Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 16 Comments
This post is in: Media
Just wondering how many Alias fans there are out there. Over the past two weeks, I started watching the first season, and really like it. Sure, it is hokey, and sure, there is some silliness here and there, but over all I have found that I really like the show.
BTW- I think one of the best series ever made was Boomtown. I was furious when it got cancelled.
by John Cole| 9 Comments
This post is in: Media
In an excellent blog post by fellow Milblogger the Mudville Gazette discussing the targeting of journalists by the military, Mrs. Greyhawk has a very informative interview with Jules Crittenden. It should be noted that Jules has been doing an outstanding job fighting the conventional wisdom (in the foreign media, at least) about the so-called targeting of journalists.
Mr. Crittenden has also been fighting an uphill battle at Poynter, and most recently had this to add:
I am alarmed that Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily, is baffled by the uproar over Eason Jordan’s remarks. If this helps, it is because Jordan reportedly accused American soldiers of purposefully murdering journalists, without citing any evidence, and without his news organization having reported it. While he backtracked and claimed he was misunderstood, apparently CNN found his transgression serious enough to accept his resignation.
I am also alarmed that the editor of a major media watchdog publication’s web spinoff would cite a report titled “Two Murders and a Lie” (Reporters Without Borders, and apparently without standards) to support Jordan, as well as the similarly flawed “Permission to Fire,” (Committee to Protect Journalists) both of which offer selectively reported and distorted views of the Palestine incident that are peppered with inaccuracies and speculation. There is no evidence to support accusations of either murder or lying in the Palestine incident.
By way of disclosure, I was embedded with the tank company that fired on the Palestine, and was within 100 yards of the tank that fired on April 8, 2003. Sgt. Shawn Gibson saw what he thought was an Iraqi forward observer in a tall building. We had been alerted that an Iraqi FO had eyes on our position an hour earlier. The tankers had been in combat for up to 30 hours by the time Gibson fired, and after a particularly heavy pre-dawn counterattack was repelled, continued to be plagued with mortar fire and RPGs — including fire from the east bank of the Tigris and from tall buildings. In a month of combat operations with A Co. 4/64 Armor, I witnessed numerous examples of restraint when the tankers put themselves in danger in order to avoid killing civilians. Any suggestion that American soldiers have purposefully killed journalists in Iraq is repugnant, ignores the facts and reflects a disturbing bias. The failure of a major media watchdog publication’s editor to get this is also disturbing.
In a previous post on Poynter, Crittenden mused:
Eason Jordan can’t be blamed if he thinks the military targets journalists. The military targeting journalists in Iraq myth has a long history, dating back to the Hotel Palestine incident and beyond that to the as-yet unresolved deaths of the ITN crew. The Palestine incident has twice been written up by the Committee to Protect Journalists (“Permission to Fire”) and Reporters Without Borders (“Two Murders and a Lie”) in biased and sloppy reports that fuel this myth. So we have to give Jordan a break. He’s only a TV guy, after all, and while he may be have become a little uncontrollably exuberant about it, he was only reflecting a view that has been given respectability by deeply concerned professional organizations that have been eagerly seeking out evidence of the US military purposefully targeting journalists, and when they can’t find it, suggesting it must be what happened anyway.
While I disagree that Jordan can’t be blamed (aren’t top CNN officials to be expected to go beyond popular views and report the truth?), we all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Crittenden for his dogged insistence that people get the story right and that the record be set straight. Email him and tell him thanks, and email his boss and tell them that you appreciate the honesty from at leats one of their reporters.
*** Update ***
I had a brief correspondence with Mr. Crittenden via email, and I have learned that the second quote in the post (“Eason Jordan can’t be blamed…”) was intended as sarcasm, and a misinterpretation on my part. In other words- we agree. Mr. Jordan should know better.
Alas, you can understand how I made the mistake. I am but one of the salivating morons.
by John Cole| 79 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
Yesterday in the comments section of this Oliver Willis response to an Instapundit post about the angry left, Canadian Robert McClelland wrote:
Reynolds hates reality. And I’ve already told you how to deal with this prick. Stop dicking around and start digging up some dirt on him. He has students. I’m sure there is at least one who knows something he’d rather not have made public. Everyone has a secret, Oliver. Find Glen’s and then beat him black and blue with it.
I found this pretty amusing, and emailed Glenn the following:
You missed the humor in the suggestion that you be blackmailed.
Robert McClelland is a Canadian, or at the very least a resident of Canada, who most recently described the United states as a ‘third world hellhole.’
So, to summarize: An America hating Canadian is so incensed by a post in which you assert that some lefties seem to hate America that he travels to a left wing site to recommend the outright blackmail of an American to stifle political speech.
That ought to play well in the heartland. I officially declare irony to be dead.
Today, our friend from up north gets his panties ever further knotted:
Naturally it goes without saying that these two rubes are lying about what I said. I never said someone should dig up dirt to blackmail Instarube. I quite clearly said they should dig up dirt to crush him like a grape, just like these odious right whingers do to anyone who disagrees with them.
As for how this will play in the heartland of America. Who gives a fuck, John. You don’t hear me mewling like a baby about how your anti-Canadianism will play in the heartland of Canada, do you? No, and the reason for that is we Canadians simply don’t care what an ill informed American right whinger has to say about us or anything else.
Happy thoughts to you.
Other than a well known South park Song, I was unaware of rampant anti-Canadianism (I think we can all be happy the thin-skinned McClelland isn’t, say, French). In fact, I thought of them as pretty good neighbors and allies. But for members of the Michael Moore/George Soros angry left- I defy you to find a better illustration of their self-defeating attitudes and behavior.
Thanks for the clarification, though. I understand now that you wish to destroy people to stifle political speech, not merely blackmail them.
You can’t even parody these wingnuts anymore.
*** Update ***
LOL. This guy is just the gift that keeps on giving. After quoting Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, and a somewhat off-topic Bill O’reilly quote (O’Reilly, who I hate, states that he thinks Chretien is a bum-and decries foreign anti-Americanism- clear evidence of a tidal wave of anti-Canadian hatred existing in the United States), he oozes:
This is just the tip of the iceberg and it’s not just restricted to Canada. You right whingers have been spewing hatred against anyone and anything you don’t like for years. Just a partial list includes France, the UN, Hollywood, liberalism, the Girl Guides and I’ve even encountered one of your ilk spewing vomit all over Amnesty International. Yes, Amnesty International. How filled with blind rage do you have to be to do that?
As for my hate, it’s not directed at all Americans. I’m actually quite fond of every American that you and your ilk hate (ie. anyone who disagrees with you). My hate is only directed at you right whingers and you’ve earned it, so revel in what you’ve sown. If you don’t like it that everyone except for your own kind now hates you, change, because my hate is only in response to yours and will disappear when yours disappears. Otherwise, lick my balls you mewling sack of crap. My hate toward you and your odious right whinging brethren is only going to grow in response to your growing hatred of me. And who knows, one day we might even get to meet face to face and I’ll have no hesitation about taking our mutual hate to the next level by cracking open your skull in order to let the pent up hot air escape.
Now run along home to your mommy and tell her the bad man threatened you with violence. Then you’d best go play in the sandbox with the rest of the children because you’re too much of a snivelling pussy to play at the grownup game of politics.
Happy thoughts to you.
Like I said- The Angry Left. I am in the process of determining whether I should contact the RCMP.
*** Update #2 ***
Make that the “Angry Unhinged Left,” Robert:
Update: John “crybaby” Cole has responded–if you can call it a response–to my post and not surprisingly has chosen to be a snivelling coward by refusing to admit to his own hatred. He even goes so far as to dismiss that it even exists. It’s not surprising because as we all know, right whingers are accomplished practitioners of the art of deception.
He then goes on to make the declarative statement that the left is angry. Wow! What a master of the obvious this rube is. I eagerly await his next brainstorm where he arrives at the conclusion that water is wet.
It’s no secret that the left is angry at right whingers. After all, we have good cause for it after witnessing them embark on a murderous, 3 year campaign of vengeance that’s resulted in the slaughter of more than a 100,000 people who never caused harm to anyone and whose only “crime” was to have the misfortune of sharing the same complexion as the terrorists who attacked America more than 3 years ago. I mean, who wouldn’t be angry at just that? But when you add in the fact that the right whingers have also engaged in a 3 year campaign of demonization and persecution against anyone who disagrees with them, it’s surprising that anger is the only reaction from the left. Frankly, were I an American I would have by now left at least a dozen right whingers rolling on the ground crying “why. . .why. . .why?” like Nancy Kerrigan after she was kneecapped by Tonya Harding’s boyfriend. That the left has not reacted with the same murderous vengeance as the right is in fact a testament to the left’s civility.
John then caps off his update with a statement that is a real hoot and typical of the mentality of right whingers who send others out to do their dirty work and feel no shame in being emasculated by it.
“I am in the process of determining whether I should contact the RCMP.”
Well crybaby, let me make it easier for you to decide. Have at it and let us all know how the RCMP reacts to your mewling. In fact, I dare you to contact them. In fact, I double dog dare you. Chicken. Paintywaist. Pussy. I didn’t think you’d have the balls. Spineless wuss. Do it. Do it now yellow belly.
I’m not even going to bother. I am just going to treat this guy like I would any other lunatic. Walk away and hope someone gets him back on his meds. I have wasted enough time on this loathesome troll. He needs therapy, not attention.
*** Update ***
Apparently this sort of diseased discourse is par for the course in Canada. Lou (another Canadian) defends McClelland’s vitriole and threats in the comments section, while a Daily Kos denizen (another Canadian), seems to think this is par for the course and states:
There is some more uh.. dramatic and dark humour dialogue that continues.. If you feel like supporting a Canadian’s fight against the US right-wing blog community… please go and visit to give him some support and props
Must be something in the Canadian beer.
This post is in: Domestic Politics
Go wish Roger L. Simon a speedy recovery from his surgery.
by John Cole| 3 Comments
This post is in: Popular Culture
Here is an idea we can all rally around:
This idea is not original, but at the moment I can’t find where I saw it. We need to take back the word ‘martyr’. When a suicide bomber blows himself and 10 kids up on a bus, the ten kids are the martyrs not the crazy bomber. When an Iraqi voter gets killed for walking out of the polling place–he is a martyr for democracy. (I think that was the case I originally saw). We should avoid martyr status for evil people.
Of course, this is of little practical value unless those who are currently in the habit of engaging in suicide-bombing adopt it, but it is a good idea nonetheless.
by John Cole| 5 Comments
This post is in: War
The election results are out, and it appears that the Shi’ite Coalition won the most votes, but not quite a majority:
New and nearly final tallies of the votes cast in the Jan. 30 Iraqi national election show Iraq’s majority Shiite Muslims won nearly half, 48 percent, of the 8.5 million votes cast, more than any other group but not enough to control the planned 275-member National Assembly without the help of others.
That help could come in the form of a coalition with the No. 2 vote-getters, an alliance of Kurdish candidates, who received nearly 2.2 million votes, or 26 percent of the votes cast, The Associated Press reported.
A ticket let by Ayad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, finished third, with nearly 1.2 million votes, or 13.8 percent, according to The A.P.
The long-awaited results were issued this morning in Baghdad by representatives of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, who meticulously ticked off vote counts by province and by party.
While it is far too early to tell, it apepars that there has been a significant drop in coalition fatalities since the elections held at the end of last month. It has only been two weeks, so it is too early to jump to any firm conclusions, and violence could accelerate this weekend, but the numbers are striking (A graphic from the Iraq Coalition Casualties homepage can be viewed here).
This month, there have been 18 coalition casualties, meaning that the Coalition of the Willing has suffered an average of 1.38 casualties a day. This is the lowest average since March of last year, and dramatically lower than the casualty rate from the previous six month. For some perspective, last month we lost an average of 4.1 soldiers per day, in December 2004 we lost 2.48, and in November we were averaging 4.7 fatalities per day.*
This does not tell the entire story, as the casualty rate was inflated in several of those months by deaths from non-hostile fire. For example, the numbers last month were wildly inflated due to tragic helicopter crashes. Again, those soldiers and sailors and Marines are just as dead, but if we are going to judge this, we have to be honest with ourselves, and there is a significant difference between hostile and non-hostile deaths.**
At any rate, take it for what it is- a hopeful sign, but one that could literally blow up over night. I would advise people to be cautiously optimistic.
Obligatory Left-Wing Troll Prevention:
* I understand there is no such thing as .38 of a person. However, this is the metric the Iraq Coalition Casualty list has chosen to use, and the data would be meaningless if we rounded off to whole persons.
** I understand that it doesn’t matter to the family how the soldier died, he/she is just as dead and should never have been asked to fight BushCo.’s illegal war for oil.
by John Cole| 20 Comments
This post is in: Politics
For those of you who think I am being hysterical about the post below regarding the tracking of children, think about your position on ‘extraordinary rendition’ for a moment. Perhaps, after reading this excellent piece by Sebastian Holsclaw (see also these worthy comments here by Matt Yglesias), you, like Mark Kleiman, are wondering about the roots of ‘extraordinary rendition.’
He may be right that it was under Clinton that we started outsourcing torture, but “extraordinary rendition” has a second, older meaning as well. It refers to the kidnapping of suspects from other countries for trial in the U.S.: typically, of drug suspects from Latin American countries with which we lack extradition treaties or in which the judiciary or executive branch is so intimidated or so corrupt that we have no hope of being able to process a legal extradition. The subject is therefore “rendered” by “extraordiary” (i.e., extra-legal) means.
This is by no means a recent innovation: it was being used, and not being treated as a novelty, when I worked for the Justice Department late in the Carter Administration and early in the Reagan Administration. U.S. courts had ruled — puzzlingly, at least to me — that they would not inquire into the circumstances under which the accused had been brought within the jurisdiction of the United States, so DEA felt free to snatch bad guys, put them on a plane, fly them in, and “arrest” them on landing. This was almost always done, I was told, with the connivance of some law enforcement officials from the host country, and frequently, though not always, with the tacit acquiescence of its government.
At the time, I found the doctrine troubling, but never formed a clear opinion about whether it might be justified. The practice is surely troubling on symmetry grounds: We’d all be outraged if, e.g., Mexico decided to kidnap U.S. citizens accused of Mexican crimes rather than going through the extradition process. The Ninth Circuit has now ruled that the victim of an extraordinary rendition has standing to sue the United States. (Naturally, the Federalist Society is outraged.)
I don’t know when the term “extraordinary rendition” came to be applied to the reverse processs by which someone lawfully in U.S. hands is transferred out for purposes of torture. But it seems to me that the two practices, though linked by their evasion of judicial review, don’t have the same standing morally and shouldn’t be discussed in the same breath.
The answer to the question is easy- the roots to ‘extraordinary rendition’ are easily tracked back to the first Clinton administration. More specifically, to Presidential Decision Directives #39 and #62, which can be found here in partial form (many sections are classified and hence, blacked out).
If you are wondering what led to the current expanded practice of extraordinary rendition, the answer is simple. PDD #39 was signed on 21 June 1995, in the aftermath of the 19 April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It was part of a legislative flurry that was a clear power grab for the intelligence agencies, and it was met with stiff resistance from civil libertarians across both parties, chief of whom was Bob Barr. Here is Louis Freeh testifying before Congress, explaining how these new ‘tools’ would be used against not only foreign terrorists, but suspected domestic terrorists:
I would like to highlight two aspects of this response, renditions and fund raising, that demonstrate the commitment of the United States Government to combating terrorism.
During the past decade, the United States has successfully obtained custody of 13 suspected international terrorists from foreign countries to stand trial in the United States for acts or planned acts of terrorism against our citizens. Based on its policy of treating terrorists as criminals and applying the rule of law against them, the United States is one of the most visible and effective forces in identifying, locating, and apprehending terrorists on American soil and overseas. The majority of terrorist renditions have been accomplished with the cooperation of the foreign government in which the terrorist suspect was located.
Pretty clearly, this policy of rendition as we know it is not a Bush creation, nor is it the soul possession of the Republican party. This is part of why I mocked the Poorman in the post below, and why I find it amusing when Democrats fool themselves into thinking all Republicans wash their hands of civil liberties and are objectively pro-torture. The Editors and others seem to forget the demagoguery by Clinton in signing legislation and passing these directives:
As he signed it into law, Clinton attacked critics of the bill as “unpatriotic”: “There is nothing patriotic about pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.”
At any rate, to get to the point, there is nothing so malignant as a reportedly benign government intrusion/disruption of our liberties, and that is how I view this school system tagging and tracking children like endangered species.
*** Update ***
As usual, a few people read this and the only thing they get out of the entire damned post is an assumption that all I am saying is “Clinton did it first.” I suppose I shouldn’t get frustrated by this- it is more indicative of their way of thinking than mine, but it still is pretty frustrating to write several hundred words and then have someone ignore it all and instead turn it down to a one sentence partisan attack on Republicans. At any rate, it is my fault- I know some people can’t juggle two thoughts at once and I went ahead and wrote this anyway, so I deserve the e-mail from half-wits.
At any rate, the roots of rendition are in the two PDD’s I listed (not sure how you guys missed that), and I do not know when extraordinary rendition shifted its meaning, but I would suggest it is somewhere in between 1995 and 1999 when the Freeh testimony occurred. That is what Kleiman asked, that is what I answered. You would probably have to ask members of the Clinton Justice Department or do a document search of the National Archives to get any closer.
For additional information, check these New Yorker pieces here and here. From the second New Yorker piece:
President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales all made similar statements last month, asserting that not only does the United States condemn torture, it also does not send U.S.-held suspects to other countries for torture. In reality, the record appears to be quite different. Beginning around 1995, the Central Intelligence Agency inaugurated a form of extradition sometimes referred to as “extraordinary rendition,” in which captured foreign terrorism suspects have been transported by the U.S. to third countries for interrogation and prosecution. The former C.I.A. director George Tenet estimated that between the time the program started and 2001 there were some seventy renditions. Most experts suggest that since the Bush Administration launched the global war on terrorism after the attacks of September 11, 2001, that number has grown dramatically.
Since reading comprehension is at an all time low on this website, I have BOLDED the relevant parts. At any rate, this narrows the timeline down considerably, and I would suggest that the first use of rendition was shortly after PDD 39- lawyers like to use their new toys, too. Back to the larger point of this post, which was to provide some reasoning for the rejection of the use of tracking devices on children in schools- once a policy is in place, once we open certain doors, we can not always be sure what will happen in the future or how it will be used or expanded.
Clinton and company (including the GOP-led congress) clearly over-reached post-Oklahoma City. It is pretty clear that the flashpoint for the extreme abuse of rendition in this administration was 9/11. What will be the flashpoint for widespread abuses of the tracking devices, something I already find an abuse of technology? Others may think this is just fine- but can they be so sure how it will be used in the future?