Thursday, August 24, 2006

NYT: Plays 'who matters?' (the same game J. M. Laughner played)

So the New York Times (and CBS) did a poll to test the mood of the country, Carl Hulse and Marjorie Connelly wrote it, someone titled it "Poll Shows a Shift in Opinion on Iraq War" and the thing that still stands out is that of the follow up interviews the Times decides to note (the only individuals who are quoted in this story) you've got two Republicans and one independent. Be careful when you set your coffee cup down, the table is obviously tilted.

(This is the same poll we noted in yesterday's snapshot.)

Otherwise? The Times still 'reports' on Saddam's trial, if you can call it that. How did he get the chemical weapons he used? Who supported him? The date "1987" should probably be in the headline. Oh well, maybe in two decades China or another nation can lead a crimes against humanity inquiry into what was done at Waco or in Philadephia to MOVE? For now, we're all supposed to pretend like these trials are about things that were unknown until a few years ago and done by lone gunman Saddam with no knowledge (and certainly no support) from the world community. But if weren't for the Times lousy trial coverage, we wouldn't even have an Iraq article today (the drums are beating for war with Iran at the paper, in case anyone missed it) so, from Damien Cave's jury duty report today, we'll note the following:

In Baquba on Wednesday, eight people were killed, including the owner of an ice cream shop, in clashes that broke out in several areas of the city, the authorities said. A roadside bomb in Falluja, the site of several large battles between American troops and insurgents, killed two Iraqi civilians, wounded four and damaged an American tank, according to the police.
In Baghdad, at least 15 people were found dead, many showing signs of torture, according to Interior Ministry and hospital officials.
An American serviceman died from his injuries after combat in Mosul, the United States military said in a statement. The Iraqi Army said it had killed one militant and arrested 29 others throughout the country since Tuesday.
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki also offered his most specific plans to date for the transfer of authority to Iraqi forces. Though additional American troops were required recently to secure the capital, he said Iraqi forces were on track to handle security within a matter of months.

Martha notes Josh White's "Marine Called Haditha Shootings Appropriate" (Washington Post) and it's about how the military had J.M. Laughner do an investigation into the November 19, 2005 slaughter early on and he didn't see anything of concern. That attitude comes through the loudest at the end of the article:

"It made sense, that they had ran out of the car and then they engaged," Laughner said. When asked if anyone ever hinted that the situation that day was considered inappropriate or if something bad had happened, Laughner answered: "No, just that a Marine died. That is the only bad thing."

Some lives have value and some don't. Laughner sees two dozen corpses and is asked if anything "bad" happened. He responds: "No, just that a Marine died."

Mia notes (and it fits in here) Francis A. Boyle's "Statement on Behalf of Lt. Ehren Watada" (CounterPunch):

Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. They are getting prosecuted for protesting against illegal U.S. military interventions and war crimes around the world. First Lieutenant Ehren Watada is America's equivalent to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Vaclav Havel, Andrei Sakharov, Wei Jingsheng, Aung San Suu Kyi, and others. He is the archetypal American Hero whom we should be bringing into our schools and teaching our children to emulate, not those wholesale purveyors of gratuitous violence and bloodshed adulated by the U.S. government, America's power elite, the mainstream corporate news media, and its interlocked entertainment industry.
In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany.

The e-mail address for this site is