This morning we launched the largest military offensive operation since the beginning of our invasion in Iraq. The target was the area of Samarra.
All of the news reports so far have been sure to mention the fact that there were 50 aircraft, 200 “tactical vehicles”, and 1500 troops engaged in the attack. I couldn’t help but notice that these numbers were mentioned in every report I heard, whereas other numbers were not. One number not included was the population of Samarra (200,000+). Another figure notably missing was the projected death toll, both in terms of the “insurgents” who were the targets of the attack, as well as the innocent bystanders which will inevitably be killed in this type of operation.
As with most reports on our dealings in Iraq, few will ask many questions; although many questions certainly need to be asked. How will we gauge whether this operation (or the invasion in general) is “successful”? What death ratio of “insurgents” to innocents will be considered acceptable? If the trend we have seen so far is any indication, the few who do ask such questions will initially be ignored. If they get loud and persistent enough, they will be reassured with patriotic generalities or outright lies.
And then, the truly sad part comes when the very few remaining who will challenge and expose the lies eventually do so, because the vast majority of people just don’t really care. When the facts came out that disproved the administration’s WMD stories, the outcry from the public was nearly insignificant, because by that point most of them had allowed themselves to be re-convinced of alternate justifications for our illegal actions.
When the truth about the illegal NSA wiretapping program came out, I don’t remember a single mainstream news organization demanding an answer for how the president reconciled the speech he made on 4/20/2004 when he explicitly stated that the US government does not wiretap without court orders with the fact that he personally ordered that exact type of spying to occur beginning several years prior to the speech.
Unfortunately, people just don’t seem to want to ask such questions anymore. Perhaps it’s because we live in a “new age” of terrorism (or at least new to us). Perhaps people want to feel safer so badly that they’re willing to suspend their disbelief and not delve to deeply into the assertions that they are being made safer by various activities at home and abroad. It doesn’t actually matter whether such actions are in fact making them safer, and they sure as heck don’t want to think about the possibility that they may be making them less safe. It’s so much easier just to believe it, and try not to think about the negative side effects, like the loss of life and liberty.
December 29, 2005 – 12:37 pm
The words of the legendary Phil Ochs song ring through my head after listening to more news on the wiretapping scandal today; the irony of “fighting for democracy” by tearing apart it’s foundations piece by piece is overwhelming me.
Oh, I guess I should have started this with a warning: it has been suggested that I not write any “controversial” posts on here anymore, because they may make some people uncomfortable or uneasy. Personally, I think that most of the people (which I know personally) that read this blog are probably wise and mature enough people to not let my opinions on a given subject interfere with their opinion of me as a person, or of our relationships, but if you’re not one of those kind of people, then you may not want to read the rest of this one.
Read More »
December 19, 2005 – 3:20 pm
In this Reuters article about the recent spying on Americans controversy, the administration attempts to defend the practice of spying on Americans (which they have previously denied and now have been caught doing secretly, so now they have to defend it). It is illegal for the government to spy on citizens without the approval of the court, but the administration is alleging that they are justified because we are “in a time of war”.
This just keeps coming up over and over again, and I’m surprised that anyone is still accepting it (although I think/hope fewer are). It should be plainly obvious to everyone by now that if you’re going to consider the “war on terror” as a qualification for the US being “in a war”, then you have to accept the fact that we will now be in a “war” forever. I heard several different radio commentators talk about this today, referencing all kinds of stuff that Lincoln did in his efforts as president during the civil war, but they’re totally missing the point that the so-called “war” we’re in now is completely and totally different from the actual wars of the past.
The other thing I’d really love to hear is the response of all the people who I’ve talked to about the Patriot Act who’ve said that it’s OK to do that kind of stuff to non-citizens (because for some reason they are not as deserving of civil rights as we are), but the government would never do that kind of thing to “us”.
December 16, 2005 – 3:08 pm
As a follow-up to my previous post:
Senate fails to reauthorize Patriot Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Friday refused to reauthorize major portions of the USA Patriot Act after critics complained they infringed too much on Americans’ privacy and liberty…
December 14, 2005 – 3:31 pm
Alternate title: They can’t “hate our freedom” if we get rid of it; that’ll show ‘em!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday to renew the USA Patriot Act, setting up a showdown with the Senate over a centerpiece of President George W. Bush’s war on terrorism.
On a 251-174 vote, the House approved the measure, with supporters saying it would properly balance civil liberties with the need to bolster national security.
But a number of Democrats and Republicans vowed to oppose the legislation in the Senate, which is expected to take up the bill in coming days. They charged that despite increased congressional and judicial oversight, it would still give the government too much power to pry into the lives of Americans, including their medical, gun and library records.
It’s funny how I remember so many people saying (in response to my previous criticism of this act) that the government will roll back those changes to civil liberties, and that they’re only necessary in a time of war, etc. etc. They said that the beauty of this act was that it had expiration dates, so that the infringements could not be made permanent; yet now they seek to do so. Basing the need for such laws on whether we’re in a “time of war” or not is a misleading tactic, because there are so many wars that can never be completely won (”war on terror”, “war on drugs”, etc.) for us to be perpetually involved in.
In addition, where is the evidence that indicates that these new laws have done anything to prevent terrorism? This is another one of those double sided arguments that proponents of these tactics love to take: if there are no major terror attacks, then the laws were effective, but if there were attacks, we must need even stronger laws to prevent them in the future.
“Defending America” should not involve going against the fundamental principles of our constitution in the process. When you look at the growing list of things we used to characterize “bad guy” governments as doing (imprisoning people without charge or trial or even opportunity to tell their families what has happened to them, then taking them to secret detention facilities which sometimes involve the use of torture, and the laundry list of other civil rights violations), you have to ask yourself how many of those tactics we’re willing to take on ourselves in the process; and whether, in doing so, we undermine the point or principle of “defending” the country that we value.
September 11, 2005 – 12:00 am
Happy Patriot Day!
“… whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” - Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials
“Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel.” - Mark Twain
And, for a special red, white and blue treat, here are some of my favorite patriotic art pieces: Read More »
‘Patriot’ Act may get partially declawed - by Thomas C Greene
The US House of Representatives passed a measure curtailing the federal government’s access to library and book shop records by a 238-187 vote on Wednesday.
US Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) sponsored an amendment to the House Justice Subcommittee appropriations bill. The amendment prevents the US Department of Justice (DoJ) from using appropriated funds to obtain library patrons’ and book shoppers’ records without a search warrant, a practice previously allowed under Section 215 of the so-called “Patriot” Act.
“No question; this is a real shot in the arm for those of us who want to make changes to the USA Patriot Act,” Sanders noted. He added that the vote would “rein in an Administration intent on chipping away at the very civil liberties that define us as a nation.”
Looks like more of America is starting to wake up from the fear & propaganda induced coma it’s been in and realizing what a load of un-American crap the PATRIOT Act is. It wouldn’t surprise me if the color gets bumped up to orange again in the next few weeks, or some other ridiculous scare tactic to try to scare us back into complacency.
Read More »
December 14, 2004 – 7:25 pm
Here’s an excerpt from a comment I just made over in a long running discussion on Dan’s blog. Since I spent a couple minutes typing it, I figured I’d post it out here as well so it wouldn’t go to waste, since unless you use an RSS reader to track the comments or check them regularly “by hand” you’d probably miss it.
I do, however, take offense at the comment that the left “hates America”; that is completely untrue.
First of all, I object to categorizing people as “left” or “right” in the first place, although our culture and media (especially radio) tends to encourage that kind of thinking and labeling. I’d rather have my own opinions of any given issue, whether they align politically with the “left” or the “right” doesn’t really concern me.
Many of my views could be considered “left” by some, but I also have many opinions that would more closely align with the “right”, so does that mean I only love/hate America half-heartedly? No, it just illustrates that the whole generalization is just plain wrong.
Read More »
