Your War on Terror

[Tiassa]

And the winner is . . . Accenture!
$10b bid proposal awarded to Bermuda company; GAO estimates $15b total
[font=palatino\]

The Bush administration has awarded the largest homeland security contract in history to a company that has given up its U.S. citizenship and moved to Bermuda. The inconsistency is breathtaking. (Rep. Richard Neal)

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will entrust its U.S.-VISIT project, a "virtual border" designed to snare incoming terrorists that bears a price tag estimated variously at ten- and fifteen-billion dollars, to Accenture, a Bermuda corporation. The decision, described by USDHS Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson as "a significant milestone in the history of the department," has set off some early controversy.

While Hutchinson noted that the importance of the project responsibility could not be overstated, Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal (D), said, "The American taxpayers are paying $10 billion for passport inspection to a company that has turned down its own U.S. passport . . . This is simply outrageous." An early version of the Homeland Security funding bill would have blackballed companies including Accenture, Tyco, Ingersoll-Rand, and others who have relocated outside the US for tax purposes.

Maine Republican Olympia Snowe voiced concerns, "They moved offshore to avoid taxes and now they are benefiting and reaping the rewards."

And Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett took the most vicious swipe: "U.S.-Visit really describes the business strategy of these companies . . . Our security is undermined by corporations that devise ways to avoid paying their share of the cost of keeping our homeland secure."

An Accenture spokesman said the contracting authority was awarded to the US-based subsidiary Accenture LLP, which pays US income taxes and employs some 25,000 people.

Hutchinson told reporters at a news conference, "Legal counsel looked at this and determined that all three bidders met all the legal requirements."

US-VISIT, which stands for Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, is already underway at 115 airports and 14 seaports where incoming foreigners are required to be photographed and fingerprinted, and is scheduled to be extended to 50 land-border crossing points by the end of 2004. Among the challenges of US-VISIT is the integration of at least 19 large government databases.

Perhaps lending some clarity to the situation, one financial analyst pointed out Accenture's track record with the Transportation Security Administration. Cindy Shaw, of Schwab SoundView Capital Markets, said, "One of the things that got lost in this whole competition is that Accenture helped T.S.A. put together its airport screening process . . . They showed well under pressure there."

Accenture outbid competing contractors Computer Sciences and Lockheed Martin.

Comment:

Well apparently the name Accenture means "accent on the future." The name was submitted to the former Andersen Consulting by a Norwegian consultant. Frankly, I think it's one of the dumbest company names ever. There are worse names, to be sure. Siemans, for instance. (Surely, I jest.)

Five-thousand suggested names and "Accenture" was the best they could come up with.

These guys are going to spend between ten- and fifteen-billion dollars in order to save our asses from the terrorists?

Jesus f@¢k, George. Why don't you just spend it on bullets and shoot us all now?

And ... hey ... an historical milestone for the Department of Homeland Security? How tough is that? It's what? Two years old?

So let's sum up here .... Um, Secretary Ridge? Mr. Hutchinson? Mr. President? I just want to make sure I have this clearly in my mind. Now, you just bid for $10b what the GAO says might run $15b. First off, that's just a bad idea. The people are getting tired of these deceptive price tags. And this money is going to further a project which already has civil-liberties advocates in a snit, and which promises to be an information-management nightmare. So in order to address the coming nightmare, you pick offshore tax dodges who couldn't come up with a better name than "Accenture."

Mr. President, it sounds like you're spending billions on a goddamn luxury sedan. And we both know how vapid car names are in this country. So at that price tag, I'd like my Accenture to come with a Star-Trek replicator specifically attuned to Wendy's double-cheeseburgers, fries from Dick's, and I'll even vote for you if it can perfectly nail Green River poured over ice on a summer day.

That's what I want for my fifteen billion. Screw the terrorists.
____________________
[/font]
• Donmoyer, Ryan J. "Accenture wins huge Homeland Security deal." Bloomberg News. June 2, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001944881_accenture02.html
• Greenemeier, Larry. "Andersen Consulting Changing Name To Accenture." InformationWeek, October 26, 2000. See http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20001026S0004
• Lichtblau, Eric and John Markoff. "Accenture Is Awarded U.S. Contract for Borders." New York Times, June 2, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/technology/02secure.html (registration required)

 

[Don Hakman]

Its not the only one...

 

[Don Hakman]

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/track1.gif

 

[Tiassa]

Intelligence concerns free Al Qaeda confessor
Nabil al-Marabh deported to Syria

From the AP wire:

Nabil al-Marabh, once imprisoned as the No. 27 man on the FBI's list of must-capture terror suspects, is free again. He's free despite telling a Jordanian informant he planned to die a martyr by driving a gasoline truck into a New York City tunnel, turning it sideways, opening its fuel valves and having an al-Qaida operative shoot a flare to ignite a massive explosion.

Free despite telling the FBI he had trained on rifles and rocket propelled grenades at militant camps in Afghanistan and after admitting he sent money to a former roommate convicted of trying to blow up a hotel in Jordan.

Free despite efforts by prosecutors in Detroit and Chicago to indict him on charges that could have kept him in prison for years. Those indictments were rejected by the Justice Department in the name of protecting intelligence. Even two judges openly questioned al-Marabh's terror ties.

Source: Associated Press/Guardian Unlimited

A Justice Department spokesman said Wednesday that the US government has concerns about many people with suspected terror ties, but cannot effectively prosecute these individuals without endangering intelligence sources and methods. "If the government cannot prosecute terrorism charges, another option is to remove the individual from the United States via deportation. After careful review, this was determined to be the best option available under the law to protect our national security," said Bryan Sierra.

There is, of course, a predictable backlash.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) rejected the government's explanation: "It's hard to believe that the best way to deal with the FBI's 27th most wanted terrorist is to send him back to a terrorist-sponsoring country."

DoJ is not without its own concerns, though. Last month, Chris Wray, of the department's criminal division, told Congress: "It may be more difficult than people would expect . . . We may be able to deport the person under the immigration laws . . . And while that should give us some comfort, the fact is, if we go that route, the person is removed to another country and turned loose there, and we have no ability to make sure that they're not engaged in further terrorist activity."

Comment

We cannot have everything. Underneath it all, we must consider that this is still the United States of America, and in the end that means sometimes the guilty must go free.

Nonetheless, this argument of how we treat suspects and people held questionable in the eyes of our beloved Department of Justice (seek and ye shall find ... maybe) has largely been relegated to somewhere around the fourth tier; the last we really heard about it was after the 2002-03 Super Bowl, when it was revealed that a large number of non-Arabic illegal aliens were deported for national security reasons.

But now one of the big birds goes free; these deportations we understand.

However, since the argument is at hand, the Bush administration might wish to consider using this case to give leverage to its lament that the government has not--or had not--the tools to effectively and properly combat terrorism. Reasonably-placed representatives of the cabinet ought to make the press rounds and explain, in detail, how the prosecution of Marabh was so convoluted that deportation was the best option.

Ordinarily I would say it cynical to speculate that maybe Marabh was released specifically because he was Syrian. There's no doubt about where to deport him to, but there seems to be a question about the wisdom of sending a known willing terrorist to a country our government accuses of sponsoring terror. The odds game, of course, would then wonder whether Marabh would eventually bite the US in the ass, and it's entirely possible that he will. But what logical sense, even in a Roving dimension, would that risk claim? It's unimaginable at this point.

Additionally, there's this aspect: How many Arabs does it take to light a fire? Two--one to pour the gasoline, and another to shoot the flare gun while he does.

Certes it seems simplistic in its excess. There's nothing there one man with a fuel truck and a Zippo can't accomplish. So it seems that his confessed form of martyrdom is really, really stupid. Of course, the guy who car-bombed the WTC a decade ago went back for the deposit, so ....

But man ... not only is Marabh dangerous and on the loose, but he's dangerous, as stupid as a bad stereotype, and on the loose.

However ... I prefer to simply see what the future writes. We Americans may cross paths with Mr. Marabh in the future, and we may not like the encounter. Then again, the future is unwritten.

Beyond the conspiracy nonsense, then, there is one substantive question that pushes to the fore:

Mr. President? Given that you can hold people indefinitely--and correct me if I'm wrong with that one--why was Mr. Marabh deported instead of held until a better case can be made?
____________________

Works Cited

• Solomon, John. "AP: Administration Freed Terror Suspect." Associated Press, June 3, 2004. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4162573,00.html

See Also

• Wikipedia. "USA PATRIOT Act." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

 

[Tiassa]

Shut Down: US-Canada border closed at Peace Arch crossing
"Suspicious vehicle" prompted security move

It was not immediately known why the vehicle was considered suspicious, except that "a number of indicators" prompted officials to inspect it . . . .

. . . . The occupant of the car, rented in the United States, was a Canadian male born in 1969, Milne said. His hometown was not immediately available, and it's not immediately known why he was crossing the border. A bomb squad was using a robotic device to inspect the car, but nothing had been found by late Saturday night.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer/Associated Press

I'm unsure what comment goes here. I mean, this better not be about a bong. The AP story also contains a note about a February incident in which a Texas woman was found to have a grenade in the glove compartment. And I have to share that note with you:

It turned out the woman's husband worked in the U.S. military and she had taken a wrong turn as she was heading for Vancouver, Washington, not Vancouver, B.C.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer/Associated Press

Okay, okay ... who isn't dangerous? That just might be a shorter list.
_____________________

• Associated Press. "Suspicious vehicle prompts border shutdown." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 5, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA Border Shutdown

 

[Tiassa]

Torture
Justice, Defense advise torture may be justifiable

The headlines are not forgiving. The BBC howls, "US 'not bound by torture laws'." The Washington Post says, "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture."

And that pretty much sums it up.

The Justice Department advised the White House in August, 2002, that torture of al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad may be justified, and even went so far as to assert that laws against torture may be unconstitutional.

As the Post explains:

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later . . . .

. . . . The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques.

Source: Washington Post

The memo comes only three months after the President rescinded the United States' signature to the International Criminal Court, a move which Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul called, "a great victory . . . to preserve our national sovereignty."

The push continued into 2003, overlapping the Pentagon's report in March of that year. Marjorie Cohn wrote in September, 2003:

Even after the recent, tragic attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the U.S. was not willing to unreservedly support a U.N. Security Council resolution to help protect U.N. and other humanitarian workers. Instead, the U.S. greenlighted the resolution only when its reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was deleted. . . .

. . . . Thus, in 2002, it unanimously passed Resolution 1422 - calling for one year of immunity for peacekeepers from countries not party to the ICC statute, and providing that that immunity could be renewed in subsequent years. The resolution was renewed in June. But France, Germany and Syria abstained.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has reportedly extracted separate bilateral immunity agreements from 60 nations - primarily, they are either small countries, or fragile democracies with weak economies.

And if a country refuses to enter into such an agreement, the U.S. will often withdraw military assistance. Pursuant to the American Servicemembers Protection Act, it has done so with respect to a staggering 35 countries. As with the U.N. and other peacekeepers, the U.S. has put lives in danger by insisting on opposing the ICC treaty in every way possible.

Source: CommonDreams (FindLaw)

And the whole time, it appears, the United States government was lining up to justify torture:

A Pentagon report last year argued that President George W Bush was not bound by laws banning the use of torture . . . .

. . . . The document also argued that torturers acting under presidential orders could not be prosecuted . . . .

. . . . The report was written by military and civilian lawyers for US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

It came after staff at Guantanamo Bay complained normal interrogation tactics were not eliciting enough information.

The document outlined why restrictions on torture under US laws and international treaties might be overcome by considerations for national security or legal technicalities . . . .

Source: BBC

It is unclear whether the president ever saw the Defense report, but nonetheless it appears that the United States government was preparing to consciously and willingly engage in torture.

As all this comes up, FindLaw notes another aspect of the controversy:

At this year's graduation at the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, about one-quarter of graduates wore red armbands. They were protesting Boalt law professor John Yoo's co-authorship of a memorandum written in 2002, when he served in the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

In the memorandum, Yoo expressed the view that neither those whom the government deems to be Al Qaeda members, nor those whom it deems to be Taliban members, are covered by the Geneva Conventions. That strongly implies -- though the memo does not explicitly state -- that detainees in Guantanamo who are suspected of being Al Qaeda or Taliban members are not covered by the Geneva Conventions' protections against abuse or torture . . . .

. . . . Some Boalt Hall students see a connection between Yoo's memo and the reported abuses in U.S.-run prisons abroad - in particular, Abu Ghraib. They have denounced Yoo for "aiding and abetting war crimes."

Source: FindLaw

Now ... let's take the "Chris Matthews" approach and blame the ideologues surrounding the president. Some lawyers at Justice and some experts (and more lawyers) over at Defense both relate to the president that this is the situation. And yet, as Hilden writes for FindLaw:

Human rights attorneys have complained that Yoo's Geneva Conventions argument, with respect to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, is not only wrong, but, in their view, specious - a misreading of the law. They have also noted that Yoo's memo ignores the protections of an important treaty that the U.S. has ratified: The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Source: FindLaw

Some of Bush's critics fear the worst--that he is not so much evil as stupid. An evil president they can hate, but a stupid one, well, a bleeding heart is bound to feel sorry for the deceived.

Could Bush be convinced? As the Abu Ghraib scandal demands a full-blown review of American prisoner policies and practices, will the ripples crack the walls of the Oval Office? At what point should the little voice kick in, and say, "They've got to be kidding, Mr. President!" Whether or not Bush saw the Defense report, did Rumsfeld base any advice or action on it?

This is your War on Terror, wherever the Bush League says it leads.
____________________

• BBC News. "US 'not bound by torture laws'." June 7, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm
• Cohn, Marjorie. "How the Bush Administration's Opposition to the International Criminal Court Has Put Peacekeepers and Others in Danger." Writ, September 9, 2003. See http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0909-13.htm
• Hilden, Julie. "Did a Government Lawyer "Aid and Abet" Possible War Crimes By Writing a Crucial Memo?" Writ, June 8, 2004. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040608.html
• Paul, Ron. "President Bush Delivers Victory Over UN Court!" Texas Straight Talk. May 13, 2002. See http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst051302.htm
• Priest, Dana and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture." Washington Post, June 8, 2002; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html

 

[Tiassa]

Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html
Title: "Believing the Shepherd"
Date: August 9, 2004

Are they playing with us again? I mean, all that talk about terrorist threats so detailed that the government had to move quickly to raise the alert status to orange and to screw up traffic around the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Is this prudence? Is it a domestic psy-war charade? Or is it an embattled incumbent reminding us that he is a "war president"?

Several things prompt these thoughts that, at some level, amount to an accusation I don't want to make . . . .

Source: Washington Post

Post columnist William Raspberry checks in on the state of cynicism and doubt in the War on Terror, specifically the recent elevations of the threat level in specific areas which have sparked so much discussion.

Comment:

Perhaps Raspberry is waiting to formulate and refine his opinion of the other side of the controversy, the supposed intelligence disaster that came when a U.S. official blew a multinational sting against al Qaeda by confirming the identity of the mole. He mentions nothing in his considerations of that chapter, though even I, a harsh critic of the Bush administration, am unsure how things came about; in the first place, the mole's identity was never so deeply hidden that the press couldn't figure it out, but ... never mind.

I could cite Raspberry's brilliance; the absence of such discussion might seem conspicuous to some. I certainly noticed it, though I'm unsure of whether it's important. But something in the back of my mind whispers that a blown cover in a sting against al Qaeda won't necessarily make the picture look any rosier.

But this all would presume the good author's intentions regarding an issue not raised in the article, and regardless of the man's brilliance or otherwise he spells out a very simple, easy-to-follow explanation of his doubts. And he winds up without ambiguity:

As I recall Aesop's fable, the shepherd boy survived his mendacity, losing only his job. It was the sheep that took the hit.

Source: Washington Post

It's a tough question he asks, with a remarkably simple foundation.

This is Your War on Terror.
_____________________

• Raspberry, William. "Believing the Shepherd." Washington Post, August 9, 2004; page A15. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html

 

[Tiassa]

U.S. Still Holding Back German Terror Trial
Decision to block access to terror suspects casts doubt on Motassadeq retrial

Please see the following links for background information:

• German judge laments US complication of terror trial
• Bad Guys blank World Fellowship

In February we learned that a German court was left with no option but to acquit a terror suspect, Abdelghani Mzoudi. In reading his decision, the judge reserved some choice words for the United States government. The crux of the accusation: German prosecutors were unable to convict Mzoudi because the United States would not allow German investigators access to other terror suspects whose information could have locked the case.

In a move that stunned relatives of 9/11 victims, March saw the German Federal Criminal Court throw out a conviction against Mounir al-Motassadeq. The quashing of Motassadeq's conviction lost the Western world its only criminal conviction related to the 9/11 terror strike against the United States.

Motassadeq was remanded to prison custody to await a new trial.

It is likely that there will not be another trial:

The United States will not allow German judges to question al Qaeda prisoners in the retrial of a Sept. 11 suspect, a Hamburg court was told on Tuesday.

The decision casts doubt on the prospects for the new proceedings against Mounir El Motassadeq, 30, who is charged with plotting the 2001 attacks alongside Mohamed Atta and others, and with membership of a terrorist organization.

In a letter to the German embassy in Washington, read out in court, U.S. authorities said they had to protect the sources and methods of the security services.

The letter said that "interactive access" to such prisoners could hamper their interrogation and lead to critical secret information, including about terrorist threats, being divulged.

In February 2003, Motassadeq became the first person anywhere to be convicted in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks and was sentenced to 15 years in jail.

But in March this year a higher court ruled the verdict was unsatisfactory as judges had not had access to testimony from Ramzi bin-al Shaibah, a key member of the al Qaeda Hamburg cell who was captured in Pakistan in 2002. It ordered a new trial.

Source: Reuters

Now, frankly, I just wonder about the American excuse. "Interactive access" could endanger investigations? I'm sure the British and Pakistanis understand that point of argument, but it doesn't change the fact that the only criminal conviction related to 9/11 is about to be lost forever.

Meanwhile, German judges are doing what they can to keep Motassadeq behind bars until they can close the case.

Earlier on Tuesday, presiding judge Ernst-Rainer Schudt promised the accused a fair trial independent of the wishes of government and of public expectations and one that would provide a definitive answer as to his involvement.

"The black hole in the chain of evidence will close. We will certainly not sink into it," he said as the bearded Motassadeq listened intently.

Source: Reuters

Thank you, President Bush, for striving to keep our country safe. Now, maybe you might wish to take a chance and, oh, I don't know, make an effort? You'll hang a sting operation for ratings, but you won't support the Germans in their effort to slam the prison doors on a terror suspect who is directly related to 9/11?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Your War on Terror.
____________________

• Trevelyan, Mark. "U.S. Denies German 9/11 Trial Access to Prisoners." Reuters, August 10, 2004. See http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JXSTZXW4G4I1MCRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5921799

 

[Mr. G]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Your War on Terror.

No, your interpretation of it all is just your own opinion.

If you were waging a real war on terror you wouldn't still be sitting in the safety of your own home hurling pretenses as if they were live ammo.

You're not taking on national enemies, you're just jousting with conceptual windmills.

Easy; no real effort.

Nothing tangible ever put at personal risk.

Perpetual Monday mornings.

So safe. So comfy.

So not happening.

 

[Tiassa]

Source: New York Times
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/politics/11terror.html
Title: "Man Is Held After Police Seize Tapes of Buildings and a Dam"
Date: August 11, 2004

A Pakistani man in the United States illegally is being investigated for possible terrorism ties after police seized videotapes of downtown buildings in four states and a dam in Texas. One unnamed senior law enforcement official said, "These were not your normal tourist videos . . . This could turn out to be something legitimate and innocent, but it's raised our suspicions, and we think there's something else going on here. We don't like the look of it."

The Times reports:

Officials acknowledged that they had no direct evidence linking the suspect, a former Queens resident named Kamran Shaikh, to terrorism. But they said they remained keenly interested in determining why he made the extensive videos, which included narratives in Arabic . . . .

. . . . The arrest underscored the increasing nervousness among federal counterterrorism officials about the possibility of a terrorist attack in the near future, perhaps before the November election . . . .

. . . . A search showed video footage of the Bank of America and Wachovia buildings in Charlotte's busy financial center, which officials said caused particular concern in light of the recent intelligence about the financial institutions in Washington and New York . . . .

. . . . Other videos in Mr. Shaikh's possession showed buildings and transit systems in Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas, Houston and Austin, Tex., as well as what appeared to be Mansfield Dam in Austin, according to an affidavit from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. It was not clear when the other videos were taken.

The tapes included audio of someone speaking in Arabic, but investigators said they were awaiting a translation from the F.B.I. Officials could not explain the apparent delay, which comes at a time when the bureau has faced sharp questioning from lawmakers about its ability to provide quick and accurate translations in terrorism cases . . . .

Source: New York Times

It's just a story to follow. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. I would hold him, especially since his whereabouts for eight or ten months are allegedly sketchy.

Although ... maybe it is just tourist footage.

(1) Charlotte, NC: Bank of America Corporate Center
(2) Charlotte, NC: Wachovia Center
(3) Texas: Mansfield Dam

Hey, I can dig it. Why wouldn't a Pakistani man illegally in the country want to go sightseeing in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and North Carolina these days?
____________________

• Lichtblau, Eric. "Man Is Held After Police Seize Tapes of Buildings and a Dam." August 11, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/politics/11terror.html

 

[Tiassa]

Source: Deutsche Welle
Link: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1294236_1_A,00.html
Title: "US Exonerates Terror Suspect in German Trial"
Date: August 11, 2004

The retrial of Mounir el Motassadeq in Hamburg took an unexpected turn Wednesday: The US released testimony from a key al Qaeda captive who said Motassadeq had no knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Presiding Judge Ernst-Rainer Schudt said Wednesday the court had received a fax from the US Justice Department, containing summaries of three detainees' interrogation.

They included the testimony of Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

According to the summary read out in the court, Motassadeq, on trial for aiding the Hamburg-based Sept. 11 suicide pilots, Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shhehi and Ziad Jarrah, had no idea of the plot.

"We have to think about the consequences of this," Schudt said.

I sincerely doubt this is what the Germans had in mind when they sought American cooperation.

So it goes in this War on Terror.
____________________

• Deutsche Welle. "US Exonerates Terror Suspect in German Trial." August 11, 2004. See http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1294236_1_A,00.html?mpb=en

 

[Asguard]

Tiassa

do you think that when the oposition is up in the election campaine that the alert wont go up? or do you think that i am being to cinical, that even BUSH wouldnt be that oviouse?

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

The Bush administration has gotten away with some pretty ridiculously obvious stuff so far. I see no reason why they wouldn't continue.

I mean, the record is astounding. I reiterate that Bush transcend's all imaginable nightmares. I do not state lightly that to imagine a president could conduct himself this poorly used to be akin to treason: Americans by myth are not supposed to be like this.

The yellowcake scandal, the holy war, the WMD botch, the Plame blow, Cheney's obstinance over the energy notes--really, if I had said during the Clinton administration that the next GOP administration would lie in the State of the Union Address in order to foster a war, lie to the United Nations in order to foster a war, exploit a terrorist tragedy in order to foster a war, invoke something remotely resembling the Bush Doctrine, see a CIA operative's cover blown in what so nakedly appears a response to genuine criticism of the SotU lie, drive the country into deficit in order to pay for all this, blow the warfare operation with a lack of foresight, and tell a foreign leader that God told him to go to war ... do you really think I would have made it out of the tavern in one piece?

Given that the United States government has, in a week, blown one sting operation while exonerating a terrorist suspect in Germany on a longstanding fear of endangering stings and other intel operations ... yes, I'm cynical. But we can't be too cynical; if the country gets hit in the near future, Bush might actually try to blame it on the people: "You weren't vigilant enough."

In the meantime, we have to consider that the issue isn't necessarily the legitimacy of a present or past terror warning. Something I've noticed in conservative argumentation lately is an equivocation of ideas that really is inappropriate.

• Imagine that President Kerry receives information on two separate occasions, once in January and once in March, that compels him to elevate the terror warning twice during his first hundred days. Now, while many of us can make a basic distinction, there will be voices in the country that will accuse Kerry of manipulating the country for political ends. The accusations will play a tit-for-tat version exonerating Bush's record of elevated terror warnings. Yet inherent in that will be an attempt to ignore a certain comparison: Will Kerry be begging for an inadvisable war at that time? Will Kerry be seeking re-election at that time?

The problem is that such an argument is so superficial as to potentially render legitimate terror warnings ineffective in order to score political points with the country.

The obvious is already too subtle for many Americans. Yes, I'm cynical, but I'm also still hoping at this late date that the man currently occupying the White House is not truly as evil as he has played himself off to be.

In that sense, my cynicism reflects hope; Fool us once, Mr. President ....

I don't hold my neighbors responsible for an electoral-college result. Nonetheless, I haven't been fooled at all except to keep my expectations of the sinister too low in deference to a lifetime's conditioning.

And even to that dimension, I can't stand being fooled.

History will measure Mr. Bush's performance, including coincidentally-timed terror warnings.

 

[Mr. G]

The obvious is already too subtle for many Americans.

I've commented previously on this very quote. Oddly, others here must think that my comments were insufficiently subtle, and so made them so subtle as to disappear entirely.

I once read in a chinese newpaper, on my way by train to Shanghi from Nanjing, "It's okay to think what you want, it is not okay to say what you want."

I see the "man" behind the curtain here has the same philosophy.

Left, right?

 

[guthrie]

No, the third way straight down the centre!

 

[Mr. G]

No, the third way straight down the centre!

Um, I'm a registered Independant. I don't identify with either registered Democrats or registered Republicans. That supposedly makes me 'of the center'.

Don't tell me this place is centrist.

This place is nothing like me, justlike all the rightist places to which I don't bother to go.

 

[Undecided]

I'm a registered Independant. I don't identify with either registered Democrats or registered Republicans. That supposedly makes me 'of the center'.

Not really all it shows is that you don’t like Dems or the GOP it doesn’t mean your not a conservative. Maybe you find the GOP too human for your vote.

 

[Mr. G]

Not really...

I'm not you, I'm not like you, and I don't have to fit your definition of who I am.

Live with it, or not.

That I exist is enough evidence that your preferences are not universal -- merely ideologically pedestrian for your kind.

 

[guthrie]

"This place is nothing like me, justlike all the rightist places to which I don't bother to go. "

Ahh, so you dont bother coming here either! All becomes clear!

 

[Undecided]

I'm not you, I'm not like you, and I don't have to fit your definition of who I am.

No need to get so emotional Mr. Conservative, I know your in a state of denial or ignorance you choose.

That I exist is enough evidence that your preferences are not universal

Because people like you exist there will always be a need for people like me…