Aohell

History...

 

A modest request...

I would humbly ask that all the attention and "how could this possibly happen?" sort of stories the major US media outlets have expended, are expending, and will expend on both Don Imus and the tragic shootings in Virginia be equalled, at the very least, in attention to the following topics:

• The US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Third world poverty
• Global climate instability
• Human rights issues in general

The stories should focus not just on defining the problem, but about what is needed to work towards a solution. Terrible as Mr. Imus' comments may have been and shocking though the tragedy in Virginia may be, there really are much greater things that should be demanding the attention and mindspace of America.

Thank you.

Why Not Walkout?

The United States is coming up on the anniversary of the pro-immigration demonstration marches.

Schools everywhere are bracing for the possibility of a repeat of last year's student walkouts. They're threatening students with disciplinary action should they leave school for political purposes.

They're doing it so they can keep their average daily attendance, or ADA up. ADA is included in the formula for school funding. Should all the Hispanic kids take off for three days, the schools stand to lose some major cash.

This means those Hispanic kids have power. Lots of it. By walking out, they may get some suspensions, but the school system gets whacked. What's more, the Hispanic kids in Texas have an easy countermeasure: If the schools discipline them for walking out, they can simply refuse to take the TAKS test.

If the entire Hispanic subpopulation fails the TAKS test, every school in the state will be found non-performing and will come under stricter state supervision. Students can't be disciplined for doing poorly on a test, especially should such discipline be targeting a specific minority subpopulation.

I think students all over Texas should protest the TAKS test by refusing to take it and breaking the system from within, but, hey, that's just me. If students refuse to be treated like cattle with numbers, maybe then we could see some real school reform. We could give the kids what they want, and then they wouldn't have a reason to walk out of schools.

Head 'Em Up, Move 'Em Out

In a move that's sure to open up a whole can of worms in Kurdistan, the Iraqi government has made a decision to do a little ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk. Non-Kurds who moved to Kirkuk after 1957 and their descendants are supposed to hit the road and not come back no more, no more, no more. Each family so moved gets $25,000 in US dollars as compensation.

Oh goody. Kick me out of my house and send me down south with $25 grand. Should I pre-arrange for a kidnapper to avoid the rush? Those thoughts have to be going through the potentially displaced people. Those, or something more like, "Over my cold dead body." Either way, I don't see good things coming from this.

Kirkuk sits on 2% of the world's oil reserves, which adds to the tension of a land dispute. This is Iraq, as well, where violence seems to be the order of the day, not law and order. This is where Iraq can really plunge into hell. It's the Titanic right now. If Kirkuk flares into violence, Iraq will become the Lusitania.

Racism: Alive and Well and Living in New Delhi

Nearly a sixth of India's population are untouchables. They're now called Scheduled Castes or Dalits, but those words mean the same thing. They're outcasts in society and those who attack or exploit them tend to not face prosecution for those crimes. When they do go to trial, they have a much higher chance of acquital because of the Indian legal system's bias against the Dalits.

India created fast-track courts to try and deal with the crimes against Dalits. Of the 50,000 such cases pending in Uttar Pradesh, four have been tried in the fast-track courts in the last five years. Apparently, "fast" has a different meaning in India.

In America, religious freedom does not guarantee religious practice. That's why the Mormons weren't allowed to have more than one wife, although they could believe it was their right. India needs a similar legal precedent to protect the untouchables. Of course, that would result in massive religious conflict and upheaval, but, hey... what's a little civil war among friends?

OK, so maybe that's not such a great idea. Dalits have often sought refuge in changing religion, but even among Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims, prior caste in the Hindu system follows the convert. It's cultural cruelty, with some of the cases approaching the brutality of forcing widows to die with their husbands on their funeral pyres.

A Reflection on George Orwell, Red Cloud, Heaven, and Hell

We of the sinking middle class may sink without further struggles into the working class where we belong, and probably when we get there it will not be so dreadful as we feared, for, after all, we have nothing to lose. -- George Orwell

As election time draws closer, I become reflective upon the process: what the mythology says it is and what it actually is.

In American mythology, the people speak on voting day. They choose their leaders, who could be just about anyone who wants to try his hand at running things, and the government responds to the mandate of the people.

In reality, the people vote upon a pre-approved slate of candidates who either are members of the Republican or Democrat parties, who enjoy a co-dominion in US politics, or they vote for people who had to do far, far more than show up sober to one of the Republican or Democrat nominating committees. These outsiders are kept as outside as possible by the major parties. They must raise huge sums to compete, or in some states to even file a candidacy. They must amass signatures to prove they have a modicum of support. Why don't the major parties jump through those hoops? The fix is in. They already know they have power and money, so they need not display it like everyone else. And who wrote these laws, which serve as barriers to entry in the free market of ideas? The Republicans and Democrats.

And do they respond to the people? They respond to the people to some degree, it is true. I won't be entirely cynical. But they respond even more readily to huge lobbying efforts on behalf of massive corporate entities and the richest 1% of the richest 1% of American families. America has been bought and paid for, and 99.99% of its citizens aren't on the board of directors.90% of Americans don't even own a share large enough to be noticed, even for a moment, at a blue-plate fundraising dinner. This is not their America. This is, and always has been, the America of the untitled aristocracy.

Income disparity continues to widen in America. This is not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. As my electric bill robs me of plans for my future and I struggle to slay the hydra of debt, the very money I pay to keep the wolves away from my door goes to the pockets of the owners of those wolves and makes their wallets fat with my cash.

All right, so I exaggerate with imagery. Who carries cash, anymore? No, it is their bank accounts which grow ever larger as the electronic bits instantly transfer money away from me and into the laps of the waiting rich, whose government will allow them any tax loopholes their lawyers can write - and when a $500,000-a-year lawyer can save millions of dollars more in taxes, one hires lawyers for just such a purpose and pays them every penny of their retainer fee. And when I pay taxes to the government, who does the government contract with to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty? Ah, that would be the rich, again. Yet again, my money flows uphill.

And defense for who? The poorer the neighborhood, the worse the crime rate. The richer the neighborhood, the more secure the police coverage.

And general welfare for who? The rich pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the not-quite-so-rich on down to the destitute and starving. The benefits of those taxes go to those whose companies can skim off the public till. The rich even find ways to qualify for farm subsidies and tax credits intended to help the poorest Americans.

Blessings of liberty? The Constitutional rights Americans supposedly enjoy are enjoyed only at the whim of the sitting president. Should he do something unconstitutional, it requires a massive court challenge spanning years and costing potentially millions of dollars in order to attempt to undo. Mind you, that's attempt. There's no guarantee the Supreme Court will agree with your interpretation of "constitutional". Corporations choose to pollute and pay fines rather than clean up. Death penalties are assigned to the poor at greater rates than to the wealthy, yet one does not see a lack of wealthey men accused of murder. One's lawyer can secure the blessings of liberty. or at least the blessings of a prison stretch in a high-quality jail, if paid highly enough. For everyone else, the wheels of justice are made to crush.

No, it is as Orwell says. The middle class will fade and join the poor. It is an inevitable process, perhaps recently sped up by the industrialization of China, India, and the former Soviet Bloc. Their populations are producing millions more skilled workers who are eroding the middle range of salaries in the developed world.

And as Orwell said, it will not be so dreadful a thing as the middle class may be thinking. What do we have to lose but material possessions? When they're gone, we're free.

I am poor and naked but I am the chief of a nation. We do not want riches but we do want to train our children right. Riches would do us no good. We could not take them with us to the other world. We do not want riches. We want peace and love. -- Red Cloud

Let the rich have their riches. I believe in something beyond this life. I am patient. If I have nothing going into the afterlife, I will not miss it at all when I am dead. I will be in heaven. The rich who set their hearts upon the wealth and power of this world will not have it in the next. They will desire it, but they will not have it. They will be in the same place I am, but they will be in hell.

Now I think I understand more why Jesus said a rich man would have a very difficult time getting into heaven. Because of that, Orwell's quote above does not depress me. It sets me free.

The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it. -- George Santayana

Might As Well Start Here...

Ouane Rattikone was a drug dealer. What makes him more important than, say, Snoop Dogg is that Ouane Rattikone was the commander of the Laotian Air Force during the Vietnam War. When Alfred W. McCoy interviewed Rattikone for his book, The Politics of Heroin, the General showed McCoy his ledgers of every drugs transaction, so as to dispel any rumors he'd shorted anyone in the heroin business.

Right after McCoy interviewed Rattikone, he contacted the US embassy in Laos. He said he'd heard from sources very close to the general that he was a drug dealer. The US embassy denied Rattikone had any link to drugs, dismissing whatever that source said as a pack of lies.

To me, that is the equivalent of the government insisting that 2+2 = 5. Worse, the government expects every patriotic American to believe 2+2 = 5 in that case and any others where lies are necessary to justify the moral high ground of the government.

At the time, the Nixon administration had launched a war on drugs to drive heroin production from Turkey out of America. It worked. Turkish heroin and opium production plummeted. "The French Connection" smuggling heroin from Turkey faced intense persecution, and faded from power in America.

All this happened at the same time the US intelligence networks in Southeast Asia cooperated with Rattikone, the Binh Xuyen criminal gangs, Nationalist Chinese generals turned Burmese warlords, and Thai government officials - and almost the entire South Vietnamese parliament - in a deal where they provided support for the US position in the region while the US intelligence protected their heroin distribution network from prosecution.

Yes, I could talk about US intelligence drug deals with the Contras and Afghans, but they're not much different from this case. A war on drugs on one hand, dependence on drug dealers on the other to fight some other war.

How did the United States government get in such a bizarre state? How insane does the world have to be for such a thing to happen?

Or am I asking the wrong questions? Is this just a natural state of affairs sensitive minds suffer under, all the while dreaming of a better world to come because of the seeds they sow today?

Given how this story isn't isolated, I'm inclined to believe it's a natural state of affairs. We're just being lied to horribly in this latest version.

There was a time in which those who had power held their power because... well, just because. Why does Pharaoh want a pyramid? Because he's the Pharaoh, that's why. How do you know someone is a king? Because he's not covered in excrement. Simpler times.

Back then, if a king acted like a complete bastard, the peasants had to put up with it. Any peasant rebellion could kill off a few nobles, but would get ruthlessly suppressed later on. Better to just fly under the radar and be thankful for getting Sundays off.

Problems happened when people other than the king got rich. Those rich guys wanted to run things, too. Most places developed an aristocracy to handle the influx of rich people. In Athens, the rich guys got together and made a democracy, except that the demos in question was made up only of the rich guys. There never were any pretensions towards having commoners vote on matters of policy. Why? Because.

Fast forward to the American Revolution. There was a true anarchic spirit in that movement, as embodied in the Articles of Confederation. I read that document because I had always wondered why it was so rotten compared to the Constitution. It wasn't. There were some really nice parts in it, especially the limitations on the powers of the central government and the mandatory term limits. Both of those helped to keep an impersonal supernational government from crushing the rights of the citizens of the nation-states making up the United States.

By the way, I see the same paranoia about the UN in many people who nevertheless swear by the overriding powers of the current federal government. I find such a dichotomy chillingly hilarious.

Anyway, the Articles of Confederation were anarchic. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. But I now see that anarchy as a good thing, compared to what followed. So much of American political mythology depends on the Articles of Confederation being little better than the situation in Somalia, for the writers of the Constitution to rescue with their blessed document.

Yes, the United States were in disarray, as should be expected after the disruption of an 18-year war. That disarray wasn't the fault of the Articles of Confederation, and there were many men around who would argue just that. Please don't sling arguments at me about how wretched the United States were back then. I'll believe that as much as I believe the US Embassy in Laos denying Ouane Rattikone dealt heroin.

The real rescue afforded by the Constitution was to the powers and wealth of the top families of the United States. These guys did not want to see a rabble running the show any more than the Athenians did. Anti-rabble measures are evident throughout the Constitution: the Senate, the Electoral College, no term limits, imprecise wording about state and national powers, and no mention whatsoever of personal rights except as pertains to property ownership.

The Constitution was so unpopular, in order to get it ratified the Federalists had to promise a Bill of Rights. It was nevertheless unpopular and states like Virginia and New York ratified it by the slimmest of margins. Pennsylvania's legislature had to resort to trickery to get it ratified there. I take my pseudonym, Neo_Brutus, from the pseudonym of one of the anti-Federalists, "Brutus".

"Brutus" lacerated the writers of the Constitution:

"We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion,-that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed,-that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution."

"Brutus" then predicted a government with no legal restrictions on its actions would put its subjects into a state of vassalage.

And so the arguments in favor of a Bill of Rights went., and so the Bill of Rights got added to the US Constitution. But almost from the beginning, the Bill of Rights meant nothing to a government bent upon circumventing it for its own aggrandizement.

When Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, there went the protections of the First Amendment. Sure, victims could argue against them in court, but their rights had nevertheless been overridden Would that the government had not taken such measures in the first place! As it is, a court challenge is a torturous process, covering many years and uncountable legal fees - and the US government can appeal any ruling against it to the Supreme Court.

And what of the Supreme Court? What enforcement powers does it have? When the Supreme Court ruled against President Jackson's ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee Nation in Georgia, Jackson said the court could find its own enforcers and carried on with the ethnic cleansing.

Now, back in the days of the Pharaohs and Caesars, none would ask why Jackson got away with that. The answer would be simple: Because. But in the Constitutional government, that sort of thing wasn't supposed to happen. This is where the mythology of the US reveals itself to be divorced from the reality of the US.

As the monied elites of America consolidated power over time, they did so on a national scale. Their greatest coup was in getting corporations considered as citizens under the 14th Amendment. Equal rights for former slaves? Ha! The 14th Amendment is a get out of jail free card for every corporation in America. This is no recent perversion: very soon after its ratification, that amendment has been sheltering companies from hostile legislation, leaving them free to engage in rapacious practices.

And let us not be fooled by the dire warnings against monopolies. Oligopolies can produce even more rapacious circumstances than monopolies, and that is exactly what the US has dominating its economy. Ours is no free market. Ours is full of barriers to entry and barriers to competition, all erected by the leading corporations of the nation to secure their advantages behind the cloak of law.

Yes, just because something is legal does not mean it is moral. Just because something is illegal does not mean it is immoral. The law will apply when it suits the needs of those in power, do not ever forget that.

We are taught the myth of the progressiveness of the income tax. The rich are supposedly taxed at a higher rate than the poor, right? That is nonsense, and we should recognize it as such. The poor are already paying a higher percentage of their income than the rich in the form of sales taxes. Add to that the burden of paying income taxes without specially-crafted loopholes, and the poor pay a greater share of their income than the rich. The income tax system as it is now is regressive, not progressive.

I mentioned the poor: I should define them. Anyone who is one dread disease away from financial ruin is poor. I am poor. If I become ill due to cancer, my family will be ruined in paying for treatment, or I will die and leave my children and wife without my support. I would add that anyone who is one job away from financial ruin is also poor. If you were to lose your job today and never be allowed to work another day of your life, would you be ruined? If so, you are poor.

There is one more way to identify the poor: they do not purchase politicians or political favors. The rich do that. Read the tax code, if you dare. There are paragraphs describing outlandish loopholes to the tax code which seem to apply to nobody in the nation... then that one return comes in, with a reference to that outlandish law. As Ferdinand Lundberg noted in his book, The Rich and the Super-Rich, suddenly the pieces all fit together.

Who wrote that law? A lawyer working for the person whose return cites it. How did it get passed into law? That same lawyer who drafted it is also that person's congressman, senator, or a close personal friend or business associate of the same. In the quid pro quo world of Washington politics, every congressman will vote for these loopholes if all the other guys vote for his.

These rich stand above the law because they can pay their way to that place. This is not cynicism on my part: this is obvious fact.. Their corporations can commit felony after felony, yet no-one goes to jail. In fact, those corporations can pollute, abuse labor codes, and other malfeasances at will, pay a fine, and carry on with their psychopathic behavior. Chevron once colluded with the MPLA to invade the oil-rich area of Cabinda. The Cabindese thought they were a sovereign nation after Portugal jettisoned its colonies. Chevron and the MPLA made them part of Angola. Saddam Hussein goes on trial for his crimes against humanity, but when a corporation sponsors a war of aggression, it enjoys the profits of victory.

On a more personal level, the rich have much better access to means of evading punishments for criminal activities I will not belabor that point, as it should be obvious that if judges and prosecutors have their prices, it is the rich, not the poor, who are best equipped to pay.

In times of war, it is the rich who profit. Both the Kennedy and Bush families made profits in World War Two selling vital war materiels to Nazi Germany, even while the US was officially at war with that nation. They were indicted under the Trading with the Enemy Act, and then proceeded to carry on violating the act - the money was too great to pass up. They made their fortunes in Vietnam and are making them in Iraq.

Their congressmen and presidents keep the wars going as long as possible. The Cold War ended, but America did not see a peace dividend. The War on Terror has now stepped up as America's interminable conflict. To keep these wars going, our intelligence services rely upon horrible criminals to cooperate with our spying efforts. The thugs and killers give us information we give them protection from prosecution so that the war may continue and, by continuing, increase the profits of the great corporations fueling that war effort.

Americans today are subject to a higher rate of taxation than the French under Louis XVI. While we've had a good run of mythology promoting our supposed rights and freedoms, they are no greater than those of an ancient peasant living out of notice of his imperial masters. Like the hapless peasant of yesterday, if the modern American pays his taxes on time and doesn't get uppity, he can pretty much do as he pleases, provided he also shows up to work on time and isn't prone to disorderly conduct or acts of violent crime.

Today, instead of a hereditary king, America has a rotating king, chosen by the aristocracy from a list of hand-picked candidates. The media owned by the aristocracy touts the virtues and vices of the candidates, but does not allow discussion of other alternatives. The congressmen chosen by the aristocrats will vote in favor of making the rich richer, but prefer to do so with laws they say will provide great benefits to the poor. Lies such as those are vital in order to perpetuate the mythology of America as a great, caring nation.

Our rotating king and the congressmen are constantly sending the poor of America to go and die for profits in the defense or oil industries. These wars entangle top levels of government in association with the top levels of the criminal world and we, the commoners, the poor, are made to swallow the whole untrue equation in order to perpetuate the myth that it is the people at large, and not some aloof aristocracy, which runs the nation.

We live in a trap. Complaining about it does no good. We must instead look for a way out of it. How can that be done?

The Dusty Stranger

An old man walked into the Oval Office. President Bush sat ready to receive a visitor, but hadn't expected this guy. This guy wore a cheap suit, a scraggly beard and leaned hard on his cane.

Well, if he got in here, he must be an important guy. Maybe this old timer owned a huge oil company and just cultivated an eccentric image. Howard Hughes stuff. Yeah, like that Howard Hughes guy. He had zillions. Cool.

Bush stood up to greet the dusty old man. "What can I do for you...ah, what's your name, again?"

"Nathan. Call me Nathan."

"Call me George."

"Nice to meet you, George."

"Won't you have a seat?" The two men sat down on comfy Oval Office chairs.

"What can I do for you, now, Nathan?"

"Well, George, I've got a concern and I want your opinion on what should be done."

"Sure."

"Well, George, it's like this. There are these two nations. One is very rich and powerful, the other small."

Great. Geography. I hope I can pronounce the names of these places. "Go on."

"The small nation is very poor, but it does have one possible hope for the future. It is rich in oil resources."

An oil guy! I knew it! Bush leaned forward. Oil was very, very important. "I hear ya."

"This small nation tried to grow its oil industry. Granted, it had a terrible government. Massive injustices there. But nothing like what was about to happen. Remember that rich and powerful nation? It had been consuming oil at a massive rate in the past, but now consumed oil even more so."

Must be talking about China. Dirty Commies. Still, gotta be careful about China. "Hmmmm."

"This larger nation invaded the smaller one and took over its oil industry. Worse, the government of the larger nation became even harsher on the smaller nation's people than its previous nasty government. As the larger nation looted the smaller nation of its treasures, it also participated in, allowed, or precipitated wholesale acts of violence. This larger nation massacred civilians and whitewashed the whole affair, treating it as nothing. The larger nation even began to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights."

"One question, Nathan."

"Sure."

"Is this larger nation China?"

"No."

"Awesome."

"Excuse me?"

"Sorry, go on."

"Sure, George. There's not much left to say except this larger nation isn't letting go. It's committed to occupying the smaller nation with no end in sight. The murders, robbery, and destruction continue. The people of this nation cry out against their oppressors. The leader of the larger nation insists, however, on keeping things the way they are. He refuses to budge. He refuses to consider negotiations. He seems beyond the reach of words."

Bush's anger took over. He wanted action. "Can the United States do something about this situation?"

"Absolutely."

We will move decisively. Oil is one thing, but murdering the people of a conquered nation? That's just wrong! That's evil! I'm against evil! "Well, Nathan. Let me be frank with you. I don't like what's going on in wherever it is you're talking about. As God lives, the leader of that bigger nation shall surely die. His nation shall restore the damages to that smaller nation plus triple the cost in punitive damages, because he had so little pity to invade that nation in the first place."

But Bush, in spite of his fear of big, fancy names, just had to know who his new sworn adversary was. This man deserved to be part of the Axis of Evil. "Who exactly are we talking about, Nathan? Who is the leader of this other nation?"

Nathan said to George, "You are that man."

"I'm sorry?"

"You are that man."

George looked on in shock.

Nathan continued. "You are the president of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world. You beat two other challengers to the presidency by appealing to conservative Christians and using religion to your advantage. You had all the resources of the United States at your disposal. That was not enough, so you allowed massive deficits in your budgets financed in large part by overseas investors, and even then that was not yet enough.

"Why, then, have you despised the commandment of God, to do evil in his sight? You have ordered aggressive wars against other nations and taken their resources to be your resources. You have allowed them to kill each other with their own weapons more and more as the years passed.

"You lied to the American people so that they would send both sons and daughters, husbands and wives, into the wars fought for gain. You have murdered to get gain, and the Lord has discovered this."

Get this nut out of here. "I think your time is up, Nathan."

Nathan stood up. "I understand. I've said what I had to say. Except one thing: Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house. Because you have despised God and have sinned in his sight."

George W. Bush, President of the Entire United States of God-Fearin' America, did not let that challenge pass. He stood up and jabbed a finger into Nathan's face. "Where do you get off telling me I have sinned? Nobody's perfect! He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, right?"

"Hey, this is standard stuff. Ever read about King David?"

"Who?"

"Guy in the book of Samuel, King of Israel, killed off Uriah so he could take his wife. That King David? Well, this is pretty much what God decreed against him back in the day. God is the same today, yesterday and forever, so I came to you with this message."

"How did you get in here, you dusty old bum?"

"Never mind about that. Let's just say your security can't stop everything coming for you. Only God can deliver you from your enemies."

"Well, I pray every day that He does."

"Right, that's why I'm here. To warn you about your greatest foe. You must not allow him to do as he pleases, but must instead remind him of his religion and what that religion requires of him."

This was something Bush could wrap his brain around, telling someone to straighten up and fly right. "And who is my greatest foe?"

"You are that man."

"Not again."

"Afraid so. Now, David was told his son by Bath-Sheba would die, but you're done having kids, so that can't happen to you. The sword never departing from your house, that can stick. And you mentioned about casting the first stone..."

"Yes?"

"You know you cast the first stones in your wars. People who had nothing to do with those who warred upon you have been killed, injured, and left to starve slowly because you chose to cast the first stones. George, I'd advise you not to judge any more, lest you be judged by the same measure."

"But I've tried to serve God!"

"Yeah, and by your deeds, you've given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. That's not serving God."

Bush felt a burden fall on his shoulders and mind. He looked down at the carpet.

After an interval, Nathan asked, "Well, are you going to change?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, David at least admitted he'd sinned."

"Oh, I've sinned."

"Well, he admitted in the specific instance."

George remained silent.

"Oh come on, George. Admitting you were wrong is the first step toward making things better again. I mean, take David. Later on, he said things like, 'He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.' It's possible to let go of your pride and make changes for the better." Nathan paused to give George a chance to speak. George didn't take advantage of that opportunity, so Nathan continued. "Well, you don't have to decide right now. You don't have to decide at all. You are free to choose."

"Who sent you?"

"I beg your pardon?"

"Who sent you, Nathan?"

"You know, George. You know. You prayed and asked for help with the mess you've got. This is your help. My name being Nathan and all, I went with the motif from Second Samuel in the Old Testament. And-"

"So you're a Christian?"

"Does it matter? If you were Jewish, I'd have quoted from the Law. Were you a Muslim, the Koran. And so on. It wouldn't make a difference what your religion was, the message would be the same, just with a different basis."

"What if I was agnostic or an atheist?"

"If you were an atheist, you wouldn't have prayed, so that's a moot point. And for agnostic, there are plenty of philosophers to work with. The point I'm making, George, is that you are that man. You are now seen as the vile oppressor whose men murder in the night and escape justice. Your administration's policies have taken away the freedoms of your nation. Your administration has allowed rich men to become richer still by robbing the poor of both their money and their children. Your administration has constructed lies in order to attack other nations, bringing wars that could have been avoided to those lands. War is a great evil, George. War ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction."

George looked up. "I don't remember reading that in the Bible."

Nathan nodded. "That last one was Nikita Krushchev to John Kennedy about the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's still pertinent to our discussion. Now, speaking of wars, in order to pay for these wars, you have allowed your Congress to run riot with the money of America, and your nation owes great sums of money to foreign hands. You have sold the future birthright of your nation's children for the most massive deficits in your nation's history. You have created a financial situation so dire, there are serious economists talking about the United States defaulting on its debt. You are that man."

Still no word from George.

"Well, I've said my piece, George. I'm not here to heap troubles on you. You should admit you were wrong, though, if you want people to start believing you. You've got some cheerleader nutjobs out there who will support you, no matter what, so you don't need to worry about them. The rest of your nation, though, does not believe anything about you except you may wind up as the worst president so far for the reasons I've discussed. Sort of a combination Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, and Ulysses Grant. If you start telling the truth, you can start solving the problems that beset you and the people of your nation will work with you. You'll have to accept compromises on all of your administration's policies and give back much of the power you've gathered for the executive branch over the years... and reduce a great deal of the secrecy the executive branch surrounds itself with."

"But we need national security and-"

"And, yes, there have to be secrets kept in such cases. But I'm referring to secrecy, which exists to cover up mistakes and failings of the administration. Cover-ups serve no good to your people. Besides, God already knows about them. If the people who have done wrong don't face justice here, they face justice in His court. That's what you believe, right?"

George didn't know if he should agree with Nathan or not. Was this some sort of Democrat plot?

Nathan walked to the door. "I'll see myself out. Just remember, you became enraged at the man I first described."

George opened his mouth to reply, but Nathan cut him off with a wave of his hand. As he left, he said, "You are that man."

Failed Nations

Full table here... 

The US is #128 out of 146 on the list. That means there are 18 nations in the world that are less failed than the US. It also means there are 127 more failed, so criticize the States all you want, they're still not anywhere near as bad off as Afghanistan, this year's #10, up from #11.

The sad part is how many of the total failures in the top ten are occupied or heavily influenced by the US. Afghanistan's a wreck at #10, and Pakistan's actually worse off at #9 - plunging there from #34 last year. That's not good for Pakistan to be in that position. Its proximity to Afghanistan and the drugs trade in the border regions can only mean worse things for those who actually want to fight heroin addiction in the world. Both states seem likely candidates to become narcocracies.

Haiti weighs in at #8. The US has been attempting to bail out Haiti since the 1920's. So far, no success with the whole nation-building thing. Even though Haiti is so close to the US, it is so far, far away in terms of being a successful democracy. Part of the problem in Haiti have been the thugs who try and take over every time the US leaves. The other part of the problem are the thugs who are put in power when the US arrives.

Speaking of thugs, Somalia's #7 on our Top Ten countdown. Somalia's its own damn fault and folks in the US are damn glad to have the US out of there every time they watch Black Hawk Down. Chad and Zimbabwe take the next two slots on the chart and then we hit a big number four...

Iraq.

Iraq outscores Zimbabwe by a bare tenth of a point on the Foreign Policy scale, but it outscores that African hellhole all the same. Zimbabwe rates somewhat higher than Iraq on "Mounting Demographic Pressures", "Uneven Economic Development Along Group Lines", and "Progressive Deterioration of Public Services". Iraq beats out Zimbabwe in a convincing way on "Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Activity", "Security Apparatus as a 'State Within a State'", "Rise of Factionalized Elites", and "Intervention of Other States or External Actors". Six of one, half dozen of the other... I wouldn't want to live in either country right now.

Cote d'Ivoire beats Iraq by 0.2 points. Ouch. I know how bad that nation fared last year, and Iraq and Zimbabwe are almost that bad. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan aren't that much further ahead, either, which is the scariest thing of all. Sudan beats out Iraq by the same margin between Spain and the US, but less than the difference between #124-ranked Germany and the US.

According to this table, Iraq's about the same as Sudan. Not much difference between the two, at all, in the overall scheme of things.

Put in another perspective, North Korea is ranked #14. North friggin' Korea! When your nation is worse off than both Afghanistan and North Korea, my friend, it's time to bail out, if at all possible. Folks in Guinea, Liberia, and the Central African Republic (#11-13) can exercise their judgment on whether to cut and run or not. The swains of Nepal (#20) decided to have a revolution just recently, so maybe that's in the cards for the folks in the 19 slots above them.

Given the violence in #22 Nigeria, #23 Uzbekistan, #25 Sri Lanka, and #27 Colombia, something going completely to hell in #4 Iraq doesn't seem all that unlikely. The rest of the nations in that top ten are in deep trouble, too, but it's Iraq where the US has the most troops to get caught in the crossfire.

But when Pakistan falls apart, that's the one to get scared about. Never mind Iran building nukes. Pakistan already has them. What happens in a Pakistani civil war or if warlordism becomes the fashion there? What if a popular, yet extremist, faction gets its hands on one of those nukes, complete with its delivery system?

Let this all serve as a cautionary tale to any nation what seeks the building of empires through brute force: they are but castles made of sand on the shores of the sea of history.

Watch out.

Leave Them Kids Behind

Once upon a time, kids could drop out of school. When it no longer served their needs as an institution, they could walk right out of the doors and never return. They were the high school dropouts, doomed forever to pump gas and say "would you like fries with that" at the end of every business transaction, or so the legends went. Actually, a good number of them wound up in jails because they didn't have good enough jobs to afford the kinds of lawyers that keep criminals out of jails.

Meanwhile, the kids who stayed in school got to enjoy a much better educational experience once the dropouts dropped out. No longer were their classes clogged with disruptive types who were held in classes against their wills. There were one or two, but a teacher could handle those ruffians and deliver some quality teaching to the rest of the bunch.

Enter egalitarianist reform.

Shocked and horrified by the numbers of crimes committed by high school dropouts, people with no clue about education decided to pass laws to keep those guys in school and to make sure they graduated, or the teachers and administrators of those districts would catch all hell, because, of course, it was all their fault for some kids being either too lazy or too stupid to master the skills necessary to graduate high school.

Now, we got kids who used to drop out forced into the system again. I don't know about the number of crimes committed by high school dropouts, but I know the number of crimes committed by high school <em>students</em> on campus is spiking in districts in and around where I teach. Worse, there's pressure to make sure <em>everyone</em> passes the courses and state tests necessary to graduate. If we get too many kids in a minority subpopulation who fail to go the distance, our entire school gets labeled as "non-performing", no matter how many National Merit scholars we produce.

Our school was "non-performing" for a few months several years ago due to an accounting error that labeled one dropout as hispanic. That put our school 0.5 hispanics over the dropout limit. Fortunately, we were able to prove he was really some other subpopulation, so we were 0.5 under the limit for hispanic dropouts after that. In the meantime, we had some outstanding performance in lots of other areas. AP tests were good, the band and orchestras did great, the choirs and theater kids were outstanding... we even started to have a winning football team again! Never mind any of that, though, if the school is 0.5 hispanic dropouts over the limit. It's obviously a failed institution.

That's only part of the ludicrousness of state and federal mandates that don't take into account local issues and needs. They rule like a blind mole, completely ignorant of conditions on the surface.

Thank goodness they don't look too hard at Arabic or Southeast Asian subpopulations. Arabs frequently get lumped in with "whites" and SE Asians with all the other "Asian/Pacific Islanders". We've got some issues with those kids, mostly new immigrants, but if they can be masked by other high-performing subpop groups, we don't have to get them to work harder. Classify either of them as hispanic, and we're all over their cases like a duck on a junebug. We're on the knife edge with that subpop. We really wish we had more hispanics, so one or two deciding to hit the bricks wouldn't skew our percentages so badly.

The petty criminals stay in school, too. Theft is way up on campus. I even have staplers get stolen out from under me. Staplers! They're only five bucks at an office supply store, but I gotta keep mine locked down, or I'm out that five bucks plus the gas for the trip on over. And never mind the occasional crude language directed at me - we got loads of kids with guns in our nation's schools.

Don't talk to me about metal detectors or searches. They are easily defeated within one week (often earlier) of their installation. These kids aren't in lockdown and have access to the outside in ways folks at San Quentin can only dream of. The guns are in every school and it's a miracle the body count in our schools is as low as it is.

Maybe it's because a lot of these guys are also coming to school stoned. If they're too mellow to open fire, that's a good thing. Don't let them drink alcohol - that's a nasty mix with handguns - but maybe we could look the other way on the pot if we're forced to keep the violent guys in school. Maybe if we had methadone in the school clinic, we could cut waaaaaay back on fights in the halls. That way, we could keep kids in school and maintain a secure environment. I'm thinking something along the lines of the opium dens the British and French used in Asia back under colonialism.

But will they learn? Nope. Not that it's different from what they're doing now. They don't want to be in school, and preaching polemics about the glories of edumacashun is not going to change any of their minds. I was once told to never try to teach a pig to dance, as it would frustrate me and annoy the pig. Someone should change that proverb to be a little more direct so the geniuses in the legislatures will figure out that trying to teach someone who doesn't want to learn what I'm teaching will frustrate me and annoy the student.

There are days where my heart leaps within me when I notice certain students aren't in my classroom. Even better is when one of these lambs is in alternative educational placement - the modern school equivalent of spending a night in jail. You may have once known it as in-school suspension. That didn't have enough syllables, though, so it needed changing to sound more confusing. I think it should be shortened to "school jail", so the proper stigma is associated with the sentence.

But, yeah, my heart leaps... if I know a troublemaker is gone for three days, I know I can cover a lot more ground in that class than usual. I can have great discussions, meaningful conversations, and happier students. Then, when ol' Sunshine returns and asks "Hey, didja miss me?", we return to the same old power struggle grind between a guy who doesn't want to be in my class and me, the guy who doesn't want to force him to be there.

I fail to see the societal benefit of keeping the louts in the schools. They should be turned loose after 6th grade, really. That would make junior high so much more pleasant. And believe me, it needs all the help it can get. I do not fail to see the societal plague of "No Child Left Behind". NCLB results in worse classroom environments, dumber classes, and more miserable educations for the good kids.

I'm serious. They break out into applause when the hoodlums withdraw from school. Imagine how much happier they'd be if those same hoodlums were gone much, much earlier.

And for goodness' sake, quit holding teachers responsible for dumb and/or lazy kids. I've got a teenager, myself. I want her to be responsible for her actions. I don't blame teachers when she exercises poor judgment. Bless her heart, but it's her fault when she does something wrong. She can fix it up and get better at not screwing up, and that's what we want in our adults, right?

But it gets to a point where it's not the parents' fault anymore. It's not the teachers' fault. It's the damn kid who's taking advantage of the system as much as possible. If the exploiter has to be forced into staying in school, he's going to force everyone else to be as miserable as he is. Let him go, and he'll stop being a pill.

What to do with the little potential criminal? If he can't hold down a job, don't give out any benefits from the state. That only rewards irresponsibility. Either let him realize he's got to get his act together and get back into school the right way, or let him live a hard luck life. Maybe he could take one of those legendary jobs Americans supposedly don't want to take.

But these are teenagers we're dealing with. Human free will is one hellacious statistical variable, and these guys are just loaded with it! How can anyone reasonably hold anyone else responsible for what a teenager does?

I know I've got some extremist ideas about schools. But getting rid of NCLB would be one step towards making public education that much less of a failure in America. We're a nation built on ideals of free choice, personal responsibility, and work ethics, so why should we have a government system built on command economics, shifted blame, and screwball statistics?

Leave 'em behind if they can't appreciate the system. Maybe all they really need is a different road from what the rest of the nation is traveling on.

The Good, the Bad, and the WTF: The Neo-Con International Landscape

On 29 January 2002, President Bush delivered his famous "Axis of Evil" speech. He thrust an accusing finger in the faces of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He also said the US was "working with Russia and China... in ways we never have before, to achieve peace and prosperity." Back on the list of enemies, Bush had this to say, "Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder.... We choose freedom and the dignity of every life."

I won't go into whether or not Bush is sending other people's children on missions of suicide and murder, nor will I consider if Bush's last statement there was a backhanded anti-abortion statement. I'll take his words at face value. I like the bit about freedom and dignity of every life. I agree with that. And if he's against guys who force children into their armies, I'm right there with him. Something should be done about the butchers of children around the world.

But, ah! Has President Bush committed an error of Wilsonian proportions? When Woodrow Wilson went out on an ideological limb at Versailles, he pushed for freedom for all oppressed peoples, then found out there were oppressed peoples he'd never heard of. Worse, quite a few of the oppressed peoples were in the empires of America's erstwhile allies, France and Britain. Wilson retreated from his earlier push, but he'd already put the idea into radical heads around the world. Arabs were particularly excited at the time, having been promised freedom from the Ottomans and a state of their own in exchange for helping the British defeat the Turks. They were as yet unaware of Britain and France's agreement to take the dismembered Turkish provinces for themselves.

Frustrated, the Arabs began resisting foreign rule. Their resistance included acts of terror. Jewish settlers in Palestine also began carrying out acts of terror against the British. The very sort of ethnic terror that caused the first world war started over anew. Arabs weren't the only ones with a beef. There were resistance movements elsewhere in Africa and Asia, all determined to get rid of their colonial masters. All resistance movements engaged in acts of terror against the governments determined to be their oppressors.

That's what a fight for independence involves - fighting. Gandhi's nonviolence was all fine and dandy, but at the same time he was getting people to oppose the Salt Tax, guys like Subhash Chandra Bose and Vinayek Savarkar were actively fighting the British. Bose put together an army that fought alongside the Japanese while Savarkar waged a massive terror campaign in Maharashtra from his base in Mumbai. Bose got discredited as a Nazi sympathizer, while Savarkar fell from historical grace when one of his supporters murdered Gandhi because the nonviolent leader allowed India to be partitioned, which led to war between the nascent India and Pakistan.

Entrenched powers extol the virtues of nonviolent protest. This makes me suspicious. Why would they promote actions that would erode, if not destroy, their power? Turns out, nonviolent protest is a non-starter when the powers that be unleash the hounds and bring down the truncheons. It fizzles further when the government in charge assassinates the leaders of the movement. Martin Luther King? Please. He's dead. Civil rights in the US remain elusive for Africans, Mexicans, and all manner of peoples once seen as the White Man's Burden. Violence, on the other hand...

Tell you what, I'll spot you US civil rights and India if you want to argue in favor of non-violence. I'll then lay out all the successful, violent struggles for independence: China, Vietnam, Israel, Palestine (hey, they got something, although they don't seem to be of the opinion that it's over...), South Africa, Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, Texas, Ireland, Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, Eritrea, Greece, Bulgaria, and Zimbabwe. Not that all of these produced democratic states - they just managed to get rid of the foreign influence in their nations and were able to oppress themselves afterward. To be sure, I can't leave out the one most relevant to President Bush - the United States of America. The US struggle for independence was armed, fiercely fought, and involved extensive acts of piracy and terror directed against those who sympathized with the legitimate government of King George.

Governments can dismiss nonviolent protesters, but must take violent acts directed against it seriously. Nonviolent revisionists will gladly accept jail time and beatings. Violent change-seekers will shoot back. Couched in ideological terms, both sides in the struggle ask for asymmetrical participation in the conflict. This means women and children, traditional noncombatants, become involved so the enemy will not know who will deliver the next strike against his power base. The resistance uses suicide attacks. The government uses informer networks. Either way, innocence is discarded. It is excess baggage on the road to the final struggle. In places like Congo where manpower has become severely depleted, women and children become front-line soldiers as pathetic as those pressed into service by the Russians and Germans in their epic struggle during the early 40s.

Wilson gave fuel to freedom-fighting terror movements everywhere. Those pesky Arabs he inspired have matured and remain in opposition to pro-Western governments, seeing them as extensions of colonial administrations. Given those governments' cozy relations with the US, it's easy to see how they arrive at that connection. Given the oppressive nature of those governments, it's easy to see how they're upset over such coziness.

For the US' part, perhaps Nehru's observation about the British could be adapted to describe the US: "I have always wondered at and admired the astonishing knack of the British people for making their moral standards correspond with their material interests and for seeing virtue in everything that advances their imperial designs." Given the history of US-sponsored coups, it's not difficult at all to juxtapose US domestic moral self-righteousness with US Bismarckian "blood and iron" policies overseas. Regimes all around the world have taken a fall when the US cast a disapproving eye their way. Iraq is the most violent in recent memory, but by no means the only violent regime change effected by US arms.

Back in 1979, the US experimented with destabilizing Afghanistan as a means of destroying the USSR. The US had brought down regimes before to suit its own ends, but this would be the first time one would fall with such high hopes. Then NSC adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski postulated a severe Soviet crackdown would unleash a wave of Islamic revolutionary activity and lead to enough instability in the USSR to render it irrelevant as a major power. When the USSR invaded, the Islamicists appeared, right on schedule. As the Pakistani ISI forged the mujahaddin into a crack heroin-producing outfit with CIA money, other Islamicists arrived in Afghanistan with an agenda of their own.

These Arab Islamicists formed a group called Maktab al-Khadamat, or MAK. The MAK provided training and logistic support for mujahaddin, but did not do much actual fighting. The MAK counted Palestinian resistance figures, Saudi dissidents, and survivors of Nasser and Sadat's purges of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The most prominent of those groups included, respectively, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Osama Bin Laden, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Azzam and Bin Laden were originally optimistic about US support, but al-Zawahiri was more philosophical, being aware of how closely the US worked with the Egyptian government to quell the Muslim Brotherhood's resistance there. Nevertheless, they all worked to assist the Afghans in getting rid of the Soviets.

In 1989, the Soviets left Afghanistan and the US cut all support for the mujahaddin. Assassins of unknown affiliation killed Azzam in Peshawar, leaving the MAK without a pro-US counterweight to al-Zawahiri's position. The chaos left in the wake of the US abandonment helped demonstrate the fickle nature of the US' involvement and brought Bin Laden over to al-Zawahiri's point of view.

In 1990, Iraq moved into Kuwait. This ended good relations between the US and Iraq. It also showed how vulnerable Saudi Arabia was. Bin Laden offered the MAK and mujahaddin from Afghanistan to assist in protecting Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis chose instead to invite the US to be their protectors. This proceeded to blow Bin Laden's mind and he placed the Saudi royal family in his crosshairs. To get them, though, he would also have to get the US, as they provided the chief supports for the Saudi monarchy. This would not be an easy thing to do.

Bin Laden's group became known as al-Qaeda and commenced violent resistance against the US-backed hegemony in the Middle East, including attacks outside the region on the US and its allies. The biggest one was the series of attacks on 11 September 2001, which resulted in Mr. Bush making the aforementioned speech.

No tolerance for the Axis o' Evil. Cooperation with Russia and China. Dignity of every life. What was it Nehru said?

There are three classifications for nations in the Neo-Con scheme of things: Good, Bad, and WTF? The "good" nations are those that agree to preserve US interests and hegemony in their geopolitically important region. The "bad" nations are those which engage in outright opposition to US policies in geopolitically important ways. The "WTF?" nations are the ones irrelevant to US foreign policy objectives, but whose situations frequently pop up to embarrass the moral crusades the US is attempting to run in places with important strategic resources.

Know a nation where an unelected few repress their people's hope for freedom? Bush used those words to condemn Iran, but what about Azerbaijan, the oil-rich nation just north of Iran? The Azeris recently had a bout of voting so fraudulent, the BBC reports about it referred to it not as an election but as an "election" where the ruling party didn't have a win at the polls - it had a resounding "win" at the polls. No, Azerbaijan is "good". It will likely remain "good" even if it orders a brutal crushing of opposition movements, as happened in Uzbekistan. Why will it remain "good"? It agrees to pump oil in a way the US finds acceptable. Iran won't follow US orders on oil production, so it's "bad".

Now consider another diplomatic basket case, Uganda. There's not only a repressive government in Uganda, they're dealing with crazed whacko Christian rebels based in Congo, bent on violent overthrow of the government. Current US policy on Uganda, however, is a guarded "WTF?" There is no oil in Uganda, so it's irrelevant if its government supports the US or not. If the Lord's Resistance Army forces more women and children into its ranks as the government plants ever more anti-personnel landmines, the US will continue to completely ignore Uganda as it tries to keep the message focused on how "good" Azerbaijan is and how "bad" Iran is.

So what makes a nation "good"? First off, if it has oil and sells it to the US. That is a very good thing to do. Second, if it has military power and will use it on behalf of US interests. That is also a good thing to do.

60% of the oil consumed in the US is imported, roughly 10,000,000 barrels per day. (2004 figures) 16% of the oil bound for the US comes from Canada. Another 16% comes from Mexico. Just behind those two is Saudi Arabia, sending almost 1,500,000 barrels per day, or 15% of the US total imports. Next is Venezuela which, for all President Chavez' bluster, ships 13% of the US' oil imports. Nigeria handles 10%, Iraq 6.5%, Angola 3%, Kuwait 2.4%, the UK 2.4%, and Ecuador 2.3%: that's the top 10. But don't ignore the next five - Algeria, Russia, Norway, Colombia, and Gabon, which each contribute between 1.4% and 2.1% of the US total. All the above supply about 94.7% of the US' imported oil. They are all, therefore, very good nations whenever possible.

Consider, however, the actual governments of those nations. I'll allow Canada and the UK are nice places. Sure, they have problems, but they don't generate Amnesty International pleas for an end to injustices in those lands on a regular basis. Norway, too, is a nice part of the earth where only its lutefisk could be a contender for a WMD. Human rights activists are not going to be agitating for a boycott of Norwegian oil anytime soon, unless they're in cahoots with the Save the Whales crowd. That's about 20% of the US' total oil imports. The other 80% comes from less savory places.

Mexico isn't all that bad when compared to, say, Angola, but it's still got some big problems its lobbyists want to make sure don't get reported on in America. There's the Chiapas revolt, still ongoing, the strange situation around the mayoral race for Mexico City, and a police force shot through with cops in the pay of major drug dealers which at one time reached up to the office of the president. It may not be a completely failed state, but it is a haven for some pretty severe threats to US security in the form of drugs gangs that have supplanted local authority. Nuevo Laredo, for instance, hosted a war between two rival gangs and their police allies in the summer of 2005. The federal army stopped the shooting for a while, but when they left, the local warlords went back to their business. Mexico also grows its own poppies, so I suppose that makes it North America's own Afghanistan. The heroin trade is nascent in Mexico, but within twenty years, with proper nurturing from competent criminals, should be as unstoppable as the trade that now fuels the clans of the Afghan highlands.

Saudi Arabia... ah! Where else can one see a good flogging of a cross-dresser or women forced to burn to death rather than appear unveiled in public? Such a nice place. Saudi Arabia is so nice, in fact, the Bush administration did not allow any of its citizens to be questioned in relation to the 11 September 2001 attacks, in spite of the fact nearly all the terrorists were Saudi nationals. $1.4 billion worth of business has gone from Saudi Arabia to companies like Carlyle Group and Halliburton - that those companies have extremely close ties with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney will be seen as coincidental by only the most naive students of human nature. Saudi Arabia continues to flog cross-dressers alongside democratic dissidents and journalists who fail to follow the dictum from the Koran, "Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble."

Venezuela may sport a Bush-bashing president, but Hugo Chavez has a soft spot for his nation's oil trade. Be that as it may, he did threaten in March 2005 to cut off oil supplies if the US ever hurts his country in any way. That probably means Bush will have to let Chavez say whatever he wants to, which seems to be very unfunny versions of Al Franken's material. The US has officially accused Chavez of trying to create a populist dictatorship and supporting rebels in Colombia. Chavez denies these claims, but he has been keeping a strong hold on Venezuela's government. He'd led a coup to take it over once before, and he is a scrappy fighter. He probably won't go down in any right-wing coup, and the US probably won't invade as long as the oil flows. Venezuela is a nation the US wishes was "good", but has to tolerate its "bad" aspects to allow its oil to continue to flow northward. If Chavez didn't make so much noise, Venezuela would be ignored in the mainstream press.

Now for Nigeria. Nowadays, when I hear "Nigeria", I immediately think of the word, "corruption". Not just the nickel and dime cop on the street corruption. I mean the kleptocratic, murderous sort of corruption huge corporations and Supreme Presidents for Life like to get down to. Between 1960 and 1999, the rulers of Nigeria managed to steal $400 billion from their own people and western aid donors. I actually wrote this part, on Nigeria, on the tenth anniversary of the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa, who fought to stop the pillaging and polluting of his part of the country, the Niger Delta where his Ogoni tribe lived. He managed to get Shell to leave the delta in 1993, and they haven't returned, but General Sani Abacha ordered Saro-Wiwa executed for treason in 1995. Chevron is currently having trouble with its operations in the Niger River Delta, but is not active in the Ogoni region. No oil company is active in the Ogoni region. Both Shell and Chevron have hired Nigerian police and military forces to kill protesters. Well, maybe not with direct orders to shoot to kill anyone and everyone, but they do kill on behalf of the oil giants. The Nigerian oil is pumped out at gunpoint and brought to the US, where it is sold in nice, clean gas stations, away from the lakes of industrial sludge left behind in Nigeria.

Iraq's situation is a right mess. In the words of The Independent journalist Robert Fisk, "The US wants to leave, the US has to leave [but] the US cannot leave, and that's why there is blood on the sand." The civilian casualties in Iraq continue to mount. We all know President Bush lied about the reasons the US invaded Iraq. It is clear why the US invaded: to physically hold down the oil-producing regions. Americans do not want to believe that, so they continue to sit in delusions, investigating the intelligence situation before the 2003 invasion. It doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference what the intelligence was. The Neo-cons engineered whatever was needed to get an invasion underway. In history classes, we do not teach that Germany invaded Poland in response to a Polish attack on a radio station inside German territory. Eventually, people will stop talking about weapons of mass destruction and the desire to build democracy in Iraq as reasons for going forth into that heart of darkness. The US is interested in one thing in Iraq: creating a government there which will continue to pump oil to the US, whatever that government may be. Even though the news coming from Iraq looks like a colorized version of Gillo Pontecorvo's "The Battle of Algiers", the US forces continue to torture, cover-up, and kill civilians in the name of... what? Just as the French in Algeria, the US fights out of sheer stubbornness and refusal to withdraw. Because of Iraq, what Americans think of the French is what the rest of the world thinks of America - that is, except for those who hate America enough to want to die trying to take it down a peg.

Angola may only provide 3% of the US' imported oil, but it's still got a sordid story to tell. Back in 1975, Chevron hired the MPLA to invade Cabinda, which was under the impression it was a free former colony of Portugal. To this day, the Cabindese continue to fight against the MPLA government and the MPLA continue to supply oil at rates lower than what the Cabindese were willing to offer. I'll make a slight tangent here to bring in Equatorial Guinea, another oil producer. Its leader had a horrendous human rights record, no problem for the US and UK. He starts pushing for a renegotiation of the oil contracts, WHAM! Down he goes in a coup. Same thing happened to Mossadeq in Iran - mention oil contract renegotiation, and your government will fall hard.

Kuwait is not a democracy. For all the people who thought the US liberation of Kuwait would install a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, the sick joke is on you. It's a constitutional monarchy, with only 10% of the population able to vote. But even if you argue Kuwait's half-democratic instead of half-authoritarian, it's only 2.4% of the US' imported oil made nice by such a distinction. Much of its wealth is built on the backs of cheap foreign labor, which makes up over half the population of Kuwait and over 80% of its labor force. It may not be a slave economy, but only by a few degrees of separation.

Ecuador's oil comes out of its Amazon jungle region. The drilling companies have tried to corral the natives into reservations, but not all comply. To assist in those efforts, the oil companies hired Christian missionaries to assist in the work of clearing the land of pesky indigenous tribes. Once brought to Jesus, promised medical care and education is provided on a minimal level for the recent converts, if at all. The natives are paid for their land in corrugated metal sheets, perfect for building flimsy houses. Then the roads come in. The roads are actually dirt tracks with industrial waste - benzene, tolulene, and other toxic chemicals - sprayed directly on the dirt. This lethal sludge oozes into the soil and ground water. The oil companies say there's nothing wrong with it, the government of Ecuador agrees, and the natives are left screwed. Well, almost. They're suing Chevron in Texas and have banded together to resist exploration expeditions. The Ecuadorian government provides military escorts, but this time around the natives are determined to not let another Ogoni-like situation develop.

For the others, Algeria continues to be governed under a state of emergency and its civil war is not entirely over. Russia is, well... Russia. Going into the depths of its kleptocracy is beyond the scope of this article. Moreover, there's evidence to put Russia almost in the "bad" category, so I'll deal with it there, even though it's an important supplier of oil to the US. Colombia remains wracked by a three-way civil war and Gabon...

What's a Gabon, you ask? It's a tidy little dictatorship in west-central Africa where President Omar Bongo has ruled since 1967. In the last election in 1998, he won nearly 67% of the votes. He plans to stand again for another seven-year term. He's been very fortunate in his politics, having bought off most of his opponents. Gabon politics and society are highly corrupt, which serves its current ruler's needs well enough. He enjoys the blessings of 600-700 French troops propping up his regime. There are rumblings of unrest, however, as more Gabonese demand a bigger share of the nation's oil wealth. President Bongo is responding by packing the army with soldiers from his home province. If, I mean when, Bongo "wins" the 2005 election, he'll likely need that loyal army to keep the palace and oil platforms from burning.

The list of friends with oil, as it were. To paraphrase Bush, they send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder, and they do not choose freedom and the dignity of every life. They're a bunch of rich oilmen riding high on exploiting the mineral wealth of their nations, using oppression and bribes to keep things quiet in the interior.

There are other "good" nations which allow the US to base troops within their borders. Bahrain, Sao Tome and Principe, and Georgia are all happy to host US troops along potential pipeline routes and near strategic waterways. Colombia's got US forces based there, perhaps getting ready to rumble with frisky little Venezuela, should the need arise. Afghanistan's not got much say in hosting US troops. Hamid Karzai would be dead in a Kabul minute if the US troops left Afghanistan, so he's happy to see them place bases all along the pipeline route from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. Out of respect for Karzai's needs, the US announced it would not spray opium crops with pesticides. The 2005 opium harvest in Afghanistan is estimated to be around 8600 tons, almost four times the 2002 harvest.

Pakistan is another "good" nation because of its assistance in US moves in South and Southwest Asia. Never mind what its ISI may be up to. To the folks gathered around their teevee sets to watch the major media news shows, Pakistan is "good". Israel is also "good", in spite of being a rogue nation that's developed nuclear weapons, repeatedly invaded its neighbors in aggressive wars, and perpetrates massive human rights violations against civilians in its occupied territories.

So who's "bad"? France. France is definitely "bad". The French have competing oil interests and oppose the US' empire-building. The US won't go to war with France, but they provide a convenient punching bag for administration officials looking to distract the people of America from analyzing their crapulent foreign policy too closely.

Iran is also a "bad" nation. That's a shame, because Iran's current president has so much in common with George W. Bush. He's an unsophisticated bumpkin being manipulated by his country's wealthy and reactionary religious elites. In spite of their common ground, the two leaders look set to do anything but bridge the potentially violent distance between Iran and the US.

Iran almost went "bad" in 1953 when Mossadeq talked about nationalizing Iran's oil industry, but a timely US-sponsored coup kept Iran "good" until 1979. Iran became a "bad" place when the Islamic Revolution booted out the Shah and created a state hostile to US interests. Iran is obviously building its own nuclear weapons, which the US does not like. Iran doesn't care. Once it acquires nukes, it is immune from US attack and can assume a MAD policy relative to Israel.

Iran is also actively pursuing an expansion of its influence in the Middle East, and the US invasion of Iraq was a godsend to them. Their man in Baghdad, Ahmed Chalabi, sits high up in Iraqi government and freely visits Tehran and Washington. Chalabi also helped con the Neo-Cons into invading Iraq, taking out Saddam Hussein in a way the Iranian army never could have done. The US insists it will create democracy in Iraq, and Iran is ready to assist in any way possible, knowing that the Shi'a majority in Iraq has natural ties with Iran. Once the US throws in the towel and leaves Iraq, Iran will enjoy a friendly neighbor and can apply pressure on other Persian Gulf states to fall into its sphere of influence. It may take a generation of bloodshed, but Iran can wait it out.

North Korea is a "bad" nation that really is bad. Its leaders are insane, their domestic policies a sort of urbanized Khmer Rouge program. If Stalinism ever returns to fashion, North Koreans will be able to brag how they were Stalinist when Stalinism wasn't cool, which has been every day since he died in 1953. The North Koreans definitely have missiles with enough range to hit Japan. They probably have nuclear explosives, although they may not yet be able to deploy them as warheads just yet. Nobody likes the North Koreans, and they don't like anybody right back. They reserve the most hatred for the US, whose bombing campaigns inflicted roughly 1.5 million civilian casualties, or 11% of their population. They might actually do something crazy, but to date they haven't done anything much against the US.

Syria is about to be "bad", but they've cooperated with US torture schemes in the past, so it would take some doing to make them truly "bad". Besides, there's no oil there. What would be the point in invading Syria?

Venezuela will be "bad" if it ever cuts off the US from its oil. Would the US be able to invade, though? It's already overcommitted in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's questionable if the US is ready to send another 125,000 troops it doesn't have into a hostile urban jungle - and real jungles, to boot.

Russia, officially, is friendly with the US. It tolerates the US War on Terror so long as the US tolerates the Russian version of the same conflict. We're all adults, after all. We know what's really going on. Both states are using violence to hold together their hegemony. Whatever one must say to justify the violence are so many lies to allow the violence to continue under a cloak of morality.

Underneath the cooperative quid pro quo lies a continuation of the Cold War rivalry. Bush announced the US would construct a missile defense program to handle one-off attacks from rogue nations, but the actual defense system looked set to repel a massive nuclear assault - the sort of thing only Russia could deliver. Putin responded in turn by announcing development of new warheads that would evade anti-missile systems, just in case any rogue nation acquired anti-missile systems. When the US balked, Putin responded that if the US' anti-missile system was no threat to Russia, then the Russian "Crazy Ivan" warheads were no threat to America. And so the arms race continues. But Russia isn't "bad" like the French. they're just "good" enough to be praised as a democracy, sort of.

China is a tricky nation to categorize. Although its economy is pumping out goods that bury the US competition, it's also financing a huge chunk of US debt. Should it revise its economy so as not to be so competitive with its exports, it'll also quit buying US debt, which would risk a collapse of the dollar on world markets. This isn't some crazed Cassandra prophecy. Sober heads at journals like the Economist have been fretting over this possibility for some time now. So Bush proceeds carefully with China. The US praises it as a modernizing, more market-friendly nation and China threatens to take the US down if it ever interferes with Taiwan. The US may be an 800-pound gorilla, but China's bulking up pretty quickly, and the US' right hook isn't what it used to be, what with the recent commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be horribly ironic to watch a United States essentially sit by as China took control of Taiwan by force because the US could not commit troops and had to kowtow to China in order to keep the dollar on an even keel.

The rest of the world are either minor allies of the US or nations the US would like to ignore forever more. They don't have anything the US wants or needs all that badly. If they remain out of the spotlight, it means the US can proceed to carry out its foreign policy without looking too hypocritical in its moral stance.

But, every now and then, one of them flies above the international media's radar, and the US gets pressured into doing something, for goodness' sake. The US sent massive forces into Kuwait to restore "freedom" in the wake of the Iraqi invasion. Bush the Elder claimed the operation there had nothing to do with oil. Strictly humanitarian. Then the media found Somalia.

I remember the press conferences over Somalia. Both Bush and Clinton appointees had this WTF? look on their faces, long before those three letters captured the essence of that feeling. They couldn't believe the press were pushing for US involvement in Somalia on the same "humanitarian" grounds as its Kuwait involvement. For heaven's sake, didn't the media know there wasn't anything of value in Somalia outside the khat bushes and Kalashnikovs? Indignant Americans asked why not Somalia if Kuwait was such a noble operation?

So the US went into Somalia with a "There! You happy now?" attitude. The US could be "humanitarian" there, too. Haiti popped up on the radar around that time and got itself a US deployment, lucky them. When the media freaked out over US military casualties in Mogadishu in the wake of a failed kidnapping of Mohammed Aideed, the US had its justification to pull outta there. Somalia went back beneath the radar and the US kept its boys in Kuwait. The US slinked out of Haiti, too, just in time for the next round of violence to begin there.

Clinton wanted to ignore Bosnia, but again media pressure started another US military involvement. He ordered US planes to bomb the hell out of the Serbs, and the press applauded. Then two young men shot their classmates and teachers at Columbine High School and the pressure for the US to "do something" in Bosnia slackened. It was strong enough to get US forces involved in the Kosovo tangle, but nowadays the media ignores anything and everything about the former Yugoslavia, except to somehow punctuate the "good" still being done by the UN/NATO/US occupation forces, even though the Hague trials are a joke and the occupation forces are heavily involved in human trafficking and drug deals.

The Bush administration has been adept at avoiding WTF? deployments. Sudan has been successfully ignored, as has Zimbabwe. Liberia's proved trickier, because of historic US ties to the nation, but the US might pull things off with an election the non-US-backed candidate accuses of being rigged. Haiti doesn't need US troops when a US-friendly ruler is installed in Port-au-Prince. Because Bush and the rest of the G8 leaders threw a few crumbs to the developing world at their latest get-together, they managed to appease the aging British rockers arranged to confront them. So far, so good at keeping the worthless part of the third world at arm's length.

Unfortunately for the Neo-Cons, they failed to keep the US relationship with Uzbekistan on the down-low. Like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan is a scrappy little tinpot dictatorship with either potential as a supplier of petrochemicals or as a pipeline route. The Uzbeks gleefully allowed US forces into their country, ostensibly to support operations in Afghanistan. Those US troops, however, could also get sucked into fighting off enemies of the Uzbek state, of which there are many. Well, even though news the Uzbek leader Islam Karimov had his opponents boiled to death didn't get the US to confront the Uzbek totalitarians, the massacres in Andijan did. Against its will, the US had to lodge a formal protest and the Uzbeks ordered the US to close its airbase there. The US Senate then voted to not pay Uzbekistan any more money for the base. That'll teach them.

But will Uzbekistan's Karimov face the same fate as Iraq's Hussein? Probably not now. As I mentioned earlier, the US is busy with Iraq and Afghanistan. It has to keep ready to smack Venezuela around, as it's got way more oil than Uzbekistan. Even though Karimov is much the worse dictator than Chavez, he will get away with fading into the background because he doesn't have the petro-wealth Venezuela does.

There is no morality in the Bush Administration's foreign policy. There hasn't been morality in any US foreign policy, even during the Carter years - Carter eventually supported the Khmer Rouges against Vietnam. The US has practiced Realpolitik all its history. It is no more a bastion of democracy and freedom than Vanuatu is. Actually, it's less of one. Vanuatu is the only nation in the world that officially opposes the Indonesian grab of Irian Jaya in 1963, calling for freedom for their brother Melanesians there. Vanuatu can't send an army in, but they can continue to fight Indonesian membership in regional associations of nations. Not much, but they do what they can.

Meanwhile, the United States pursues a different path. What nations it considers to be good or bad or worthy of ignorance will change to suit the foreign policy interests of the major corporations and plutocrats of the US. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and declaration of a "War on Terror" are pablums for the masses of US citizens to suck on. America's leaders have decided to play a Hobbesian game in the world. Existence for commoners is reduced to being nasty, brutish, and short. The US moves about as Leviathan, just like other Great Powers. But rather than acquiring other lands for direct administration, the US installs governments friendly to the US, in spite of any hostility to their nation's population. That way, there aren't any messy struggles for independence. Any unrest is a struggle against a legitimate government, which can be put down without guilt for the citizens of the US, provided the stories are told properly, if at all.

The US clothes its operations in the style of freedom and benevolence. This means it must occasionally invade another country not in its best interests to knock over, but it's the poor and middle classes of America who pay for it, not the plutocracy. Not much of a problem for the US, even if people protest its wars.

The real problems begin when other people in the world start to believe what Bush said about freedom and dignity. They take that stuff seriously and, like the nationalities who rose up to challenge empires when Wilson called for national self-determination, they rise up to challenge their dictators when Bush calls for freedom and dignity. When these dictators are US allies, the US is left in the unenviable position of crushing the expectations of the freedom-fighters. That makes the US a fair target for terrorism in their minds, for it is the US that enables their dictators to oppress and murder in the name of state security.

At first, I thought Mr. Bush would do something about getting rid of the butchers of children in the world, but now? It's obvious I'll have to do that work without his help in some cases and his direct opposition in others. Seems as though Bush was too quick to judge the oppressive dictators of the world: some of them are his best friends. Let us revisit Nehru: I have always wondered at and admired the astonishing knack of the American people for making their moral standards correspond with their material interests and for seeing virtue in everything that advances their imperial designs.

Abdul Rahman, Part III

Seems as though Mr. Rahman is safe and sound in Italy by now, and I'm glad for him. He was a dead man in Afghanistan. Poor Mr. Karzai, however, has no such relief. He was in a lose-lose situation and decided in favor of catering to foreign pressure. I don't think he wanted to kill Mr. Rahman: far from it. Mr. Karzai seems like a great guy.

The problem is that most the people in his country wanted Mr. Rahman to die for his apostasy. Now that the courts have been fudged in foreign favor, Mr. Karzai's legitimacy as anything more than the Mayor of Kabul has taken a solid whack. I surmise his ability to keep Kabul in control is significantly diminished, as well.

Mr. Karzai is struggling with drug lords to try and establish the rule of law in Afghanistan. With the justice system now obviously corrupted by foreign influence, that particular war is less winnable than before the strange case of Mr. Rahman came to light.

I must confess I'd be critical of the US' backing of Afghanistan's government if Mr. Rahman were killed for his change in belief. As I said, it was a lose-lose situation for Mr. Karzai. Had he given in to the clerics' demands, his authority as a leader would have been weakened in favor of a resurgent Islamic fundamentalism, which is already happening, anyway.

Mr. Karzai wasn't going to win. Nobody wins in Afghanistan. Mr. Rahman had to leave the country in order to get out of immediate harm. Mr. Karzai's still there, along with the rabid clerics, US bases all along a pipeline route, drug lords, and a record opium harvest.

No, nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans.

Abdul Rahman, Part II

All right, so the Afghan government has found a way to drop the trial against Abdul Rahman, on grounds he may not have been an Afghan citizen, sane, or both. That makes no difference to the medieval minds that want to put him to death for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Afghan, Shmafghan. If anyone converts from Islam to another religion, some hardliner can insist Sharia be applied and then kill the guy, regardless of his origin. It's also regardless of his status as a refugee, which Mr. Rahman is about to become.

There are voices in Afghanistan rejecting Mr. Rahman be given refugee status. If he was allowed to be a refugee, then anyone wanting a one-way ticket out of Afghanistan could convert to Christianity and get the heck out of the country.

If Paris was worth a mass to Henri IV, imagine what asylum in the West would be worth to a struggling Afghan peasant.

Meanwhile, the Afghans are not happy with Mr. Rahman getting out of the country. In general, they want him dead. Anything less means the government is not respecting Islam in their eyes. As long as Afghanistan remains as medieval as it is, it will never know democracy.

Northern Alliance, Taliban, it's all the same. Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans.

So... the Taliban's Not in Charge?

Then why is Abdul Rahman about to be sentenced to death for converting to Christianity?

Yes, Islam gets a bad reputation in the press from people who don't understand it, but this sort of thing is a matter of a religion using state-approved violence to support itself.

The trial is in the heart of the cleaned-up part of Afghanistan, the capital city, Kabul. That's where Karzai is supposed to be working his magic at transforming Afghan society. He's supposed to be getting rid of all that Taliban stuff about strict punishments for minor infractions and so on. So why is this trial of religion happening?

Yes, I know Islamic law, Sharia, specifies death as a punishment for converting from Islam.One specific reference is in the Hadith, Volume 4, Book 52, number 250, which contains: "No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

But just because the religion demands death for converts does not mean the state must allow it to happen. In the US, religious belief is unrestricted. Religious practice, however, cannot cross certain bounds. When the Mormons practiced polygamy, the US Supreme Court said they could believe in it, but not practice it in their decision denying them a First Amendment exemption from laws forbidding polygamy. That church has since gotten along fine without polygamy as a practice within its membership.

Afghanistan could use a little restriction on religious practice right now. So an Islamic court believes Mr. Rahman should die for converting to Christianity. It doesn't mean the state should approve of that religious practice. If it does, then what difference is it from the Taliban? Yes, I know many Taliban just trimmed their beards and changed hats when the Northern Alliance rolled through, but weren't they also supposed to have changed their minds in Mr. Bush's adventure to build democracy there?

... or was that all just a ruse to build a pipeline and bring back the heroin trade under US intelligence services' control?

There's one way to find out. If Mr. Bush intervenes on behalf of Mr. Rahman, then the US really is trying to help out. If not, then it's all a load of hypocrisy.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Just, let Mr. Rahman live.

UN Findings on Guantanamo Bay

The US Government denies anything wrong is happening at Gitmo and claims everything is fine, legally and otherwise. Of course they would. Would the USG say anything other than that? They are are building an empire, and empires are always built upon bodies crushed under tyranny.

Here are the Conclusions and Recommendations of the UN report published today. The USG is a disgusting tyrant, and the United States is a nation unworthy of being counted among the nations of the free world. Shame on George Bush for betraying the principles upon which the nation was built and for perpetuating policies which cause terror to grow, rather than diminish.

****************************************

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusions

83. International human rights law is applicable to the analysis of the situation of detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, human rights law applies at all times, even during situations of emergency and armed conflicts. The war on terror, as such, does not constitute an armed conflict for the purposes of the applicability of international humanitarian law. The United States of America has not notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations or other States parties to the treaties any official derogation from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or any other international human rights treaty to which it is a party.

84. The persons held at Guantánamo Bay are entitled to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body in accordance with article 9 of ICCPR, and to obtain release if detention is found to lack a proper legal basis. This right is currently being violated, and the continuing detention of all persons held at Guantánamo Bay amounts to arbitrary detention in violation of article 9 of ICCPR.

85. The executive branch of the United States Govenrment operates as judge, prosecutor and defence counsel of the Guantánamo Bay detainees: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal as provided for by article 14 of the ICCPR.

86. Attempts by the United States Administration to redefine “torture” in the framework of the struggle against terrorism in order to allow certain interrogation techniques that would not be permitted under the internationally accepted definition of torture are of utmost concern. The confusion with regard to authorized and unauthorized interrogation techniques over the last years is particularly alarming.

87. The interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense, particularly if used simultaneously, amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of ICCPR and article 16 of the Convention against Torture. If in individual cases, which were described in interviews, the victim experienced severe pain or suffering, these acts amounted to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the general conditions of detention, in particular the uncertainty about the length of detention and prolonged solitary confinement, amount to inhuman treatment and to a violation of the right to health as well as a violation of the right of detainees under article 10 (1) of ICCPR to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

88. The excessive violence used in many cases during transportation, in operations by the Initial Reaction Forces and force-feeding of detainees on hunger strike must be assessed as amounting to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture.

89. The practice of rendition of persons to countries where there is a substantial risk of torture, such as in the case of Mr. Al Qadasi, amounts to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement and is contrary to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Article 7 of ICCPR.

90. The lack of any impartial investigation into allegations of torture and illtreatment and the resulting impunity of the perpetrators amount to a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture.

91. There are reliable indications that, in different circumstances, persons detained in the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities have been victims of violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief, contrary to article 18 of ICCPR and the 1981 Declaration. It is of particular concern that some of these violations have even been authorized by the authorities. In addition, some interrogation techniques are based on religious discrimination and are aimed at offending the religious feelings of detainees.

92. The totality of the conditions of their confinement at Guantánamo Bay constitute a right-to-health violation because they derive from a breach of duty and have resulted in profound deterioration of the mental health of many detainees.

93. There are also serious concerns about the alleged violations of ethical standards by health professionals at Guantánamo Bay and the effect that such violations have on the quality of health care, including mental health care, the detainees are receiving.

94. The treatment of the detainees and the conditions of their confinement has led to prolonged hunger strikes. The force-feeding of competent detainees violates the right to health as well as the ethical duties of any health professionals who may be involved.

B. Recommendations

95. Terrorism suspects should be detained in accordance with criminal procedure that respects the safeguards enshrined in relevant international law. Accordingly, the United States Government should either expeditiously bring all Guantánamo Bay detainees to trial, in compliance with articles 9(3) and 14 of ICCPR, or release them without further delay. Consideration should also be given to trying suspected terrorists before a competent international tribunal.

96. The United States Government should close the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities without further delay. Until the closure, and possible transfer of detainees to pre-trial detention facilities on United States territory, the Government should refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, discrimination on the basis of religion, and violations of the rights to health and freedom of religion. In particular, all special interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense should immediately be revoked.

97. The United States Government should refrain from expelling, returning, extraditing or rendering Guantánamo Bay detainees to States where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being tortured.

98. The United States Government should ensure that every detainee has the right to make a complaint regarding his treatment and to have it dealt with promptly and, if requested, confidentially. If necessary, complaints may be lodged on behalf of the detainee or by his legal representative or family.

99. The United States Government should ensure that all allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are thoroughly investigated by an independent authority, and that all persons found to have perpetrated, ordered, tolerated or condoned such practices, up to the highest level of military and political command, are brought to justice.

100. The United States Government should ensure that all victims of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are provided with fair and adequate compensation, in accordance with article 14 of the Convention against Torture, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.

101. The United States Government should provide the personnel of detention facilities with adequate training, in order to ensure that they know that it is their duty to respect international human rights standards for the treatment of persons in detention, including the right to freedom of religion, and to enhance their sensitivity of cultural issues.

102. The United States Government should revise the United States Department of Defense Medical Program Principles to be consistent with the United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics.

103. The United States Government should ensure that the authorities in Guantánamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgement and is aware of the consequences of refusing food. The United States Government should invite independent health professionals to monitor hunger strikers, in a manner consistent with international ethical standards, throughout the hunger strike.

104. All five mandate holders should be granted full and unrestricted access to the Guantánamo Bay facilities, including private interviews with detainees.

STATE OF THE UNION TRANSLATION

Bush's stuff is in italics. My stuff isn't. Scroll carefully and enjoy.

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: I pray every day people don't realize the two-party system as it stands deprives people of a real voice. I pray even harder an armed rebellion doesn't break out, because me and my family would be the first to go to the firing squad.

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We are going to conquer the world and take all the oil for ourselves. Don't get in our way, or we will cut you.

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: This is misguided idealism, but I have to sound positive, or you won't be suckered into the neo-conservative goal of