Thought it was interesting at the time (of the 2004 Presidential election) that BOTH the "liberal" and the "conservative" candidates were members of Skull and Bones. Illuminati conspiracies running the world????? Also, there was a little historical subplot in Illuminatus in which George Washington was replaced with another George W. (I'd have to look up the name of the replacement). Now we have George W. B. fomenting chaos. Bush was also the 46th Governor of Texas, and Cheney is our 46th Vice President. 46 is 2 times 23, so we have 2 times 2 times 23 in the White House now, and 23 is of course an important Illuminati number. Hmmmmmmmm... :-)Protein Wisdom item is here.
I also commented today on the BBC website on Condoleeza Rice's comments on the alleged lack of human rights abuses by the United States. The second and third sentences refer to another comment that we should remember that these folks are "terrorists":
Ms. Rice may at least be skirting the question of "extraordinary rendition" by only referring directly to the actions of Americans. Incidentally, two of the reasons prisoners are accorded rights are that not all are guilty of what they are accused of, and that governments often abuse the leeway that they are granted, hiding behind presumptions of guilt. There must be standards of evidence and procedure beyond arbitrarily slapping a label of "terrorist" on someone, thereby triggering a clause that says "do what thou wilt"."Extraordinary rendition" refers to the practice of sending prisoners to prisons around the world, presumably so other countries can do the dirty work of torturing and abusing prisoners so the US can keep its hands clean. A recent conversation on Democracy Now also brought this practice to mind. The BBC thread is here.
Watched a great episode of the science fiction series "Babylon 5" while working out yesterday. The ISN (Insterstellar Network, or something like that) news crew came and shot footage of the space station, which was then edited together with innuendo from the reporter to recast our heroes as sick psychopaths trying to turn humans into aliens. A few overly broad strokes -- you could tell in advance at least one instance where the interviews would be taken out of context. Typical for the show: some great drama, a few klunkers, always keen insight into politics. You'd think sometimes that the show's creator, Michael Straczynski, knew in advance during the 90's about Bush II, not to mention Fox News. But this probably has more to do with the hackneyed but genuine fact that, as the show sometimes points out, "some things never change". At least not until the universe implodes. This episode really makes you question whether you know anything about anything, which brings up the interesting spectacle of Ramsey Clark working as a defense attorney for Saddam Hussein. Interviewed by Ted Koppel a few days ago, he refused to grant much about Saddam's guilt (gassing Kurds, raping and torturing etc.), insisting that we need to be openminded and that Saddam was "demonized" starting before the first Gulf War.
Now, personally, my inclination is to believe that Saddam is about as bad as he has been portrayed in the press. I opposed both wars on Iraq not on the basis of any sympathy for him, but rather because war almost by definition is horror and devastation for so many people, not just some targeted, "evil" leader, and because I believe, following the lead of such folks as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, that violence is a bad excuse for a lack of imagination in solving problems. In the Foundation trilogy, Isaac Asimov wrote "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- and the character uttering the phrase was no idealist. I carried this quote around on a sign in D.C. during a protest of the first Gulf War. I also did echo the complaint about demonization during both wars, and I think it is true, but my complaint is more that the bad things about Saddam were trotted out only when it was convenient, as part of making the case for war, whereas prior to the first war the United States actually aided and abetted his evil practices. Then the old charges resurfaced as one excuse for the present war. However, knowing what we know now about the ways that the current administration tries to manipulate the news, Clark's comments are not wholly to be dismissed. We need to keep asking ourselves, what do we really know? How much are we being spun? It is this uncertainty that makes conspiracy theories intriguing at times. Still, I really doubt Saddam is any kind of an angel. But Clark is also doing his job as a defense attorney; if an adversarial system of justice is to have any chance of succeeding, the defendant must be able to tell his side of the story and make his arguments. It may seem damned obvious that a defendant is guilty, but sometimes we will be wrong anyway. According a defendant his full rights and representation is the only way we have right now to minimize this risk; to make even one exception and summarily execute even the worst and most obvious dictator would tend to create a slippery slope towards wholesale witch trials, as it sometimes seems that the Bush Administration would like in the context of its other prisoners in the so-called "War on Terror". Furthermore, as Clark points out, in this specific instance it is even more important, and I think the Bush Administration understands this much, that the world sees a fair trial of Saddam so that others can respect the legitimacy of both the new Iraqi government and the United States -- although we have additional work to do in terms of regaining this respect in the wake of George W. Bush.
No comments:
Post a Comment