meta-roj

while i’ve been busy filling this space with silly material on governments gone awry, other people are out there addressing the important issues. one of them is cory, who has taken a little of his precious time to explain to microsoft that all the money they’ve poured into drm is… well. bad.

if you still need convincing… read that.

i pretty much avoided the whole blog murder story (except for a couple snarky comments in friendly company)… but there’s a remix thing going on over at waxy.

i really can’t dive into something fun like this, but someone really needs some choice 2001 quotes to go with this.

one practical comment i want to make is that if “people don’t read essays” then there really isn’t much point in syndicating them for easy reading, eh?

dave winer, june 14, 2004

I thought I would try doing it as an audio thing as opposed to writing an essay about this. My feeling is that people generally don’t read essays, so if you want to present a subtle idea, that’s not a really good way to do it.

for more on this story, it looks like lawmeme has it. jeannie is deep, deep deep into the thing.

to the crypt

solidarity

update (2004.08.27): links to the swift boats website have been removed from this post, and all further discussion on this issue is closed. this action is taken because someone acting on behalf of the swift boat veterans for the truth has decided to spam weblogs around the world with links to their forum. this behavior is unacceptable from any group, for any purpose, and will not be tolerated. the swift vets are no longer welcome on my server. i gave you guys a post, a link and a fair shot to air your opinions and engage in the conversation here, and you abused me. we’re done.

it seems that there’s a pretty significant group of veterans that have some pretty significant concerns about kerry as a future commander-in-chief.

check out their letter to kerry and the media section of their site for press conference audio and video.

let the record show that the meta-roj blog stands in support of anyone bringing forth the truth.

update: for the other side of the military perspective on the presidential campaign, general mcpeak rips bush

update (2004.08.20): maybe there isn’t much truth here after all. we picked up on this group back in june, because it was a different, personal perspective. it seems that that might not be the case.

another story i’m afraid won’t get much traction, but there’s always hope…

part of the story was reported in us news and world report, this version comes from the new york times, via the houston chronicle:

Tenet, Rumsfeld ordered `ghost detainee’ hidden [houston chronicle, june 16, 2004]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, acting at the request of George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, ordered military officials in Iraq last November to hold a man suspected of being an Iraqi terrorist at a high-level detention center there but not list him on the prison’s rolls, intelligence officials said Wednesday.

This prisoner and other “ghost detainees” were hidden to prevent the International Committee of the Red Cross from monitoring their treatment.

….

He was segregated from the other detainees and was not listed on the rolls. Under the order that had filtered down to Sanchez, military police were not to disclose the detainee’s whereabouts to the Red Cross pending further directives.

this would, on its face, appear to be a high-level order that violates the geneva convention provisions that all prisoners be properly identified and that the international committee of the red cross have access to all facilities and prisoners.

but i’m not a lawyer. there’s probably a memo somewhere in the bush administration that explains how exceptions to these principles can be justified.

in the wake of the memoranda that suggest that torture is somehow legal in america, senator richard durbin (d-il) proposed, with seven co-sponsors – carl levin (mi), arlen specter (pa), dianne feinstein (ca), patrick leahy (vt), edward kennedy (ma), john mccain (az) and hillary rodham clinton (ny) – an amendment (s.amdt.3386) to s.2400 (a defense appropriations bill) affirming america’s opposition to torture.

No person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

It is the policy of the United States to treat all foreign persons captured, detained, interned or otherwise held in custody of the United States (hereinafter “prisoners”) humanely and in accordance with standards that the United States would consider legal if perpetrated by the enemy against an American prisoner.

this passed on a voice vote on june 16, 2004, and it really, really matters.

senator durbin’s floor statement on this is available here.

and just in case we need to review which country we’re talking about, from an era of relatively plainly-written laws:

the fifth amendment to the united states constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the eighth amendment to the united states constitution

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

with that in mind, i refer you to the us military enlistment oaths and the oath that george w bush took on january 20, 2001:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

if we can preserve these principles through our own civil war, then there is simply no excuse to even hint at compromising them today.

allowed an obscene act to perform

i mentioned it here during the reagan legacy week, with the hope that it wouldn’t be totally lost in the rush to get reagan’s head on a dime or a bill or whatever. i was unplugged from the mass media to a large extent, but the micro-media didn’t drop it, and the best resource i have found to date is here from kevin drum over at washington monthly. this is good, first, because it links most of the original texts (if indirectly), and second, because it’s generated 162 comments (so far).

I’ve got something simpler for the plain spoken President Bush: “We don’t torture prisoners. Not on my watch.” Why didn’t he say that instead and just put the whole subject to rest?

go there, follow the links around for a while, and then do something.

source documents are here (more directly), because they are that important. i haven’t had time to digest this mess myself, but what does it take to get a war crimes tribunal going?

Patrick Philbin, December 12, 2001 [pdf, ~960k]
John Yoo, January 9, 2002 [pdf, ~820k]
Alberto Gonzales, January 25, 2002 [pdf, ~600k]
Colin Powell, response to January 2002 Gonzales memo [pdf, ~400k]
Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy and Operational Considerations, March 6, 2003 [pdf, ~2.7m]

yesterday, the september 11 victim compensation fund of 2001 wrapped up its business. they’ve processed over 7300 claims and 98% of the eligible families elected to participate in the fund. and no wonder… the “average deceased victims award after offsets” was $2,075,345 – just a shade over $2 million for an average american killed by terrorists in new york.

from an administration that is so concerned about setting precedents (consider the rice testimony before the 9/11 commission – she couldn’t testify under oath, but she could talk the media about everything), this just doesn’t sit entirely well with me. i don’t recall a big compensation package for previous [berlin 1986, beirut 1983, new york 1993, oklahoma city 1995, dhahran 1996, nairobi 1998, dar es salaam 1998 – and that’s just the big ones] terrorist-attack victims, but i guess we’re on the hook for $2 million a pop (plus inflation) for all future attacks now…?