Captain Vidgeek

"Quick as a wink" just don't cut it anymore. And "two shakes of a lamb's tail" is a flipping eternity. A Knight-Ridder story from Tuesday brings us the fast-developing news.

Scientists are learning to observe and control the incredibly rapid behavior of molecules, atoms and even the electrons inside atoms....

[P]hysicists have found ways to create extremely short flashes of laser light, which they can use like strobe lamps to "freeze" atomic motions. It's like photographing a 100-mph baseball as it nears home plate, only a billion (or a quintillion) times faster. ...

Scientists expect that the new technology will let them watch the clouds of electrons that glue atoms together shift and flow as they form molecules.

The flashing laser would in effect create a series of "snapshots" that could be recorded and then watched in sequence - creating what would amount to a extreme slo-mo movie of chemical bonds actually forming: a direct view of one of the most basic processes of the universe, and one that could dramatically enhance our understanding of how nature works on that most fundamental level.

Just how short are the time periods we're talking about here?

In March of this year, an all-European team led by [Ferenc] Krausz[, a pioneer in ultra-fast research at the Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany,] reported that it can control electronic motion with a precision of 44 attoseconds. ...

"A pulse duration of well below 10 attoseconds should be feasible," Krausz said.

An attosecond is one quintillionth of a second, or, in scientific notation, 1x10^-18 second. Expressed another way, one attosecond is to one second as one second is to more than 31 million years.

On the other hand, we've still got a long way to go to probe time to its limits: The fundamental unit, or quantum, of time, is called the Planck time. It's 1x10^-43 second. Put another way, one attosecond is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 million billion billion) times longer than one Planck time. If one Planck time was stretched to cover one second, one attosecond would span over 300 trillion years: over 15,000 times longer than the age of the universe.

Friday's Jeopardy!

YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is a thimble?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
Things for $1200

In vaudeville, to "get" this was to be pulled offstage with the device of that name.

Thursday's Jeopardy!

YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is the United Nations?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
Things for $400

If you don't want to end up like Sleeping Beauty, use this protective item while sewing.

Thoughts on "the story"

Updated I think the reason Newsweek felt comfortable publishing the now-notorious item about desecrations of the Qur'an by troops at Guantanamo even though it was based on a single source (not an "anonymous" source; he may be anonymous to us but he was a "longtime reliable source" for reporter Mike Isikoff, Newsweek says) is that, as a good number of others have mentioned, the accusation was hardly new. Charges of incidents of desecration had been made repeatedly by released detainees from Gitmo, including cases of it being stepped on, kicked, urinated on, and thrown in the buckets used as toilets. One incident, in March 2002, lead to a hunger strike by the inmates and an apology by a senior officer at the camp. (That was confirmed by a former detainee and "a former interrogator at Guantanamo," said the New York Times for May 1, 2003 - as well as by two more former detainees in separate interviews with two additional newspapers.)

What was new here was the indication that a formal Pentagon report was to admit to such cases of desecration. Yes, the Pentagon had denied them previously, but it had also denied other charges of abuse before being obliged to admit to them, so that likely didn't seem much of a barrier to publication - especially because Newsweek sent a copy of the story to a senior Pentagon official for review, who raised no red flags about anything that was eventually published. Newsweek's editors likely felt they had good reason to think they had a legitimate minor-league scoop. (It was not treated as a major story, as you would think it would have been if the accusations themselves were thought strikingly new. In fact, it wasn't even a separate story, just an item in "Periscope.")

And as for the "retraction" or "backing off" by the source, in the wake of the outcry he told Isikoff that

he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report.

Reaffirming the accuracy of charges of desecration strikes me as a very limited sort of retraction.

And now it emerges in a Reuters report from yesterday that

[t]he International Committee of the Red Cross told the Pentagon "multiple" times in 2002 and early 2003 prisoners at the base in Cuba alleged U.S. officials showed "disrespect" for the Muslim holy book, said Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman.

"The U.S. government took corrective measures and those allegations have not resurfaced," Schorno said.

That last sentence is very significant because despite the official evasions and denials, it lends a good deal of legitimacy to the charges.

A U.S. military spokesman, Army Col. Brad Blackner, dismissed the claims as unbelievable. "If you read the Al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," he said.

But if there are complaints, "corrective measures" are taken, and the complaints stop, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the complaints were for good cause, not for political effect. In fact,

[i]n January 2003, the U.S. military issued guidelines to personnel at the base that included the order: "Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet or dirty/wet areas."

"The guidelines didn't come out of nowhere. You don't get such orders unless there's some problem, concern or controversy," said a U.S. official who asked not to be named.

Precisely. And it was just about the time that those guidelines were issued that, by the ICRC's account, the complaints about desecration ceased.

All of which leads me to conclude that the charges were true.

That makes the response by the WHS* and their partners in the right-wing noise machine all the more outrageous. For example, Secretary of State Can'tbe Right called the story "appalling" and Defense Department mouthpiece Lawrence DiRita, who called Isikoff a "son of a bitch," specifically blamed the story for the deaths in the rioting. In a State Department press release, Bryan Whitman, also of the War Machine, called Newsweek "irresponsible" and, ominously, claimed it had done "damage ... to this nation."

But, chirped BS'er-in-Chief Scottie McParrot, while the report had indeed done "lasting damage to our image," Newsweek could "help repair the damage" it did by wearing sackcloth and ashes, confessing its sins and crying piteously for forgiveness, and bragging on how just fabulously the US treats prisoners. (Insisting all the while, of course, that he was not in any way trying to pressure the magazine, oh no heaven forbid the thought.)

The odd thing is, the Pentagon doesn't think the riots that broke out in the wake of the report really had much of anything to do with it.

Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else,

according to a State Department press release.

And, curiously enough, the denunciations come despite the fact that the feds really can't seem to make up their minds if the accusations of desecration could be true or not.

Whitman, for example, said the charge is "demonstrably false" and the Pentagon has insisted there is "no credible evidence" to back it up. But

Myers said the U.S. military has assigned Army General Bantz Craddock to investigate allegations about the handling of the Quran at Guantanamo. ...

Craddock and his team have examined the prisoner interrogation logs and Myers said "they cannot confirm yet" that there ever was a case of a U.S. interrogator flushing a Quran down the toilet.

Which means, at least, that they are still investigating - so there must have been some sort of "credible evidence," or why do it? And that in turn means the charge is not "demonstrably false." Meanwhile,

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said in an interview May 15 on CNN's "Late Edition" news show "if it turns out to be true, obviously we will take action against those responsible,"

clearly leaving open the possibility of there being such truth.

So the blustering, red-faced outrage is not about a false charge and it's not about a story causing riots. So what is it about? Bluntly, it's about Donald Rumpled saying the situation proves that "people need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do."

I guess now that John Burntfarm is no longer Attorney General, someone had to take up the Ministry of Thinly-Veiled Threats.

Updated with a correction: It was the story's source, not Isikoff, who Lawrence DiRita called an SOB. Also, what he said was "demonstrably false" was the story itself because, he said, the SouthCom report to which it referred didn't consider the issue of possible desecrations of the Qur'an. If true, that would make him technically correct - but I would still label this an attempt at distraction via scripted outrage, focusing on a detail of the story in order to justify an attack on the media while dodging the issue of the charges of desecration.

*WHS = White House Sociopaths

Speaking of "them"

A few days ago, commenting on a post on another blog, I wrote

I've maintained for a long time that the question of power - or, as I put it, "powerful/powerless relationships" - is the common core of all forms of bigotry and discrimination. It involves defining some group as "other," as different from (and inferior to) "us," and attributes like race, religion, sex, nationality, and so on just become convenient hooks onto which that difference can be hung.

We see that happening now in the political realm where "liberals" are being purposefully defined as "other" by those who stand to gain (or actually maintain) their social power by continuing and emphasizing what divisions may exist.

And what to my wondering eyes should appear that very same day but an example of just how far some people are already prepared to push that sort of idea, albeit along party rather than philosophical lines.

James Tobin is a former Republican party official who faces conspiracy charges for his role in interfering with a Democrat party get-out-the-vote phone bank on election day, 2002 by jamming the lines with hundreds of hang-up calls. According to the Boston Globe,

Tobin, who at the time was the Northeast political director of the Republican Senatorial Committee, also says the charges should be dismissed because the grand jury that indicted him included Democrats. [emphasis added]

He also wants prospective jurors at his trial to fill out a questionnaire on, among other things, their personalities, their on-line habits,

whether they're Democrats, Republicans or independents and whether they watch TV shows such as "West Wing," CNN's "Crossfire," MSNBC's "Hardball," or "The McLaughlin Group"....

Apparently, conservative Republicans are only to be judged by other conservative Republicans. Democrats are just, well, you know how they are. Can't trust 'em.

Two other GOPper officials have already pleaded guilty in the scheme.

Footnote: It occurs to me that in filling out such a questionnaire, I'd say that I'm an independent voter and I watch none of those programs. I wonder if Tobin's shyste - er, legal representatives - would think that was good or bad?

Signs of the times

The bill referred to in the letter below would have required all companies employing more than 10,000 people that operate in Maryland to spend 8% of their payroll on health care benefits or to the state's health program for the poor. It was vetoed by Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich in "a tightly choreographed ceremony" featuring a high school band and waving flags and in which he was joined by a representative of Wal-Mart.

To: letters@washingtonpost.com

In your May 20 article on Gov. Ehrlich's veto of the Fair Share Health Care Bill, this statement appears:

"About two dozen protesters turned out, but were forbidden from displaying signs."

Excuse me?? Forbidden from displaying signs? Just who issued this blatant restriction on free speech? Who is responsible for this gross constitutional affront?

And why in the name of all that is the First Amendment - on which you rely, as I'm sure you're aware - was this abuse of power regarded as unworthy of more than passing mention and even then with no recognition of its venal nature?

Or have we already become so used to the idea that our rights are really mere privileges to be restricted at the whims of power that it seemed unremarkable? If so, our future is dim indeed.

The brutal reality is that we live in a time of increasing invasions of privacy by government and businesses, a time of near-constant stripping away of Constitutional protections. A time when various states are pushing to turn ordinary (and already illegal) vandalism into "terrorism" if it's done by an environmental group and when it's been shown that the FBI and various state police forces "are engaging in intimidation based on political association and are improperly investigating human rights and advocacy groups."

A time when the so-called Real ID Act, which

takes us one step closer to a national ID, and a "show us your papers" society, by forcing states to link their databases - containing every licensed driver's personal information - with other states, with no guidelines as to who will have access to that information,

can be passed with neither review nor hearings.

Meanwhile, the

chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.

Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.

The bill, to be marked up in secret, is being rushed in an apparent attempt to steamroller it through Congress before effective public opposition - and there is public opposition - can be generated.

There is also a good deal of xenophobia at work here: As David Cole points out in the May 30 issue of The Nation, most of the Traitor Act is not even up for discussion. While he goes much too far in downplaying the importance of the provisions that are being argued (he calls them "marginal details" that "hardly warrant the kind of mass rallying that both sides have mustered") he's on the money when he says that

[a]mong the most troubling provisions not sunsetted are those on immigration. They authorize the government to deny entry to foreigners because of speech rather than actions, to deport even permanent residents who innocently supported disfavored political groups and to lock up foreign nationals without charges,

provisions "which have clearly been abused."

The Real Bad Act also has its anti-immigrant provisions. For one thing, it

goes against international law and allows government officials to demand written "corroboration" from those seeking asylum. ...

Additionally, the Real ID Act would waive all state and federal laws to give the Department of Homeland Security unconditional authority to build barriers along the entire border - placing private property in the hands of federal agents for a "land grab" for national security purposes.

Yes, it is bad. Yes, it is getting worse. And yes, many of our fellow citizens seem not to care all that much. Why? Simple: They don't imagine it happening to them. It only affects The Other, "them," you know, "those people." Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous poem was meant for people like them.

As for me, my blog identifies me as "another ordinary individual struggling to keep hope alive." Sometimes the emphasis is on the hope. Today, I fear, it's on the struggle.

Jeopardy!

YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is Monaco?

JEOPARDY!
1995 for $1000

Over 200 people from around the world made speeches for this organization's fiftieth anniversary.

Talk of the town, part two

In case you were wondering who he meant, he laid it out:

I mean the people obsessed with control, using the government to threaten and intimidate. I mean the people who are hollowing out middle-class security even as they enlist the sons and daughters of the working class in a war to make sure Ahmed Chalabi winds up controlling Iraq’s oil. I mean the people who turn faith-based initiatives into a slush fund and who encourage the pious to look heavenward and pray so as not to see the long arm of privilege and power picking their pockets. I mean the people who squelch free speech in an effort to obliterate dissent and consolidate their orthodoxy into the official view of reality from which any deviation becomes unpatriotic heresy.

That's who I mean.

And who is he? Bill Moyers, that's who, speaking to the National Conference for Media Reform on May 15. You may have heard some scuttlebutt about the speech. It's all true. And it's worth reading in full.

Something else he said was of interest to me. Moyers referred to author Jonathan Mermin as having quoted David Ignatius of the Washington Post

on why the deep interests of the American public are so poorly served by Beltway journalism. The "rules of our game," says Ignatius, "make it hard for us to tee up an issue … without a news peg. ... If Senator so and so hasn't criticized postwar planning for Iraq," says Ignatius, "then it’s hard for a reporter to write a story about that."

Mermin also said that PBS's Jim Lehrer admitted that

unless an official says something is so, it isn't news. Why were journalists not discussing the occupation of Iraq? Because, says Lehrer, "the word occupation … was never mentioned in the run-up to the war."

Why is that of interest to me? Because at least as far back as May of 1991, I was referring to "a spineless news media all too ready, even eager, to let reality be manufactured in the press office of the White House" - because even if something newsworthy does break through that screen, unless some public official, "preferably the president," keeps harping on it, coverage stops.

And, as I remarked a few years before that,

while it's true that, as industry bigwigs will vehemently insist at the least provocation, the mass media can't decide what people think, they do have a major influence in determining what they think about. If an issue isn't covered, it ceases to exist.

And so we remain ignorant - and docile: A free people without information ceases to be free. Thomas Jefferson famously said that the

basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Unhappily, it seems more and more that we have our newspapers, our magazines, our TVs, our all-news networks - and we still are getting the former.

Talk of the town, part one

You've heard about it! You've read about it! Now you can see it!

The BBC has a video of George Galloway's appearance before the Senate Investigating Subcommittee. Go to this link and click on the button about watching highlights from the testimony. (It says highlights, but at least as of last night you actually can see the whole thing, all 47 minutes and change of it.)

Footnote: As the BBC noted on Tuesday,

[t]he US turned a blind eye to the former Iraq regime's $8bn trade in smuggled oil, a new US Senate report says.

The report says the US was well aware of both the smuggling and the kickbacks Iraq solicited from players in the UN's oil-for-food programme. ...

The new report[, by the Democratic staff on the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations,] focuses on both the $228m Saddam Hussein's regime is estimated to have made through illegal surcharges on the oil-for-food programme, and on the $8bn it made through sanctions-busting oil sales to Turkey, Syria, Egypt and Jordan. ...

In all, US buyers paid more than half the $224m in total kickbacks, the report estimates.

But it also said that the far bigger smuggling trade was carried out with tacit US approval. ...

"The US was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said.

"On occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

The report even specifies one case where, it's charged, the smuggled oil was deliberately allowed to pass through a US naval blockade.

But hey, bidness, as Molly Ivins says, is bidness.

Footnote: One thing - or, rather, among the things - that had me shaking my head while watching the video of Galloway's testimony was Carl Levin's attempts to maneuver Galloway into a statement to the effect that the documents that had his name linked to Fawaz Zureikat, who apparently was involved in oil deals with Saddam, were likely genuine. Galloway had raised the possibility that they were forgeries, noting that two previous sets of papers indicating his involvement in the scheme had proved to be bogus. Levin kept trying to get Galloway to say that he was "not alleging" that the documents the Committee had were faked, but Galloway wasn't having it, insisting on his own formulation that he was saying nothing one way or the other - likely aware (as Levin must be as well) of how easily "not alleging they're fake" translates in the media and the public mind to "acknowledges they are genuine."

I kept wishing that Galloway would say "Okay, Senator, how about we put it this way: I am not alleging the documents are genuine."

It would be every bit as accurate a reflection of his testimony as Levin's version - but it doesn't sound the same, does it?

Jeopardy!

YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is the ozone (layer)?

JEOPARDY!
1995 for $600

In a fairy-tale wedding, this country's Princess Stephanie married her bodyguard.

Tonight

Life sucks sometimes.

But you knew that already.

Jeopardy!

YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
Who is Judy Garland? (Acceptable: Frances Gumm)

JEOPARDY!
1995 for $200

The Nobel Prize went to three men for their studies on the depletion of this layer of the atmosphere.

Step by step

In a recent exchange on another blog about the value, if any, of demonstrations, I maintained that one undeniable benefit is that they "legitimize dissent" - and thus make it easier for others to go a step beyond where they already are.

Unfortunately, the same works in reverse: The more bigotry and intolerance there is, the more it becomes "legitimate" for others to express their own. The L.A. Times reported on Monday that

[a] Roman Catholic priest in St. Paul[, Minnesota] denied communion to more than 100 people because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show their support for gay Catholics.

Before offering communion, Father Michael Sklucazek told the congregation at the Cathedral of St. Paul that anyone wearing a sash could come forward for a blessing but would not receive wine and bread.

A group called the Rainbow Sash Alliance had encouraged supporters since 2001 to wear the multicolored fabric bands on Pentecost Sunday.

It was the first time supporters had been denied communion.

The National Catholic Register reports that the denial, carried out on the orders of his bishop, has the support of the Vatican.

Now, I grew up Roman Catholic and at one time was well-versed in the rules. I admit to having forgotten a fair number of them and while I do remember a requirement that you be in "a state of grace" to receive communion, I can't seem to recall anything about "wearing rainbow sashes" - or your personal political beliefs - being a disqualifier. I guess I've just forgotten - unless, that is, what's happening instead is that the Catholic Church as an institution is reaffirming its commitment to sexual bigotry and declaring an intention to enforce political orthodoxy.

Rev. Chan Chandler is surely gratified.

Don't kick a man when he's down

Well, with some exceptions. From the Daily Telegraph (UK) for Monday:

Tony Blair was accused of sexism yesterday after it emerged that he has asked the new minister for women to do the job unpaid.

Apparently Blair had already filled the maximum number of positions for which ministerial salaries can be paid by the time he asked Meg Munn to join his government.

Downing Street denied that Miss Munn was appointed late because Mr Blair "forgot" about the need to have a junior minister for women in his team.

But a spokesman was unable to offer any other explanation for her not being included in the full list of appointments released last Tuesday.

I bet Tony doesn't ask anyone for directions, either.

Day late, dollar short

I seem to have gotten into a pattern of, as I wander blogs, finding older items that seem too good to not pass on despite their ancient (in bloggy years) status. So here's one more, learned about from Greg at The Talent Show:

Hartford, Conn., May 6 (AP) - A year after federal agents raided his home in a terrorism investigation, Muslim businessman Syed Maswood is lucky to get on an airplane without being detained and searched. But that didn't stop him from getting an invitation to dine with President Bush.

Maswood, a nuclear engineer who has not been charged with any crime and has been trying for months to get his name off no-fly lists, received an invitation to serve as an honorary chairman at a Republican fundraiser with Bush in Washington next month.

Greg notes that this proves one of two hypotheses: Either (1)the "no-fly" lists are bullshit that contain the names of a large number of innocent people or (2)the GOP takes money from terrorists. (Not that those are mutually exclusive, mind you.)

I noticed something else in the article which Greg didn't mention: Explaining what prompted the raid (a donation to a formerly IRS-approved charity accused of supporting terrorism),

[i]nvestigators also said they uncovered an e-mail Maswood sent indicating support for Islamic rebels in Chechnya....

So now simply expressing an opinion in favor of some Islamic group or another is evidence of terrorist ties? Apparently so, even if the Council on Foreign Relations - about as mainstream a foreign policy group as there is in the US - says

the struggle [in Chechnya] is between local separatists — a loosely organized group, with semi-independent commanders - and the Russian Army. Chechnya's long and very violent guerrilla war has attracted a small number of Islamist militants from outside of Chechnya - some of whom are Arab fighters, with possible links to al-Qaeda. [emphasis added]

What if the email had expressed support for Russia in Chechnya? Putin's government certainly has been responsible for its share of human rights abuses there. Would that have been evidence of "support for terrorism?" (The question is purely rhetorical, as I expect is obvious.)

This of course does not mean I support any of the rebels in Chechnya; I do not support murderous violence (by anyone) and no group that could pull off a Beslan deserves any support - and it got none from other Muslims. But I have expressed support for the idea of independence for peoples that desire it and have repeatedly argued that our conflicts with the Muslim world are to a significant extent of our own making. I've also said that if you accept the legitimacy of violent action, that is, if you are not a pacifist, you by definition accept the right of the insurgency in Iraq to resist violently the American presence there and can dispute only the targets chosen. And I've condemned the limitations on freedom engendered by the War on Terrorism^{(c)(reg.)(pat.pend.)}, an attitude that former AttGen John Cinderfield once said "aids the enemy."

So am I now by virtue of those convictions some sort of "terrorist sympathizer?" No, I don't expect to be raided - but when they run out of Maswoods, what then?

I recall around 1971 having some fun twitting a guy who thought he was outrageously radical in his positions by repeatedly pointing out how his self-described "treasonous" utterances could be defended on free speech grounds, forcing him to become more and more extreme in his assertions, demonstrating how hard it was to actually make a legally treasonous statement. That was, indeed, long ago and far away.

Halfway to the truth

Responding to questions raised by a May 10 report from Human Rights Watch, Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif has admitted that the US has rendered as many as 70 terrorism suspects to Egypt since 9/11, Reuters reported on Sunday.

However, Nazif denied that torture is widespread in Egypt, facilely throwing it off on the old excuse of "occasional abuses" by police. He also absolutely denied that anyone rendered to Egypt was tortured. "Period." Of course, since he'd already admitted to "abuses" by police, how he can be so sure that none of those uh, unfortunate incidents occurred to any victim of rendition is unexplained, but what the hey, he's our trusted ally, how can you doubt him?

Besides, what does Human Rights Watch know about torture or human rights? I mean, the group

said torture was so widespread in Egypt, especially in national security cases, that each transfer from the United States and other countries constituted a violation of international conventions against torture,

but, really, what competence do they have to make such a judgement?

And those people at Amnesty International? What can they have to tell us about torture in Egypt? And as for the US State Department, which charged Egypt with committing torture in its report on human rights for the year 2004, well, it's obviously biased and probably just hates America, don't you think?

Footnote: The Shrub team insists that the US neither engages in torture nor sends suspects to other countries without assurance of proper treatment. Well, the first part of that has long since been blown out of the water and the second, to mix my images, is leaking badly.

"We take these assurances, we do what we can to monitor them, and obviously if we get evidence that countries are not abiding by these assurances, that we take into account in the next time we have a decision to make about a possible rendition," national security advisor Stephen Hadley told CNN's "Late Edition."

For the sake of argument, let's take Hadley at his word. With that, point one is that Hadley said "we take," not "we would take." That's a significant difference because it means that there have been cases where rendered subjects have been tortured and we know it.

Point two: "Take it into account" leaves open the clear possibility of continuing to render people to countries where we know previous renditions have resulted in torture. So much for "we never do, never would do, it."

Point three: "Next time?" What the hell about this time? "Stop now! Send them back at once or we will publicly denounce you!"

Yeah, I know - foolish thoughts.

Footnote to the preceding

This is also from the Sunday Telegraph:

British defence chiefs have warned United States military commanders in Iraq to change their rules for opening fire or face becoming bogged down in a terrorist war for a decade or more.

During a visit by senior British officers to British troops in Iraq, the British officers tried to explain to their American counterparts that they had learned through bitter experience that in

post-war counter-insurgency operations it paid to adopt a low-key and less aggressive stance.

American officers were told that when the British Army had made mistakes ... the political and military consequences had been disastrous.

The US uses what's called "force protection," under which troops can open fire with everything they've got if they feel they are in danger. The UK contingent uses a "graduated response" that seeks to use minimum force.

One British officer said he tried to explain that US tactics were "alienating the civil population and could lengthen the insurgency by a decade."

The response? "[T]he US troops just laughed."

It just keeps on getting better

Remember the "flypaper strategy?" I'm reminded now, as I was when the phrase first came up, of the line in the book (and terrific movie) The Moon is Down, about Norwegian resistance to the Nazi invasion in World War II. A German soldier, told that the Germans have conquered Norway, breaks down in hysterical laughter, crying "the flies have conquered the flypaper!"

Iraqi insurgents have proved to be better equipped and more elusive than expected, United States marines have said at the end of a week-long operation near the Syrian border[, reports the UK's Sunday Telegraph].

Many rebels wore bullet-proof vests and a number had Soviet-designed armour piercing bullets and night sights, equipment rarely seen previously in Iraq. ...

A spokesman described the operation as a "success" saying that more than 125 insurgents were killed and that it had established that the area was no longer an insurgent "safe haven".

Oh, yes indeedy, and now that US troops have pulled back from the area, we can be assured, completely assured, that no insurgent will dare come back because - well, actually, how can we be? What, did we spray the whole area with Insurgent-Be-Gone^reg.?

Secretary of State Can'tbe Right actually made a wise comment during her one-day visit to Iraq. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but it's true:

"Yes, the insurgency is very violent, but you can beat insurgencies, not just militarily," said Miss Rice during a stop in Kurdish city of Irbil. "You can beat them having a political alternative that is strong."

Remember that the next time some general tries to make happy talk about military progress in Iraq - or even when one describes an operation such as the one just concluded as a "success." (Remember when we had "broken the back of the insurgency?" Ah, those were the days!)

Jeopardy!

YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What are Styx and Stones?

FINAL JEOPARDY!
Actresses

At age four, she was singing and doing vaudeville in what was billed as the Gumm Sisters Kiddie Act.

Know them by the company they keep, redux

The spread of democracy continues apace, as the Daily Star (Lebanon) reveals.

Riyadh, May 16 (AFP) - A Riyadh court jailed three Saudi reformers accused of seeking a constitutional monarchy for between six and nine years Sunday, in a case that has cast a shadow over tentative reform moves. ...

The three were convicted of "stirring up sedition and disobeying the ruler"

as well as being accused of "using Western terminology" in demanding reforms and questioning the king's role as head of the judiciary. They had been in jail since their arrest in March, 2004.

Relatives and reporters were chased away from the precincts of the court by a senior police officer as lawyers and representatives of the trio went into the courtroom Sunday.

Judge Mohammad bin Khnain also barred two representatives of the Saudi National Human Rights Association (NHRA), Saleh al-Khathlan and Mofleh al-Qahtani, from the nearly four-hour hearing.

Nine others who were also arrested last year were released after pledging most sincerely to be good citizens and keep their mouths shut from now on.

In a letter to Shrub, Human Rights Watch said

all charges against the three should be dropped and that their lead lawyer, who was arrested in early November, should also be released and the charges against him dropped.

The White House did not confirm that the issue was raised by Bush during his meeting with Abdullah.

Probably not: I doubt he could squeeze it in, what with all the reminiscing about oil deals and whatnot.