Starting with photographers again. Chaiwat Subprasom (Reuters) has a photo of a candlelight vigil on New Year's Eve in Thailand to remember those who died in the tsunami on the front page of the New York Times. Gurinder Osan (Associated Press) has two photos on A6 of people in Nagappattinam, India as aid begins arriving. Also on A6, Elizabeth Dalziel (Associated Press) has a photo of "Muslims unloading aid boxes containing drinking water outside Galle, on Sri Lanka's southern coast."
Saeed Khan (Agence France-Presse/Getty Images) has an especially powerful photo of two workers checking the "DNA numbers written on body bags of victims for identification" on page A7. The same page also features Barbara Walton's photo of "Espen Bjornsen, a Swedish tourist, comforted his wife Tuija, while the couple waited yesterday to be evacuated from the airport in Phuket, Thailand." (Walton is with European Pressphoto Agency.)
Photos of mourners are found on A8: Sri Lankans in Kelaniya (Sriyantha Walpola -- New York Times); Thais (Jean Chung -- New York Times); a gentleman in Kalmunai, Sri Lanka (Chang W. Lee -- New York Times) and a young girl in Kuala Lumpur (Pacik --Agence France-Presse/Getty Images). On the same page, Bay Ismoyo (Agence France-Presse/Getty Images) has a photo of "A health official, left, fumigated yesterday near victims' bodies in Banda Aceh" Indonesia.
In fact, let's make this entry just about noting the photo-journalists who conveyed with pictures the devestation (to the land and to the people) from the tsunami. I'll do something on the reporters' article in a little while but I really did fail in not noting the work of photo-journalists earlier so let's just let this be about the news they've delivered.
I'm not a visual person and I won't bore you by attempting to describe the photos but the above people (and many more) are working very hard to convey reality and they should be noted for it.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller:"Should our men or women be held in similar circumstances, I would hope they would be treated in this manner."
Neil A. Lewis has two powerful stories in this morning's New York Times. "Justice Dept. Toughens Rule on Torture" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/politics/01torture.html)
and "Fresh Details Emerge on Harsh Methods at Guantánamo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/national/01gitmo.html) inside the paper.
Both are recommended. We'll do a cutting from both below. Just before Alberto Gonzales (will use the "R." when he tells us what it stands for) is to go before the Senate (he wants to replace J-Ass as attorney general), a new policy is suddenly put into place regarding torture:
The Justice Department has broadened its definition of torture, significantly retreating from a memorandum in August 2002 that defined torture extremely narrowly and said President Bush could ignore domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security.
The new definition was in a memorandum posted on the department's Web site late Thursday night with no public announcement.
. . .
The new memorandum, first reported in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, largely dismisses the August 2002 definition, especially the part that asserted that mistreatment rose to the level of torture only if it produced severe pain equivalent to that associated with organ failure or death.
"Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms," said the new memorandum written by Daniel Levin, the acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, which had produced the earlier definition.
. . .
A memorandum in January 2002 to President Bush that Mr. Gonzales signed sided with the Justice Department in asserting that the Geneva Conventions did not bind the United States in its treatment of detainees captured in the fighting in Afghanistan.
[from front page article]
"We are detaining these enemy combatants in a humane manner," General [Geoffrey D.] Miller told reporters in March 2004. "Should our men or women be held in similar circumstances, I would hope they would be treated in this manner."
[from inside the paper story; Miller was "the commander of the Guantánamo operation from November 2002 to March 2004" (Lewis's inside the paper article). Where is Miller today?
House and Senate members are also focusing on the role of Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was so effective at eliciting useful information from terrorism suspects at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that he was named last month to run U.S. prisons in Iraq. It was Miller who recommended last September that military intelligence officials have command over prisons and prison guards to improve the intelligence gleaned from interrogations. -- Army Times, May 17th (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2923919.php)]
Interviews with former intelligence officers and interrogators provided new details and confirmed earlier accounts of inmates being shackled for hours and left to soil themselves while exposed to blaring music or the insistent meowing of a cat-food commercial. In addition, some may have been forcibly given enemas as punishment.
While all the detainees were threatened with harsh tactics if they did not cooperate, about one in six were eventually subjected to those procedures, one former interrogator estimated. The interrogator said that when new interrogators arrived they were told they had great flexibility in extracting information from detainees because the Geneva Conventions did not apply at the base.
[from story inside the paper]
Military officials who participated in the practices said in October that prisoners had been tormented by being chained to a low chair for hours with bright flashing lights in their eyes and audio tapes played loudly next to their ears, including songs by Lil' Kim and Rage Against the Machine and rap performances by Eminem.
In a recent interview, another former official added new details, saying that many interrogators used a different audio tape on prisoners, a mix of babies crying and the television commercial for Meow Mix in which the jingle consists of repetition of the word "meow."
The people who spoke about what they saw or whose duties made them aware of what was occurring said they had different reasons for granting interviews. Some said they objected to the methods, others said they objected to what they regarded as a chaotic and badly run system, while others offered no reason. They all declined to be identified by name, some saying they feared retaliation.
[from story inside the paper]
Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has sued the administration over its interrogation policies, said Friday that the redefinition "makes it clear that the earlier one was not just some intellectual theorizing by some lawyers about what was possible."
"It means it must have been implemented in some way," Mr. Ratner said. "It puts the burden on the administration to say what practices were actually put in place under those auspices."
The International Committee of the Red Cross has said in private messages to the United States government that American personnel have engaged in torture of detainees, both in Iraq and at Guantánamo.
[from story on the front page]
Neil A. Lewis has two strong articles. Both need to be read to get a fuller picuture. (I won't say complete because I think more will emerge.)
and "Fresh Details Emerge on Harsh Methods at Guantánamo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/national/01gitmo.html) inside the paper.
Both are recommended. We'll do a cutting from both below. Just before Alberto Gonzales (will use the "R." when he tells us what it stands for) is to go before the Senate (he wants to replace J-Ass as attorney general), a new policy is suddenly put into place regarding torture:
The Justice Department has broadened its definition of torture, significantly retreating from a memorandum in August 2002 that defined torture extremely narrowly and said President Bush could ignore domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security.
The new definition was in a memorandum posted on the department's Web site late Thursday night with no public announcement.
. . .
The new memorandum, first reported in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, largely dismisses the August 2002 definition, especially the part that asserted that mistreatment rose to the level of torture only if it produced severe pain equivalent to that associated with organ failure or death.
"Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms," said the new memorandum written by Daniel Levin, the acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, which had produced the earlier definition.
. . .
A memorandum in January 2002 to President Bush that Mr. Gonzales signed sided with the Justice Department in asserting that the Geneva Conventions did not bind the United States in its treatment of detainees captured in the fighting in Afghanistan.
[from front page article]
"We are detaining these enemy combatants in a humane manner," General [Geoffrey D.] Miller told reporters in March 2004. "Should our men or women be held in similar circumstances, I would hope they would be treated in this manner."
[from inside the paper story; Miller was "the commander of the Guantánamo operation from November 2002 to March 2004" (Lewis's inside the paper article). Where is Miller today?
House and Senate members are also focusing on the role of Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was so effective at eliciting useful information from terrorism suspects at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that he was named last month to run U.S. prisons in Iraq. It was Miller who recommended last September that military intelligence officials have command over prisons and prison guards to improve the intelligence gleaned from interrogations. -- Army Times, May 17th (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2923919.php)]
Interviews with former intelligence officers and interrogators provided new details and confirmed earlier accounts of inmates being shackled for hours and left to soil themselves while exposed to blaring music or the insistent meowing of a cat-food commercial. In addition, some may have been forcibly given enemas as punishment.
While all the detainees were threatened with harsh tactics if they did not cooperate, about one in six were eventually subjected to those procedures, one former interrogator estimated. The interrogator said that when new interrogators arrived they were told they had great flexibility in extracting information from detainees because the Geneva Conventions did not apply at the base.
[from story inside the paper]
Military officials who participated in the practices said in October that prisoners had been tormented by being chained to a low chair for hours with bright flashing lights in their eyes and audio tapes played loudly next to their ears, including songs by Lil' Kim and Rage Against the Machine and rap performances by Eminem.
In a recent interview, another former official added new details, saying that many interrogators used a different audio tape on prisoners, a mix of babies crying and the television commercial for Meow Mix in which the jingle consists of repetition of the word "meow."
The people who spoke about what they saw or whose duties made them aware of what was occurring said they had different reasons for granting interviews. Some said they objected to the methods, others said they objected to what they regarded as a chaotic and badly run system, while others offered no reason. They all declined to be identified by name, some saying they feared retaliation.
[from story inside the paper]
Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has sued the administration over its interrogation policies, said Friday that the redefinition "makes it clear that the earlier one was not just some intellectual theorizing by some lawyers about what was possible."
"It means it must have been implemented in some way," Mr. Ratner said. "It puts the burden on the administration to say what practices were actually put in place under those auspices."
The International Committee of the Red Cross has said in private messages to the United States government that American personnel have engaged in torture of detainees, both in Iraq and at Guantánamo.
[from story on the front page]
Neil A. Lewis has two strong articles. Both need to be read to get a fuller picuture. (I won't say complete because I think more will emerge.)
Focus on the Fool
Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of thousands voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice.
But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head see the world spinning around.
-- "The Fool On the Hill" words & music by John Lennon & Paul McCartney
[found on many albums, but I enjoy the Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour)
So little Jimmy Dobson of Focus on the Fool wants our attention today. [New York Times story on A10, "Evangelical Leader Threatens to Use His Political Muscle Against Some Democrats"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/politics/01dobson.html?oref=login by David D. Kirkpatrick.]
See, little Jimmy Dobson and Focus on the Fool are so all powerful that their threats should make US senators shiver.
Specifically, they're threatening Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Dayton (Minnesota), Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia), Jeff Bingham (New Mexico), Bill Nelson (Florida) and Kent Conrad (North Dakota).
Now where does little Jimmy Dobson get his power, such as it is? Anybody?
Preacher preaching love like like vengeance
Preaching love like hate
Calling for large donations
Promising estates
Rolling lawns and angel bands
Behind the pearly gates
You know, he will have his in this life
But yours'll have to wait
He's immaculately tax free
Tax free
Tax free
-- "Tax Free" words & music by Joni Mitchell
[from the Joni Mitchell album Dog Eat Dog]
And why is he tax free? Is it because, if you try to threaten U.S. senators, there's some special get-out-of-paying-taxes clause?
No, but Preacher James Dobson (we won't call him "Doctor") has been itching to step into the political ring openly for years. He first pops up in the Carter administration. (What was Jimmy Carter thinking?) Later he's serving on the Ed Meese porn commission (why do I suspect Dobson had, for a moment, found his true calling?) and over the years, he's been in-and-out of the government repeatedly. Always in non-elected roles, non-Senate confirmed roles, under the radar type of roles.
But in 2004, he endorsed a presidential candidate and, having swung the closet door open, he's now wanting the Bully Boy to pay it forward. Ol' hatchet face Dobson is already making noises at the Bully Boy. He's got his panties in a wad over something Bush said ("it bothers me a lot") about the country not being ready to overturn Roe v. Wade (no, not by a long shot). And now, Brother Dobson's here to tell us all that those six senators are "in the bull's eye." That's what Jesus would say? "In the bull's eye?"
Kind of reminds me of the infamous "Angels in Chains" episode of Charlie's Angels. First season, when the female guard leers up and down at Kate Jackson's Sabrina and says, "I'm going to be watching you, sweetcakes, watching you real hard." Well my goodness gracious, Brother Dobson.
So Preacher Man looked at Tom Daschle's loss and decided that Tommy D's loss is a credit to the power and the glory of . . . James Dobson. What? You didn't think he was going to credit God when Brother Dobson has convinced himself that it was Jimmy who climbed right down off that cross to move the mountain -- did you?
Taking self-enthrallment to new levels, Dobson looks at Daschle's loss and sees only his own power. Forget the fact that Daschle was targeted with ads in 2002, two years before his election. Forget the fact that Daschle's tendency to go wobbly resulted in his looking weak and ineffective even within his own party. Forget the fact that the airline bailout might have seemed less questionable were it not for the fact that Daschle's wife was a lobbyist for . . . the airlines.
No, all things happen as . . . Dobson planned them. In his mind anyway.
I don't know much about the Nelsons or Bingham, but with regard to the other three, let's use the Bully Boy's rallying cry: Bring it on!
Senator Robert C. Byrd has represented West Virigina for ages. The people know him, they like him. His elequent (and strong) voice has earned him attention and respect around the nation.
I'm sure Byrd will hold his own quite well against Jimmy Come Lately Dobson and his mythical followers.
Dayton? After the way Paul & Sheila Wellstone's memory and memorial were trashed by GOP lies, I don't know think the Republicans will have an easy task in attempting to wrestle the seat from Dayton, with or without Ja-Do's help.
Kent Conrad? This one excites me the most. Conrad was one of the first Democrats to find a spine. I don't think he's now going to hand it over on a plate in the face of ridiculous threats from the man chanting, "Oh come let us adore -- ME!" (Joni Mitchell and her song "Tax Free" are acknowledged for that quote.) (I could be wrong.)
An assistant to incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid gets off a good line in the article --
"James Dobson needs to focus on the facts," James Manley argues. Well said.
The whole thing reminds me of a certain group claiming to be a "majority" and claiming to be "moral" and how despite all their blustering and brimstone they couldn't even get a TV show taken off the air. Not only did NBC refuse to cancel Flamingo Road under threats from the so-called Moral Majority, but the ratings actually increased during the tempest.
I know Brother Dobson has had many pet causes over the years but the one I'm most reminded of is his War on Barbie. Last time I checked, Mattel's doll had withstood the wrath of Ja-Do. Any Democratic senator thinking of buckeling might want to remember he's already publicly
lost one battle . . . to a plastic doll.
And nobody seems to like him,
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings.
But the fool on the hill on the hill sees the sun going down
. . . .
[Note: This post has been corrected. Three commas have been added and other grammer errors were caught by Shirley. As always, thank you Shirley.]
The man of thousands voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice.
But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head see the world spinning around.
-- "The Fool On the Hill" words & music by John Lennon & Paul McCartney
[found on many albums, but I enjoy the Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour)
So little Jimmy Dobson of Focus on the Fool wants our attention today. [New York Times story on A10, "Evangelical Leader Threatens to Use His Political Muscle Against Some Democrats"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/politics/01dobson.html?oref=login by David D. Kirkpatrick.]
See, little Jimmy Dobson and Focus on the Fool are so all powerful that their threats should make US senators shiver.
Specifically, they're threatening Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Dayton (Minnesota), Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia), Jeff Bingham (New Mexico), Bill Nelson (Florida) and Kent Conrad (North Dakota).
Now where does little Jimmy Dobson get his power, such as it is? Anybody?
Preacher preaching love like like vengeance
Preaching love like hate
Calling for large donations
Promising estates
Rolling lawns and angel bands
Behind the pearly gates
You know, he will have his in this life
But yours'll have to wait
He's immaculately tax free
Tax free
Tax free
-- "Tax Free" words & music by Joni Mitchell
[from the Joni Mitchell album Dog Eat Dog]
And why is he tax free? Is it because, if you try to threaten U.S. senators, there's some special get-out-of-paying-taxes clause?
No, but Preacher James Dobson (we won't call him "Doctor") has been itching to step into the political ring openly for years. He first pops up in the Carter administration. (What was Jimmy Carter thinking?) Later he's serving on the Ed Meese porn commission (why do I suspect Dobson had, for a moment, found his true calling?) and over the years, he's been in-and-out of the government repeatedly. Always in non-elected roles, non-Senate confirmed roles, under the radar type of roles.
But in 2004, he endorsed a presidential candidate and, having swung the closet door open, he's now wanting the Bully Boy to pay it forward. Ol' hatchet face Dobson is already making noises at the Bully Boy. He's got his panties in a wad over something Bush said ("it bothers me a lot") about the country not being ready to overturn Roe v. Wade (no, not by a long shot). And now, Brother Dobson's here to tell us all that those six senators are "in the bull's eye." That's what Jesus would say? "In the bull's eye?"
Kind of reminds me of the infamous "Angels in Chains" episode of Charlie's Angels. First season, when the female guard leers up and down at Kate Jackson's Sabrina and says, "I'm going to be watching you, sweetcakes, watching you real hard." Well my goodness gracious, Brother Dobson.
So Preacher Man looked at Tom Daschle's loss and decided that Tommy D's loss is a credit to the power and the glory of . . . James Dobson. What? You didn't think he was going to credit God when Brother Dobson has convinced himself that it was Jimmy who climbed right down off that cross to move the mountain -- did you?
Taking self-enthrallment to new levels, Dobson looks at Daschle's loss and sees only his own power. Forget the fact that Daschle was targeted with ads in 2002, two years before his election. Forget the fact that Daschle's tendency to go wobbly resulted in his looking weak and ineffective even within his own party. Forget the fact that the airline bailout might have seemed less questionable were it not for the fact that Daschle's wife was a lobbyist for . . . the airlines.
No, all things happen as . . . Dobson planned them. In his mind anyway.
I don't know much about the Nelsons or Bingham, but with regard to the other three, let's use the Bully Boy's rallying cry: Bring it on!
Senator Robert C. Byrd has represented West Virigina for ages. The people know him, they like him. His elequent (and strong) voice has earned him attention and respect around the nation.
I'm sure Byrd will hold his own quite well against Jimmy Come Lately Dobson and his mythical followers.
Dayton? After the way Paul & Sheila Wellstone's memory and memorial were trashed by GOP lies, I don't know think the Republicans will have an easy task in attempting to wrestle the seat from Dayton, with or without Ja-Do's help.
Kent Conrad? This one excites me the most. Conrad was one of the first Democrats to find a spine. I don't think he's now going to hand it over on a plate in the face of ridiculous threats from the man chanting, "Oh come let us adore -- ME!" (Joni Mitchell and her song "Tax Free" are acknowledged for that quote.) (I could be wrong.)
An assistant to incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid gets off a good line in the article --
"James Dobson needs to focus on the facts," James Manley argues. Well said.
The whole thing reminds me of a certain group claiming to be a "majority" and claiming to be "moral" and how despite all their blustering and brimstone they couldn't even get a TV show taken off the air. Not only did NBC refuse to cancel Flamingo Road under threats from the so-called Moral Majority, but the ratings actually increased during the tempest.
I know Brother Dobson has had many pet causes over the years but the one I'm most reminded of is his War on Barbie. Last time I checked, Mattel's doll had withstood the wrath of Ja-Do. Any Democratic senator thinking of buckeling might want to remember he's already publicly
lost one battle . . . to a plastic doll.
And nobody seems to like him,
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings.
But the fool on the hill on the hill sees the sun going down
. . . .
[Note: This post has been corrected. Three commas have been added and other grammer errors were caught by Shirley. As always, thank you Shirley.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)