Posted using ShareThis
“trained incapacity,” Markov Chains, Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs), social holons, backcasting/hindvasting/nowcasting memes, sorta like.. gene prediction or cryptanalysis and why can’t some of you Magicked followers whom love a good riddle/enigma thang, suss some clues out of all this etherized data?
Bohren und der Club of Gore – On Demon Wings
When nothing adds up, its time we starting looking at what we know. Our recent terrorist, now dubbed “the crotch bomber” is another dupe. He could have been working for anyone, drugged, brainwashed or simply influenced, maybe by crazy Arabs, maybe by the Mossad, maybe by the CIA. We only know the game is falling apart.
We do know a couple of things. Dad, back in Nigeria, ran the national arms industry (DICON) in partnership with Israel, in particular, the Mossad. He was in daily contact with them. They run everything in Nigeria, from arms production to counter-terrorism. Though Islamic, Muttalab was a close associate of Israel. He has been misrepresented. His “banking” is a cover. Next, what do we know about the two Al Qaeda leaders Bush had released, the ones who planned this?
According to ABC news, the Al Qaeda leaders running the insurgency in Yemen were released from Guantanamo, although two of the highest ranking known terrorist there, without trial.
Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody.
Both of the former Guantanamo detainees are described as military commanders and appear on a January, 2009 video along with the man described as the top leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Abu Basir Naser al-Wahishi, formerly Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary.
With all the hoopla about trials in New York, not a word is said when top level terrorists are released to Saudi friends of the Bush family who let them go. We are now fighting these two Bush friends in Yemen. They are running a major insurgency there. We have been using Cruise missiles and our jets to attack their bases in the last weeks.
What about Iran? Is that the day after tomorrow’s war?
Clearly Lieberman is very busy thinking about America’s problems and how to solve them.
Is there anything about that sanctimonious weenie Joseph Lieberman that doesn’t induce nausea?
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) Sunday said that Yemen could be the ground of America’s next overseas war if Washington does not take preemptive action to root out al-Qaeda interests there.
Lieberman, who helms the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the U.S. will have to take an active approach in Yemen after multiple recent terrorist attacks on the U.S. were linked back to the Middle Eastern nation.
The Connecticut senator said that a government official in the Yemeni capital told him that “Iraq was yesterday’s war, Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war.”
Yeah, we’d better keep bombing Yemen. Look how well its worked in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Afterwards, let’s move on to Iran, Somalia, Ethiopia, Indonesia. If the recent past has any lesson for us at all, it’s that heavy-handed military responses to vague ‘terrorist threats’ work like a charm.
I love Joe’s reasoning. Let’s start a war in Yemen to prevent a war in Yemen from starting. By that logic, why not cut your wrists right now to prevent the certain death that awaits you in the future?
I think, but cannot prove, that this is the way civilizations fall.
It’s not surprising that Lieberman supports an endless string of wars and bombings. He’s a loyal employee of powerful interests who profit from them. What’s disturbing is how easily this bankrupt vision of American foreign policy gets disseminated through our culture and becomes the accepted, conventional wisdom. No one will doubt the premise that evil al Qaeda types are operating in Yemen and that military force is the only way to handle the problem. The only argument we’ll hear in the glitzy, neon compost heap of the mainstream media will be a pre-school level debate about how we attack Yemen. Should we settle for more drone strikes, or should we go balls deep with a full-scale invasion? Special-Ops, anyone? How about we train an indigenous security force? Call up Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol and let’s get the fireworks started.
At what point does this futile charade grow old? When do Americans reject this tired, stale, false and endlessly regurgitated script? I look around and see a nation of people held in thrall by an overblown, over-marketed science fiction movie that is essentially a cartoon (Avatar), and I know the answer. A nation whose grown-ups are entertained by cartoons is a nation whose grown-ups will go on swallowing the superficial, cartoonish narratives that drive our foreign policy.
I imagine they won’t be delaying that vote on the Patriot Act much longer being as it was sunset time…
Wow, that didn’t take long at all. Scant days after the American war machine took the cloaking device off its direct military involvement in Yemen, we have an alleged attempted terrorist attack by an alleged attempted terrorist who, just scant hours after his capture, has allegedly confessed to getting his alleged attempted terrorist material from … wait for it … Yemen!
As an aside, I read somewhere today, an Isarali company does the majority of airport security for most european countries. Same as during Sept 11th.
Indeed, the ultimate in shadowboxing, in other words, a sciomachy;which is an an obscure psychological term. But then again, it’s mostly psychological op, isn’t it. ‘Full Spectrum Dominance'(TM). If we want to discuss a national psychological pathology instead of the BushCo/Obama® psychological pathology, this might be a more fruitful direction.
Just as the saying goes, ‘If there were not a God we would have to create him, so too we have to create a controlled chaos, in a echo chamber feedback loop to justify our stay. If there were no Al qaeda we’d have to fund them…etc.. it’s mostly, a sciamachy. We created this sanguinivorous monster, …blood, oil, and soon water, there is no difference.
After getting that red, white and blue dick jammed up your ass, of terra terra terra over the holidays, in silence, Obama & the Supreme Court shred human liberty in a Single Sentence while you weren’t looking.
It happened earlier this week, in a discreet ruling that attracted almost no notice and took little time. In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.
Here’s how the bad deal went down. After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president’s fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a “suspected enemy combatant” by the president or his designated minions is no longer a “person.” They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever — save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.
This extraordinary ruling occasioned none of those deep-delving “process stories” that glut the pages of the New York Times, where the minutiae of policy-making or political gaming is examined in highly-spun, microscopic detail doled out by self-interested insiders. Obviously, giving government the power to render whole classes of people “unpersons” was not an interesting subject for our media arbiters. It was news that wasn’t fit to print. Likewise, the ruling provoked no thundering editorials in the Washington Post, no savvy analysis from the high commentariat — and needless to say, no outrage whatsoever from all our fierce defenders of individual liberty on the Right.
The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of “national emergency.” And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law.
And yet this is what Barack Obama — who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer — has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution. They can’t even been sued for, in the specific case under review, subjecting uncharged, indefinitely detained captives to “beatings, sleep deprivation, forced nakedness, extreme hot and cold temperatures, death threats, interrogations at gunpoint, and threatened with unmuzzled dogs.”
Again, let’s be absolutely clear: Barack Obama has taken the freely chosen, public, formal stand — in court — that there is nothing wrong with any of these activities. Nothing to answer for, nothing meriting punishment or even civil penalties. What’s more, in championing the lower court ruling, Barack Obama is now on record as believing — insisting — that torture is an ordinary, “foreseeable consequence” of military detention of all those who are arbitrarily declared “suspected enemy combatants.”
And still further: Barack Obama has now declared, openly, of his own free will, that he does not consider these captives to be “persons.” They are, literally, sub-humans. And what makes them sub-humans? The fact that someone in the U.S. government has declared them to be “suspected enemy combatants.” (And note: even the mere suspicion of being an “enemy combatant” can strip you of your personhood.)
This is what President Barack Obama believes — believes so strongly that he has put the full weight of the government behind a relentless series of court actions to preserve, protect and defend these arbitrary powers. (For a glimpse at just a sliver of such cases, see here and here.)
One co-counsel on the case, Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, zeroed in on the noxious quintessence of the position taken by the Court, and by our first African-American president: its chilling resemblance to the notorious Dred Scott ruling of 1857, which upheld the principle of slavery. As Fisher notes:
“Another set of claims are dismissed because Guantanamo detainees are not ‘persons’ within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – an argument that was too close to Dred Scott v. Sanford for one of the judges on the court of appeals to swallow,” he added.
The Dred Scott case was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1857. It ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.
happy slavery holidays…