Giving Both Cold Shoulders.

Conditions: Cough, Sniffle


Hiding From The Elephant In The Room.

You know, generally the idea of having a world conference on something is so that a bunch of nations can converse over differing opinions in the hope of finding a consensus that will work for everyone. Well that ideal was rejected by nations such as the U.S, Israel, Canada and Australia this week in the shadow of the world conference on racism, a conference said nations boycotted because of an interpretation that the conference was instead an attack on the nation of Israel. Huh?

Despite ongoing claims to the contrary by various right-wing pundits, however, the final document didn't contain any anti-Israel statements or language equating Zionism with racism. Efforts by some participating states to include that and similar objectionable language were defeated.

Indeed, the only mention of Israel in the final 61-page document was as follows:

We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion; We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security.

Why would the Obama administration find such a statement so reprehensible that it would boycott a conference whose focus isn't on Israel, but on ending racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerances? Since the document explicitly recognizes Israel's right to security, the Obama administration apparently objects to its formal recognition that Palestinians are under foreign occupation, and that they have a right to self-determination and statehood. Yet virtually the entire international community — including the United Nations, the World Court and a broad consensus of legal scholars — recognizes this reality.

Well, I guess it’s tricky to judge something when you’re standing on the scales. Still, boycotting the whole five-day conference comes across as just stupid, especially given America’s current station in world standings.

The Congressional Black Caucus, which strongly encouraged U.S. participation in the international meeting, stated that it was "deeply dismayed" by Obama's decision. "Had the United States sent a high-level delegation reflecting the richness and diversity of our country, it would have sent a powerful message to the world that we're ready to lead by example," the statement reads. "Instead, the administration opted to boycott the conference, a decision that does not advance the cause of combating racism and intolerance, but rather sets the cause back."

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) observed how the U.S. decision to boycott the conference was "inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with." She added that "the United States is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

- alternet.org/

No doubt Iranian President Ajmadinejad’s standardly-inflammatory speech about Israel had an influence in how the conference was regarded as a whole. But is it fair that one speech clouds a conference on such a broad topic, lasting five days, and ultimately reaching a conclusion that everyone can agree with.

Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch in New York says Western countries should have avoided falling into President Ajmadinejad's trap.

"What has been disappointing about this conference has been that all the focus has gone on the absurd and offensive comments by the Iranian president.

"Instead of focusing on the importance of confronting racism in the world today, the US refusal to attend and the last-minute pull-out by a number of other countries sent completely the wrong message that somehow the offensive words of Ahmadinejad could be seen as a dominant theme.

"The powerful nations of the world should stay to confront such nonsense and not run away.

"Multilateral diplomacy is by its very nature a complicated business. But the way to make this better is to engage consistently, not to stamp your foot and walk out in a sulk."

- news.bbc.co.uk/

Indeed. The division between politics and importance grows ever wider.



Commentary O' The Week.

- Danziger

Film Review: Monsters vs Aliens

Man, I can’t tell you how good it is to finally watch a well made, exciting and fun action film. Oh, wait, I can!! Monsters vs Aliens is a wildly whimsical and witty romp through a variety of old Sci-Fi cliches, given new life by Dreamworks animation. The plot revolves around a bunch of Monsters, kept locked up for 50-odd years by the American government, who are turned loose in order to fight an Alien invasion. It’s a terrific opportunity to let loose some wacky characters into a mad situation and see what happens.

Reese Witherspoon voices Susan, a girl about to get married who gets clocked by a meteorite and wakes up 50 foot tall, and in prison, just in time to get released to fight the Aliens when all she wants to do is go home and resume her former life. It really turns into an empowering episode for Susan, who ends up learning of her own strength and power while saving the world and kicking butt. The likes of Seth Rogan, Kiefer Sutherland and Hugh Laurie provide great characters of their own, and Steven Colbert is side-splittingly brilliant as the nutty President of the United States.

It’s all as mad as it sounds, but so carefully weaved together and warmed by Susan’s story that it all just clicks. Don’t bother with 3D, this is a good movie in it’s own right. The jokes are brilliant, the action sequences are exciting, and there’s a happy ending. Great stuff. Four tentacles out of Five.



- Peace Out

A Sailor's Life For Me

Conditions: Overcast


The Heavy Hand Of Impatience

For years now America has been quietly concerned that their only weapon in the War On Terror (The Army) was ineffective in actually fighting it. You cannot fight terrorists with armed forces, the army is a blunt instrument for more adept at creating terrorists than eliminating them (Report: Iraq Air Raids Hit Mostly Women and Children). Terrorists are best fought with intelligence gathering, secret agents, and actions aimed at dismantling the social situations that breed terrorists in the first place. Sadly, it appears Americans do not have the heart for that kind of battle, and more proof of that lacking was provided last weekend off the coast of Africa.

The 20-man crew of the Maersk Alabama said that the 508ft (155m) container ship, carrying food aid to Mombasa in Kenya, had been harassed by pirates for a week before the vessel was boarded on Wednesday, April 8, more than 300 miles (500km) off the Somali coast. Four pirates in a fast-moving skiff boarded the cargo ship with grappling irons at about 7.15am local time amid a hail of gun-fire into the air.
[...]

The unarmed crew of the Maersk Alabama had been drilled by their captain on what to do in an attack. While Captain Richard Phillips and three other sailors met the pirates on the bridge most of the crew hid in sweltering safe rooms below. The power was cut and all the lights went out.

A bunch of Pirates tried to hijack an American ship, and for various reasons end up abducting the captain and cast themselves adrift on a lifeboat. Clearly not a good situation, but they at least had some insurance, which proved they were still looking for a way out. And how did it end?

The USS Bainbridge, on pirate patrol 300 miles away at the time of the attack, arrived on Thursday morning. As it stalked the lifeboat at about midnight Captain Phillips tried to escape by jumping into the sea and swimming towards the warship. Before the US Navy could react the pirates fired shots, leapt in after Captain Phillips and recaptured him. The incident was reportedly captured on video by a circling US drone.

On Friday night President Obama gave authority to use lethal force to save the life of Captain Phillips. The next night the Seals arrived.

At this point one of the Pirates comes aboard the Bainbridge. He’d been stabbed by the Americans during the initial assault and was basically surrendering and getting some medical attention. He also related a ransom demand from the other pirates, who of course still had the captain. At this point the Bainbridge is allowed to tow the lifeboat out to calmer waters, during which the lifeboat is reeled in close the the American warship. It’s fairly clear to me that at this point the decision had been made.

As darkness fell at 7.19pm on Sunday the snipers, watching through their night-vision rifle scopes, saw two pirates poke their heads out of a lifeboat hatch. The third, visible through a window, pointed his AK47 at Captain Phillips’ back.

ABC News reported that Captain Phillips had moved to one side of the lifeboat to relieve himself, giving the sharpshooters clean shots. Commander Frank Castellano, the captain of the USS Bainbridge, decided that the American hostage was in imminent danger andgave the order to fire. The snipers each took a single shot, killing all three pirates immediately, officials said.

- timesonline.co.uk/

It’s portrayed here, and everyone else, as if the pirates were about to kill their hostage. This makes absolutely no sense. In fact, since the hostage had already attempted to escape by jumping into the water and was currently relieving himself over the side of the boat, it makes perfect sense for one of the pirates to be aiming a gun at his back. Where else would you aim it? It also makes no sense if you think about the situation the Pirates were in. Tethered up next to an American warship in a small powerless lifeboat out in the Indian ocean, totally surrounded, killing their only hostage would have been an act of suicide. Ultimately, these men were not terrorists, they were thieves, and thieves are not suicidal. No, what this is is a desperate attempt to justify a crime, committed by “the good guys” in rescue of “an American hero.”

At the time everyone jumped for joy at this seeming victory against the evil pirates. That’s because everyone is stupid. Not only was this not a victory against the Somali pirates, it most likely has been a defeat. For with all their resources and money, the Americans could only wait impatiently for an opportune moment and then kill everyone. Now what do you think is going to happen the next time Somali pirates take someone hostage? Will they set themselves up for negotiation? Will they even take prisoners if they sense trouble? Up till now the pirates have been pretty good about looking after their hostages. I expect that’s going to change in a hurry now the killing has started.

So what insights do we have into these pirates off the coast of Somalia? Do we actually know who they are?

Of course, there are straight-up gangsters and criminals engaged in these hijackings. Perhaps the pirates who hijacked the Alabama on Wednesday fall into that category. We do not yet know. But that is hardly the whole "pirate" story. Consider what one pirate told The New York Times after he and his men seized a Ukrainian freighter "loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition" last year. "We don't consider ourselves sea bandits," said Sugule Ali:. "We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard." Now, that "coast guard" analogy is a stretch, but his point is an important and widely omitted part of this story. Indeed the Times article was titled, "Somali Pirates Tell Their Side: They Want Only Money." Yet, The New York Times acknowledged, "the piracy industry started about 10 to 15 years ago… as a response to illegal fishing."

Take this fact: Over $300 million worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are "being stolen every year by illegal trawlers" off Somalia's coast, forcing the fishing industry there into a state of virtual non-existence.

But it isn't just the theft of seafood. Nuclear dumping has polluted the environment. "In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed," wrote Johann Hari in The Independent. "Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since -- and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas."

According to Hari:

As soon as the [Somali] government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. … This is the context in which the "pirates" have emerged. Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a "tax" on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia -- and ordinary Somalis agree. The independent Somalian news site WardheerNews found 70 per cent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence."

- alternet.org/

There’s even more here and elsewhere, but of course since it doesn’t fit the narrative of “Pirates Evil, U.S.A Good”, then it gets overwritten by stories of the brave Americans and their latest victory.



Back To The Status Quo

For a moment there I thought Spain was going to go after the Americans for the whole torture thing, but reality has returned.

Spain's attorney general has rejected an attempt to bring a criminal case against six former US officials over torture allegations at Guantanamo Bay.

The officials, including former US attorney general Alberto Gonzalez, were accused of giving a legal justification for torture at the US detention centre.

But Candido Conde-Pumpido said the case had "no merit" as they were not present when the alleged abuse took place.

- truthout.org

Since when is it only the ones doing the torturing that are guilty? How does that make any sense?

But it not just the Spanish backing off from going after the torturers.

Washington - President Barack Obama absolved CIA officers from prosecution for harsh, painful interrogation of terror suspects Thursday, even as his administration released Bush-era memos graphically detailing - and authorizing - such grim tactics as slamming detainees against walls, waterboarding them and keeping them naked and cold for long periods.

Human rights groups and many Obama officials have condemned such methods as torture. Bush officials have vigorously disagreed.

In releasing the documents, the most comprehensive accounting yet of interrogation methods that were among the Bush administrations most closely guarded secrets, Obama said he wanted to move beyond "a dark and painful chapter in our history."

- truthout.org/

Well, that’s disappointing. Moving beyond "a dark and painful chapter in our history" is important, but before we go it makes sense to install a light bulb above it so we don’t trip over it again in the future. I would of thought Obama would have understood that already. Are we letting the CIA get away with it because they’re the only tool we have to defend us? If so, what does that make us?

More: Torture Memos Gave CIA Legal O.K. to Bring Detainees to Brink of Death




And Finally

- Danziger

- Peace out

Cleaning Out.

Conditions: Warm, Fragile.


Spaniards To The Fore

Surprisingly, it is a Spanish court that has decided to stick it's toe in the legal waters surrounding the former President Bush's administration and their various nefarious activities while in power. Spain, you say?

A Spanish court has initiated criminal proceedings against six former officials of the Bush administration. John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes and Douglas Feith may face charges in Spain for authorizing torture at Guantánamo Bay.

If arrest warrants are issued, Spain and any of the other 24 countries that are parties to European extradition conventions could arrest these six men when they travel abroad.

Does Spain have the authority to prosecute Americans for crimes that didn't take place on Spanish soil?

The answer is yes. It's called "universal jurisdiction." Universal jurisdiction is a well-established theory that countries, including the United States, have used for many years to investigate and prosecute foreign nationals for crimes that shock the conscience of the global community. It provides a critical legal tool to hold accountable those who commit crimes against the law of nations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Without universal jurisdiction, many of the most notorious criminals would go free. Countries that have used this as a basis to prosecute the most serious of crimes should be commended for their courage. They help to create a just world in which we all seek to live.

Israel used universal jurisdiction to prosecute, convict and execute Adolph Eichmann for his crimes during the Holocaust, even they had no direct relationship with Israel.

Huh, okay, go Spain, then. So how is the case proceeding?

Evidence that Bush officials set a policy that led to the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo continues to emerge.

According to ABC News, Gonzales met with other officials in the White House and authorized torture, including waterboarding.

The Office of Professional Responsibility, which reports to the U.S. attorney general, drafted a report that excoriates Yoo and Bybee for writing the infamous torture memos. Haynes, Addington and Feith participated in decisions that led to torture. The release of additional graphic torture memos by the U.S. Department of Justice is imminent.

It is the responsibility of the United States to investigate allegations of torture. Almost two-thirds of respondents to a USA Today/Gallup Poll favor investigations of the Bush team for torture and warrantless wiretapping. Nearly four in 10 support criminal investigations.

Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora told Congress, "There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq - as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat - are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo." Providing impunity to those who ordered the torture will be the third recruiting tool.

- alternet.org/rights/

Hey, all right. But you know that the one thing America cannot stand is other countries trying to authorize something over their heads. In fact if anything, this may well make Americans less likely to push for congressional investigations in the Bush administration. They'll rally around the flag and close ranks an nothing will ever come out. Of course, that scenario is probably going to happen anyway, so what the hell. Let that Spaniards run with ball.



CIA Cleaning House

As the priorities start to change, the old guard dogs are seen as less 'tough and brave' and more 'ugly and monstrous'. In that light, the CIA have been making some changes to how they've been operating overseas recently.

The CIA is decommissioning the secret overseas prisons where top al Qaida suspects were subjected to interrogation methods, including simulated drowning, that Attorney General Eric Holder, allied governments, the Red Cross and numerous other experts consider torture, the agency said Thursday.

In an e-mail to the agency's work force outlining current interrogation and detention policies, CIA Director Leon Panetta also announced that agreements with the private security firms guarding the so-called black sites will be "promptly terminated," and contractors no longer will be used to conduct interrogations.

Panetta, however, said that CIA officers who were involved in interrogations using "enhanced" methods authorized by the Justice Department during the Bush administration "should not be investigated, let alone punished."

Hey, he's a good dog. Okay, so he chewed the mailman a little, but we've put him on a leash and smacked him around with a newspaper, it's all good.

The Justice Department is investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, while the Senate Intelligence Committee has launched an inquiry into the interrogation and detention program authorized by the Bush administration as part of its post-9/11 "war on terrorism."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called for the creation of a truth commission to investigate the Bush administration's detainee policies, but so far the Obama administration has shown little appetite for the idea.

The steps announced by Panetta are consistent with a Jan. 22 executive order in which President Barack Obama directed the CIA to halt the use of its secret overseas detention facilities and use only interrogation procedures authorized by an Army Field Manual.

Panetta's actions follow the leaking of a confidential February 2007 International Committee of the Red Cross report, made public this week by The New York Review of Books, that concluded that descriptions of the interrogation methods provided in interviews by 14 detainees who underwent them "amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" under international law.

- truthout.org/

Can old dogs learn new tricks? Can a leopard change it's spots? Can some other old cliche equal false? I think we all know the answer to that. So while the CIA is packing up it’s shit and pulling shutters down over it’s deserted torture sites, you can damn well bet they’re moving their various tools into some other quiet residence in some other part of the world, ready to open up for business yet again. Frankly, come to think of it, I’m a little insulted they’d even think we’d fall for this bullshit.




Film Review: Transporter 3

Ahh, the Transporter franchise. If nothing, a testament to how much say an Automobile company can have over a film that features their product. Yes, Frank and his Magical Audi are back, and this time, it's decaf. If you're the kind of guy who watched Transporter Two and thought "Nice stunts, but too much plot", then this is the Transporter film for you. The plot is barely there, it's basically a quick road trip up through Europe with Frank, the Magical Audi, and some girl.

I'll say this for Luc Besson, he really believes in a wide range of cast members. Virtually every member of the E.U is represented here, usually as a baddy that Frank has to beat up at some point, after removing his shirt. This time there's a device wired to his wrist that will explode if he goes too far from the car, but who really cares. With a wildly inconsistent plot, characters who really don't seem to be related to what they're doing, a romance that is ridiculous, and a car that absolutely will not get dented, no matter what, this is the very essence of a film not to be taken seriously.

Which is a shame as I thought the first film had something of merit there. Oh, well. There's not a lot of shaky cam, but instead each fight sequence is cut into approximately 53,876 shots. So it's still a little hard to follow, assuming you still care. One Scratch out of Five




Film Review: 12 Rounds

Okay, I'll admit it. I got suckered. The trailer for 12 Rounds seemed interesting, they even said it was from the director of Die Hard 2 and the producer of Speed. That's some pedigree. And while it stars John Cena, it seemed on the surface to be a return of sorts to the old days of big action movies. Boy oh boy is it not. 12 Rounds is an awful, cheap, tragically formulaic, weak ripoff of several classic ideas. Chief among them Speed and Die Hard unsurprisingly. In fact, the plot is basically a low rent version of Die Hard 3 but, to be blunt, without any real talent. This is the second John Cena movie I've seen, and his thespian abilities have not improved. The bad guy is stupid and the love interest is very lacking in chemistry. But all that pales in comparison to how it was made.

I simply cannot remember a film that has worse shaky camera than this thing. It is unbelievable, the camera relentlessly shakes and rocks back and forth and round and round no matter what is happening, and with no respite ever. I literally had to close my eyes on occasion to give my brain a chance to breathe. Naturally, it completely ruins the film. - Not that we were dealing with anything all that special anyway, it's not that good, but the shaky cam lowers this thing to a whole new sub-level of hell.

I couldn't stand this film and I could not wait until it was over so I could finally escape it. If this is their brave new world of action films then I want no part of it. A curse on their studio. Zero stars out of Five.



- Peace out.