Cosmo Nyc

2007-11-22T12:57:00.000-05:00

LE BLOG NOUVEAU EST ARRIVE
The new blog,
AMERICANA,
is at this address:
http://americana.blog.lemonde.fr/
Cheers!

2007-01-12T23:17:00.000-05:00

2007: another year, another blog
Cosmo Nyc will take a short break for travels and transformation in early 2007- new blog to follow.

2007-01-10T23:37:00.000-05:00

Washington never fails to disappoint: even as George Bush finally utters the word "mistake" about the Iraqi adventure, and offers change that looks mostly like a gradual deepening of the same madness, and democrats who now control the majority in Congress promise at best a non binding resolution condemning the administration's policy.
Do they really think that will be a sufficient electoral insurance, by 2008, to absolve themselves of all responsibility for a disaster they had a chance to derail from its inception?
There will likely be investigations, denunciations, but no one seems to think the "thumping" message of november 2006 should be taken too seriously after all: action will have to wait. There might reasonable explanations for this lack of engagement. The situation has so deteriorated that no choice is satisfactory, and disaster is bound to fester a while longer no matter options are finally chosen. Yet, what could be the rationale for not starting immediately on a long-term solution? Does it really make sense to want to retake the White House, only with the certainty that the problem will be made even worse by 2 extra years of chest-pounding, and no decision-making? Would it not make sense to attack some of the most symbolic issues at hand - such as the closing of Guantanamo, now opened in legal limbo for 5 years? Or will whatever possible changes between now and 2008 be left to the old hands now arrived at the rescue of George Jr.- the veterans of Bush-the-father's cabinet and other ancient Reaganites? No wonder the comparisons with Vietnam, initially off target, suddenly seem appropriate.

2006-11-29T23:39:00.000-05:00

European governments knew of the CIA flights: since Condoleezza Rice's declarations in December, it had become more and more obvious.
The latest installment of the European Parliament's investigation, before the publication of the full report in January, documents the complicity of 12 out of 25 governments (Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the UK), and the scale of the operations (1245 stop-overs, including those organized for "extraordinary renditions"). Claudio Flava, who heads the investigation, has commended Germany and Spain for their cooperation with his inquiry. Other governments, he notes, have been extremely reluctant to help. So was apparently Javier Solana, the former NATO secretary-general, now EU Commissioner for International Affairs: according to Claudio Flava, his testimony was less than complete.
The French judiciary certainly is not very curious. It rejected the complaint by two human rights organizations, about 5 suspected flights that stopped in the Paris region. The official explanation: not enough information is available about those flights.

2006-11-22T18:12:00.000-05:00

Race creeps back in the media conversation: The topic of the day is Michael Richards racial rant at a West Hollywood club. The man whose claim to fame is to have played the obnoxious neighbor Kramer on the "Seinfeld" show lost it to a couple of hecklers. An ugly, vulgar, not funny side came out in full view as he hurled one racist epithet after the other, with increasing rage. A very miserable performance, which starts a cycle of more miserable performances, with the predictable "apology tour". The American media asks gravely if this is the sign that racism is still alive and well - making it sound like it would be a real surprise. Yet that same media regularly reports on racism, but it is mostly the institutional kind, tagged to a malevolent bureaucracy or corporation, or the cartoon sort - imputed to marginal or marginalized losers. The surprise, if any, can only be that it was uttered by a television icon that the media assumed was "one of them": well groomed, properly progressive, and mostly inoffensive.

2006-11-16T18:47:00.000-05:00

Nancy, Segolene... great day for women? Not so sure. The California democrat and the French socialist triumphed today. It was expected. The first one will be speaker of the House; the second, her party's candidate at the presidential election.
Much was made of the fact that Nancy Pelosi did not get what she had wished for: John Murtha as her main man. The veteran Marine turned politician in the seventies is the most outspoken - if not always articulate - opponent to the way the Bush administration has been conducting the war in Iraq. Her fellow party members preferred the man less likely to annoy them, the unctuous Steny Hoyer.
Segolene Royal, the French socialist motherly figure, beat two old timers to the presidential candidacy: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former Finance minister, and Laurent Fabius, former Prime minister.
In spite of having been a cabinet member herself, and glossing over her long-time involvement in the party's mechanics (and we're not thinking of hubby party president François Hollande), the first female candidate managed to instill the idea that she is a "fresh face". So fresh, in fact, that she should be forgiven the lameness of her program, and her frequent veering into conservative social positions. Could she have been watching Hillary?
Never-the-less, the mood is set for "change" in France as well, with the forecast of a presidential duel opposing the populist and popular interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy to Segolene Royal.
Yet it will be interesting to see how long it takes before the first female candidate is tightly "counseled"... and how long it takes the French left to lament the import of American-style "primaries", a first in France to select a presidential candidate.

2006-11-15T15:20:00.000-05:00

One week after the election, the surviving republicans are clinging to old habits. Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott... Lamar Alexander, beaten for the whip position, likes to call it a "come-back"; it is more like a flash-back. And it the "nothing changes" category, the testimonies of the intelligence and army chiefs insist on the continuation of more-of-the-same in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the democrats? Waiting for Baker. Or Hillary. Or somebody.

2006-11-09T15:36:00.000-05:00

George Allen thanked God. Again. He did not thank "the owners of the government of Virginia" as he calls the citizens of the State. By the slimmest of margins, they have elected the democrat Jim Webb to the Senate.
Yet it might not be the final uprooting of George Allen: in his concession speech, he alluded to the trees surviving the tempest, with the other senator from Virginia, John Warner, by his side. And the senior senator will not run for reelection in 2008.

2006-11-08T14:58:00.000-05:00

Sore, George Bush tried to spin his "tell it as it is" technique to regain control of the situation.
As expected, he went back to the early days of his first mandate to demonstrate that he can work in a bipartisan manner... Even on the conduct of the war in Iraq, he says, since he is convinced that both republicans and democrats "want to win", and bring the troops home without sacrificing the goals of their mission. As if "the difference in strategies" that he acknowledges were a mere detail, and not the core of the debate.
The swift replacement of Secretary Rumsfeld will (temporarily?) occupy the minds with the suspense of inside baseball. Is Condoleezza Rice gaining the upper hand, against the Cheney clan? Is the vice-president now effectively on the sidelines of the president's decision-making process? Is the appointment of Bob Gates the signal that Bush-the-father's old guard is coming to the rescue of a contrite son? Are there other changes to be expected in the White house team?
And then, soon enough, the events on the ground should force a real debate about the end strategy in Iraq, as well as the principles and practices of the so-called "war on terror". That should be an urgent exercise not only for the White House, but for the democrats as well. They will have to sort out the muddled call for "change" delivered by an electorate that rewarded anti-war candidates, but also pro-war candidates with various opinions on the best exit strategy, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman.

2006-11-08T14:27:00.000-05:00

Democrats won Montana, leaving the only uncertainty for control of the Senate in Virginia. A "thumping" indeed.

2006-11-08T13:12:00.000-05:00

"Register their displeasure with the lack of progress" in Iraq: that's how George Bush qualified the electorate intention. With nuances: he added that the races were close, some of them lost because the Americans want their representatives to be "honest", and that the cumulative effect was a "thumping".

"Secretary Rumsfeld and I agree that the timing is right for a change of leadership at the Pentagon" said the president as he praised the outgoing Defense Secretary. A more formal announcement is to follow, but George Bush explained that the change was planned, regardless of the election results, after Bob Gates' visit with him last Sunday.

Other things that need to get done, according to George Bush include the renewal of the "no child left behind act", entitlement reform, energy policy, and immigration reform. He assures he can collaborate with Nancy Pelosi, saying he knows the difference between campaign time and governing time.

2006-11-08T13:06:00.000-05:00

Rumsfeld is going! Finally. It took loosing the House, and probably the Senate, for George Bush to snap out of his cocoon and hear the discontent with his leadership in the Iraq war.
His replacement, former CIA director Bob Gates, would be a perfect candidate to hear and implement the conclusions of the task force on Iraq lead by old timers James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

2006-11-08T11:41:00.000-05:00

More good news as it becomes clear that several bigoted initiatives (comprehensive ban on abortion in South Dakota, against stem cell research in Missouri, against gay marriage in Arizona tough a similar measure passed in several states) have failed to gather majorities.

2006-11-08T03:10:00.000-05:00

Jim Talent is defeated in Missouri, and the democrats are getting closer to winning the majority in the Senate. They need Virginia and Montana to break any tie that could be otherwise settled by the Dick Cheney's vote - as the vice-president is, by constitutional law, a member of the Senate. Recounts? The margins will help the candidates to decide later this morning.
One obvious fact: the six year curse and the unpopular war took their full toll on the party that controlled every branch of government. An oversight was long overdue; the nasty paradox is that it might just be the thing that will save a future "independent" so called "rebellious" republican presidential candidate.

2006-11-08T00:43:00.000-05:00

George Allen is thanking God, and then his wife.
"It has been an interesting election, and the election continues", he said around 12:35 AM. Once a presidential hopeful, he is trying to project maximum confidence as the votes are still counted. Thanking his supporters for their efforts in making sure that all will be accurately counted, and for their prayers, he reminded them that he won his first election by 18 votes. Both campaigns have lawyers on their payroll, ready to spring into action for a recount.

No such luck for Harold Ford Jr.: the democrat has officially failed in his attempt at winning the seat left open in Tennessee by the republican leader of the Senate, Bill first.

2006-11-08T00:13:00.000-05:00

Three races to go, and the democrats might win the Senate: at midnight, the only certainty was that there would be uncertainty early Wednesday morning.
Virginia, too close to call in spite of Jim Webb's apparent advantage, is headed for a recall mandated by the local law if the margin of victory is as tight as half of a percentage point.
The democrats were loosing hope on the Tennessee front, where Harold Ford Jr. did not seem likely to become the first black senator since reconstruction. They were more optimistic regarding Missouri and Montana, where the two republican incumbents were in trouble.
The night might be long, but a sweep of both houses was at hand.
That would be the strong reaction that a lot of the world opinion had stopped to believe possible - even though there might be some over-reaching in chalking it all to the discontent about the war in Iraq, and ignoring the more domestic preoccupation with massive corruption scandals.

2006-11-07T23:33:00.000-05:00

The democrats have won the majority in the House, and the speculations are immediately rampant about the possible investigations to be launched under the guidance of the prospective new chairmen of committees.
Dick Gephardt, for one, is already assuring that the ranking members, often the most militant of representatives, will behave well under the authority of Nancy Pelosi. The former majority leader, unseated by the 1994 republican tsunami, was trying to strike the most moderate of balance between the urgent need for oversight of the Bush administration and the dangerous temptation of political revenge after 12 years in the opposition, pointedly ignored by the administration.
Speaking of which, one can only wonder how long it will take George Bush to try and control the situation by reminding everyone that he came to Washington "as a uniter, not a divider"? He just might distance himself from his loosing party... as fast as republican candidates who had rubber-stamped his policies tried to run away from him in their latest campaign, realizing belatedly that the Rove charm had ceased to work on the electorate.

2006-11-07T22:44:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton looked really happy too, flanked by the clapper-in-chief. Not that the victory was in any doubt for the junior senator from New York, but the "re-recentering" of the democratic party can only benefit her ambitions. Her praise for all and call for cooperation between republicans, independents and democrats left little doubt about her hopes... nor did the rush by Harry Reid, still at that hour minority leader of the Senate, to endorse her comments. They were definitely more tactful than his own, when he congratulated the electorate, saying he was "proud" of the American public "listening to what we said".

2006-11-07T22:19:00.000-05:00

Nancy Pelosi sure looked happy, tasting a possible victory that might make her the first "Madam Speaker" of the House.
Still, all the pundits talk is about the re-centering of the democratic party, not really in line with the views of the California progressist. Clinton-Gore once campaigned as born-again Christians, an effort obliterated by subsequent events. According to exit polls, some of the evangelical Christians, upset at the recent republican corruption scandals and distraught by the war in Iraq, might have found their way back to the "Reagan democratic" wing of the party.
Commentators, armed with that information, are already speculating that the new stars of this election might well be the socially conservative and hard-nosed vets. Jim Webb, the democratic challenger in Virginia, would be one of those symbols of change. The once Reagan cabinet member is still battling in a tight race with George Allen. The republican incumbent is laboring under two burdens: the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, even in a traditionally militaristic State, and his own shortcomings, revealed by his racist remarks.

2006-11-07T22:09:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum is thanking God, after conceding his defeat. The ultra-conservative was once talked about as a great hope for the Christian right's tight grip on the congressional leadership.
The Senator-elect from Pennsylvania is Bob Casey, a pro-life centrist democrat. No telling yet if he'll be thanking God as well.

2006-11-07T21:48:00.000-05:00

Lincoln Chafee's defeat, announced at 9:30 PM, is the bellweather the US media was looking for to predict the collapse of the conservative majority.
Yes, Joe Lieberman is projected to be reelected in Connecticut as an independent, against Ned Lamont, the candidate supported by the democratic party and all its leaders - including Chris Dodd, the other senator from Connecticut, and Hillary Clinton, the senator from New York and reigning favorite presidential non-candidate. It will be awkward, but the former vice-presidential candidate will caucus with the democrats - in spite of being elected largely with republican votes, a thank-you for his unwavering support to George Bush's "war on terror".
Lincoln Chafee, the moderate republican who succeeded his centrist father in Rhode Island, was another of these one-of-a-kind North-Eastern politician. All his pleadings with the electorate to avoid a "national referendum" failed: more than his personal record, it was his republican label that defeated him. His case is the clearest, but will not be the only one. Many republican incumbents are projected to fall victim to the same disgust with the White House unilateralism in conducting the war in Iraq, as well as in its dealings with Congress on social and economic issues.

2006-11-07T21:02:00.000-05:00

Results showing up at the bottom of the screen during commercials: it seems to be a first on CNN, and one way to reduce the temptation to zap away to another network during those breaks. Of course, shutting off the pompous Wolf Blitzer and demagogic Lou Dobbs might be another winning strategy - if it were not that on the competiting network one has to endure their alter egos, Keith Olbermann ad Joe Scarbourough.

2006-11-07T20:26:00.000-05:00

Projections, conventional wisdom, and flashy graphics: the cable news network were up to their usual hype and tricks as soon as the first polls closed.
"Too early to call", claimed MSNBC about the Ohio Senate race with... 0% of the results tallied - just about 10 000 thousand votes, as a matter of fact.
The political parties were doing just as well, spinning away and arguing about voter intimidation all afternoon. The republicans jumped to be the first to claim irregularities - in the Santorum race in Pennsylvania. His defeat would deprive the Village Voice readers of one of their favorite pastime (popularizing the particularly vulgar alternate definition of the conservative's name, now the first item to appear as one googles the word). Vocabulary games have been very unkind to republicans this season, as George Allen of "macaca" fame can attest.
Now word games are done. Electoral maths and stats are taking over the screens. The networks were projecting as soon as 8:35 PM Bob Menendez's victory in New Jersey, a seat the democrats had to hold if they hoped to conquer the Senate.

2006-11-07T18:08:00.000-05:00

While Americans were at the polls for the midterms, the French were watching the third and last debate of the first-ever socialist "primary" for the presidential election. The three candidates to the nomination were facing off on international issues. Nothing that would captivate an American audience: Turkey's entry in the European Union, and more generally the future of the European construction, were the most discriminating topics between those candidates who will most likely confront the conservative Nicolas Sarkozy - France's Interior minister, and habitual Bush-impersonator. The exercise, somewhat constrained, was still a stunning contrast with the formulatic american political debates: the French politicians were surely prepared, but not yet stale.

2006-11-07T11:27:00.000-05:00

The results of the midterm elections are eagerly awaited world-wide, with the expectation that they will be a sanction for George Bush. The details of the inner workings of Congress escape much of the international audience, but the potential significance of a change in majority in Washington is plain for all. Yet, the election is mostly followed as a precursor to the presidential choice in 2008. There is considerable interest in the fate of potential headliners: George Allen's melt-down, Hillary Clinton's sovereign campaign, or Barack Obama's emergence. The results tonight will be followed more closely than ever - in that light, but also as an indication of future restrains on the Bush administration's foreign adventures. (photo: call for "change" and vote on November 7 at the Art parade in NYC, september 06).

2006-10-17T23:38:00.000-04:00

The military commissions law that deprives detainees of their right to contest their detention in front of a federal tribunal, under the age-old rule of 'habeas corpus', has been signed into law. It is already contested. Hours before the passing of the law, an habeas corpus petition was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of a Guantanamo detainee.
President Bush is exceptionally pleased with himself, noting that is is a rare case when a president knows he signs an act "that saves American lives". He was most likely thinking of the measures that will authorize what he calls "alternative interrogation techniques". The fine line between this "alternative" method and torture has yet to be defined in separate legal texts.
In case the electoral posturing was not clear enough, George Bush declared that he was signing the bill "in memory of the September 11 victims".

Sentencing Lynne Stewart, the famed attorney accused of aiding terrorists, a New York judge decided on that same day not to be impressed by the government's hyperbole.
The lawyer definitely crossed the line when she relayed a message from her client, the "blind Sheik" sentenced for his leading role in terror plots in New York. She had informed his followers that the Sheik renounced a cease-fire.
However, no one died as a result of her actions, noted the judge. Also taken into account: her life-long dedication to represent "the disadvantaged and the unpopular", the age and health of the 67 year old cancer patient, and the fact that she is barred from her profession or any contact with her former client.
"I am not a traitor", she said, pleading that she had let her heart get the better of her head. She is not a risk, assessed the judge.
He sentenced her to 28 months, pointedly disregarding official guidelines and the U.S. prosecutor's request for 30 years in jail - effectively, in Ms. Stewart's case, a life-sentence. Predictably, her supporters saluted her relief with a round of "The people, united, will never be defeated". Less predictably, the outspoken lawyer tried a touch of moderation, saying that she had been "humbled" by this experience.

2006-10-16T12:16:00.000-04:00

Yet another inquiry is launched into abuses at Guantanamo, this time ordered by the Inspector General at the Pentagone, after testimony by a US Marine.
Sgt Heather Cerveny had heard guards bragging about routinely beating detainees. They stopped talking when they realized she was a paralegal, visiting the camp as part of the defense team of a detainee. She filed a complaint, and she is barred from discussing her sworn statement. She disapproves of the order, but will abide by for the time being. The military lawyer in charge of the case, Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, has also been gagged by the military command. That leaves Muneer Ahmad, the civilian lawyer for the Canadian detainee, as the lone spokesperson on the issue. And there is no deadline to complete the investigation.

2006-10-06T11:18:00.000-04:00

"Guantanamo is not a prison, it's a concentration camp" according to Thomas Wilner, a managing partner at Sherman and Sterling LLP, an international law firm, and the lead counsel for Kuwaiti detainees in Rasul vs Bush. His point: the detainees are not charged, do not receive a fair hearing, are emprisoned indefinetely, and are subjected to abuse.
He was one of the speakers at the national Guantanamo teach-in hosted by Suton Hall Law School on the same day that demonstrators took to the streets in many American cities to protest the new law on torture and military commissions.
Laywers, doctors, clergy, and military discussed the situation of the detainees, and the evolution of the administration's policies.
Colonel Dwight H. Sullivan, a Marine and the Chief military defense counsel, military commissions, was one of the many critics - expressing his personal view - of the past system, and of the new law. "We prevented a great deal of harm", he said of the military lawyers who "upheld the highest values of our country when those in government have not".
He underscores that there is no justification for stripping 450 detainees from access to the courts. Their possible "frivolous lawsuits" would not add a terrible burden to a national system that already deals with 2 million prisoners in its jails. Besides, he adds: "I am detained at Guantanamo when I have done nothing wrong would not be a "frivolous lawsuit". He also makes the point that the worry about "over-reaching judges" is overblown. "They have been modest", he says, citing judge Robertson who found that some Chinese Muslim detainees should not be held, but added that there was nothing he could do about it. (they were subsequently released, and resettled in Albania).

"The legalization of torture will define the Bush era for posterity, it is a new milestone in the degradation of American democracy", insisted George Hunsinger, a professor of theology at Princeton. Reminding the audience that a government that takes off the gloves will not put them back on, he insisted that torture is a moral and religious issue, and started a campaign to reach the active minority in every faith and congregations.

2006-10-02T22:45:00.000-04:00

Only three days to go, before demonstrations to "stop torture and the Bush regime" that are planned in 175 cities, in 42 States, according to the "world can't wait" movement.
At a rally in New York City Monday night, about 500 people came to hear Olympia Dukakis, Malachy McCourt, Mark Buffalo (who also read a message from Sean Penn), and Reno speak of the need to "drive out the Bush regime".
A special ovation greeted a man that actually put his career on the line to stand up against torture: former British ambassador Craig Murray, who denounced torture in Uzbekistan. He reminded Americans that 500 million dollars were granted to the dictatorship under the rationale of the "war on terror", most of it going to the army and a police that literaly boils people to death in order to extract confessions. "Hardly any islamic extreemism existed until the US supported the Uzbek regime, he said, and that's the kind of stupidity that creates the terror it claims to be fighting".

The rally was part teach-in too, when Bill Goodman, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, detailed the law just voted by Congress on torture and detainees. It essentially reverses the victory at the Supreme Court, four months ago, that had held in administration in check.
"The new act goes even further than the administration did", laments the lawyer. And he sees the new law as only the beginning of a process of erosion of constitutional protection.
The definition of "enemy combatant" is applicable to citizens and non citizens. The new concept is "broad and sweeping", encompassing acts of hostility as well as material support. "It could be anybody who dropped a dollar in the bucket today", said the attorney, refering to the collection taken to organize the march.
His anger at Congress only increases as he explains the elimination of habeas corpus for those designated as "enemy combatants" - that is, the right to see a judge to make a determination that a person is charged with a crime, and that there is evidence to charge them.
That right has been suspended only four times in American history, and always in a limited manner, he reminded the audience. It has now been lifted indefinetely for those detainees.
Finally, he is no less harsh on the torture compromise.
"Only "grave breaches" of the Geneva convention are still punishable under the war crimes act", he warned. The senators and the Department of Justice do not agree, for instance, on the fact that water-boarding would constitute such a grave occurence.
"Congres swallowed everything the president of the United States fed it, said Bill Goodman. We can still go to the Court, and in the streets".
That's where organizers hope to see hundreds of thousands of American on Thursday, as they conclude they can only count on themselves - and certainly not their elected representatives, including those of the democratic party.

2006-10-01T12:02:00.000-04:00

Leave it to the Court seems to be the democrat's favorite solution on topics that they might be principled about, but not to the point of disturbing the electorate.
It has been the general attitude on the death penalty: praise every limitation finally put in by the Supreme Court while Sandra Day O'Connor was still present as the central moderate voice; deplore the injustice of the death penalty enforcement, but rarely actively promote its eradication.
It seems to be the fail-safe option on the new law regarding the detainees in the so-called "war on terror".
The senators were happy to let a handful of leaders ask the unpleasant questions about torture and 'alternative interrogation techniques'. It should not require exceptional courage to follow the lead of Colin Powell, and countless military leaders, to demand that the United States do not separatethemselves from the Geneva Conventions. Ten years ago, the debate centered on the acceptability of intelligence provided by agents of regime that routinely tortured. It is now centered on the acceptability of the use 'alternative methods' by US agents - in spite of the fact that some of these techniques were clearly defined as torture since WWII.
Sadder still, this debate largely allowed the other crucial issue at stake in the administation's project to go unadressed: the roll-back of habeas corpus for the detainees of the "war on terror".
Denying access to the courts, even for a review of the charges, had been a goal of the rules immediately put in place by the administration, and offered in a republican bill after the Supreme Court denied those efforts. It remains a central provision of the new legislation - one that the opponents (some republicans as well as democrats) are now resigned to see "cleared up" by the Supreme Court. It is after all what Senator Chuck Shumer of New York deemed a "secundary issue", as is in his eyes the question of eavesdropping on Americans.

Speaking of eavesdropping, the congressional investigation launched in Belgium after Swift, the banking messaging service headquartered outside Brussels, gave the CIA access to thousands of its clients' communication, just concluded. It found that the consortium had no right to give out that confidential information on financial transactions.
Consultations between Swift and the Belgian government will proceed "urgently"... regarding the future. Apparently, no one will be held accountable for the past.

2006-09-24T20:45:00.000-04:00

A report makes the obvious, official. First, to confirm that the United States went to war on false premisses. Then, to observe that the war in Iraq has actually increased the terrorist threat, not decreased it. Will democratic candidates finally open a real debate on America's values, methods and goals now that they can be shielded by these findings? Their attitude in the torture debate, purposefully on the sidelines, leaves little cause for optimism.

2006-09-06T11:15:00.000-04:00

A woman anchors a news broadcast solo in the United States, and it is major news.
Sad enough that the U.S. is only now catching up with the rest of the world, where women have anchored the nightly news for years.
Sadder: the pre-show flap was about a promotional photo of Ms. Kouric, photoshopped to make her appear slimmer.
Sadest: the post-first show babble is about the voice-over that introduced her - the legendary Walter Conkrite, the last anchor man that American considered the voice of authority, three decades ago. The news buzz is that Ms. Kouric was able to show the first pictures of Suri Cruise. The most famous yet unseen Hollywood heir was photographed by Vanity Fair, and the magazine graciously permitted CBS News to give its 22 pages spread maximum publicity.
A daddy, a baby, and a promotional tool: quite a launch!

2006-08-10T18:02:00.000-04:00

Oliver Stone was an unlikely candidate, but he managed to turn september 11 and the collapse of the World Trade Center into a feel-good movie.
No cliche is spared in "WTC", starting when we are treated to "a normal day in the life of New Yorkers" until a shadow crossed the screen, a character looks up as the plane hits the first tower, and the character exclaims: "Holy shit!" It goes on as the eternal Marine-turned-business man explains to his coworkers "I don't know if you know it, but we are at war".
Sky-high testosterone levels saturate the screen until the film focuses tightly on the human drama of two Port Authority cops trapped under the ruins, and the emotions of their families before the expected triumphant reunion. We all know going in this is a story that ends well. We never learn anything, and even the unprecedented national solidarity is trivialized.
If Oliver Stone was trying to capture "just the facts" and avoid any hint of a political viewpoint, he ends up capturing at best a photoshoped picture, a mindless cliche, of those days five years ago.

2006-06-20T20:53:00.000-04:00

In case the long, hot summer that awaits New Orleans were not predictable enough, the National Guard and State police have been called early to patrol the city.
"The city needs an overwhelming show of force", said just-reelected mayor Ray Nagin, endorsing Governor Blanco's decision. They ceased upon the murder of five youth in Central City - a killing later described by local police as linked to a drug deal - as illustrating the sudden increase in the crime rate.
As homeless residents, cut off by FEMA, are expected to slowly make their way back to town, with no jobs nor housing awating them, they will find ample police. So will the tourists, that the city officials apparently hope to beckon back to the French Quarter by assuring them it will be secured by State police. What could be more enticing?

2006-06-17T20:13:00.000-04:00

New Orleans is still devastated and desolated, reported the panel invited to New York city by the Vision Jazz Festival.
The Big Easy is actually on the brink of violent events, warns Lionel McIntyre, an architect who was briefly advisor to the mayor Ray Nagin, and now teaches urban development at Columbia University.
Katrina precipitated a crisis that Jackie Harris, a prominent music producer, and Jacques Morial, a local activist, felt was imminent before the hurricane. Now, the population is armed, and people cut off by FEMA are coming back to town, doubling up, or tripling up in what is left of social housing, explains Lionel McIntyre. The situation can only worsen, as Jack Morial reminds the audience that the city just announced that 3/4 of that housing is going to be demolished. He adds that the aid package just voted in Congress will not help: it is geared towards the home-owners, not the renters or small landlords. The process of emptying the center of the city of its poor, black residents had begun long before Katrina, but it is now accelerated.
All the panelists did point to their discomfort with the well-meaning efforts to rebuild a "village" for musicians and artists - a "reservation", jokes one. It shows a fundemental lack of understanding of the workings of the city, of culture, and of the necessary interaction between the two. If there is no community left, how is the human exchange that feeds art and creation possible?
Is there hope? In solidarity: the panelists ask once again for the nation's help and support, as they plan to rally and protest. And in the action on the ground of grassroots groups: Acorn, Common Ground, The People's Hurricane Relief Fund. And, finally, in political change.

2006-06-15T00:47:00.000-04:00

Freedom sounds beautiful, as it is expressed night after night at the Vision jazz festival. One of the rare art form largely ignored by market forces, insensitive to neither convention nor fashion, this music thrives on human and artistic exchange, opening ears and minds. This is creation is its rawest, yet most subtle, form. And it is fun. (photo: Rivbea Orchestra, with Sam Rivers).

2006-06-14T18:13:00.000-04:00

Several European countries have participated in the illegal renditions organized by the CIA. That's the conclusion of two investigations: one by the European parliament; the other, by Amnesty International. They detail the "web" of landing points in Europe, that lead captured suspects in the war on terror to Guantanamo, Bagdad or Kabul. Two spots in Romania and Poland concern particularly the European investigators, who believe that those stops were not part of a vast majority of "logistical" stop-overs, but could raise questions about the proximity of secret detention centers.
One thing is now perfectly clear: some European government actively participated in the renditions operations; other choose to ignore them until it became politically embarrassing. The cases detailed involve Italy, Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Sweden. The investigation is on-going, and a resolution is being drafted at the Council of Europe to protect human rights while combating terrorism.

Will 90% of the European population know about this? That might be an interesting question for the next Pew Research Center poll. Their latest results on the increase of anti-americanism show that 90% of Europeans have heard of the abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Only 75% of Americans say they have.

But the Americans have warmed up to the French rioters and demonstrators, according to that same poll. In spite of the catastrophic coverage by the US media, the favorable view of France has climbed to 52% - up form 29% in 2003.

2006-05-17T19:02:00.000-04:00

The extraordinary renditions are "probably indispensable", said the State Department Legal Advisor John Bellinger when he met a delegation of members of the European Parliament in Washington, DC.
Claudio Flava, the rapporteur, announced that "senior sources from the US intelligence community confirmed that between 30 to 50 extraordinary rendition operations have been undertaken since 2001".
The delegation also obtained confirmation of "the existence of seven black sites operated in countries of Asia, Europe and Africa". One is said to be operational still, in a North African country.
That is more detailed confirmation than the US Senate ever published. And yet another interesting topic for the upcoming hearings for the confirmation of Michael Hayden as CIA director.

2006-05-15T23:38:00.000-04:00

George Bush seized a rare opportunity to be at his best, by discussing the immigration issue, a topic he knows well and for which he would actually deserve the "compassionate conservative" label under which he ran in 2000.
The ideas may have been recycled, the means to implement them somewhat dubious, but at least it was an honest attempt at opening a reasonable and comprehensive debate, beyond the collective fixation on the border issue.
The irony is that this president, caught at his own game of invoking national security to justify any controversial policy, is now using this issue as a temporary foil for his many disasters in the "war on terror".
Ostensibly demanding that the Senate vote on a project under a two week deadline, he has pushed several embarrassing topics out of the national conversation: the NSA domestic spying operations, the vice-president's involvement in the exposure of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the republican lobbying scandals. And if anyone is going to mention Iraq, it is to speculate that the deployment of American reservists will most likely diminish, since the president wants to mobilize the National Gard to support the Border Patrol.
The whole plan might be obsolete before the next elections - as soon as someone remembers , for instance, that the current backlog means that legal immigrants wait for months for their documents after being approved for a green card, so far the only tamper-proof ID for legal aliens. But by then there will be a lot of blame to spread for the failure of the reform. Karl Rove, who even allowed himself the luxury to acknowledge that the war is dragging his boss' numbers down, is alive and well.

2006-05-15T22:59:00.000-04:00

While mother's day demonstrators in Albany were already worrying about the next war, fearing the bombing of Iranian civilians, the Bush administration was preparing to hail Libya as the example of a reformed state.
Monday, State Secretary Condoleezza Rice announced the final steps towards full diplomatic relations with the Gadhafi regime. After being branded a terrorist State for more than a quarter of a century, the evolution began when Colonel Gadhafi immediately denounced the 9/11 attacks. Condoleezza Rice stressed that the turning point was December 2003, when Libya decided to cooperate fully with the international community and revealed its secret nuclear installations, its programs for developing weapons of mass destruction, and some information about the A.Q. Khan proliferation network.
North Korea and Iran are called to meditate on this example that aims to proove that no sinner is beyond redemption for this administration. It just might help a bit that oil will part of that future rich relationship between the former foes.

2006-05-12T13:55:00.000-04:00

Michael Hayden is a master of Bushspeak, as illustrated by his comments as he's making the rounds on Capitol Hill, prior to his confirmation hearings.
The NSA surveillance programs are designed "to preserve the security and the liberty of the American people", he says. The American people seem to agree, at least on part one of the proposition, according to the instant polls. Part two seems to have become less relevant to a majority of them.
After the adequate amount of pre-election posturing, aka "tough questions" by senators of both parties that profess to be "great admirers" of the general, George Bush can thus probably safely bet that his nominee will be confirmed. He will have scored political points with his base, and democrats will in all likelyhood fail to capitalize on this episode.
This might explain why the White House suddenly decided to seize the moment on another burning issue, with an address to the nation on immigration Monday night.

2006-05-09T14:20:00.000-04:00

The next CIA boss is "a leader that listens well", says his current boss, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. Michael Hayden is the public face of the warrantless eavesdropping operations, and was leading the National Security Agency when the program was launched.
Typically, the democratic leaders who object to his appointment did not make much of that, choosing instead to concentrate on the fact that he would be a military man at the helm of a civilian agency. They probably forgot that their two most recent presidents, Carter and Clinton, also appointed military men to run the Agency. They possibly overlooked as well the fact that one of the few times the general decided to not publicly salute and go with the hierarchy involved a dispute with Don Rumsfeld.
True to form, the Defense Secretary disqualified the question when asked. He lamented the "pedestrian" nature of the debate, and the lack of facts underlying "thumbsucker articles" about the internal tensions within the administration on the intelligence front. He wants all to know everything is fine between him and "Mickey", as he repeatedly called the nominee.
It will be left to Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Justice Committee, to concentrate on the eavesdropping issue, and on the general's understanding of constitutional rights.
(photo: sculpture by Cai Gou Qiang, realized with objects confiscated at national airports after 9/11)

2006-05-01T23:54:00.000-04:00

The illegals came out of the shadows, under the glare of the 24 hours news channels' cameras. The first massive social movement in years had shown its strength in several cities, but on May Day it became national. Its message is still sketchy on the details of precisely what immigration reform would be appropriate, and what the best methods to ensure its success are, but one point is unmistakable: the call for human respect and dignity.

2006-05-01T23:28:00.000-04:00

One sentence on the evening news, the same AP dispatch or a short article deep inside the newspaper: the peace march, Saturday April 29 in Manhattan, was all but ignored by the American media. Three years after President Bush declared "the end of major combat", April had been the deadliest month in Iraq, and Congress had just voted more funds for the war. The polls had been widely reported, that previous week, showing the administration at its lowest level of popularity ever, but a massive demonstration of that same sustained opposition to the war was not deemed worthy of interest.

2006-03-13T23:21:00.000-05:00

"The outrageous proposition that we ought to protect our enemies' ability to communicate as it plots against America poses a key test of our Democratic leaders" says vice president Dick Cheney. This was in answer to senator Russ Feingold's proposition of a vote of censure against President Bush, for violating the Constitution and the laws when he authorized warrantless eavesdropping.
There was no need to get this nervous: the Democrat leaders made sure the proposition would not get to a vote.
Still giddy with the results of the fight over the ports deal and the subsequent collapse of the president's approval ratings, they are less eager to take a stand on the far less demagogic eavesdropping issue.
Mostly, they have accepted the minimalist approach: not a full committee investigation, but a seven-member subcommittee panel.
The administration's critics best hope might be Arlen Specter, the republican chairman of the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary, who is still determined to force precise answers from the White House on how and when it reached the conclusion that warrantless eavesdropping would be legal.

2006-03-05T02:09:00.000-05:00

" I'm from dat 9, and you ain't takin mine". At a first rally, on the last Sunday of February, local residents and homeowners made it clear they intend to rebuild their neighborhood. Most of them have been there all their lives; some, for generations. They will not wait for an authorization, or help, from the city. They've done it twice before, and will do it again.

2006-03-05T01:46:00.000-05:00

New Orleans, the 9 ward, six months after Katrina. The area is last on the city's priority list for assistance, as it is the most severely destroyed. Its fate depends in large part on the flood maps that will be redrawn in a few months.

2006-02-17T17:53:00.000-05:00

The Senate may have yielded to the White House command, and will not investigate the NSA wireless eavesdropping, but a federal judge and the House will not please the Bush administration.
The judge has given it 20 days to turn documents relative to the program, or explain the reasons why they can not be released.
The House seems fortified by the first results obtained after Congresswoman Heather Wilson, an Air Force veteran, demanded more information on the program. Unlike the Senate, where the chairman of the Intelligence Committtee has worked out a deal (a collaboration on adjusting the law and no public inquiry), the House will investigate. Now the Congresswoman will have to rally troops to win the next fight: the battle on the scope of the inquiry.

2006-02-17T17:24:00.000-05:00

The NSA engages in warrantless eavesdropping, but the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, engaged in a bit a selective hearing during the Q and A at Georgetown University.
He casually ignored the only question about the domestic surveillance program.
The softball, by a prospective intelligence candidate, was further buffered by the fact that it was introduced as a two-parts question. The intelligence boss helpfully oriented the young man for his future carreer, but did not breathe a word about the NSA program.

2006-02-14T18:29:00.000-05:00

The latest group to oppose the Bush warrantless eavesdropping: The American Bar Association.
Its bipartisan experts group, some of them veterans of the Justice Department or the CIA, has unanimously concluded that the president exceeded his constitutional powers. They demand an congressional inquiry.
In the document attached to their letter to President Bush, they already formulate an obvious suggestion: if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is inadequate to fight today's threat, don't ignore it - change it.
Respect the law? Sounds suspiciously like lawyers talk.

2006-02-13T21:55:00.000-05:00

Who are the "worst of the worst", those 500 detainees kept in Guantanamo? Two of their lawyers, Mark and Joshua Denbeaux, aided by students of Seton University School of Law, have attempted to compile their profile, based on the official information provided about 517 of them.
Only 8% turned out to be Al Qaida fighters, by the Pentagon's own data. Only 5% have been captured by the United States forces. Most of them were delivered to the US by the Pakistani government, the Northern Alliance, or bounty hunters. 55% have not committed any hostile acts.
How were some of those "enemy combatants" spotted? Amongst the tell-tale signs cited: they stayed at guest houses, and/or they wore olive drab clothing, and/or they possessed a Kalashnikov. Or a Casio watch. Bad taste can be deadly.

2006-02-13T20:32:00.000-05:00

The White House disqualifies the UN report on Guantanamo because its authors have not been at the US prison camp in Cuba. Or, more precisely, because they refused the guided tour that was offered to 3 out of the 5 international experts. They would not have been allowed to speak to the detainees during this perfunctory visit.
The draft report, leaked, concludes that some of the practices at the prison camp are acts amounting to torture. It mentions the new coercive feeding methods that have been used to break the most recent hunger strike. It establishes that several of the detainees rights are violated, including their right to a fair trial.
"Hearsay", says the administration, discounting the testimonies of prisoners that have been released, and of their lawyers. The only thing that would not be "hearsay", apparently, would be the word of the Pentagon. Mum.

2006-02-09T20:25:00.000-05:00

The dots are getting further apart, but George Bush does not seem to mind. The newest Al Qaida plot? Vintage 2002. This time, even the main stream media seemed to notice the coincidence: just a few days to go before the renewal of the Patriot Act is put to a vote...

2006-02-07T00:12:00.000-05:00

Alberto Gonzales has a new mantra: "no operational details".
Armed with these three words, the attorney-general rebuffed any efforts by the senators on the Judiciary Committee to find out how and when the warrantless eavesdropping program was initiated. He stuck with the administration's reasonning that the president, as commander in chief in time of war, has the power to bypass the courts set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978.
What else, if anything, is being done under this broad presidential authority was also left unsaid.
When it might end does not appear clear either. "When Al Qaida is destroyed and does not pose a threat", says Alberto Gonzales. Considering the administration has compared this "fight of a generation" to the Cold War, that could be a while.
Yet, the president who was in the White House during that "war" and who signed the FISA law has declared the administration's actions "disgraceful and illegal". Jimmy Carter is convinced that if the question reaches the Supreme Court, it will rule that George Bush broke the law.

2006-02-05T16:15:00.000-05:00

The first death in riots sparked by the controversy about cartoons initially published in Denmark and reproduced by major european media outlets might finally help the US government concentrate on the real issue - the manipulation of the "arab street" by undemocratic regime.
You'd think the promoters of the democratization of the Middle-East would be able to spot those maneuvers easily. Not so. The first reaction from the State Department was more in line with a government that, after all, invokes God as a rationale for its action and occasionally protests a cartoon.
The debate was couched in familiar terms: freedom of expression versus respect for religion or,worse, as a "clash of civilizations"... as if the Christian conservatives had not protested depictions of their religion in the Western media. What is different, obviously, is that those protesters do not call for the death of cartoonists or editors, nor suggest boycotting entire nations because they object to the actions of some of its citizen.
The real issue, in this crisis artificially incited four months after the drawings were first published, would be to understand how and why the spiral of hatred was unleashed.
Who are the zealots that went on tour in the arab world and added extreemly offensive cartoons to the 12 original ones? Who were their relays, in Saudi Arabia and Syria? How unusual is the gesture of the Saudi publications that printed the cartoons - resulting in the condemnation of one of the publishers? And what is the purpose of this agitation targeting mostly European interests, at this time, in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine?
That a part of the arab populations can be whipped into a frenzy at the drop of a turban should not surprise anyone. The only pertinent question should be: why now?

2006-02-02T18:28:00.000-05:00

In the middle of a terror plot, senators are accused of wanting to "weaken" the USA Patriot Act. Fiction? Rather, the latest in advertisement placement.
As - fictional - special agent Jack Bauer runs against the clock to prevent terrorists from acquiring nerve gas in the Fox "24" show, real senators are targeted. The voice that accuses them is that of Debra Byrlingame, the sister of one of the pilots of the plane that hit the Pentagone on 9/11. She is the public face of the Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law, a group that has in its membership a collection of former Bush administration officials that helped shaped the Patriot Act. Determined to insure its renewal, those veteran hawks are not going after democrats, but after republicans that dared express doubts about the lasting impact of the law on civil liberties.
"What if they are wrong?", asks the ad, echoing the new Karl Rove line. And why expect anyone watching "24" to be impressed by nuances?

2006-02-01T17:15:00.000-05:00

Once the Toxic Texan, George Bush now wants to be the Detox Texan. Aiming to reduce the 'addiction" to oil, he sounds more and more like Nixon, who promised energy independence by 1980. Nice diversion from the less cheerful topics of the war in Iraq, the crisis with Iran, and others. However - Nixon, really, when the continuing saga of the illegal eavesdropping shows no sign of a prompt resolution?

2006-01-31T20:26:00.000-05:00

French author Bernard-Henri Lévy hit the road - with a chauffeur and an itinerary facilitated by his client "The Atlantic Monthly". His purpose: retracing the steps of Tocqueville and taking the pulse of democracy in America. The result: "American Vertigo", a soliloque of quick notes and rhetorical questions. Published in English before it will be released in French next month, it is meant to offer a "mirror" to Americans, says "BHL", the glamour branded philosopher.
As he skewers the cliches of anti-americanism in France, American critics are puzzled and flustered by the snippets of americana he chooses to explore the national psyche. Cooperstown, Las Vegas, Alcatraz? Therein lies the difficulty of this exercise that seeks to capitalize on the (relative) fame that his previous book, a 'reality fiction' on the assassination of Wall Street correspondent Daniel Pearl, has earned him in the United States.
To the French, BHL needs to justify his confidence in the American experience with anecdotical and analytical evidence - preferrably on somewhat familiar ground.
To the American, he wants to show that he understands their idiosyncrasies and the nuances of their culture.
He just might end up satisfying neither, no matter how brilliant his stylish gliding through the American political and cultural landscape.
He has not helped his cause by incarnating a caricature of himself on his blitz publicity tour: the "celebrity" playboy, describing in purposely 'shocking' terms his affair with America. Which is of course perfect for BHL, the casual philosopher - his vertigo is a the quickie.

2006-01-26T22:44:00.000-05:00

"It was designed where you expect it to be designed, in the NSA", says George Bush, defending his warrantless eavesdropping program. Now, that is completely reassuring, isn't it? Just as the president saying "I have no doubt in my mind that it is legal", while saying at the same time that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act dates back to 1978 "and it is now a different world". Or, the president saying he does not need or want a new law.
As a matter of fact, it turns out he was offered one in 2002, and turned it down... for fear of the enemy suddenly getting a clue that the U.S. services might be spying on them. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?", he asks. Why tell anyone, seems more like the modus operandi of this administration.

2006-01-25T20:51:00.000-05:00

Diplomatic language translates with wild variations, depending on which side of the Atlantic one stands. The report on extraordinary renditions just released by Dick Marty, a center-right representative in the Council of Europe, is the latest example of the divide.
Dismissed in the U.S. as nothing new, it does confirm that over 100 extraordinary renditions were organized with stops in Europe. It clearly points out how the denials by State secretary Condoleezza Rice are non denials.
It also debunks the diplomatic outrage expressed by European governments: they had to know that those flights were taking place - or at least their intelligence services had to know, and then why wouldn't they know? Dick Marty wants to know.

2006-01-25T20:11:00.000-05:00

Fun with words. First, there was the "war on terror" that was "a different war" - that is, without a defined ennemy, time or space. Now there is the domestic spying program that is a "terrorist surveillance program", and its logic that domestic laws cease to apply once anyone on the US terroritory is engaged in communications with an overseas party.
None of this explains why retroactive warrants can not be obtained, as the Foreign intelligence surveillance act allows for, within 72 hours of the deemed "urgent need" to spy on specific conversations or data exchanges. Or why, if this is not practicable, a change in the law was not offered.
There is just one word that never changes, in the administration's vocabulary: 9/11. The attacks could have been prevented, the White House even suggested, had the warrantless eavesdropping been authorized. Except for the fact, of course, that the U.S. services had failed to sort out and interpret the massive information already at their disposal.

2006-01-24T15:27:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration really cares about the right to privacy, especially when it applies to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Some of them might in the future face the death penalty in that island of legal limbo, thanks to a discreet provision tucked in a new military regulation regarding executions. However, their families will not suffer any embarrassement due to the revelation of their identities, if the Bush administration can help it. It had opposed the release of any name on 558 tribunal transcripts obtained by the Associated Press. The agency sued, and won in front of a federal juge. The administration should announce this Wednesday if, as expected, it will appeal this ruling that would - in small measure - lift a bit of the secrecy surrounding Gitmo.

2006-01-23T21:56:00.000-05:00

Harry Belafonte was the darling of the media, but you would never had known that he opened the last sessions of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity committed by the Bush administration, last Friday. The comments that received all the attention was his speech at the Assocation of Performing Arts Presenters on Saturday.
Was this the eternal lesson in how one word ("the new Gestapo of Homeland Security") obliterates all else? Assuredly. But, had that word not been pronounced and ceased upon, what are the odds the even a line - let alone the short articles also quoting the performer as saying that "you can be arrested, and not charged. You can be arrested, and have no right to counsel" - would have been published?

2006-01-23T20:52:00.000-05:00

The surveillance is targeted, says General Michael Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency and current deputy director of national intelligence. Probably not the best choice of words, in a military man's mouth, given the recent recent history of "targeting". The general clarified that, shortly after 9/11, he was told that a program of warrantless surveillance was authorized.
That's what President Bush classifies as "tactics", explaining that Congress did not prescribe those when it gave him "the authority to use necessary force to protect American people".
That reference, presumably, would be to the use of force in Aghanistan, and later in Iraq. The conveniently confused label of the "war on terror" did not seem to impress Congress to the point that it would relinquish all constitutional garantees. Conditions for monitoring and surveillance were greatly facilitated by the "Patriot Act", and with a system of accelerated and confidential court authorization. Those courts were immediatley criticized for being mere rubber-stamps, but no senator or congressman has yet volunteered that he knowingly supported a system of warrantless surveillance.
The president insists that Congress was briefed, and that "all kinds of lawyers" reviewed the process - those same lawyers, possibly, who created a unique system of courts and detention outside of any national or international legal precedent. Secrecy, absence of oversight or rescourse: the thinking is similar and, once again, it was done "to protect the American people". They are supposed to trust the president, and not those pesky civil liberties organizations now demanding an investigation in the matter. But as George Bush started his persuasion campaign, most Americans thought it a good idea to have an independent look into the matter. Trust, but verify?

2006-01-22T00:12:00.000-05:00

"You can't build security on evil", said Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, borrowing his rhetoric from the administration he hopes to help indicte.
He was testifying in front of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration.
He detailed the logic of "plausible deniability" after the CIA and MI6 received intelligence from allies in the "war on terror" that practice torture.
Alarmed by the information he had personally gathered from victims of torture in Uzbekistan, the ambassador complained about the use of such intelligence - bad intelligence, he adds. He was summoned back to London, where he was informed this was legal - provided the British did not do the torturing themselves, or requested that a specific individual be tortured.
This operating principle of "don't ask, don't tell" permits denials, such as those voiced by State secretary Condoleezza Rice, questionned by the European Union about the policies of "extraordinary renditions" and the existence of secret CIA prisons outside of the United States.
Asked about the US delivering prisoners to be interrogated in Uzbekistan, Craig Murray stated that he was only aware of ethnic Uzbeks "rendered" to the local authorities during his tenure in the country.
Other witnesses at these final hearings included former Abu Ghraib commander Janis Karpinski, now retired from the Army, and Barbara Olshansky, from the Center for Constitutional Rights. They dissected the public and secret policies that instituted a regime of detention and torture that violates national and international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
The International Commission, organised by "people of conscience" with the stated goal to "fuel and frame" a necessary discussion, does not limit the scope of its inquiry to war crimes and human rights violations in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the "war on terror". It also charges the Bush administration with crime and violations in reference to its actions on global warming, reproductive rights, and its response to huricane Katrina.

2006-01-20T16:19:00.000-05:00

Facing the rap on a night out? No smile will change the mind of the "BioBouncer" - the facial recognition device to be tested at New York clubs next month, according to NY1. If the biometrics scan determines a match with the database of "undesirables" compiled by the clubs, entry will be denied.
In the land that prides itself on not having a national identity card, mundane activities such as getting into a bar or a club ressemble more and more getting on a plane, post 9/11: ID check, no smoking, expensive drinks - and would you please kindly leave your common sense at the door. Everyone is a suspect. Technology and data collection will capture all, with predictable unreliabily.
When 51% of Americans do not think that their government is going too far by spying on them without any court authorization, this is obviously neither the most surprising, nor the most worrisome.