I've got questions. For some questions I have possible answers. Help me out if you have answers of your own. I'm just going to dive in, in no particular order

Is it right to show military dead? POWs? Civilian Dead? How about background information on military or civilian casualties, the details that would make us see the people involved as human beings like ourselves and our loved ones, rather than as nameless, faceless victims?

Throughout the Iraq war, the US news outlets have been providing rich background details for coalition military casualties but not for Iraqi civilian casualties. Civilian casualties aren't shown much. Even when they are, they certainly aren't mourned. I've heard that Al Jazeera television shows civilian dead, and gives sufficient background information for viewers to form a sense of who these people actually were, of what we've lost by not having them in the world anymore. Good for Al Jazeera, I say. These people didn't deserve to die, only to be dismissed as "collateral damage". Any one of them could've been your parent, or your child, your husband or your wife. Flesh and blood. Imagine your worst pain of loss. Someone's feeling that right now for every single incident of "collateral damage".

Of course that's true for the US and British war dead, too, and good for Western media for portraying them as human beings. But by showing only the coalition soldiers as distinct individuals, the media effectively portray them as heroes, the Iraqi soldiers as nameless, faceless "bad guys" from some violent video game, the civilian casualties as unlucky bit players. Oops. Sorry. At least 859 and counting. Each one meant the world to somebody, just like each one of the 91 coalition fatalities did.

Prisoners of war shouldn't be displayed as war trophies, nor should dead or wounded soldiers or civilians be displayed for senational shock value. But the facts of war are brutal, and the people in whose name the brutality is being committed have a right - arguably a responsibility - to see what their political decisions and tax dollars are buying. The promise of global news media is the spread of truth. Truth isn't always pretty, but citizens need truth in order to make informed decisions. Showing the brutal realities of war would make war less likely, would make us work harder to solve our problems without violence. I would hope that this war already has strengthened the resolve of many of us to start working towards that end.

To sum up: I believe the proper role of news media in war is to show the full truth of war.

Your feedback is always encouraged. I'll post more questions in coming days.

Posted by Me at 15:28 link

The soothing effects of beautiful Spring weather appear to be wearing off. Too many underreported evils for me to stay focused on the utter perfection of the weather... The warm sun... the gentle breeze... the sweet smell of spring flowers...

Where was I? Oh yeah, the bad stuff (sigh).

Edwin Starr has died. That seems symbolic, somehow. And there's more, much, much more...

Nauseating news from abroad

The invasion seems to be going quite well. Looks like we're approaching endgame of the military phase. Yes, I'm glad. The sooner this illegal was is over, the fewer people that have to die or be maimed for it, and the less environmental damage caused by it, the better. And I'll also be glad if the Iraqis welcome us as liberators. I'll gladly endure the inevitable "I-told-you-so"s from conservatives if it means Iraq can become prosperous and peaceful - and if we can get the hell out of there as soon as possible.

No weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq yet. Except for the ones we brought with us, of course.

We're using cluster bombs and depleted uranium.

The British are using cluster bombs too.

At least the British cluster bombs don't look like food packets.

This is nothing new for the US, or even all that unusual, relatively speaking. In Vietnam we used chemical weapons on a regular basis for 10 years. Yeah, the U.S. of A. Ever heard of Agent Orange? It's caused huge numbers of birth defects and will continue to cause defects for generations. In fact, it's one of the most toxic substances known. Over one million Vietnamese victims and counting. Not to mention US casualties, although I'm sure the US government would prefer that no one mentioned them. Why is this news? It's not, really. The US government knew Agent Orange was incredibly toxic when we used it, at least as early as 1968. But I thought with a major war underway, a pre-emptive invasion repeatedly justified by Saddam Hussein's vast, hidden arsenal of chemical weapons, that we should remember how our own goverment knowingly exposed millions of US service personnel to a toxin linked with over 28 life-threatening conditions, including almost every cancer known to science. How's that for supporting the troops? (Special thanks to Gael for this link)

Nauseating news from the homefront

Hey, folks at home! Fight the war against poverty! Glorify your petty yuppie struggle to acquire more stuff by equating it with War!

Aw, isn't he cute? Let's send one to the family of every Iraqi civilian casualty - that'll win their hearts and minds, don't you think?

Did you notice that Bush never travels anymore? Wonder why that is?

The Oregon state legislature is considering a bill which would classify some protests as terrorism, and would impose mandatory prison sentences of 25 years to life.

Meanwhile back in Washington, DC, the House Judiciary Committe has approved a measure which would protect gun makers from lawsuits arising from the "misuse" of handguns.

The US federal budget deficit for 2002 is over twice as much as originally reported. The true figure is $365 Billion. The word "alternative" in the article's title might lead you to believe that the accrual basis of accounting is some way-out, wacky, experimental method, but in fact the accrual basis is required under generally accepted accounting practices, except for small service businesses. The accrual basis of accounting reports revenues and expenses in the period when they're incurred. The cost basis, the method which was actually used, reports revenues and expenses only when they're actually paid. I miss Bill Clinton, who lied only about his sex life...

Don't worry about the oil companies, though. Thanks to the war, they're doing fine. I knew you were worried and would want to know the good news.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go talk to Earl. Down on the Wharf. Over in York. [Insert your favorite silly vomit euphemism here]

Posted by Me at 16:42 link

This Afternoon
Sunny. Highs near 80. Southwest winds around 15 mph.

Tonight
Clear. Lows in the upper 40s. Southwest winds 5 to 10 mph.

Thursday
Mostly sunny. Highs near 80. Southwest winds 10 to 15 mph.

Thursday Night
Mostly clear. Lows in the lower 50s.

Friday
Partly cloudy. Highs in the upper 70s.

With weather like this, I feel like saying and doing only nice things. I couldn't possibly bitch, moan, rant, rave, whine, whimper or complain about anything on such a day as this. Not even about...

No, on a day like today, I won't even mention that. Now, if you'll excuse me, I...must...go...do...nice...things.

Weather information and icons courtesy of Weather Underground, the best weather source on the entire planet.

Posted by Me at 11:21 link

Bush "Just Kidding" About Tax Cut

Adiós, Geraldo! Adiós, buena suerte, buen riddance...

Posted by Me at 12:27 link

Come on, you know the words. Absolutely nothing. Say it again.

Ain't nothing but a heartbrearker.

This article from the New Yorker (via Yahoo) describes who's fighting the Iraq war. The one's who'll come back in body bags, or require years of therapy to recover from post-traumatic stress disorder (that euphemistic term has a kinder, gentler ring than "shell shock" doesn't it?). As of right now, at least 478 Iraqi civilians have died (click here or check the sidebar for an updated total). The war machine calls civilian dead collateral damage (that term has a kinder, gentler ring than "slaughtered innocents", doesn't it?).

Friend only to the undertaker?

And to a few select corporations. This article describes who'll profit from rebuilding Iraq. Meanwhile, these companies (NY Times, free registration required) will profit from the fighting itself. Should it come as any surprise that many of the people who shouted loudest for war are connected to those very companies?

Enough Edwin Starr - aren't some wars necessary?

When grave human rights abuse can be stopped, the world should unite to stop it. Rwanda and Srebrenica offer horrifying examples of what happens when the world fails to act.

The United Nations Charter, recognizing that strong action is sometimes needed to prevent catastrophe, provides for intervention¹ when there's no alternative. Article 39 asserts the authority of the UN Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," Article 41 asserts the Security Council's authority to "apply such measures [as] complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations" to "give effect to its decisions". Article 42 provides for the use of force:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. [emphasis added]

Note also that the UN's focus is on maintaining "international peace and security" (ie preventing wars between nations). Because of the growing awareness and concern over grave human rights violations committed within nations - whether committed by governments, with governmental consent or complicity, or because of ineffective governmental authority - such injustices have come to be included under Article 39's "threat[s] to the peace". Many feel the UN role should be made more explicit. I agree.

The achilles heel of the UN Security Council has always been the veto: the 5 permanent members, the US, the UK, France, Russia and China all have the power to veto any Security Council resolution. Without this compromise, the UN probably wouldn't have been formed, but the veto means that those 5 states are always able to protect themselves (or their allies) from intervention - or even criticism (by the Security Council). There's currently no way to override a Security Council veto, so without consensus among the 5 permanent members, nothing happens.

One solution: act outside the law. NATO, seeing a major humanitarian crisis brewing in Kosovo, but blocked from intervening by a Chinese/Russian veto, intervened on their own, achieved a good result³, and the UN legitimized the action after the fact.

The problem with states acting on their own, in general and specifically here, is that states may now cite Kosovo as a precedent, thus justifying their use of military force. Audacious states can use intervention on a human rights basis as a "cover" for less idealistic motives. Many feel that's exactly what the US is doing in Iraq.

The decision to intervene in Kosovo was controversial, but ultimately, practically the whole world agreed that the intervention was just and necessary. Unfortunately, by bending the rules to do it, the intervention provides potential justification for a host of potential evils - much as the Bush doctrine provides justification of all sorts of preemptive military actions by anyone with enough might to get away with it.

I propose a solution to prevent these problems in future: create a mechanism for overriding UN Security Council vetoes. How about a vote in the UN General Assembly, requiring an overwhelming majority to override a veto, say 95% of member nations? This solution would avoid both of the problems in the current situation: nations would no longer be able to hide great evils behind a veto; and nations would no longer be forced to justify extra-legal means for worthy ends. Also, it could be hoped that, with the prospect of Security Council action more likely, countries would be less apt to abuse human rights, or otherwise to disturb the peace.

The primary mission of the UN is to prevent war. Unfortunately and ironically, unjust aggression still requires the UN to intervene military in crises between - and within - nations. I believe the Iraq war highlights the need for improvements to the UN decision making process, because without improvements, nations will continue to abuse the system for their own ends, intervening on their own for purposes both noble and selfish. The UN is in danger of losing its ability to perform its mission - helping the world move beyond war. It's too vital a mission to let fall by the wayside.

Because, when it comes to conflict resolution, war's still good for (come on, you know the words) absolutely nothing. Say it again...

¹To describe such interventions as Bosnia and Kosovo as "humanitarian" interventions can be a major mistake, because, by conceptually associating military actions with the missions of humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross, those missions - and the lives of aid workers - could be endangered.

² Self-defense used to mean someone had actually attacked someone else. The US asserts the right to self-defense in cases where attack is "imminent"; the consensus view is that this is an acceptable interpretation. The problem with the Iraq war is that the US asserts that pre-emptive attack is justified because Iraq could attack us at some indefinite point in the future. This view is not widely accepted.

³ "Only" 500 civilians were killed by NATO bombing, and genocide was stopped.

Posted by Me at 09:42 link

Does this sound ominous to anyone else? How about when considered along with this?

Does anyone else think the Democrats need to get some backbone in a hurry?

With so many countries opposed to the war, why is this guy the only one speaking out?

I wish he were wrong, but I'm afraid Mubarak's probably right about this.

In news unrelated, but not completely

I looked all over for some good news this morning, but all I kept finding was crap like this. I always thought it was a shame that no one knew who Kirsty MacColl was while she was alive. Now a judge has ruled that killing her only justifies a $100 fine.

I'm going back to bed. For the next several years.

Posted by Me at 07:55 link

In any argument, I look for the points everyone can agree on. That's probably because my parents argued a lot. For much of my early childhood, my nightly "lullaby" was the sound of their yelling, cursing and screaming at each other, punctuated occasionally with the sound of breaking objects or the harsh slap of hand on human flesh. If you haven't lived though this for an extended period, you might not understand my strong distaste for Jerry Springer-style "debate". My experience explains why I seek consensus, even on the toughest issues.

Usually there's at least one thing we can all agree on. For example: does anyone, on either side of the abortion debate, want the number of abortions performed to increase? No. We disagree on how to make it come about, but we'd all like fewer abortions to be performed.

I'm not on anyone's side. If anything, I'm on the side of the truth. Unsurprisingly, in this with-us-or-against-us age (thanks a bunch, George), I often end up in the crossfire between two opposing points of view. I'm now getting that from both sides of the war debate. I've posted my position on the war here many times. I thought one of the least controversial points I've supported is that while I oppose the war, I support the troops. I expected conservatives to misunderstand and attack this position, and they have. This political cartoon sums up the conservative view that the position is hypocritical. (I'll return to this later).

I didn't expect criticism from the left. But two of my best friends, both liberals, have also questioned my point of view. A lot of their perceived disagreement centers on what exactly I mean by "support the troops".

Can all Americans agree with me on these points?

• That we care about the welfare of American military personnel, as human beings.
• That military personnel deserve our respect and gratitude for the risks they take and the sacrifices they make.
• (Least obvious, but maybe most important), that the president is to blame / thank for starting the war - not the troops.

As with a lot of issues, the argument rages, not over "what", but over "how". How do we show our support for the troops, if we support them?

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home as soon as possible, and to speak out strongly against wrong military action.

For those wishing to express support more tangibly and immediately, there are other, little ways: helping their families back home by giving them grocery gift certificates;donating calling cards so service members can contact their families; sending a greeting.

I personally won't sign the virtual greeting card, because I think the card's message, "Thank you for defending our freedom," is too close to approving the war itself. Likewise I could understand why someone would think it wrong to send a care package including items such as razors, toothbrushes and snacks, since that could be construed as material support for an unjust war. Each individual must decide for themselves what's right.

Damned if you do...

I want to adress some logical flaws in a recent argument against supporting the troops.

1. It's right to support the troops when the military action is just, but not when the action is unjust.

   Under widely-accepted international law, two separate sets of rules apply to war: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum governs whether a war is just, jus in bello governs how it is fought. I believe that Bush has violated the laws of jus ad bellum by launching a pre-emptive attack, and that he should be held accountable.

   The soldiers didn't start the war. It's not up to them to judge whether the war is just or unjust. Soldiers are essentially programmed to do what they're told, which is necessary so that they can act without hesitation when hesitation could kill them. They're responsible for their conduct in war, according to jus in bello, regardless of whether the war is "just" or not. If a soldier is given an order requiring him to break the laws of jus in bello, he is required by those laws to disobey the order. If our forces behave badly in any war, it's our duty to condemn their behavior.

   US forces are trained in the laws of war and have historically adhered to those laws more than have the forces of any other nation. On occasion, certain individuals in the US military have acted reprehensibly, in conflicts both "just" and "unjust". Also, in "just" and in "unjust" wars, our military personnel have killed civilians, accidentally, because of "military necessity".

   It's very true that our "precision" weapons are still not precise enough - every time we wage war, we kill civilians. To argue that such acts should be condemned in one war and excused in another is saying "the end justifies the means," a notion I firmly reject. The fact that modern war is deadly for civilians is one of many good reasons for rejecting war altogether as a means of resolving our differences, which would eliminate the need for both jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

2. Saying you oppose the war but support the troops is mealy-mouthed and pusillanimous.

   Mealy-mouthed means being unwilling to state facts simply or plainly; pusillanimous means cowardly. The implication is that if someone says they oppose the war but support the troops, they're secretly saying they support the war, but they're afraid to come out and say they support the war. This again is giving in to with-us-or-against-us thinking. Take this position to its extreme and you end up in the airport throwing pig's blood on returning soldiers shouting "babykiller!" at them just to prove you're really and truly opposed to the war. I remain steadfastly on the side of peace. Anti-war, but pro-soldier.

   This position is not as simple as just anti-war full stop. But it's unjust to reject our soldiers just because it's simpler than supporting them. Until we are able to settle all our differences without war, we need the military. As long as we need the military, we need to support them for doing their jobs the right way.

Now, for the conservative position that anti-war = anti-soldier. Here are the logical flaws of that argument, as presented in Marlette's cartoon.

1. We must support the commander-in-chief to support the troops.

   The only action Bush has taken as commander-in-chief was to start the war - which was illegal under both international and US laws. Just as I would condemn a war crime by a US soldier in the field, so I condemn Bush's crime in starting the war.

   The US Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war, and names the president commander-in-chief, or head of all US military forces. Many argue that this means only Congress can start wars, but presidents have taken it upon themselves to start wars without Congress for a long time. This is probably illegal under the Constitution, but seldom contested. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, supposedly limiting further the power of the president to wage war on his own, but it, too, has been largely ignored. From the act:

   SEC. 2. (c)
   
   The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

   Since none of those conditions existed, the president acted beyond his authority as commander-in-chief by starting the war. He not only violated the international laws of jus ad bellum, he also violated US Law. I believe his illegal action is a disgrace to the US military and that he should be relieved of command immediately.

2. To support the troops, you must support their mission.

   They didn't choose their mission. The president chose their mission.

3. Because American soldiers have died, it's wrong to oppose the war

   Because the war is wrong, the deaths are all the more tragic. Just because good people die for something doesn't make that something right. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, DC is as strong a testament as could ever be made to this truth.

Come Together?

I know the anti-war and pro-war factions are not going to come together on the issue of support for the troops. (Try going to a "support the troops" rally carrying a "support our troops - bring them home" sign and see what kind of reaction you get). I realize the issue is used by both sides as a weapon against the other, much as the troops themselves are used as a tool by the president. I realize trying to build consensus is an uphill battle when emotions are high on both sides, and the debate grows less logical - and more vocal - each day.

I realize lines are being drawn and that I am forced to choose. I choose peace. I've always chosen peace. But as long as US forces continue to conduct themselves admirably on the field of battle, I'll keep supporting them - even if the war they've been tasked to fight is unjust. Again, the best way to support them is to oppose unjust war.

And I'll keep working to build consensus, because learning to agree is the best way to move beyond war - which is the best way to support humankind.

Posted by Me at 19:03 link

Make me laugh:

• Calvin & Hobbes
• Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet
• Dilbert

• Ann Telnaes
• Ted Rall
• Zippy the Pinhead

• Doonesbury
• Pat Oliphant
• Steve Sack
• Ben Sargent
• Tom the Dancing Bug
• Tom Toles
• Tom Tomorrow

• Marlette