Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
...Oh, and Jenkins?............Apparently your mother died this morning
Blip, the sound of another bombing attrocity in Bali barely making it onto the the 'ooh look!" news radar.
One tourist actually managed to follow the guy through the crowd and almost stayed on him through to detonation. Spooky.
BTW, has everyone noticed that the targets in Iraq seem to have swung markedly towards those that indicate civil war, rather than evicting the opressors?
Don't get me wrong. I stand in the camp of those against unilaterral (as opposed to UN sanctioned) invasion of a sovereign power. However, if one needs to point anywhere to identify the blatant propaganda role of organisations like Al Jezeera, surely the toning down of the screaming headlines (even though the human cost of the attrocities remains the same) gives a bit of a clue.
Comments
But Lease I'm with Viges!
Are you abandoning your usually succinct eloquence and turning cryptic on us?
Spin
There are some great articles in a few papers, mostly the non-conl press, and for the large part people will turn to the internet to find what is happening.
Take Able Danger! The Pentagon responses on this certainly raise some questions. What are they scared of the public learning?
Yet only Fox news and Washington Post seem game to mention it so far. Believe me, you will hear more!
Rumjungle can't stonewall forever!
Spin
The issue that is bigger than the labels of "left", "Clinton era", "Bush (hero or villain)" etc. is the worrying ability of the public service to do what they like and protect themselves regardless of pubic interest.
But American homeland incuriousity about the whole episode is puzzling to many overseas.
Spin
Just think if this had been linked to a right wing group ......
"Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?"
F, Gregory gause III
Foreign Affairs: September/Ocotober 2005
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.
F. GREGORY GAUSE III is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont and Director of its Middle East Studies Program
WHAT FREEDOM BRINGS
The United States is engaged in what President George W. Bush has called a "generational challenge" to instill democracy in the Arab world. The Bush administration and its defenders contend that this push for Arab democracy will not only spread American values but also improve U.S. security. As democracy grows in the Arab world, the thinking goes, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is therefore not merely consistent with U.S. security goals; it is necessary to achieve them.
But this begs a fundamental question: Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce terrorists and terrorist groups? In other words, is the security rationale for promoting democracy in the Arab world based on a sound premise? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no. Although what is known about terrorism is admittedly incomplete, the data available do not show a strong relationship between democracy and an absence of or a reduction in terrorism. Terrorism appears to stem from factors much more specific than regime type. Nor is it likely that democratization would end the current campaign against the United States. Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are not fighting for democracy in the Muslim world; they are fighting to impose their vision of an Islamic state. Nor is there any evidence that democracy in the Arab world would "drain the swamp," eliminating soft support for terrorist organizations among the Arab public and reducing the number of potential recruits for them.
Even if democracy were achieved in the Middle East, what kind of governments would it produce? Would they cooperate with the United States on important policy objectives besides curbing terrorism, such as advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process, maintaining security in the Persian Gulf, and ensuring steady supplies of oil? No one can predict the course a new democracy will take, but based on public opinion surveys and recent elections in the Arab world, the advent of democracy there seems likely to produce new Islamist governments that would be much less willing to cooperate with the United States than are the current authoritarian rulers.
The answers to these questions should give Washington pause. The Bush administration's democracy initiative can be defended as an effort to spread American democratic values at any cost, or as a long-term gamble that even if Islamists do come to power, the realities of governance will moderate them or the public will grow disillusioned with them. The emphasis on electoral democracy will not, however, serve immediate U.S. interests either in the war on terrorism or in other important Middle East policies.
It is thus time to rethink the U.S. emphasis on democracy promotion in the Arab world. Rather than push for quick elections, the United States should instead focus its energy on encouraging the development of secular, nationalist, and liberal political organizations that could compete on an equal footing with Islamist parties. Only by doing so can Washington help ensure that when elections finally do occur, the results are more in line with U.S. interests......
the entire article at the website above...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec05/abledanger-9-21.html
KWAME HOLMAN: Eighteen months before the Sept. 11 attacks a since-disbanded intelligence unit code named Able Danger identified 60 foreign terror suspects inside the United States. On that list were four of the subsequent 9/11 hijackers including Mohammed Atta, the alleged ring leader of the attacks, who flew the first plane into the World Trade Center. However, attempts by Able Danger team members to share their information with the FBI in February of 2000 were blocked by Pentagon lawyers.
The story of Able Danger first came to light in a New York Times story last month. But attempts this morning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter to find out why the information wasn't shared hit several dead ends. At the start of an investigative hearing, Specter questioned whether the federal Posse Comitatus Act might have come into play.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: That is a statute which was enacted shortly after the Civil War, which prevents the United States military from being engaged in law enforcement activities. If the Posse Comitatus Act precluded this information from being turned over by the Department of Defense to the FBI, then that is a matter which may require amendments to the Act.
KWAME HOLMAN: Specter had hoped to hear today from former Able Danger team members themselves. Army Reserve Col. Tony Schaeffer was a liaison to the Able Danger unit from the Defense Intelligence Agency. J.D. Smith was a civilian analyst on contract. Yesterday, however, the Pentagon notified Schaeffer, Smith and several others that permission to testify was denied.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: It looks to me as if it may be obstruction of the committee's activities, something we will have to determine.
KWAME HOLMAN: But Pennsylvania Congressman Kurt Weldon did testify, a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, it was Weldon who first helped members of Able Danger, Smith included, tell their story to the media.
REP. CURT WELDON: He was prepared to state as he told us that he had an Able Danger chart with Mohammed Atta identified on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base until DOD Investigative Services removed it. He was prepared to discuss the extensive amount of data collected about al-Qaida, underscoring the fact that Able Danger was never about one chart or one photograph but rather was and is about massive data collected and assembled against what Madeleine Albright declared to be in 1999 an international terrorist organization. He too has been silenced.
KWAME HOLMAN: Speaking on behalf of Col. Schaeffer, Washington lawyer Mark Zaid said there was confusion among some in the Pentagon at the time whether the Army was compiling information about U.S. citizens.
MARK ZAID: Those within Able Danger were confident they weren't compiling information on US persons. They were potentially people connected to US persons. Again I said they never identified Mohammed Atta in the United States. Apparently the problem that came up was on the chart where his image was he was listed under Brooklyn, New York or something to that effect. It had Brooklyn. And those within the Army either in the legal level or some of the policy levels were apparently showing apprehension and concern that somehow that was then linking to data compilation of US persons.
KWAME HOLMAN: And former Army Major Erik Kleinsmith said he later was directed by a Pentagon lawyer to destroy the information citing Army regulations prohibiting the military from compiling data about US citizens.
ERIK KLEINSMITH: Both soft and hard copy was deleted or destroyed.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And did part of that involve operations within the United States?
ERIK KLEINSMITH: No specific operation in the United States, only a presence that was known. We were unable to get to the details for the specific persons or information in the United States before we were shut down.
KWAME HOLMAN: William Dugan, assistant secretary of defense, tried to explain the delicate nature of domestic intelligence gathering.
WILLIAM DUGAN: I guess I wish to convey to the committee that US person information is something that we are skittish about in the Defense Department. We follow the rules strictly on it. And we want to do the right thing and follow the attorney general guidelines.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Mr. Dugan, Mohammed Atta was not a US person was he?
WILLIAM DUGAN: Based on what I've read in the press since Sept. 11, 2001, I don't believe he was.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Mr. Dugan, you're the acting assistant secretary of defense for intelligence oversight. Can't you give us a more definitive answer to a very direct and fundamental and simple question like was Mohammed Atta a US person?
WILLIAM DUGAN: No, he was not.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: We're dealing with the intelligence gathering data of the Department of Defense and prima facie reason is to believe and that had that information been shared and the FBI was trying to get it, 9/11 might have been prevented. I hope you'll go back and talk to the secretary and tell him that the American people are entitled to some answers.
KWAME HOLMAN: Responding elsewhere in the capitol this afternoon, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the Senate Intelligence Committee has jurisdiction over the Able Danger matter and that he has offered that committee a closed door briefing.
21 September 2005
[Edited on 6/10/2005 by bernie]
[Edited on 6/10/2005 by bernie]