9/11 And The Politics Of Fear

We all know about 9/11, not much needs to be said about this, where we were, how we felt, and how we reacted. Our President was fast to condemn the attackers (and rightfully so) and pledged to "find them dead or alive" and "smoke them out" of their caves, well, good for him. Unfortunately, a few months after the attack, the same president stated that he was not that concerned about UBL and that he doesn't think about him a lot. That was a 180 degree change from previous statements, surprising many, that the one of the worst mass murders was not thought about anymore.

Meanwhile, the mass media kept on showing pictures of planes hitting buildings and buildings collapse and talking about how many have died as a direct result of those horific events. The nation was in a collective state of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome of sorts and being kept there, the fear card played happily and often by almost every member of this administration. I have often wondered if we were all held in some sort of mental captivity because of the images being repeated over and over and over again, resulting to some degree in collective Stockholm Syndrome (http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=469, in which the administration claims that they are the only ones who can keep us safe or taken it a step further, to whom we owe the fact that we are, after all, still alive.

Using fear as a political play card, this admistration has been able to push through the Patriot Act, has circumvened the FISA court to spy on citizens without a warrant (that would most likely have been guaranteed by the FISA Court if asked for), has established rules for our handluggage for plane rides etc. It has also been able to convince some citizens and most lawmakers alike that we have to start a war with Iraq, because it would keep us safe, or safer, and by "fighting them there, we don't have to fight them here." If you ask me though, every American servicemember killed over there hits us here, because here is where we all feel the impact.

Shortly after 9/11, Jon Stewart from Comedy Central gave a lengthy monologue, at times fighting back tears as he summed up his reaction to these events. http://www.smithappens.com/flash/126/Daily-show-post-911-monologue.html. I think that he spoke for many of us with his heartfelt words.

But his sense of "fighting back" (as I interpreted his remarks) unfortunately turned out to be wishful thinking, especially after the US invaded Iraq. The fear card was still played over and over again and the same assertions repeated over and over again. We were warned to be vigilant when the threat level was raised (as it turned out later, many of those were for political reasons as former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge asserted), while at the time we were told to just go about our lives as normal, but hey, do not forget theplastic sheets and the duct tape and don't forget to stop by your neighborhood grocer and stock up on tuna and crackers, and yes, watch out for pregnant women in New York subways, as they could be a decoy, really not being pregnant but carrying a dynamite laden belt under an oversized t-shirt. What is going on? My only possible answer is that they want us to be afraid and confused, because generally, fearful and confused people are irrational for the most part and can't be trusted to think for themselves so they gladly leave that part of their lives to the higher ups in the admistration to keep us safe.

Yes, there were the "Miami Seven" who apparently planned full-fledged attack against the US (with seven people, heck, my dog can take them down). Then the "foiled" plot in England a month or so ago, where the majority of the alledged plotters did not even have passports or tickets, but we leave the breastmilk and lipgloss at home, while still being able to carry a wrench and knitting needles.

In the past two weeks, again, almost every member of this administration has played the fear card again with the usual and a bit stale sound rhetoric. My six year old has begun to wonder and asks "why Bush can only talk about war?" A very wise observation indeed. Then comes the 5th anniversary of 9/11; I must say, CNN did a good job not showing many images of this fateful day, giving us at least a bit of a chance to recover from PTSD or Stockholm Syndrome :)

My 6-year old's homework assignment for this day was to wear red, white, and blue, which he did. He claimed on that morning that he remembers us watching the events on TV, and given the size of his brain and how he uses it, I would not put this past him. He is a sensitive little guy, needless to say, he was very upset that 9/11 happened and did shed a few tears that many people died that day. He was angry at the "people who snatched the planes" and wondered if they were from Iraq. I told him that they were from Saudi Arabia and he was getting a bit confused. I assured him that being confused about this was fine as his mother was confused as well. He wondered why people "were stupid and jumped out of windows. They knew they would DIE." Then I tried to explain to him that these poor people had to make a horrific choice regarding a "better" way to die, either jumping out of windows or being burned alive. As I was driving him to school, he was sobbing again, and went into a full fit of tears when he saw the flag at half staff, thinking it was "broken". Again, another attempt by me to explain why people fly flags on half staff at times.

Naive me thought that things with him would get better once the afternoon came around, but while driving later that day, the president's speech was on radio. My little guy heard him say something about "they want to kill Americans" which again brought on another flood of tears. I ended up stopping the car right were I was and reassured him that his chances of dying in a terrorist attack are about as high as being struck by lightning, twice, the same day, and that we are in more danger of "moronic drivers". Why I had to have these discussions with my 6-year old is beyond me. He should be thinking about Legos, dinosaurs, penguins, and what to read at night. Needless to say, I silenced Mr. Bush. I couldn't take it anymore.

Bush says that he is "fighting a war on terror". I think this is a misnomer and it be called "war on terrorism". Anyone supports this, if it is done right and the means needed (troops and FBI and CIA etc.) are not being diverted to some misguided adventures in the desert sands of ancient Mesopatamia. Yes, stay in Afghanistan, move everyone there and find that SOB OBL and that Mullah Omar and the other misguided individuals that have hijacked their own religion for political goals. Terrorism is an instrument and needs to be silenced.

Terror is a state of mind, the state of mind that I found myself in on Monday, September 11, 2006, when I looked at the terror-stricken face of my little guy hearing "they want to kill Americans." I don't want my son to grow up being terrorized by people that we are supposed to trust. Terror is what I felt when my husband told me he was going to Iraq in 2003, and again in 2005. Terror is what I felt for 12 months total when the phone rang at some un-godly hour, fearing the worst. Terror is what I felt when our friend Ken got blown up and burned by a landmine in Iraq. Terror is what I felt when I saw him at Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio. Terror is what I felt when I saw the fear for his live in his wive's and childrens' eyes. Terror is what I felt when he died. Terror is what I felt when I saw his family holding his dead body before the cuffin was closed one final time before he was taken to his final resting place. Terror is what I felt when I learned that another friend committed suicide in Iraq. Terror is what I feel every time when I hear of another service member being killed. Terror is what I feel when I think about their families left to grieve.

The response to the presidents speech was expected, each party accusing the other side of playing politics with 9/11. I had a lot of thoughts about that too, that instead of offering some hope and positive outlook when given the chance, this president again and again choose to play the fear card. Instead of remembering the dead and their families, he offered fear, tried to make vain connections between 9/11 and Iraq (more about that at a later point), in my opinion defending the undefendable. Keith Olberman summed up wonderfully in his commentary that same day. Since no comment is needed for what Keith had to say, here is the link: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/11/keith-olbermanns-special-commnet-on-bush-who-has-left-this-hole-in-the-gr. Maybe the flag is broken.

Why did we invade Iraq? I really have no idea, as every rationale for the 2003 invasion if Iraq has been blown out of the water, most recently last week, with a damning BIPARTISAN Senate report (however, Cheney and Rice were still trying to make connections between Saddam and Al Queda as recently as yesterday's talk show circus, with the lovely VP stating that he hasn't even read the report ....) But coming back to the headline/question above, this one was sent to me sometime back in the summer of 2003, very timely, again, and again, and again

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
(c) 2003 anarchie bunker
Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

9/11, Bin Laden, and what-ifs

One thing that many people remember on this 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania is where they were when the planes struck. I remember, we left our then duty station and temporary home in Cottesmore, England on 5 September 2001 for a 9 day vacation in Yuma and Tucson, Arizona. Our plan was to return to England on Friday, September 14th, leaving Yuma on Thursday, September 13th.
As usually, my husband was up earlier than me. He followed the usual morning routine turning on CNN for a quick check on the news. When I woke up, while walking into the kitchen to get some coffee, he informed me that one of the towers of the WTC in New York City was on fire, apparently after having been struck by an airplane. I was stunned. I have flown into New York from both JFK and La Guardia in the past, and always had to strain my neck in order to catch a quick view of the beautiful and magnificent Manhatten skyline. I also remember way back in 1998, during my first trip to the Big Apple, asking a flight attendant whether we would be able to see Manhatten. She informed me "only when the weather is very nice" and also that Manhatten was pretty much a n0-fly zone because of the skyscrapers. So, immediately, I thought that something must have been very wrong, but at this point, had no idea how wrong and how many more wrongs would happen that fateful day.

Just about as our then 1.5 year old son woke up, a second plane hit the other tower of the WTC, then the news reports started to get even more confusing. President Bush, at some school in Florida, responded to the incident, referring to them as an act of terrorism against the United States and he promised to "hunt down and find these folks who committed these attacks against the United States." Then more reports of attacks, the Pentagon, reports of explosions heard somewhere else, FBI investigating another plane hijacking, the Pentagon in flames and being evacuated, then evacuation of the White House, Capitol Hill, a plane crash in Pennsylvania. Then Aaron Brown on CNN interrupting another reporter moments after what appeared to be the collapse of the first of the two towers. Reports of people jumping out of windows, people running, sirens in background.

My first reaction was to vomit, just the thought of all those people in those towers, their sense of helplessness and desperation, to much to bear. Then the second tower collapsed. Eyewitnesses at this time (on both CNN and Fox News) referred to hearing explosions when the towers collapsed literally upon themselves, almost like in some of these planned explosion of old, derelict buildings ...

Whilst the attack was happening, Bush was reading a story about a goat to elementary school children in Florida, not reponding for seven minutes. Then, immediately afterwards, the "knowledge" that it was a terrorist attack, and then shortly after that, photos of the alleged hijackers where made public. I always struck me as odd, that it took years to find the Unabomber, but within 24 hours we not only have the names, but also photos of the hijackers.

Meanwhile, air traffic has been suspended, and the Tucson skies, that are usually buzzing with the sound of both commercial and Air Force Planes, were very quiet. We have tried to phone United to get some info with regard to our now cancelled flight back to London, and after two days, finally were able to speak to someone, and the earliest we could return was on Saturday, September 22. The rental car place didn't even care anymore where we would drop off the car as long as we dropped it off. No questions asked.

The world literally became one, the French declaring "Nous toutes sommes Americaines", flowers at American Embassies and military bases across the world, a NATO meeting in Brussels, during which the leadership invoked Article V of the NATO treaty, apparently the first time ever ...(http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010920a.htm), but the President for some reason turned the offer for military help from other NATO member states down. He also turned down French's President Chirac's offer of all of France's aircraft carrier in support of any possible military actions against terrorist targets (the word Afghanistan could be heard louder and louder at this point as well.)

Then we heard the name of Bin Laden, and saw posters of his turban covered head with the words, "Wanted, Dead or Alive". Initially, there was tough talk from the President about "smoking them out of their holes" and then in the beginning of October 2001, Afghanistan, then under Taliban leadership was attacked.

After the initial tough talk about Bin Laden and his cohorts of hijackers and whoever else, President Bush stated that he "wasn't concerned about" Bin Laden, that he doesn't know where he was etc. WHAT? Was this really the same president we saw shortly after the attacks, dealing with the largest attack in recent American History, not being concerned about the mastermind of a massmurder of about 3,000 people???

Now, lets fast-forward to the week before the 5th anniversary of these tragic events (the five years since then will be covered in another musing). Our president, who has lost lots of support for any of his (failed) policies at this point in history, gave yet another speech, this time invoking Bin Laden again. Four years or so after neither "thinking about him (bin Laden) or being concerned about this mass-murder's whereabouts much, Bin Laden now is elevated to the same level as Hitler. WOW. I am not sure that I am or ever will be able to understand such a leap of logic and common sense, such a non-sequitur of argument, it literally blew me away. I was at one point planning on blogging my thoughts about this comparison, but have thus far not been able to put my thoughts into words, simply because I would not have been polite to say the least and again, because I am completely unable to understand.

A blog that I occasionally follow is the "Rude Pundit". He or She, wrote an excellent, alas pretty rude, commentary on said speech, expressing pretty much how I felt and still feel. I will include the link to his blog here, but as a disclaimer, if you object or mind rude language, don't read it, you might be offended. http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/message-to-president-were-not-that.html.

Now, what IF the president has taken up the NATO offer and allowed for the execution of Article V? What if Bush had capitalized on the worldwide sympathy for the United States and offer of military support from all kinds of other nations to help "capture dead or alive" the masterminds behind 9/11? What if good old-fashioned police work and undercover work would have been used to capture bin Laden and his henchmen? What if the War on Terrorism would have been executed with an international force well-versed in fighting terrorism, e.g. the British SAS or German GSG 9 or that French Group (I am not sure if they even have a name, but they are good) or the Israelis? All these nations have had their share of terrorism in the past and have hunted down, killed or captured terrorist, all them with combined decades of experience, what if the US had listened instead of going it alone, when a coalition of the willing emerged without any diplomatic effort after 9/11? What if Bush had not attacked Iraq over non-existing WMDs or non-existing ties between Saddam and Al Queda? What if those precious resources had not been diverted from finding bin Laden? What if, indeed. General Clark's description of NATO troops in former Yugoslavia might provide some answers(I just find this after writing this blog, I am amazed). http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

THE NEW PRISONERS OF WAR AND THEIR TREATMENT

Now today our President again spoke out (sigh) and this time he addressed members of congress regarding his proposed new legislation concerning enemy combatants, after the Supreme Court dealt his administration a blow a few weeks ago. As many are aware of, after the campaign in Afghanistan started way back in 2001, the term "Enemy Combatants" was coined, a term hitherto not known not many observers of world news. This new groups of people caught and subsequently detained during wartime actions, have zero protection under the Geneva Convention that the United States was so instrumental in establishing, as these rules regulate some basic conduct regarding prisoners of war during armed conflict. This was a very important step to bring some 'civility' to the dirtyness of warfare seen in WW II. Having declared people caught on the battlefield of Afghanistan Enemy Combatants, has allowed the United States to transfer these people into political and legal lala-land which then consequently led to some grey zones with regard to their treatment while being held captive. As I mentioned before, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply for these individuals. After the aforementioned blow to the administration regarding prisoners held at Gitmo, Cuba, the president had to come up with something new to justify military tribunals for said captives.

Today then, the President asked Congress to pass some sort of legislation that governs the treatment of these men held at Gitmo as well as the possibility of trying them in front of a military tribunal, I am not sure what that all means, the military tribunal stuff, but it doesn't sound good. Democrats along with European Countries and Human Rights Groups have long pushed for Gitmo to be closed and now they have been pushed into a catch 22 situation by probably Karl Rove in either agreeing to this legislation (as in stating that they are indeed against terrorism) or vote against it, and then consequently be labeled as anti-terrorist, anti-American, traitors or worse.

It never ceases to amaze me how this administration can come up with more legislations to make their failed policies on every level of the spectrum look remotely good. Geez, if one had just captured those men in Afghanistan and treated them as POWs, they would have been given the protections of the Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm), and we would not even have this discussion at all. Why on earth does it need to be spelled out that another human being should not be subjected to hypothermia or fake executions? Isn't that what happened in the Nazi concentrations camps before and during World War II? But God forbit, we can't even bring up this one up without being labeled a traitor and America Hater. I really wonder what the state of this union has become that we even have to discuss how to treat another human being, another prisoner of war, when we expect that our own in captivity be held according to standards. I am sorry , but I really do not believe that any of this makes my husbands and his fellow service members any saver should they, God forbit, end up as a POW or Enemy Combattant.

Additionally, if we have the evidence against these individuals that they indeed planned horrific terrorist actions against America and her allies, then we sure should be able to try them in a court of law following established procedures for criminal cases. But then again, the question arises if we are then punishing people for a crime that they have not yet committed, but maybe planning, which would be the same as trying someone in a court of law for thinking about robbing a bank. Just a note, do neither advocate terrorist attacks or robbing a bank for that matter. I think that if the evidence is enough to try and convict someone, lets do it, lock them up and throw away the key. We need to follow signed treaties and conventions, not be circumvening them as it suits our needs at any given time. Doing so, in my humble opinion, only emboldens the enemy to commit more horrific acts against westerners in their control (e.g. beheadings). If the United States says, she is a nation of laws, that we need to set and example and follow the laws that we have in the books instead spending time creating more. If the United States claims she is morally superior to others, then she needs to set the example that the rest of the world wants to follow. Again, I do not advocate treating terrorists with velvet gloves, quite the opposite, but not torture or degrading treatment. I do believe that the laws we have are enough to allow for prosecution and conviction of terrorists.

P.S. on Sunday 10 September 2006

I was just watching the Early Edition on CNN, their legal analyst gave some more information that these proposed tribunals do not need to present evidence to the accused, or better yet, that the accused have no right under said proposal to see the evidence against them. Didn't W. say last week that we are a "nation of laws" and don't we have laws governing that any accused can see the evidence against them? Well, apprently they do not apply, heck, we are going to shoot a bullet through your head, hang you, fry you or gas you, but you have NO right to know why we do it. I am just grateful for all the JAG lawyers in the Pentagon and for Senator Graham (a Republican) who are opposing this proposed legislation. Let's stick with the laws we have, they are good laws, and not invent new ones that allow us to sidestep established legal procedures and subject who knows whoever into some never before charted and very dangerous legal la-la land.

WAR, HATE and FEAR

Here we go again, our great leader has yet given another speech to a select audience, in an attempt to gather support for the Iraq War, World War III, The War against Terror (a misnomer anyway), Al Queda, Usama (hiding out somewhere in a cave), generally painting a bleak picture of the state of affairs. We are not safer (why not?), the threat is still there (why?) and now we are facing a new threat from Iran. Heck, for as much as I care, this speech today sounded like those given back in 2002 and 2004 before assorted elections. Just the name of the threatening nation has changed, from Iraq to Iran now. Maybe it is still the same threat and maybe Mr. Bush with his dyslexia issues hasn't figured out that he is dealing with two different entities.

Now, while I never believed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was ever really a threat to anybody (unless he could make wooden planes get off the ground and have them fly to America's coastline, reliving the great moment of flight by the Wright Brothers back some 100 years ago), no, Saddam was no threat. Was he a nice person? No, absolutely not, but human rights and his and his son's violations thereoff did not came into play as a rationale for invading this country back in 2003. I do believe however that Saddam could have been contained, just the the Soviet Empire was contained during the Cold War. He could have been assisinated as well, which would have saved a lot of lives and money for the American Taxpayer, but no, Bush and the Neocons needed to invade and now we find Iraq on the brink of a civil war, with sectarian violence, morgues overflowing with dead bodies, assassinations of those who 'collaborate' with American Forces, and no end in sight.

Now we face the same with Iran, again, another nation governed by a semi-madman, who plans on proceeding with his nuclear ambitions. Whilst I agree that this a real threat that in my humble opinion has been ignored and pushed on the back burner thanks to the war in Iraq, it needs to be dealt with. I do not agree with the war-mongering neocons like Billy Kristol et al. that we "need" to invade Iran. First of all, invade Iran with what? With 130,000 or our troops bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively? With the troops at home between their now almost regular deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan? No, lets just blow up the reactors, we know where they are, somewhere north, south, east and west of Theran (just like the WMDs in Iraq where in the same directions around Baghdad, remember that now infamous Rumsfeld quote). These are the known known and not the unknown knowns. Or, are we relying on cartoon drawings again, just like those that Colin Powell showed us during his speech or indictment of the Iraq regime in front of the UN in 2003.

Bottom line to my rambling here is, I am confused on whether the President is confused. I am in fear about another useless war instead of diplomacy (heck, if we tried it, it might actually work, but we don't know that since Bush really doesn't talk to anybody). I am tired, tired of the hopelessness and doom that this president offers in his recent speeches. I want some hope, not war, hate and fear.