Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files Options

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/02/cronin/

Will Bush and Gonzales get away with it?
The pilot and Vietnam POW -- a staunch Republican -- who pushed through the War Crimes Act of 1996 is appalled that the Bush administration, facing possible prosecution for war crimes, is devising a legal escape hatch.

By Michael Scherer

Aug. 2, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- Retired Navy pilot Mike Cronin knows enough about torture to know it doesn't work. After being shot down over North Vietnam in 1967, he spent six years enduring interrogations in the Hanoi Hilton, the notorious holding block for American prisoners of war. His neck and ankles were bound together with rope, causing him to lose consciousness. The nerves and bones in his wrists were crushed. His shoulder was ripped out of its socket. He was forced to talk, but he never gave the North Vietnamese the information they wanted.

"I told lies," explained Cronin, 65, in a telephone interview from Cape Cod, Mass., where he is spending the summer. "When you put people in that position, the information you get is not reliable."

After the war ended, Cronin returned home to become a commercial pilot for American Airlines -- and a deep believer in the laws of war. He came to see the Geneva Conventions, which bar torture and "humiliating and degrading treatment," as a bedrock of the international military code. He was amazed to discover that as late as the 1990s, there was no law enabling U.S. courts to try violators of the Geneva Conventions. "I was shocked," he said. "I just thought that was wrong."

So Cronin changed the legal landscape. Thanks to his persistent lobbying, Congress passed the War Crimes Act of 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support. For the first time, U.S. courts were granted authority to convict any foreigner who commits a war crime against an American, or any American who commits a war crime at all. At the time, nobody could have predicted that a decade later a U.S. administration, with the explicit consent of the president and the attorney general, would be accused of systematic war crimes.

But that is precisely the accusation that President George Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales now face. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Bush administration wrongly denied Geneva Convention protections to prisoners suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban, a policy that allowed for harsh and possibly illegal interrogation methods to be used against them. As a result, U.S. personnel, given their treatment of these prisoners, could become subject to prosecution under the law that Cronin, a former prisoner of war, lobbied to pass.

In fact, from the early days of the war on terror, the Bush administration was concerned about the War Crimes Act. Publicly released memos show that as far back as Jan. 25, 2002, Gonzales, then the White House counsel, worried that the president's policies could trigger prosecution under the act. That led the White House to declare, over the objection of the State Department, that al-Qaida was not protected by the conventions. In the memo, Gonzales argued that the president could create "a solid defense against any future prosecution" by declaring that the Geneva Conventions did not apply.

But with the Supreme Court ruling, that defense no longer stands, leaving the administration in a legally vulnerable position. At a recent congressional hearing, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, the Air Force judge advocate, testified that "some techniques that have been authorized" violated the Geneva Conventions. To preempt any prosecution, administration officials are now quietly circulating legislation to change the statutory interpretation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. In short, the legislation would make it difficult to prosecute U.S. personnel for the harsh interrogation methods authorized by President Bush and the Justice Department.

Cronin, an active Republican, sees the proposed changes, which have not yet been spelled out publicly, as an attempt by the civilian leadership to cover its tracks. "These guys are talking about trying to protect soldiers in the field. I think they are lying through their teeth," Cronin said. "They are talking about trying to protect themselves."

Cronin is not alone. Some Democrats have promised to push back against the proposed changes and have focused their initial ire on Gonzales. "The highest law enforcement officer in the country is leading an effort to undercut the rule of law," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on the Senate floor last week. "We cannot credibly ask others to meet standards we are unwilling to meet ourselves." On Wednesday, the committee is scheduled to discuss the issue of war crimes prosecution.

"I have had some doubts about the wisdom of this administration"

Because the War Crimes Act is a criminal statute that requires a federal prosecutor, it is unlikely that any charges against the American civilian leadership will be filed in the next two years. But charges could be filed by the next administration or by appointment of a special prosecutor, say legal experts.

"What the administration is afraid of is that someday, presumably in a Hillary Clinton administration, Justice Department investigators will go back to 2002 and 2003, when the CIA was interrogating senior leaders of al-Qaida with guidelines from the Justice Department and the White House," said Tom Malinowski, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. He said the effort to change the interpretation of the War Crimes Act is focused on protecting those outside the military chain of command who may have committed war crimes or ordered war crimes to be committed. "If I were in the armed forces," Malinowski said, "I would be worried that the administration is selling out the armed forces for the CIA."

At first glance, Cronin appears to be an unlikely critic of the Bush administration. He identifies firmly with the military. He served nearly two years in Vietnam, flying A-4 Skyhawks off aircraft carriers over North Vietnam. He was shot down in January 1967, just before the end of his tour of duty. A registered Republican, Cronin voted for President Bush in each of the past two elections. In 2004, he even joined other prisoners of war in supporting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the partisan nonprofit group that attacked the Vietnam service and antiwar activities of Democratic candidate John Kerry. One of his closest friends, a fellow American Airlines pilot, was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

But today, Cronin says he is no longer certain he can support Bush. As he put it, "I have had some doubts about the wisdom of this administration."

The story of the War Crimes Act began by accident. In the 1990s, worried that his job as a commercial pilot might not be secure, Cronin enrolled at Georgetown Law School, studying nights while continuing his full-time job as a pilot. At Georgetown, he discovered that Congress had never enacted a law to enforce the Geneva Conventions, even though the conventions were ratified shortly after World War II. After graduating, he was asked by the Allied Pilots Association, his union, to help represent his colleagues on Capitol Hill. He made it a point to lobby members of Congress about the lack of war crimes enforcement as well. "I made it my hobby to discuss the issue with senators and congressmen," Cronin said. "I hit a brick wall. There was no interest until I met Congressman Jones."

In 1995, Rep. Walter Jones was a newly elected Republican from North Carolina who represented a military district that includes Camp Lejeune, a major Marine base. Jones took an immediate interest in Cronin and made the War Crimes Act his first legislative initiative. "This whole issue came to me by accident," Jones said. "It was my third month in Congress."

At the time, war crimes focused on acts by foreign adversaries, like the North Vietnamese, who had tortured Cronin. But when the bill passed into law, it applied equally to Americans. It passed the House by a voice vote, earned unanimous support in the Senate and was promptly signed by President Bill Clinton. Even right-wing conservatives supported it. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., said the bill would "close a major gap in our federal law." Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said the bill was "something that should have been done some 40 years ago."

In practice, the law made little difference for enlisted soldiers and officers, who were already subject to military law, which prohibits the abuse of prisoners. But for the first time, the War Crimes Act provided a way to prosecute U.S. civilians, including intelligence officers, contractors and government officials who order war crimes.

In the current proposals, which have been reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times, the administration is seeking to make Geneva Convention enforcement in the United States subject to domestic interpretation, not international standards. The slight technical change could have a huge practical impact. Legal experts say this would give some flexibility to the Justice Department to define certain interrogation techniques as legal in U.S. courts, even if the rest of the world considers them violations of the conventions.

"They want retroactive immunity," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at Notre Dame, who has been critical of the Bush administration's detention policies. "Have you known of any other time in our history when we have tried to immunize public officials against crimes after they have committed the crimes?"

The Bush administration, Cronin said, is simply unaware of the realities of war. "The vast majority of them never served a day in the military, even though almost all of them were of military age at the time of the Vietnam War," Cronin said. "The opposition to the administration's policy of detainment has come, to their great credit, entirely from the professional military."

Cronin, on the other hand, has been there. He is a victim of war crimes. And, as it stands, he no longer believes that the president and his aides have the nation's best interests at heart. "From day one," he said, "the total motivation of these people seems to have been, How can we protect ourselves?"

[Livyjr]

And then ....

There is this ....

Cite as: 3 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 5 at
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v3/5

Volume 3 (April 8, 2005)

Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights

"Families Divided: An Analysis of Israel's Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law"

Bethany M. Nikfar

I. Introduction

As international leaders attempt to salvage the last vestige of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian territories, the residents of the region continue to suffer human rights violations.

Although the much-touted "road map to peace" once offered some glimmer of hope for stability in the region, the past few years have seen multiple violations of human rights and international humanitarian law since the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

An anti-immigration measure that threatens to break up thousands of Israeli Arab families presents yet another violation of human rights.

The law, passed July 31, 2003 prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen, a process referred to as "family reunification."

The provision also applies to children from the territories (West Bank and Gaza) who wish to live with an Israeli Arab parent.

Section 2 of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision) specifically limits citizenship and stay in Israel:

[T]he Minister of the Interior shall not grant the inhabitant of an area citizenship on the basis of the Citizenship law, and shall not give him a license to reside in Israel on the basis of the Entry into Israel Law, and the Area Commander shall not grant a said inhabitant, a permit to stay in Israel, on the basis with the security legislation in the area. 1

The law defines "area" as Judea, Samaria or the Gaza Strip; 2 Judea and Samaria are more commonly known as the West Bank. 3

The law does not rescind citizenship that has already been granted, but it does impact couples who had been living together in Israel while trying to get reunification approval.

Under the new law, thousands 4 of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints. 5

Interior Minister Avraham Poraz says the halt in the citizenship process is an essential security measure, made necessary by a few spouses from the occupied territories and their offspring, who have misused citizenship to join terrorist attacks. 6

Twenty Palestinians with Israeli identity cards who were either married to Israelis or the offspring of such a marriage have had suspected or proven ties to terrorist activities. 7

The law solidifies a ban on identity cards for Palestinians instituted in 2002 after a devastating suicide bombing in Haifa.

The bombing had been carried out by a Palestinian who married an Israeli Arab and became an Israeli citizen through the family reunification procedure. 8

As enacted, the law could have expired within a year, but on July 21, 2004, the Knesset approved the government's request to extend the measure for six more months. 9

The Israeli Supreme Court has the authority to overturn the law, and the Court has held two hearings in response to petitions filed by several groups that have urged the court to strike down the law.

The groups include the Meretz political party, Adalah and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. 10

The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law may be construed as an effort to preserve a clear Jewish majority over Arabs—not only by preventing migration across the territory borders, but also by burdening marriage and, consequently, reproduction.

Palestinian citizens of Israel (Israeli Arabs) comprise approximately one-fifth of the country's population, and the Jewish majority has an interest in retaining its superior numbers, which matter in a representative democracy such as Israel.

Although Israeli Arabs vote and have the same individual rights as Jewish Israelis, Israeli Arabs face discrimination in all facets of life.

Essentially, the law bans marriage between Israelis and Palestinians, raising several human rights concerns.

First, the law may violate a handful of articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Under Article 17:

(1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 11

Under Article 23:

(1) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

(2) The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. . . . 12

Article 26 states:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.

In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 13

Second, the law raises serious concerns under the International Convention on the Elimination for All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). 14

Signatories of the ICERD promise to "undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law." 15

Such equality guarantees civil rights, including "the right to marriage and choice of spouse." 16

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel made a similar argument to Israel's High Court of Justice, 17 stating that the law should be repealed because the "result of the amendment is that in actual fact, Israeli Arabs will be unable to realize their most basic right to choose a partner and establish a family in Israel." 18

This article will illustrate the discriminatory nature of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision).

The discussion proceeds in four sections.

Section I explores the background of the law, including the measure's inception and implementation.

Section II draws on personal accounts offered by Israeli Arabs and provides an analysis of the law's impact on Palestinian lives.

This section pays particular attention to the harsh effects of being denied a nationality card.

The section concludes that the law discriminates on the basis of birth and—rather than presenting a legitimate security solution—aims to undermine the population of Arabs in Israel.

Section III examines the measure through the framework of Israel's Basic Law as well as from the perspective of international treaties to which Israel is a signatory.

In addition to seeking a response from the international community, Section III includes the observation that scant attention has been paid to the effects of the law.

Section IV argues that the discriminatory actions taken by Israel possess the potential to create negative effects for U.S. interests, both domestically and internationally.

Finally, the article concludes with the proposal that Israel's Supreme Court strike down the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law as a violation of Israeli law and international covenants and human rights.

II. Background

A. "Temporary Measure"

The amendments to the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law evolved from a measure taken by Israel's Interior Ministry following the March 31, 2002 bombing of a restaurant in Haifa.

A Hamas terrorist, Shadi Tubasim, carried out the suicide bombing, which killed fourteen others and wounded more than forty. 19

Tubasim had married an Israeli Arab, and, through the family reunification procedure, had become an Israeli citizen. 20

He was able to travel freely throughout the country with his Israeli identity card.

The day after the attack, the Interior Ministry stopped processing all family reunification requests, preventing Israeli Arabs from reuniting with family members who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Each applicant became frozen in his or her respective stage of the application process. 21

This means that applicants who had not yet been granted official family reunification status could not receive it and those who were in the final stages of their applications—just shy of getting the much coveted blue identity cards—could not obtain citizenship.

Within six weeks of the Interior Ministry's halt in requests, the cabinet officially approved the policy, solidifying the freeze and preventing the family unification for thousands of Arabs.

A rough estimate of the number of affected Arabs can be drawn from the number of applications for citizenship that have been granted over the past few years.

Each year since 1994, the government has granted citizenship to 12,000 Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jordan who married Israelis. 22

Approximately 100,000 individuals, including children, have been added to the Israeli Arab population in the past eight years. 23

These numbers seem to be the real source of tension and the true impetus for the switch in policy, which proponents introduced as a security measure. 24

Indeed, when the High Court of Justice ordered the state to respond to a petition 25 against the June 2002 measure, the state's representative, attorney Yochi Gnessen, justified the freeze as a temporary move necessitated by the security situation. 26

Highlighting the cabinet's understanding of the measure's aggressive nature, Gnessen said that within six months, the government would develop a more circumspect policy. 27

B. 2003 Amendment

The government, however, failed to pass a more cautious measure.

Despite urging by Interior Minister Avraham Poraz to make the "problematic" bill as humane as possible, 28 lawmakers passed the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision) on July 31, 2003.

Tellingly, Poraz stated that he was not happy to bring the legislation before the Knesset and that "under normal circumstances" a nation should allow family reunification on humanitarian grounds. 29

Yet Poraz cited the wave of terrorism and said that the "step ha[d] become necessary" since many of those who carried out attacks held Israeli identity cards. 30

Poraz expressed concern that Palestinians with the cards exploited their freedom of movement to perpetrate the attacks.

Others echoed that concern: Cabinet Minister Gideon Ezra stated, "This law comes to address a security issue."

"Since September 2000, we have seen a significant connection, in terror attacks, between Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs." 31

During the debate, MK Ehud Yatom said that Shin Bet director Avi Dichter informed the Knesset Interior Committee that there had been nineteen cases of Palestinians who used identity cards obtained through family reunification to execute attacks. 32,33

The opposition within the Knesset, however, responded that the security concerns were inflated and that the measure was unnecessary. Arab legislator Azmi Bishara stated, "This has nothing to do with security."

"The idea is to reduce the number of Arabs in Israel." 34

Knesset member Roman Bronfman observed that there are already tools to fight terrorism and that the legislation was brought "one year late"—a reference to the Haifa bombing. 35

Bronfman said that a process to investigate and reject those who have a criminal or security record rendered the measure unnecessary. 36

A handful of Knesset members also questioned the race-based nature of the measure.

Taleb Sanaa, an Arab legislator, asked, "What would you say if a European government passed a law like this against Jews?" 37

Hadash leader Muhammad Barakei observed that those who had "suffered so much from racism should be ashamed to bring such a bill." 38

Additionally, Arab MKs attempted to keep the measure from the full Knesset by engaging in continuous rounds of shouting during committee discussions.

Committee chairman Yuri Shtern 39 ejected MK Taleb Sanaa from the meeting. 40

Shtern imposed order by threatening to draw the coalition and hold an immediate vote on the proposal, without softening the measure.

He later closed the session to the media. 41

Two days after that confrontation, the Knesset approved the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision) by a 53-25 vote. 42

The law remains in effect for one year and must be renewed for each subsequent year. 43

Under the law, Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip will either have to move to the territories or remain separated from their spouses. 44

Children will be affected as well: those over the age of twelve will be denied citizenship and removed from Israel. 45

The most striking aspect of the law remains that the measure does not affect any other ethnic or national group: Any person other than a Palestinian who marries an Israeli citizen remains entitled to Israeli citizenship.

For example, an Israeli Arab woman who marries an Argentinian man may bring her husband to live in Israel, and the husband may apply for citizenship.

Yet an Israeli Arab woman who marries a Palestinian from the West Bank must either join her husband in the West Bank or stay in Israel and live apart from her husband. 46

Israel's policy deprives Palestinians of equal access to citizenship.

This is discrimination.

Interior Minister Poraz, however, discounts the concern.

When asked about a situation involving an Israeli Arab man whose wife is now blocked from gaining Israeli citizenship to join him at their home in Ma'a lot-Tarshiha, Poraz sent a clear message.

"I don't think that forcing two Arabs—one an Israeli Arab and the other a Palestinian—to live in the West Bank is such a punishment." 47

Such a response callously ignores the poverty-stricken conditions of the West Bank and disregards the troubled lives of West Bank residents.

The power preserved by the measure also raises concerns.

Under the law, the interior minister may grant citizenship, or provide a license to reside in Israel, to an inhabitant of an area, if he is convinced that he identifies with the State of Israel and its goals, and that he or a member of his family performed a significant act to promote the security, economy or some other important matter of the State. 48

Essentially, this allows the interior minister to retain an important chip that may be used to recruit and reward defectors from the territories— a vivid illustration of the power of the blue identity cards. 49

III. Impact

A. Denial of Economic Opportunity

Nationality cards hold great significance: The cards allow Palestinians from the occupied territories to pass through checkpoints into Israel.

In the division between prosperous Israel and the abject territories, a blue card serves as a passport to a better life.

The card means access to jobs in Israel, with its $122 billion economy, and escape from the poverty of the territories. 50

In the territories, sixty percent of the population lives below the poverty line and the unemployment rate hovers around fifty percent. 51

Simply put, Palestinians who lack blue cards remain trapped.

They remain severed from the opportunities and cultural connections that exist only a few miles away because those who lack a blue card and attempt to cross into Israel through a checkpoint will be turned back.

Israel recognizes the importance of access to the advantages within its borders, as evidenced by the law's retention of the power to give an identity card to Palestinian collaborators.

For years, the Shin Bet security service has used the access and family reunification permits as a payoff to informers—an arrangement that provides a wealth of intelligence used to prevent terror attacks.

Residents of the occupied territories are enticed to turn against their neighbors in exchange for access to medical treatment in Israel or for financial gain. 52

Under the new law, a family reunification permit can be delivered only as a payoff.

B. Denial of Familial Relations

1. "It Is Destroying a Family"

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law has devastated family life for those without cards.

For example, consider Mohammed Omar, who is a Palestinian from Ramallah on the West Bank.

His wife, Rula, is from East Jerusalem, and they are separated by only eight miles.

Yet what should be a simple ride to visit his wife, his three-year-old boy and his baby daughter takes more than half a day.

Without a blue card, Omar must make a fourteen-hour trek through the violent countryside—dodging Israeli army patrols and checkpoints.

He describes his journey:

To get to Jerusalem, I set out from al-Amari at 8 a.m.

It's about a twenty-minute drive from here.

But instead of heading south towards Jerusalem, I crossed to the northern side of Ramallah and walked through the hills and villages in a large circle.

I went through Beduin encampments, behind Israeli settlements and reached Hizme, east of Jerusalem, where I came face to face with an Israeli tank.

I laid low until the evening and came through the Shuafat refugee camp after the Israelis had left a checkpoint they have there during the day.

I arrived at about 10 p.m. 53

While the couple has a home in a refugee camp in Ramallah, Rula cannot live there without forfeiting her right to live in or visit her mother's house in Jerusalem. 54

With the ban on applications, Mohammed will not be able to live with his wife and children in Israel.

"We don't know what's going on."

"All our attempts to find out what these new measures are have failed."

"I applied to the Ministry of the Interior for permission to join my wife."

"It's been nearly a year, and so far I've heard nothing," Mohammed says. 55

Weeks will pass between Mohammed's visits.

"The situation is having a terrible effect on my relationship with my wife and children."

"I'm always unhappy and I've become very nervous."

"Rula is frightened every time I leave," he says. 56

His situation is not unique.

West Bank resident Bassam Mahedawi lives a mere two miles from his wife, Salamah, who is an Israeli citizen.

She lives with the couple's two young sons across the Green Line that separates the West Bank from Israel. 57

Although the couple has been married since 1998, they have spent only a few weeks together.

Mahedawi used to travel to Israel to visit his wife and children, but after he was arrested for being in Israel without a permit, the couple decided that Salamah would travel to the West Bank for their visits. 58

Now, she and her sons, both under three years old, travel unpaved dirt roads to visit Mahewadi—a tedious trek that they can only undertake once every month and a half.

"I want to be with him," Salamah says.

"I got married so I wouldn't be alone." 59

Like Rula, Salamah could forfeit her Israeli citizenship to join her husband.

But the sacrifice appears too great.

Explains Mahedawi, "It's really difficult for someone who lives in heaven to come to and live in hell." 60

Ibrahim Hawari also sees himself as a victim of the new law, which blocks his wife from obtaining Israeli citizenship.

Married since 1998 to a woman from the West Bank city of Nablus, he now fears that his pregnant wife may be expelled. 61

The couple applied for "family reunification" after their wedding, and the process seemed to be moving along—until Israel froze all applications.

While the law does not rescind citizenship that has already been granted, the law impacts couples who have been living together in Israel while awaiting reunification approval.

Interior Minister Avraham Poraz acknowledges that there are thousands of these cases.

"According to the law, they must go back to the West Bank," Poraz says. 62

The Israeli government claims that there is little point in deporting Palestinians who lack identification cards, since the wall that will separate Israel from the West Bank remains under construction.

Also, Poraz has stated that "there is no intention at the moment of entering Arab villages to check every person and to carry out mass expulsions." 63

But this provides little consolation to families who hope for reunification.

Note the language used by the interior minister as he emphasizes the current plan.

By implication, the law allows for future mass expulsions.

"This is a law that separates husband and wife, and wife and children."

"It is destroying a family that lives peacefully and believes in coexistence," Hawari says. 64

In one highly publicized case, the law has been used to prevent the reunification of a Palestinian father with his son, who is serving in the Israeli army.

Muhammad Hussein is the result of a rare union between a Jewish Israeli woman and a Palestinian man.

Stella Peretz and Adel Hussein raised their son as a Muslim in the West Bank until he was a teenager, when, despite his father's warnings to remain apolitical, he came home dressed in the Palestinian uniform.

To prevent the region's violence from devouring his son, Adel sent his wife and sixteen-year-old son to Israel, where Muhammad would be raised Jewish.

As Adel told the New York Times, "I saw my son deteriorating."

"I have only one son."

"I have nothing else." 65

Adel planned to remain behind in Nur Shams and regularly visit his son, who eventually reached military age and began his mandatory service in the Israeli army.

But when Palestinian officials demanded that he bring Muhammad back and after his house was partly burned, he fled to Israel, where he lived like a fugitive passing as an Israeli Arab.

He tried unsuccessfully for years to get permission to live legally in Israel.

The Interior Ministry, citing the amended Nationality and Entry into Israel Law and ignoring his background, summarily rejected his recent attempt at getting citizenship.

On January 23, 2004, Adel Hussein was caught by an Israeli policeman, transferred to Israeli soldiers, driven past a checkpoint and left in the West Bank. 66

After calls to Mohammad and to the media, the son was able to retrieve Adel from the deserted stretch of West Bank road and escort him back into Israel.

Two days after Adel Hussein's expulsion and prompt return across the border, Israel's high court suspended for thirty days the state's efforts to expel him. 67

No action will be taken against him until a hearing on granting him the right to remain in Israel.

No date for the hearing has been set. 68

2. Cultural Ties

The effect on families may be particularly severe, considering the long-standing cultural, familial and social ties between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Social networks transcend the borders between Israel and the territories, and Israeli Arabs frequently marry individuals from the territories.

Intermarriage is common among extended Palestinian families with branches in both Israel and the territories. 69

Since 1994, tens of thousands of Israeli Arabs have applied for reunification with a spouse from the territories. 70

In that same period, the Israeli government has granted citizenship to 12,000 Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jordan who have married Israelis—adding 100,000 to the Israeli Arab population. 71

In a region where each person is defined by his or her ethnic identity and religion, great emphasis is placed on preservation of culture; cross-cultural unions are rare.

As a result, Israeli Arabs bear the brunt of the law, as, overwhelmingly, they are the ones who marry Palestinians from the occupied territories.

C. Discrimination Under the Citizenship and Entry Into Israel Law

1. Overbroad Prohibition

The claim that the law serves to prevent terrorist attacks lacks merit.

Under the former system, the naturalization process for couples lasted four-and-a-half years. 72

Couples were scrutinized for authenticity of the union as well as for any potential security issues. 73

The previous system effectively weeded out most security risks, as the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers do not gain access to Israel through the naturalization process.

Note that attacks by suicide bombers continue at an escalating pace despite the new provision—making the blanket prohibition overbroad.

Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin questioned why the law had to be so sweeping.

He expressed opposition to the law, observing that it makes a "person guilty until proven innocent." 74

That only twenty potential violations have been attempted by Israeli Arabs with identification cards presents a miniscule fraction of Israel's potential risks.

Furthermore, the potential violations cited by the interior minister were classified as suspected and actual violations 75—meaning that perhaps only as few as one Israeli Arab actually attempted to breach the Israeli border with terrorist intent.

The crackdown on a population of thousands proves grossly disproportionate with the actual violations.

Those who defend the law stress that Israel is at war, and, as one Israeli columnist noted, "there is nothing racist in refusing enemy nationals to move to one's country in time of war; that is standard practice worldwide." 76

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, must be distinguished from other global conflicts since most "enemy nationals" did not formerly live on the land possessed by the nation denying their immigration.

The columnist also noted that:

Even the suspicion with which both official Israel and ordinary Israelis often regard the country's Arab citizens is not racist: When an overwhelming majority of Israeli Arabs consistently vote for Knesset members who openly advocate violence against the state and its citizens, it is not hard to conclude that most of the Arab public supports these views, and therefore a measure of suspicion is justified. 77

Yet that suspicion is racist: It attributes a characteristic to an entire population based on the actions of part of the population.

Also, supporting a political goal is not the same as adopting the methods to achieve that goal.

Under that rationale, all Palestinians who support an independent state are suspected bombers.

2. Discriminatory Intent

The true aim of the law is to reduce the number of Palestinians living in Israel.

Arabs make up approximately one million of Israel's overall population of six million, 78 and many Israelis fear that a mass Arab immigration could vote the Jewish state out of existence.

Over the last few decades, scores of policies have been put in place to remove Palestinians from Israel, 79 and the ban on reunification continues that trend.

Indeed, comments by some Israeli officials suggest that the ban is intended to serve as a one-way ticket out of Israel for some Arabs.

For example, in attempting to prevent the ban, Arab groups presented to the Knesset Interior Committee an Israeli Arab woman whose husband lives near Jenin and has not been allowed in Israel since 1996.

In response to the woman's pleas, Minister-without-Portfolio Gideon Ezra told her to "go be with her husband" 80—in effect telling her and other Palestinians that they are no longer welcome in Israel.

She responded that she "loves her country and wants to live in it." 81

Her powerful retort acknowledges the implication in the minister's comments; he intends for her to leave.

Because the democratic country remains defined by the numbers, the Jewish population—and Jewish politicians in particular—has a vested interest in retaining its majority.

Former Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who pushed for the ban on family reunification, said he wanted to keep Israeli Arabs and other non-Jews out of Israel because their rising numbers threaten the state's Jewish character. 82

Echoing that sentiment, cabinet minister Gideon Ezra told the Knesset, "None of us, including the Arab MKs, wants Israel to stop being a Jewish state . . ."

"The state of Israel does not intend, and the government of Israel certainly does not intend, to permit a creeping right of return." 83

This thread unites members of Israel's right-wing parties and groups.

For example, Tel Aviv lawyer Haim Misgav, a leader in Professors for a Strong Israel, acknowledged that the demographic threat posed to Israel's Jewish nature by the naturalization of Palestinians provided the true impetus for the law.

"We are entitled to defend the Jewish character of this country," says Misgav. 84

While the Jewish character of the state may have been established in Israel's Declaration of Independence, the concerns about stemming the tide of Palestinian immigrants to preserve that character are premature and misplaced.

The outright ban on family reunification seems disproportionate with the few thousand who have immigrated in the past decade.

Although the numbers of Palestinian immigrants have been on the rise since the Oslo Peace Accords, Jewish persons still outnumber Arab persons in the state by five to one.

Also, the immigration of Palestinians is not the true threat to Israel's Jewish character.

Instead, Israel is putting itself at risk by pursuing conflicting policies: While passing measures to push Israeli Arabs out of Israel proper, the state continues to construct a wall through the West Bank, encompassing settlements and carving out land that Palestinians hope to claim as part of a future independent nation.

Many Palestinians say that the barrier is little more than an attempt to preempt the borders of their promised state. 85

This effectively precludes a two-state solution, as Palestinians would not accept the paltry remainder of the West Bank land not swallowed by Israel.

Acknowledging that the current occupation cannot continue indefinitely, the remaining option is for one unified state.

This would leave Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs coexisting in a state bordered on the east by the Mediterranean Sea on the west by Jordan.

With the development of one state and the accompanying rise in the Palestinian population, the voting demographic would be wholly altered, thus wiping out the Jewish character of Israel.

A prudent lawmaker ought to prevent a legacy of legal discrimination, as those who are oppressed today may someday use an equal vote to their own advantage.

3. Discriminatory Effect

As the measure moved through the Knesset, members expressed concerns about the law's discriminatory effect.

MK Ahmed Tibi (Arab Movement for Change) called the law "inhumane" because it bans marriage between Palestinians and Israelis. 86

He noted that he would not have been able to get citizenship for his wife if the law had been passed when he got married. 87

Another MK, Yossi Sarid (Meretz) warned that the law is "un-Jewish" and risks a wave of international protest. 88

As Israeli lawmaker and rabbi Michael Melchior posited, "Do you know what this looks like to the rest of the world?"

"We are saying that everyone, even a young child, is a potential terrorist . . . ."

"We must create a different mode of coexistence." 89

The law has been soundly criticized from human rights groups both in Israel and internationally.

B'Tselem, a human rights organization based in Israel, has called the legislation "racist," and says the government is "using the cynical excuse of security considerations" to discriminate. 90

Yael Stein, a B'Tselem spokesman, stated, "This is a racist law that decides who can live here according to racist criteria." 91

Human Rights Watch also has weighed in.

Stated Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch, "This bill blatantly discriminates against Israelis of Palestinian origin and their Palestinian spouses." 92

Adds Amnesty International, "A law permitting such blatant racial discrimination, on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, would clearly violate international human rights law and treaties which Israel has ratified and pledged to uphold." 93

The law casts a collective suspicion over the entire population of Arabs living in Israel and prevents Israeli Arabs from exercising their basic human right of freedom to choose a spouse.

That this specific group is targeted also is made clear by the fact that the law offers complete freedom to Israelis who wish to marry a spouse of any other national origin: the general policy of gradual naturalization for all other "foreign spouses" of Israeli citizens remains unchanged.

Ironically, the security that Israel seeks may be put off by passing such a discriminatory law, which plants yet another seed of resentment in the Palestinian community.

Palestinian children who find themselves deprived of a parent because of the law will be steeped in anger against Israel.

For example, Rula's son, Ali, asks "Where's Baba?"

"Why isn't he home?"

"Take us to Baba."

Rula notes that when she and Ali get detained at a checkpoint, the boy says "Why don't I take a bomb, Mummy, and go and blow myself up and kill the soldiers?" 94

This is precisely the sort of mentality that Israel should seek to prevent.

But a generation raised in a climate of violence and under a cloud of discrimination will yield only more suicide bombers.

IV. Contravention of Authority

A. Violation of Israeli Law

Unlike most democracies, the state of Israel lacks a constitution.

Instead, the Knesset enacts Basic Laws on various subjects, from The Army to The Judiciary.

In 1992, lawmakers passed the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which recognizes that "all persons have the right to privacy and to intimacy." 95

Marriage represents the core of intimate relationships, and any restriction on marriage thus contravenes the Basic Law.

Because the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law unduly prohibits Israeli Arab marriages by forcing those affected to choose either their home or their spouse, the measure violates the Basic Law.

When a basic law and a subsequently passed ordinary law contradict one another, the basic law should prevail—just as the U.S. Constitution trumps federal law.

Although the Knesset has not yet legislated the issue (amendments to the Basic Law: Legislation are pending), the High Court of Justice has asserted judicial supremacy in recent years.

In 1997, the Court struck down several provisions in the law for regulating investment consulting as violations of the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation.

In 1999, the Court declared null and void article 237a(a) of the Military Judgment Law as a violation the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. 96

Thus, the Court has demonstrated the power to strike down laws that conflict with the Basic Law, and the justices ought to assert that power here to strike down the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law.

B. International Human Rights Treaties

The citizenship law also breaches Israel's duty under several international treaties to which the state is a signatory.

Under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):

3). No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

4.) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 97

A marriage is the core foundation of a family and is universally recognized as a basic human right. 98

By hindering a select group of marriages, Israel is interfering with the fundamental right to choose one's spouse in violation of the ICCPR, which prohibits arbitrary interference with the family.

The blanket prohibition on Palestinian reunification arbitrarily and subjectively excludes an entire group of people for the actions of a few based on the belief that all Palestinians are potential terrorists.

Israel may respond that Israeli Arabs are still free to choose any spouse: An Israeli-Arab may marry a Palestinian; the state does not prevent such a union.

Yet under the Israeli policy, that marriage would result in either forcing the Israeli Arab spouse to leave his or her home or to live apart from his or her partner.

This is not freedom to choose a spouse or start a family.

In its petition to the High Court, Arab rights group Adalah observed:

"Simply put, we are dealing with human beings."

"Men and women will continue to fall in love, dream together, commune with each other, become engaged, marry, and build a family."

"The [l]aw will cause much suffering and will embitter their lives. . . ."

"It will present the couple with harsh alternatives on a daily basis regarding their lives and the intimacy between them."

"The [l]aw will control their private sphere."

Also, ICCPR Article 23 states:

1.) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2) The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. . . . 99

Here, Israel holds a duty to protect the family—not to keep husbands from living with wives, children from living with parents.

Prior to the enactment of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law, the reunification process already displayed enough flaws.

Families waded through mountains of red tape and waited for years to attain legal status.

Now, Arabs living on opposite sides of the Israeli border cannot create or solidify a family unit.

Also, Article 26 states:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 100

Such a civil rights scheme should be standard in a developed democracy such as Israel.

But the state falls short of its obligations under Article 26.

Israel impugns the entire Israeli Arab population by assuming that a Palestinian with freedom of movement would present a security risk.

Notably, the law provides an explicit exception to Jewish Israeli settlers living in the West Bank; each settler remains free to choose a spouse of any origin.

Such race-based distinctions made under the color of law present a violation of equal protection.

The law also raises serious concerns under the International Convention on the Elimination for All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). 101

Signatories of the ICERD promise to "undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law." 102

Such equality guarantees civil rights, including "the right to marriage and choice of spouse." 103

By excluding the entire population of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel violates its obligation to each of its citizens to choose his or her spouse.

ICERD and the other international treaties should not be brushed aside with an exaggerated security risk.

The law also violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Article 2 of the ICESCR provides that:

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 104

The law fails to meet the obligations to the family under the ICESCR.

Article 10 requires that the "widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society." 105

By keeping a West Bank parent separated from his or her child in Israel, the law tears at the family cloth for no other reason than the place of birth—a distinction to which the law of a free society should be blind.

Similarly, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights remains troubled by Israel's actions.

"The Committee is also concerned about the practice of restrictive family reunification with regards to Palestinians, which has been adopted for reasons of national security." 106

All of these provisions emphasize that states shall not impose discrimination based on national origin.

Yet, by burdening only Israeli Arabs and singling out those from the West Bank and Gaza, the citizenship law contravenes multiple international covenants.

C. International Reaction

Although the international organizations command a broad audience and have extensive publicity and lobbying campaigns, their influence on this issue may be limited.

First, criticism of Israel's human rights violations spurs few into action.

One possible reason for this lack of outrage may be the fear of being accused of anti-Semitism.

There persists a general reluctance to criticize the state of Israel.

Yet, criticizing a state's policies should not be equated with impugning a religion.

For example, if the law had been passed by any other sovereign nation—one not defined by its religious character—the law could be criticized on a political level, with no mention of religion.

But with Israel, criticism of the state's security actions is instantly equated with a desire to see the state succumb to attacks from its Arab neighbors, wiping out the Jewish homeland.

This unenlightened conclusion, often aimed at those who criticize Israel, has grown stale.

Second, any international consternation is likely to be brushed off by the United States, which tends to give the Israeli government carte blanche to handle the security situation as leaders see fit. 107

U.S. politicians have little incentive to criticize Israeli leaders for two main reasons.

First, the American public pays scant attention to the situation in Israel and the occupied territories.

The mainstream news media contributes little to the discussion by presenting a limited picture of the conflict.

Indeed, a search of U.S. newspapers for the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law after the law was passed revealed four articles: two in the L.A. Times, one in the Christian Science Monitor, and an op-ed in a Newark newspaper criticizing the law.

Such limited coverage will not spur public outrage.

The other factor that encourages U.S. leaders to ignore Israel's actions remains the powerful lobbying groups that promote Israeli interests in Congress.

Criticism is unlikely as political coffers swell.

V. U.S. Interests

Over the past thirty years, U.S. administrations have given billions in aid to Israel, which the United States considers a valuable ally in the region.

Although a tightening of the purse strings by the United States could carry great sway with Israel and induce a change in policy, such action is unlikely as the United States continues to court its Mid East ally.

But, in the wake of 9/11, the U.S. administration and U.S. legislators should rethink this policy.

Gone are the days when a visible enemy could be fought on a traditional battlefield; the battles now are for hearts and minds as domestic security depends on prevention of terrorism.

This means that the United States has a vested interest in cultivating good will all across the Middle East, not just in Israel.

After all, the same culture that breeds suicide bombers in Israel stews with resentment for the world power that backs its oppressor.

A June 2003 study conducted in the Middle East by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that although attitudes towards the United States are generally hostile, only one percent of those in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority have a positive image of the country. 108

Middle Eastern anti-Americanism stems largely from a deep ambivalence towards U.S. foreign policy. . . .

Particular concerns in the region stem from the U.S. relationship with Israel . . . and perceptions that Washington will always side with Israel on regional issues. 109

In a vacuum created by the demise of Arab nationalism, Islamic extremists fan the flames of resentment against U.S. policies in the region and U.S. support of Israel.

By not taking an active role reining in Israel's discriminatory policies, U.S. lawmakers fail to seize an opportunity to reinforce domestic security.

VI. Conclusion

Israel's High Court of Justice should strike down the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law as a violation of its Basic Law and a contravention of several international human rights treaties.

The law discriminates on the basis of birth and nationality, and the measure increases the hardships faced by Palestinians.

While Israel's security concerns cannot be underestimated or minimized, security provides a weak excuse for this law, which, at its heart, aims to undermine the population of Arabs in Israel.

Furthermore, the measure stokes anti-Israeli sentiment among Arabs across the region.

Such resentment will only increase Israel's present and future security risk.

In this era of global interconnectedness, such a risk may have a domino effect as the United States' ties to and backing of Israeli policy foment even more resentment by an oppressed people.

ENDNOTES

Bethany Nikfar is a 2005 J.D. Candidate at Northwestern University School of Law; B.A. in Political Science and History, University of Maryland, 1998.

1 The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision) 5763-2003, unofficial translation.

2 Id.

3 "West Bank." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 23 Nov, 2003 < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=78625 >.

4 Approximately 21,298 families will be affected: 5,291 from East Jerusalem and 16,007 in the rest of the state according to "Immigration of Foreigners in Israel," Ministry of Interior, Population Administration, May 2002. Source: Press Release, Mossawa Center (July 31, 2003), at http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eJuLg...Israel%22&hl=en.

5 "Issuing [an] identity card immediately turns the person who receives it into someone terrorist organizations would like to have," stated Yuri Stern, head of the Knesset's Interior Committee. Ben Lynfield, Marriage Law Divides Israeli Arab Families, Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 8, 2003, at 6.

6 Id.

7 Dan Izenberg, ACRI Asks Court To Restore Rights of Palestinians Who Marry Israelis, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 9, 2003, at 2.

8 Roundup: Israeli High Court Disagrees with Government's Decision Against Israeli Arabs, People's Daily, July 15, 2002.

9 Dan Izenberg, Adalah Decries Reunification Law, Jerusalem Post, July 23, 2004, at 6.

10 Ina Friedman, Three Groups Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Citizenship Law, Jerursalem Rep., Sept. 8, 2003, at 6.

11 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 17, at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html.

12 ICCPR, Art. 23.

13 ICCPR, Art. 26.

14 Israel has been a party to the ICERD since 1979.

15 ICERD, Art. 5, at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm#art5.

16 Id.

17 The Israeli Supreme Court sits as the High Court of Justice in "matters regarding the legality of decisions of state authorities." Source: State of Israel Judicial Authority Web site, at http://62.90.71.124/eng/system/index.html.

18 Izenberg, supra note 7.

19 James Bennet, Mideast Turmoil: The Violence; Bomber Strikes Jews and Arabs at Rare Refuge, N.Y. Times, Apr. 1, 2002, at A1.

20 Dan Izenberg, Court Hears Petitions Against Palestinian Naturalization Freeze, Jerusalem Post, July 18, 2003, at 6A.

21 The procedure whereby a non-Israeli obtains Israeli citizenship by marrying an Israeli citizen involves three stages: 1.) A non-citizen applies for a permit to live in Israel on the basis of his or her marriage. Upon approval by the Interior Ministry, the applicant is granted B-1 status, allowing him or her to live and work in Israel; 2.) After six months, the applicant may receive A-5 status, which includes the right to receive National Insurance Institute payments. In the applicant maintains an unblemished security and criminal record, the A-5 status will be renewed each year for four years; 3.) After a minimum of four years, the applicant becomes eligible for Israeli citizenship. Source: Dan Izenberg, High Court Issues Show-Cause Order on Family Reunification Ban, Jerusalem Post, July 15, 2002, at 2.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 See discussion of Israeli disapproval of rising Israeli Arab population, infra.

25 Adalah, a Palestinian rights group, filed the petition on behalf of fifty-seven members of fourteen families that included a spouse of Palestinian origin without full citizenship status. The petition argues that Israel's decision discriminates against the petitioners by violating their right to marry and found a family with their choice of spouse. Source: Press Release, Adalah (June 2, 2002).

26 Izenberg, supra note 21.

27 Id.

28 Nina Gilbert, Legal Adviser: Palestinian Family Reunification Ban Illegal, Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2003, at 2.

29 Nina Gilbert, Knesset Okays Move To Block Citizenship for Palestinians Who Marry Israelis, Jerusalem Post, June 19, 2003, at 4.

30 Ben Lynfield, Marriage Law Divides Israeli Arab Families, Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 8, 2003, at 6.

31 Justin Huggler, Israel Imposes 'Racist' Marriage Law, Independent, Aug. 1, 2003, at 1.

32 Nina Gilbert, Palestinians Who Wed Israelis Will No Longer Receive Citizenship, Jerusalem Post, Aug. 1, 2003, at 4A.

33 The Shin Bet also reported preventing a bombing with the arrest of an Islamic Jihad member who had an identity card. Cell leader Muhammad Matsri's mother married an Israeli citizen, enabling Matsri to obtain a card and freedom of movement across the Israeli-West Bank border. Source: Margot Dudkevitch, Israeli Arabs Held for Operating Bomb Factory in Jaljulya, Jerusalem Post, Apr. 1, 2003, at 1.

34 Lynfield, supra note 30.

35 Gilbert, supra note 32.

36 Id.

37 Lynfield, supra note 30.

38 Gilbert, supra note 32.

39 MK Yuri Shtern represents the National Union party, a conservative group concerned with demographic issues facing Israel. The party supports "massive Jewish immigration to Israel and the voluntary transfer of the Palestinians in the territories to Arab states. The party views these steps as the only way to maintain the demographic balance in Israel, preserving its Jewish character, territorial integrity and basic security needs." Source: Upstart Activist Press Release, Israel Votes (2003), at http://www.israelvotes.com/demo/platforms_unity.html.

40 Gilbert, supra note 28.

41 Id.

42 Huggler, supra note 31.

43 Gilbert, supra

[Livyjr]

"Eastern U.S. braces for more hot weather"

By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer

30 minutes ago

NEW YORK - As if another day of triple-digit temperatures wasn't bad enough, Queens grocer Salm Ali had another problem: A power outage forced him to pitch about $5,000 worth of withered, wilted produce.

His Liberty Deli and Grocery was just one of thousands of energy customers across the eastern United States that experienced scattered blackouts Wednesday as the oppressive heat and humidity prompted record-setting demand.

"This is the life," Ali said sarcastically.

"Even the fan isn't working."

The region was in for another day of steamy weather Thursday.

The heat wasn't expected to break until evening, when a cold front should force temperatures down into the 80s, said National Weather Service meteorologist Bill Simpson.

The National Weather Service again posted heat warnings from Massachusetts to South Carolina and in parts of Oklahoma.

Since Sunday, authorities have confirmed heat played a role in at least 12 deaths and suspect it played a role in 7 more.

The same heat wave was blamed for as many as 164 deaths last week in California.

In Boston, autopsy results were pending on a pregnant woman who died Saturday after collapsing at a sweltering Red Sox game and suffering an apparent heart attack.

A medical team was able to deliver her 4-pound infant at a hospital.

In Kentucky, an 18-month-old boy was found dead Wednesday inside a van about 60 miles northeast of Lexington.

In Illinois, at least six heat-related deaths have been confirmed in Cook County since Sunday, and police believe that another six deaths in Chicago Wednesday could be heat-related.

Four deaths were reported in Maryland, including three elderly victims who did not have air conditioning, officials said.

In Oklahoma, authorities said a 92-year-old man found near his car Tuesday died of heat related-causes.

By late afternoon Wednesday, the temperature had risen to 101 at LaGuardia Airport, but it felt like 106.

Hartford, Conn., Providence, R.I. and Taunton, Mass. also hit 100 degrees.

The mercury hit 99 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and Baltimore and Philadelphia each climbed into the upper 90s.

Even on Cape Cod, which is usually a haven during the steamiest summer weather, residents were buckling.

Carla Sullivan, the dockmaster at Hyannis Marina, said she saw people dousing a dog with water after the animal collapsed from heat stroke.

"The water just pours off of you," said Sullivan.

"This is Texas hot."

Utility officials urged people to resist cranking up air conditioners amid heavy electric demand.

Consolidated Edison, the utility that serves customers in and around New York City, set its second record in two days for peak demand.

The Long Island Power Authority and ISO New England also reported record-setting energy use.

In Queens, many residents found themselves in the dark again after recovering from a 10-day outage in late July.

That included Ali, the grocer, who said he had to throw out $17,000 worth of produce last time.

Some Massachusetts residents were thrown into the dark Wednesday night because of thunderstorms, while in Stamford, Conn., Connecticut Light & Power cut electricity to some downtown businesses after two circuits failed.

In New York City, teams patrolled the streets, looking for homeless people and encouraging them to head to air-conditioned drop-in centers, carrying water and checking for dehydration.

Officials in Washington, D.C. also were going door-to-door to get people to go to cooling centers, said Mark Brown, deputy director of the city's Emergency Management Agency.

As a precaution, the Dixie Chicks postponed an outdoor concert at Jones Beach Ampitheater on Long Island.

In Fitchburg, Mass., about 40 people attending a Warped Tour outdoor concert were taken to a hospital and treated for dehydration.

In Boston, animals at the Franklin Park Zoo were kept cool with sprinklers and frozen treats.

The African wild dogs and lions got frozen blood; the primates received frozen fruit juice.

"It's a matter of taste, I guess," zoo president John Linehan said.

The broiling heat also took its toll on the sports world.

The New England Patriots canceled "Patriots Experience," a football-themed entertainment area for children that was supposed to run at the team's training camp Wednesday.

Washington Redskins coach Joe Gibbs cut his players a break by pushing back their practice session to 7 p.m.

The heat wasn't terrible for everyone, however.

Bicycle messenger Gravett Dhuja tried to look at the bright side as he rested near a Capitol Hill office building: "It's been hot, but rain is a lot worse for us."

Costas Katemis, a fruit vendor outside Boston's South Station, was drenched in sweat as he handled brisk sales of peaches, plums and nectarines.

But he didn't mind.

"I've been here when it's been 10 below zero, and the fruit actually freezes, so this weather is no problem," he said.
____

Associated Press Writers Adam Gorlick in Springfield, Mass. and Derrill Holly in Washington contributed to this report.

end quotes

It's all in how you look at things .....

[Livyjr]

And the heat down there in Washington, D.C. ......

The HOME LAND ....

Of George W. Bush's CULTURE OF CORRUPTION .....

Isn't only going to be .....

From the weather, it seems ....

There's going to be a real big load .....

Of REAL HOT AIR .....

Coming before the Congress ....

In a container .....

That looks just like Donald Rumsfeld .....

And so .....

Put on your gas masks, folks .....

Because what spews out of that BAG OF WIND .....

IS LIKELY TO BE TOXIC ....

And FOUL ....

And bad for your health ....

And so ....

"Resistant Rumsfeld to testify on Iraq"

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:57 a.m., Thursday, August 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is trying to convince lawmakers that the war in Iraq is not breaking the Army and that extending the tours of some troops is necessary to quell increasing violence in the region.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top military officers are to testify Thursday before Congress, already bitterly divided over the war.

In addition, fresh reports have said that up to two-thirds of the Army's combat units are unprepared for wartime missions because of the strain of operations in Iraq.

Rumsfeld said Wednesday he essentially was too busy to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and would instead attend a private briefing with the entire Senate on Thursday.

He changed his mind after hours of criticism and pressure from Senate Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who said the Pentagon chief should be accountable to the public by answering questions on the war.

The Pentagon offered no reason for Rumsfeld's change of plans.

Earlier, it had said the defense secretary has made an aggressive effort to meet with lawmakers regularly, including testimony at an appropriations hearing earlier this year and at other classified briefings.

Rumsfeld's relations with Congress have been testy at times and he occasionally has resisted testifying publicly on contentious subjects, including the debate over whether high-level officials should be held accountable for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

The Pentagon this week announced its decision to extend the tours of an Alaskan Army brigade to bolster security around a volatile Baghdad and push troop levels to roughly 135,000 -- dashing the Bush administration's hopes of dropping the figure by tens of thousands by the fall congressional campaigns.

Yet Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, said Thursday in Baghdad that his government is "highly optimistic that we will terminate terrorism this year."

"The Iraqi forces will take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of this year gradually, and if God's will, we will take the lead."

After the comments, his staff sought to explain that Talabani was referring to the beginning of a "process" for Iraqis to assume control, not the final step.

Democrats in Washington have highlighted the Army readiness issue as an example of the administration's mishandling of the war.

They urged the president this week to begin by the end of the year pulling troops out of Iraq.

Bush consistently has said there will be no such pullout until the fledgling Iraqi government can secure its position and Iraq's security forces can defend the country.

Republicans have backed their GOP president on the issue, but have acknowledged their frustration with the length of the war and the delayed homecomings.

"That's a very difficult thing for us," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, of the Pentagon's decision to keep in Iraq some 3,500 members of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Wainwright in Alaska.

In a letter to Bush released Monday, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate said they believed the war was overtaxing the military and failing to calm the sectarian violence.

------

On the Net:

Pentagon: http://defenselink.mil

Senate Armed Services Committee:

end quotes

At the beginning .....

Of this nation's history .....

When we were engaged ....

In a LIFE-AND-DEATH struggle .....

With the most powerful army .....

Then in existence .....

On the face of the earth ....

We had no president ....

We had no Secretary of Defense ....

We had a Congress ....

And a COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF .....

WHO ANSWERED TO ....

AND WAS ACCOUNTABLE TO .....

That Congress ....

And in the end .....

We whipped that powerful army ...

And became free ....

And so ...

WHAT IS GOING ON TODAY, THEN?

When we have all these fancy boys .....

Down there in the Pentagon ....

Who have given us a mess ....

For our military to have to deal with ...

While the REPUBLICANS ...

In Congress ....

Suck their thumbs ....

And grin like idiots ....

And don't do much else .....

Except collect their graft, of course ...

Because it is their CULTURE OF CORRUPTION ...

Down there ...

That they are defending ....

AND NOT OUR AMERICA ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

And speaking of that mess ....

We have this following story ....

Which illustrates the mess ....

And before we get there .....

With respect to the GAS-BAG RUMSFELD ....

Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld .....

Could be made more talkative ....

By having him stripped naked ....

Before the Congress ....

And put in chains ....

With a great big dog ....

Chained just in front of him ....

On a smallish weak chain ....

Lunging at him ....

Looking to take a real good bite out of Donald ....

Right where it would do him some real good ....

And so ....

Without further ado ...

HERE'S THE FRUITS ....

OF RAMPANT RUMSFELD-ISM .....

In action ....

Over there in IRAQINAM ....

Where arresting someone for murder ...

Is like stopping people for speeding ....

At the Indianapolis 500 ....

And so ....

"Probe backs allegations against Marines"

By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:28 a.m., Thursday, August 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- An initial U.S. military probe supports allegations that American Marines deliberately shot 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

The Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors are now reviewing the evidence to determine whether to recommend criminal charges.

That decision may be weeks away, and the lawyers may ask investigators to probe further, two officials said.

They discussed the matter on condition they not be identified because the case -- among the most sensational of several involving Iraqi civilian deaths -- has not yet produced charges.

"It's fair to say that the majority of the work has been done," said a third official, Ed Buice, spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigation Service that is leading the probe.

"But it's impossible to predict how much longer the investigation will take."

"It is very much open and ongoing."

The case is open because prosecutors and officers in the chain of command of the Marines being investigated may consult with the naval investigation service even after any charges are brought.

A decision on whether to press charges ultimately will be made by the commander of the Marines' parent unit, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

That currently is Lt. Gen. John Sattler, but he is to move to a Pentagon assignment soon.

His successor will be Lt. Gen. James Mattis.

Investigators conducted a wide range of interviews with Marines in Iraq and with Iraqis in Haditha, but they failed to obtain permission to exhume the bodies of the 24 who were killed, two officials said.

Nonetheless the probe did collect evidence from the Marines and from the scene of the killings.

The case is one of several involving allegations of unjustified killings of Iraqi civilians that have emerged this year, damaging the U.S. image abroad and triggering calls by some Iraqi leaders to end the arrangement under which U.S. troops are immune from prosecution by Iraqi authorities.

The Marines initially reported after the Nov. 19, 2005, killings at Haditha that 15 Iraqi civilians had been killed by a makeshift roadside bomb and in crossfire between Marines and insurgent attackers.

Based on accounts from survivors and human rights groups, Time magazine reported in March that the killings were deliberate acts by the Marines.

A criminal investigation was then ordered by the top Marine commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer.

A parallel investigation is examining whether officers in the Marines' chain of command tried to cover up the events.

That probe, which has not been made public, faults some officers for failing to pursue discrepancies in the initial reports about what happened in Haditha and for not launching an early investigation.

When asked about the matter at a news conference Wednesday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the cover-up probe's report was 3,000-4,000 pages long and being reviewed by Army Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq.

Regarding the criminal investigation, Pace described it as "ongoing" and said it would remain so until military authorities have reviewed its results as well as the findings and recommendations of the cover-up probe, "to make sure that every single possible cross-thread has been looked at."

Public attention on the Haditha case grew after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, asserted on May 17 that he had learned from Marine Corps officials that innocent Iraqis had been killed "in cold blood."

Lawyers for Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, one of the Marines under investigation, argued in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court that Murtha falsely accused Wuterich of murder and war crimes.

The lawsuit maintains that Pentagon officials "who have briefed or leaked information to Mr. Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information" and that the congressman subsequently "has made repeated statements ... that are defamatory."

Murtha said Wednesday he does not blame Wuterich for "lashing out."

"When I spoke up about Haditha, my intention was to draw attention to the horrendous pressure put on our troops in Iraq and to the cover-up of the incident," Murtha said.

Among the other recent cases of alleged deliberate killings of Iraqi civilians, seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have been charged with premeditated murder and other criminal acts in connection with the killing of an Iraqi man in Hamdania on April 26.

Also, five soldiers and a former soldier have been charged in the alleged March 12 rape-slaying of an Iraqi teenager and the killings of her relatives in Mahmoudiya.

end quotes

When the man .....

Everybody calls .....

THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF .....

Is himself devoid ....

Of a moral compass ....

That is what he produces .....

In all of his subordinates .....

FROM THE TOP .....

DOWNWARDS ....

When these troops murder someone ....

In IRAQINAM .....

It is in George W. Bush's name ...

That they do so .....

BECAUSE HE HAS SET THE TONE .....

FOR THIS CONFRONTATION OVER THERE ....

AND THAT TONE ...

TO ME ...

WAS ALWAYS ONE ....

OF THE NEED ....

TO KILL OFF ...

A GENERATION ....

OF MUSLIMS ....

And so ....

When the troops ....

Are doing ...

What the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ....

Wanted done .....

It sends out a real mixed message .....

To charge just them ....

And not him, as well .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

Poor Joe Lieberman ....

He got too close to George W. Bush .....

And now ....

The TAINT OF TEXAS .....

Is all over him .....

And that stuff just don't wash off .....

It's worse in that way ....

Than TOXIC SLUDGE, they say .....

And so ....

Good-bye, Joe ...

YOU gotta go ....

Me oh my oh ....

YOU gotta go .....

Pole your dinghy down the river ....

YOUR HERO BUSH ....

IS THE TOXIC ONE ....

Me oh my oh ....

Son of a gun, when Joe is done ....

We'll be glad .....

In America .....

"New poll shows Lieberman losing ground"

By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:35 a.m., Thursday, August 3, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont has extended his lead against veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Thursday.

Lamont, a political novice, has support from 54 percent of likely Democratic voters in the Quinnipiac University poll, while Lieberman has support from 41 percent of voters.

A similar survey July 20 showed Lamont with a slight advantage for the first time in the campaign.

Lieberman, 64, one of the Senate's most well-known Democrats and his party's nominee for vice president in 2000, has been harshly criticized in Connecticut for his support of the Iraq war and his perceived closeness with President Bush.

Lamont, 52, who owns a successful cable television firm, has been able to tap into rank-and-file Democratic voters' frustration with Lieberman as well as his personal wealth, contributing $3 million to his campaign.

"Three months ago, Lamont was virtually unheard of, except perhaps on the blogs," said poll director Douglas Schwartz.

"As Democrats get to know Lamont better, they like what they see."

"Lamont has established himself as a credible alternative to Lieberman."

Lieberman recently called on President Clinton to visit the state on his behalf, and Clinton's endorsement has been used in the campaign's televised ads.

But that apparently had little effect on voters; of those who supported Lieberman, 78 percent said Clinton was not a reason for their support.

Lieberman has been collecting signatures to petition his way onto the ballot as an independent candidate should he lose Tuesday's primary.

Unaffiliated voters outnumber Democrats and Republicans in the state, and Lieberman has typically drawn strong support from both unaffiliated and Republican voters.

The poll did not examine how Lieberman and Lamont would fare if Lieberman ran as an independent in the general election.

Messages seeking comment were left early Thursday with both campaigns.

The telephone survey of 890 likely Democratic primary voters was conducted from July 25 to 31.

It has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Livyjr]

And as TOXIC FUMES ....

From Washington, D.C. ......

Associated with the CULTURE OF CORRUPTION down there .....

Continue to waft out .....

In a miasma ....

That now covers .....

A huge part of the world .....

We have .....

A news story ......

Concerning ....

A poor victim of that MIASMA .....

Known as the TAINT OF TEXAS BEING UPON US ........

And so ....

"Nothin' but a hound dog"

Associated Press
First published: Thursday, August 3, 2006

LONDON -- A guard dog has ripped apart a collection of rare teddy bears, including one once owned by Elvis Presley, during a rampage at a children's museum.

"He just went berserk," said Daniel Medley, general manager of the Wookey Hole Caves near Wells, England, where hundreds of bears were chewed up Tuesday night by the 6-year-old Doberman pinscher named Barney.

Barney ripped the head off a brown stuffed bear once owned by the young Presley during the attack.

The bear, named Mabel, was made in 1909 by the German manufacturer Steiff.

The collection, valued at more than $900,000, included a red bear made by Farnell in 1910 and a Bobby Bruin made by Merrythought in 1936.

The bear with Elvis connections was owned by English aristocrat Benjamin Slade, who bought it at an Elvis memorabilia auction in Memphis, Tenn., and had loaned it to the museum.

end quotes

That poor dog ......

And I know just how he feels .....

Listening to this crap ....

All these lies ...

Day after day after day ....

From George W. Bush ...

And Tony Blair .....

It does have one ....

To the point ....

Of wanting to bite off ....

A poor teddy bear's head .....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

And as TOXIC FUMES ....

From Washington, D.C. ......

Associated with the CULTURE OF CORRUPTION down there .....

Continue to waft out .....

In a miasma ....

That now covers .....

A huge part of the world .....

We have .....

A story .....

ABOUT A REAL AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE .....

And you can tell a REAL AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE .....

By the numbers of people ....

NOT LIKE THEM ....

That they have pejoratives for ....

And so ...

"Sen. Burns' verbal attack draws fire"

By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:45 a.m., Thursday, August 3, 2006

HELENA, Mont. -- Sen. Conrad Burns' recent verbal attack on a firefighting team for its work on a Montana blaze angered some firefighters, drew harsh criticism in state newspapers and has left the three-term Republican scrambling to repair the political damage.

Burns, one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the fall elections, confronted members of a firefighting team at the Billings airport on July 23 and told them they had done a "piss-poor job," according to an official state report and the U.S. Forest Service.

The Hotshot crew had traveled 2,000 miles from Staunton, Va., to help dig fire lines for about a week around a 143-square-mile wildfire east of Billings.

The crew was awaiting flights home when Burns made his comments.

The senator, who has a house in Billings, said he was expressing the frustration of ranchers who were critical of the way the fire was handled.

He later apologized for his harsh remarks.

The report by the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation said Burns pointed to one firefighter and said, "See that guy over there?"

"He hasn't done a g-- damned thing."

The Forest Service dispatch log said, "Conrad Burns at BIL airport verbally attacking Augusta IHC crewmember."

Burns, a third-term lawmaker already facing questions about his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is trying to turn back a challenge from Democrat Jon Tester.

At least one likely Montana voter was offended by Burns' confrontation with the crew.

"I think it's just terrible."

"Why in the world would he attack the firefighters who are the ones out there doing the work?" said Patricia Michaels, 71, of Montana City.

Michaels said she had already planned to vote for Tester.

Annabelle Richards, 72, a Democratic Party volunteer, said the issue has lingered with Burns.

Last weekend, Richards was working a fair booth in Helena and had displayed a Democratic sign, "We support the firefighters."

Richards said she offered to shake Burns' hand.

As he did, "he kind of snorted or scoffed and just said, 'You people, where do you people dig up this crap?'"

"Where he gets with people who are maybe not his supporters, he blows the opportunity to make a few points," Richards said.

Burns would pick up some votes and more people would like him "if he wasn't so antagonistic and insulting."

Burns' comments have gotten him into trouble in the past.

In 1999, Burns issued a written apology after referring to Arabs as "rag heads" during a speech while commenting on oil prices.

In 1994, Burns repeated a story that included the word ""epithet deleted"" and commented that living with blacks in Washington, D.C., was "a hell of a challenge."

He also onced asked a woman who was wearing a nose ring what tribe she belonged to.

Last year, the senator denied a flight attendant's claim that he told her she could "go home and be a mother" if her airline job were eliminated.

Doug Neil, a firefighter from Great Falls, said he has received a number of calls from angry firefighters during the last week.

"I definitely believe it should reflect badly on him," said Neil, the legislative liaison for the Montana State Firemen's Association.

"The gaffes in the past with flight attendants and people who choose to wear questionable jewelry, we know that he has slips of the tongue, it's just unfortunate when it hits close to home."

But Ed Bandel, a farmer near Floweree, called Burns' comments an "accident."

"He was talking to the wrong people about the fact there was a problem with the way they fought the fire," said Bandel, who said he leans Republican.

"It seems to me he should have been talking to the higher-ups, not the men doing the work."

The Missoulian newspaper said in an editorial that "Burns' remarks were characteristic of the kind of know-nothing blather you sometimes hear from the local malcontent in a bar or coffee shop."

The Montana Standard of Butte wrote, "The way things are going for Montana's Conrad Burns, all challenger Jon Tester may have to do is to stay quiet until November to win the hotly contested seat."

Burns apologized the day the confrontation made headlines.

During a conference call with reporters, he said there was no anger in his comments and characterized the encounter as a nonevent.

He also said he approached the firefighters, who told him they did not want a visit and he left them.

The senator's office says Burns is not backing down from his apology, only clarifying "there was no anger in his comments, only frustration."

A videotape obtained and circulated by the Democratic Party shows that when the conference call ended, Burns turned to officials in the room and said, "that's the way to shut that down ... that works."

[Livyjr]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/02/cronin/

"Will Bush and Gonzales get away with it?"

The pilot and Vietnam POW -- a staunch Republican -- who pushed through the War Crimes Act of 1996 is appalled that the Bush administration, facing possible prosecution for war crimes, is devising a legal escape hatch.

By Michael Scherer

Well done with this story, Snuf ....

These are the kinds of things ....

That without this FORUM .....

We would likely never hear about ....

When instead ...

THIS SHOULD BE FRONT-PAGE NEWS .....

Having a man ....

In charge here in OUR America ....

Named George W. Bush .....

Who appears as little more than some kind of BARBARIAN .....

With all of his alleged war crimes ...

And murder ....

And such .....

Being committed in his name ....

BUT BEING BLAMED ON US ....

BY THE REST ...

OF THE WORLD ....

THAT IS CIVILIZED ....

And so .....

As the saying goes ....

If the crime was done ....

So should be the time ....

And if a WAR CRIMES prosecution ....

Was good enough ....

For an alleged animal ...

Like Saddam Hussein .....

It should be good enough .....

For George W. Bush, as well ....

TO SHOW THE CANDID WORLD ....

THAT WE ARE NOT ALL ANIMALS OVER HERE ....

And so ....

[Snuffysmith]

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
------------H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

[Livyjr]

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people."

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

------------H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

God bless you for that, Snuf .....

I needed a laugh .....

And how true it is .....

That guy ....

Had prescient vision .....

Back then .....

To see George W. Bush coming along .....

In OUR time ....

As he clearly did ....

Back then ....

In his ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And while we are on that subject .....

I wonder ....

If the H.L. Mencken ....

Knew ....

That when the MORON ...

Was adorning the White House ....

There'd be another one ....

Just like him ....

Or even worse ....

Over there in the Pentagon ....

Named Rumsfeld ....

And so ....

"Generals raise fears of Iraq civil war"

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:46 p.m., Thursday, August 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Two of the Pentagon's most senior generals conceded to Congress on Thursday that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad in recent weeks means Iraq may descend into civil war.

"Iraq could move toward civil war" if the violence is not contained, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," he said, adding that the top priority in Iraq is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war."

He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome.

"The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government."

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have steadfastly refused to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, although Rumsfeld at a news conference on Wednesday acknowledged that the violence is increasing.

Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One Thursday as Bush flew to Texas, press secretary Tony Snow said the generals had "reiterated something we've talked about on a number of occasions, which is the importance of securing Baghdad, which is why ... you're going to see more and more of a troop presence in Baghdad."

"... Obviously, sectarian violence is a concern."

Asked specifically to state the White House's reaction to the statements about a possible civil war, Snow replied, "Ok, well, I don't think the president is going to quibble with his generals on their characterizations."

The commanders' remarks about the threat of a civil war came just three months before congressional elections in which Bush administration policy in Iraq looms as a defining issue.

Many voters have tired of the 3-year-old war, which has cost more than 2,500 U.S. lives and more than a quarter trillion taxpayer dollars.

They also come at a time when thanks to the high level of violence in Baghdad, administration hopes have diminished of significantly reducing the U.S. force in Iraq, which Rumsfeld said currently totals 133,000.

Last year, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed hopes of significant troop cuts this year, comments that Abizaid seemed to temper on Thursday.

"Since the time that General Casey made that statement, it's clear that the operational and the tactical situation in Baghdad is such that it requires additional security forces, both U.S. and Iraqi," Abizaid told Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee.

"It's possible to imagine some reductions in forces, but I think the most important thing to imagine is Baghdad coming under the control of the Iraqi government," Abizaid said.

Later in the hearing, the general expressed confidence that the Iraqi government is moving in the right direction.

"Am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war?"

"My answer is yes, I'm optimistic that that slide can be prevented," Abizaid said.

Later in the hearing Pace told the committee that his comment about the possibility of civil war did not mean he expects one.

"Speaking for myself, I do not believe it is probable," he said, because the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military are not breaking apart.

Asked whether the United States would continue to have a military mission in Iraq in the event that civil war did break out, Rumseld declined to respond directly, saying that it could give the impression that he presumes there will be a civil war.

"Our role is to support the government."

"The government is holding together."

"The armed forces are holding together," he said.

Bush last week approved an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad as part of a new effort to help Iraqi security forces get a grip on the sectarian tensions.

Abizaid also said under questioning that it was possible that U.S. casualties could rise as a result of the battle to contain sectarian violence in the capital.

"I think it's possible that in the period ahead of us in Baghdad that we'll take increased casualties -- that's possible," he said.

Rumsfeld, who testified alongside Abizaid and Pace, did not comment directly on the prospect of civil war but said Iraq's future lay in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way.

"Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis," Rumsfeld said.

And under tough questioning by Sen. Hillary Clinton about previous appearances before the committee, he denied that he had ever "painted a rosy picture" of the situation in Iraq.

Pace said he did not anticipate one year ago that Iraq would now be in danger of plummeting into civil war.

Abizaid said it was obvious a year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise, and that Iraq's police forces did not develop as well as U.S. officials had expected.

"It's vital that we turn this around," the general said.

Pressed about the prospect of reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Rumsfeld stuck to his usual assertion that it depends on conditions and on the ability of the Iraqi government to suppress sectarian tensions.

He said the Pentagon is seeking a careful balance between having too few troops and having too many.

"That's a fair tension there," Rumsfeld said.

end quotes

If George W. Bush said the sun was shining .....

I would figure ....

He was either lying ...

Or likely didn't know the difference .....

Between ....

Day and night ....

If George W. Bush said the moon was out ....

I would figure ....

He was either lying ...

Or likely didn't know the difference .....

Between ....

Day and night ....

If George W. Bush ....

Says there is no civil war ....

In Iraqinam ....

I know he doesn't know what he is talking about ....

And I don't believe a word he says ....

BECAUSE HE IS ALWAYS LYING .....

AND HE HAS NO CREDIBILITY ...

And he don't know ....

The difference .....

Between ....

Day and night ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

If we had elected that cat ....

The one named Morris ....

Who used to be on TV ....

The finicky one ....

Who sat on a velevet pillow ....

And always ate ...

Only the fancy cat food ...

If we had elected that cat as president ....

Instead of George W. Bush ....

I wonder ....

How much worse ....

We could have done ....

And so ....

I actually think that cat ...

Had more brains ....

Than this present incumbent ....

And so ....

We should have gone for the cat ....

And put Morris in the White House ....

Because Morris wouldn't have made such a mess of things ....

Being litter-box trained ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And speaking of people ....

With some sense in their head ....

Here's some thoughts ....

On OUR present incumbent ....

And where matters now stand .....

With respect to what are known as ....

OUR LIBERTY INTERESTS ....

As American citizens ....

Here in OUR OWN COUNTRY ...

From Marie Coco ....

And so ....

"Bush's detainee plan bad for U.S. citizens"

First published: Thursday, August 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- To turn our eyes momentarily from the terrifying war in the Middle East is to discover an ever-more ominous turn in the Bush administration's war on terror.

Having been barred by the Supreme Court from treating foreign terrorism suspects as if they had few -- or no -- legal rights, the President's initial response is not to comply with the high court's finding that detainees must be treated under accepted standards of international law.

In fact, the White House pushes to extend the ill treatment to American citizens.

That is, effectively, what the administration's draft of new rules for the military detention and trial of terrorism suspects would do.

News and human rights organizations that have obtained the document, marked "deliberative draft -- close hold," have criticized the way in which it would obliterate the Supreme Court's ruling.

It seeks to have Congress write into law essentially the same procedures for military trials that the high court just said were illegal.

That is, terrorism suspects still could be excluded from the courtroom, evidence could be withheld from the defense, and the Geneva Conventions -- which the Supreme Court explicitly said must apply, would be circumvented.

More chilling is that the draft makes clear that the President wishes to impose these conditions upon any American citizen he calls an "enemy combatant."

A copy of the draft made public by The Washington Post shows that, while an initial version anticipated military trials only for "alien" enemy combatants, the word "alien" is subsequently crossed out.

Instead, the document refers time and again to "persons" who are detainees -- not foreign nationals picked up on the battlefield of Afghanistan or anywhere else.

A "person," under this draft, could be an American seized at a shopping mall, or in a suburban backyard.

Here, then, is how the government could treat American citizens if this draft were to become law: A citizen could be designated an "enemy combatant" (a term the administration has never clearly defined) and held in a military prison -- say, the encampment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

There, the citizen would have no right to a speedy trial.

Any trials, the draft says, could occur "at any time without limitations."

The citizen's wait for a day in court could be a month, a year, five years or longer.

Once the citizen is tried under rules that mock the constitutional protections he would receive in a federal court, or in a U.S. military court-martial, the outcome would mean little.

An acquittal would not necessarily free the detainee.

Neither would a sentence imposed, say, for two or three years and served in full.

"An acquittal or conviction under this act does not preclude the United States, in accordance with the law of war, to detain enemy combatants until the cessation of hostilities as a means to prevent their return to the fight."

Of course, "the fight" as defined in the draft is not necessarily an armed battle.

People may be designated "enemy combatants" and subject to these rules if the President and the Pentagon believe they are now or were once "part of, or supporting" the Taliban, al-Qaida or "associated forces."

Support isn't defined.

It could mean financial support.

Or political support.

It could mean shouting "long live Osama!" while walking down Pennsylvania Avenue.

All these powers -- to sweep up American citizens and throw them in a military brig, to detain them without trial, to continue holding them even after they might be acquitted by a military commission -- are rightly the president's because he is commander in chief of the armed forces, according to the draft.

This is the precise argument the White House has tried, again and again, to get the Supreme Court to accept.

It has failed.

In two cases in which President Bush indeed did detain American citizens indefinitely and without charge, the courts derailed the effort.

After the Supreme Court ruled against the administration two years ago in the case of Yaser Hamdi, the military released him and returned him to his family in Saudi Arabia.

In a second case involving Jose Padilla, a citizen who was picked up at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, the government finally issued an indictment four years into his detainment -- just as the Supreme Court was considering Padilla's case.

The Bush administration now seeks from Congress an authorization for the blank check it once sought to give itself.

If lawmakers hand him this, they will be handing over rights that Americans may never regain.

Marie Cocco's e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

[Livyjr]

Run, Hillary, run .....

The REPUBLICANS are out to get you, Hillary .....

Run, run, run ....

And give Rumsfeld a good swift kick .....

Right where he needs one ....

As you go by ....

And so ....

"Sen. Clinton rips Rumsfeld over Iraq"

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 53 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton excoriated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a Senate hearing Thursday, saying he is presiding over a "failed policy" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are," the New York Democrat said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

"We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq."

The showdown between Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, and Rumsfeld, the public face of the Bush administration's war effort, included the strongest criticism of the Iraq war she has made to date.

The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack, exclaiming, "My goodness," before launching into a point-by-point defense.

He rejected some of her specific criticisms as simply wrong and said the war against terror will be a drawn-out process.

"Are there setbacks?"

"Yes," said Rumsfeld.

"Is this problem going to get solved in the near term?"

"I think it's going to take some time."

The testy exchange between Clinton and Rumsfeld came after a top general told the panel violence in Iraq is probably as bad as he's ever seen it and the country may be descending into civil war.

Rumsfeld's popularity has suffered through the three-year Iraqi insurgency, but Clinton has faced critics within her own party furious about her vote in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her continued support for the overall mission there.

A day before the hearing, Clinton pushed Rumsfeld to testify publicly before the committee, and when her turn came to speak, she laced into him.

"When our constituents ask for evidence that your policy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful, you don't leave us with much to talk about," said Clinton.

"We hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders — and frankly the record of incompetence in executing — you are presiding over a failed policy," she said.

"Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?"

Rumsfeld vehemently denied he'd ever glossed over the difficulties of the fighting in Iraq or elsewhere.

"There's a track record here," countered Clinton.

"This is not 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented many assurances that have frankly proven to be unfulfilled."

"Senator, I don't think that's true," Rumsfeld fired back.

"I have never painted a rosy picture."

"I've been very measured in my words and you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic."

"I understand this is tough stuff."

At that point, the Republican chairman of the committee, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, came to Rumsfeld's defense, saying his past comments had been balanced.

Clinton still shied away from two demands made by a growing number of Democrats: Rumsfeld's resignation and a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The disagreement between the two extended to Afghanistan.

The senator specifically faulted Rumsfeld for saying in 2002 that the Taliban was gone, noting that the extremist faction has grown stronger in recent months.

He conceded violence has escalated in Afghanistan, but added, "Does that represent failed policy?"

"I don't know."

"I would say not."

The defense secretary said he expected the violence there to follow a seasonal pattern and decline as winter approaches.

end quotes

WE ALREADY KNOW ....

BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD ...

THAT THE ALLEGED "WAR ON TAY-RAH" .....

WILL BE A LONG, DRAWN-OUT AFFAIR .....

LASTING A GENERATION ....

WHICH IS TWENTY YEARS ....

AND IT WILL LAST FOR A GENERATION ....

BECAUSE IT IS A GENOCIDE ....

THAT IS GOING TO REMOVE ...

OR ERADICATE ....

OR CULL ....

OUT A GENERATION ....

OF MUSLIMS ....

KIND OF LIKE WEEDING A CORN PATCH ....

SO TO SPEAK ....

IN RUMSFELDONIAN TERMS ....

AND THERE ARE SET-BACKS ....

BECAUSE UNLIKE THE ARMENIANS ....

AND THE ASSRYIANS ....

WHO SEEMINGLY WENT ALONG MEEKLY WITH THEIR OWN EXTERMINATIONS ....

THESE PEOPLE ARE RESISTING ....

BEING CUT DOWN ....

BY DONALD RUMSFELD ....

AND HIS CROWD ....

And so ....

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Aug 3 2006, 04:38 PM

[Livyjr]

"Generals raise fears of Iraq civil war" 
 
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:46 p.m., Thursday, August 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Two of the Pentagon's most senior generals conceded to Congress on Thursday that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad in recent weeks means Iraq may descend into civil war.

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have steadfastly refused to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, although Rumsfeld at a news conference on Wednesday acknowledged that the violence is increasing.

BBC News

"Private pessimism on Iraq grows"

In a confidential memo, the outgoing UK ambassador in Iraq, William Patey, has warned that civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy.

The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood assesses the ambassador's remarks and the current situation in Baghdad.

Waiting for an American military helicopter, I got chatting to the man next to me.

His business card said he was an adviser on "strategic message" for the coalition.

"Casey won't get out in front and sell this war," he told me, "because he doesn't want to go down in history as another Westmoreland."

He was comparing Gen George Casey, head of the multi-force in Iraq, to America's ill-fated commander in Vietnam, Gen William Westmoreland.

As a private comment from one of the officials in charge of the image of this war, no less, it was highly revealing.

Similarly revealing was the leak two months ago of a confidential memo from the US ambassador in Iraq.

"It sometimes feels as if Baghdad is descending into madness."

Civil war warning for Blair

Now the British government's confidential briefings on Iraq have been leaked too - and they are markedly at odds with the official line.

William Patey's telegram does not depart from the official formula that civil war is neither imminent nor inevitable.

But he does say it is probably the more likely outcome, at this stage, along with the break-up of Iraq.

Even what he witheringly refers to as President Bush's lowered expectations for Iraq - of a government that can sustain and defend itself - must "remain in doubt".

Reality

To be fair to the British ambassador, he does write that the situation is not hopeless, but he warns that the next five to 10 years will be "messy and difficult".

No wonder he describes himself as a pessimist on Iraq.

These thoughts have gone to the UK prime minister, foreign secretary, defence secretary, and senior military commanders.

It is becoming more difficult to sustain a message of hope.

But the judgment that the Iraqi government cannot defend itself, still less defend Iraqis, only reflects the reality on the ground.

It sometimes feels as if Baghdad is descending into madness.

Over the past seven days, within sight of our bureau, we have seen a simultaneous suicide, rocket and mortar attack and a car bombing.

Last night in Baghdad, a bomb was planted under a football pitch to kill children as they played.

Sectarianism spreads

An Iraqi man, Ahmed Muktar, told me a typical story of these times.

His family fled sectarian violence in the suburb of Dora.

But his brother-in-law returned to check on his house.

He was kidnapped.

The police, the hospitals, the morgues - none had any official record of the missing man.

So his family went to the dumping ground for bodies on the edge of Dora.

Anger prompts more Iraqis to take matters into their own hands

There they found him, amid a pile of 50 corpses, hands tied behind his back, shot in the head.

They had to recover him while under constant automatic fire, the police and troops nearby too scared to help.

Mr Muktar is an academic with the rather unlikely specialism in the minor Scottish poets.

He is a civilised, gentle man, but - as a Shia - he says his family now rejoice in the deaths of Sunnis.

All of this is why the coalition - quite at odds with the stated strategy - is about to massively reinforce Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Shias like Mr Muktar are turning to the so-called popular committees for self-defence now being formed in Baghdad.

That is another reason to worry, as ambassador Patey does, that civil war is the likely outcome in Iraq.

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin

The Sound of One Domino Falling
Published: August 4, 2006
It’s been obvious for years that Donald Rumsfeld is in denial of reality, but the defense secretary now also seems stuck in a time warp. You could practically hear the dominoes falling as he told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that it was dangerous for Americans to even talk about how to end the war in Iraq.

“If we left Iraq prematurely,” he said, “the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they’d order us and all those who don’t share their militant ideology to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands from Spain to the Philippines.” And finally, he intoned, America will be forced “to make a stand nearer home.”

No one in charge of American foreign affairs has talked like that in decades. After Vietnam, of course, the communist empire did not swarm all over Asia as predicted; it tottered and collapsed. And the new “enemy” that Mr. Rumsfeld is worried about is not a worldwide conspiracy but a collection of disparate political and religious groups, now united mainly by American action in Iraq.

Americans are frightened by the growing chaos in the Mideast, and the last thing they needed to hear this week was Mr. Rumsfeld laying blame for sectarian violence on a few Al Qaeda schemers. What they want is some assurance that the administration has a firm grasp on reality and has sensible, achievable goals that could lead to an end to the American involvement in Iraq with as little long-term damage as possible. Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld offered the same old exhortation to stay the course, without the slightest hint of what the course is, other than the rather obvious point that the Iraqis have to learn to run their own country.

By contrast, the generals flanking him were pillars of candor and practicality. Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. commander in the Middle East, said “Iraq could move toward civil war” if the sectarian violence — which he said “is probably as bad as I’ve seen it” — is not contained. The generals tried to be optimistic about the state of the Iraqi security forces, but it was hard. They had to acknowledge that a militia controls Basra, that powerful Iraqi government officials run armed bands that the Pentagon considers terrorist organizations financed by Iran, and that about a third of the Iraqi police force can’t be trusted to fight on the right side.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld, he suggested that lawmakers just leave everything up to him and the military command and stop talking about leaving Iraq. “We should consider how our words can be used by our deadly enemy,” he said.

Americans who once expected the Pentagon to win the war in Iraq have now been reduced to waiting for an indication that at least someone is minding the store. They won’t be comforted to hear Mr. Rumsfeld fretting about protecting Spain from Muslim occupation.

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9476

August 4, 2006
War: The Great Clarifier
War in the Middle East is rearranging the political landscape on the home front
by Justin Raimondo
In the 1920s, H. L. Mencken was considered a man of the Left, due to his opposition to prohibition and the cultural know-nothingism of what he mockingly called "the booboisie." By the 1930s, however – although his views had changed not one whit – he was being derided as a right-wing extremist by the New Dealers, on account of his contempt for Franklin Roosevelt and his refusal to jump on the bandwagon for war. The same was true of Albert J. Nock.

The idea of "Left" and "Right" is, today, being similarly transformed: wars always do this, and the Iraq war (and whatever comes next: perhaps Iran) is no different. I am always astonished by references in the ostensibly "right-wing" media to my alleged "leftism." For example, one Candace de Russy, writing in National Review online, avers,

"The extremist anti-war left is beside itself with rage against [Wall Street Journal columnist John] Fund and others who dare to challenge its domination of the academy, and in particular Middle East studies. See, for example, Justin Raimondo's diatribe against Fund, whom he labels 'Yale's very own Torquemada,' as well as against what he calls 'the Fund-amentalist hate campaign' against the Taliban Man. For good measure Raimondo goes on to attack the entire neo-con movement as a 'perpetual motion machine of hate' and David Horowitz as a 'professional witch-hunter.'"

To Candace and her confreres at NRO, anyone who opposes the neocon agenda is, by definition, part of "the left." Okay, so she probably doesn't know I'm a contributing editor of The American Conservative, and author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (1993), but her abysmal ignorance is not limited to these easily missed facts; it is exemplified by the knee-jerk response of someone who doesn't care about facts at all, and simply registers "for" or "against" on a number of litmus-test issues, of which the politics of the Middle East is perhaps the most important (from the neocon point of view). Are you against the war? Then you're a "leftist." Do you breathe a word of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people? Then you're a terrorist-supporting "leftist"! End of discussion.

One big difference between the neocon "Right" and the Old Right of yore is that, in the former, there is no allowable dissent from the party line – and especially not in the realm of foreign policy. The doctrine of global interventionism is the central dogma in the neocon's worldview, and anyone who crosses over into even vaguely ambiguous territory – e.g., Francis Fukuyama – is subjected to a withering volley of relentless attacks. There is a Soviet quality to these vituperations, perhaps a vestigial remnant of the neocons' leftist origins: recall that David Frum, the neocons' commissar of political correctness, in penning his long screed in National Review against Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and other antiwar conservatives and libertarians, including myself, ended his peroration with this:

"War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen – and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them."

There is to be no discussion, no debate, no opportunity for us paleocon deviationists to make our case to the conservative public: the Frum-cons will close their ears and shield their eyes from our heresy. These people hold a Truth so pure that it cannot risk contamination – or endure examination.

Yes, war is a great clarifier. As the Bush administration sinks deeper into the Iraqi quagmire and the neocons plot another foray, this time into Iran, the geopolitical, financial, and domestic political consequences of our war-crazed foreign policy are all too apparent, and whatever else one may say about them, what one cannot say – with a straight face – is that they are conducive to conservatism in any way, shape, or form. As, one by one, the pillars of our old Republic fall away – or are hacked to pieces – and the bloated grandiosity of an Empire rises above the ruins, real conservatives (and libertarians, such as myself) look on in horror, and are labeled "extreme leftists" for our trouble.

The neoconservative claim to the legacy of the American Right is tenuous, and one could easily imagine these consummate opportunists attaching themselves to yet another unlucky host – say, the Democratic Party – if that is where their eternal quest for Power draws them. As for us, we have our own legacy, the tradition of the Old Right, and our own sense of history, which the revolutionary Jacobins of neoconservatism reject as a matter of principle. In the end, the season of flux will come to an end, the old polarities will return, and we will all be the wiser, having learned the lesson that labels mean nothing, and principles are everything.


NOTES IN THE MARGIN

Today's column originally appeared in the Aug. 28 issue of The American Conservative as part of a symposium entitled "What Is Left? What Is Right? Does It Matter?" Thirty contributors from across the political spectrum addressed the question, and it is one that is especially timely as Israel's war of aggression in Lebanon puts new strains on the limits of the traditional liberal-conservative dichotomy.

The left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which is making political capital out of the Iraqi quagmire, has nothing to say about Israel's Lebanese quagmire – and especially not about our part in subsidizing and egging them on. The Democrats pushed to have Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki barred from speaking to a joint session of Congress because he had dared describe the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "aggression" – a faux pas in Washington no matter what party you belong to. Congress voted to endorse the murderous Israeli assault, without mentioning any need for restraint or deploring the targeting of civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure: there were only eight dissenting votes.

Yet this Soviet-like near-unanimity is belied by developments on the Right, where Republican "realists" are questioning the value of our government's "special relationship" with Israel – and warning us about the power wielded by the Israel lobby, which virtually dictates U.S. policy in the Middle East. Israel's disgraceful conduct in prosecuting the war has further alienated many who, like Professor Steve Bainbridge – who teaches law at UCLA and writes a popular blog – are dissenting from the neocon-orchestrated cheering section for the IDF.

[Livyjr]

If one reads Othello .....

Which is Shakespeare, I believe .....

And not being a certified English major .....

Nor having a degree in fine arts .....

I don't want to speak like an expert on that .....

But in Othello .....

There is a MOOR .....

And while there is some debate among scholars .....

As to whether the MOOR was black ...

Or brown .....

MOORS were not Christians .....

They were Muslims ....

And so ....

And if one studies the history of Spain ....

And here ...

I mean in the pages of National Geographics ....

One finds .....

That at one time ....

MUSLIMS controlled Spain ....

And they did quite a bit ....

Of good ....

For its civilization ....

And so ....

Along comes a BUFFOON ....

An apparently uncultured, uneducated barbarian ....

NAMED DONALD RUMSFELD ....

WHO HAS A HEAD ON HIM ....

THAT IS CHOCK FULL OF **** .....

And he is blathering on and on and on ....

About the Muslims .....

As though history had never happened ....

As if Spain had never been controlled by the Muslims ....

As if ...

As if ...

As if ....

And ignorant people over here ....

Suck up that crap ....

Because ignorance likes ignorance, apparently .....

And so .....

We have Muslims up here where I am ....

And from what I can see of them ....

They are very polite .....

And well-mannered ....

And hard-working ....

As opposed to the CONSERVATIVES up here ....

With their huge beer guts on them ...

And a bad word to say ...

Like a bunch of Archy Bunker's ....

About the blacks ......

The gays ....

The this ...

The this ...

The this ......

On and on and on .....

Running down ....

Anyone who don't look like them ...

And who on earth would want to, is my thought ....

And of the two ....

I actually prefer the politness ....

Of the Muslims ....

To the bigotry and prejudice of the CONSERVATIVES .....

And so ....

What an embarassment Donald Rumsfeld is .....

For an apparently civilized nation .....

Like America .....

To be holding up to the world .....

As a symbol of anything at all ...

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT ....

THAT EVEN IN CIVILIZED COUNTRIES LIKE AMERICA .....

BIGOTED IGNORANT MOUTHY IMBECILES SUCH AS DONALD RUMSFELD STILL EXIST ....

DESPITE ALL THE EFFORTS IN THIS NATION ....

SINCE WWII ....

TO ERADICATE SUCH IGNORANCE ....

AND PREJUDICE ....

AND BIGOTRY ....

IN THOSE WHO HOLD HIGH OFFICE IN THIS LAND ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

Americans are frightened by the growing chaos in the Mideast ....

This is not universally true, of course .....

And I wonder .....

If it is true at all .....

Or just more hype ....

I am not frightened by what is going on in the Middle East .....

Nor do I know a single person up here where I am .....

Who is frightened .....

And so .....

Whoever these alleged frightened Americans are .....

They must live somewhere else .....

Here in OUR America .....

Other than where I am .....

And so .....

Where I am ....

People are disgusted by what is going on in the Middle East ....

And how much of our own future ....

In terms of OUR tax money ....

Is being foolishly poured down that FIASCO ....

OVER THERE IN IRAQINAM ....

And they are especially disgusted .....

By the fact .....

That America is partly ....

Or largely to blame for all that turmoil over there ....

FOMENTING TROUBLE OVER THERE ....

AS IT HAS BEEN DOING ...

FOR SOME TIME NOW ....

Through the efforts ....

Of the CIA ...

And others ....

But disgust .....

Is not fear ....

It is just disgust ....

And so ....