hostage by Israel. The blockade of the Palestinian population should be lifted at once and humanitarian aid sent to Gaza. The attacks against Lebanon should cease immediately. None of these Israeli actions advance the cause of peace. Let us work for justice in the Middle East and dialogue and not encourage or aid and abet Israel’s acts of aggression.
Yours truly,
EDWARD C. CORRIGAN
BARRISTER & SOLICITOR
Per:
Edward C. Corrigan, B.A., M.A., LL.B.
LSUC #32629E
ECC/ne
Encl.
d:\ed/mideast\
Edward C. Corrigan
Barrister & Solicitor
Certified as a Specialist by the Law Society of Upper Canada Citizenship and Immigration Law and Immigration/Refugee Protection Law 171 Queens Ave. Suite 420 London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5J7
Tel: (519) 439-4015
Fax: (519) 439-7657
Toll Free 1-800-883-6217
email: corriganlaw@linkd.net
web site: edcorrigan.ca
I used to be very pro-Israel. No more. I would like to see a homeland for the Israelis as well as the Palestinians, if they can't learn to live together as decent human beings, and they both have factions among them that are not willing to do this, I'm afraid that they will both lose the support of the world community, who will be of the opinion that they must each clean up their own respective houses or they can both sod off. Sadly, this anonymous has captured the feelings of many Americans rather well:
Anonymous said...
It's safe to assume neither side is capable of behaving rationally anymore. There is no high ground in the Middle East. All parties inhabit a disgusting shit-filled ditch of their own making and every time they drop more bombs they make it deeper and guarantee a never-ending cycle of violence.
If they could see past their idiotic chest-thumping, which is as plain as day to anyone outside the Middle East, they might be able to achieve some form of peaceful co-existence. But they can't, because they are all too happy to wade into their shitty, stinking morass of a shit-hole and do nothing but finger-point and assign blame.
I'm sick of hearing about it on the radio every morning and wish they would fix their problems so I don't have to hear about them anymore.
1:57 AM