Torture & the Vampire Veep

Bridgethought of the Day: Even the greatest political power, at some point putters out. And then all the deep, dark rubbish rises to the surface. It helps if you don't snear.


In commemoration of Torture Awareness Week, Mr. Torture himself, the Vampire Veep, was rotisseried all week by the Washington Post in their
fantastic series on Cheney . His cloak-and-dagger sophisticated but underhanded power playing affected and apparently shaped everything we hate about the Administration, from the promotion and use of torture, the attempts to eliminate due process in the War on Terror, to the ransacking of the environment on behalf of anything big and elite - oil conglomerates, huge corporations - and more. This is the biggest thing since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke open the Watergate scandal. In fact, this is bigger than Watergate. At stake is not only elections and the political process, but just about everything there is in government, and in fact, the Constitution itself and the democratic ideals it was written to safeguard.



Oon this week, I especially commemorate Dick, the Vampire Veep, for his promotion of "robust interrogation" and the "redefinition" of torture. The purpose of redefining torture is to make it "legal" and so be able to lie and say "we do not torture", while we most certainly do. Yes, the Vampire Veep redefined torture to mean the inflicting of pain so severe it causes (or is comparable to) organ failure or death. Anything less is not torture. Don't let this pass sleeping.

Not everything the Nazis did to the Jews in the Holocaust caused organ failure or death - so that part did not constitute "torture", and is therefore OK, according to Cheney and his ilk. It counts out the horrors of numbers being tattooed on victims' arms, for example, since that did not cause death. The herding of men, women and children like animals, to the slaughter, was in and of itself not Cheney's idea of torture, even though they were naked - not until organ death or death occurred. None of those who survived the Holocaust could have been tortured, since according to Cheney's definition, they lived. It was not torture to witness the torturing of others, and there is not such thing as "psychological torture" since one is technically still alive.

Of course, Cheney wasn't thinking of the Holocaust. He was thinking of terrorists. But you can't change definitions like suits. You cannot take a stand against torture for one group, such as one's buddies, and then OK it for another group, such as one's enemies. It must be condemned unequivocably for all human beings for all time. What comes after death is God's business. What comes before death is our responsibility, and label-changing does not change the truth. Ask Sister Dianna Ortiz, and consider the horrors she endured. In 1989, she was abducted by security forces while working as a missionary among indigenous people in Guatemala. She was taken to a secret prison in the capital center and brutally tortured. She was burned with cigarettes, raped, beaten and forced to torture a woman who was already near death. She survived. So, according to Cheney, it wasn't torture.

To say that, to re-define torture is a high crime. To deny Sister Ortiz's or countless other victims' torture, to redefine torture in order to implement it for one's own agenda are high crimes far outstripping "bribery", the only clear-cut "impeachable" offense. Dick Cheney must be impeached.

The Republicans are going to try to get rid of him. We should impeach him, and he should stand trial for his treachery - against the Constitution, the American people, and their government - not to mention all those souls his policies have violated beyond the scope of this. He should not be allowed to just retire into quiet oblivion on the pretext of a pacemaker battery-change.

The Vampire Veep sucked the blood out of free enterprise with his pro-bigpower policies, sucked the blood out of democratic process by his circumvention of all checks and balances and his systematic concentration of power in the executive branch, sucked the power out of human rights and social welfare programs and environmental safeguards by favoring giant Corporate Interests, sucked the blood out of our national defense by foreign adventurism and creating terror hotspots instead of diplomacy, and more...

Are these not impeachable offenses? Then what, pray tell, is? It was not bribery or burglary, but something far more sinister, and beyond the scope of law, being somehow, so we are told, perfectly "legal". Promoting torture is not even a misdemeanor?

Some torture awareness related news hits the White House, per Democracy Now's recap:

Students Criticize Torture in White House Meeting With Bush

Meanwhile protests are continuing over the Bush administration's support for torture. On Monday the president was personally presented a letter signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program. The letter said: "We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions, and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants." White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president was not expecting the students' letter but read it and then told the students that that United States does not torture and that the country values human rights. Meanwhile protests are taking place today across the country to mark the UN's International Day to Remember the Victims of Torture. In Washington the American Civil Liberties Union is organizing a Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice.

Sister Dianna Ortiz and Torture Survivors Hold 24-Hour Vigil Outside White House

Transcript here

The Armageddonist's Prayer

Our Big Brother, who art in 9-11,
Hallowed by thy game,
My will be done on earth
For the sake of 9-11.
Give them each day their daily head-numbing lies & stories,
And deliver us from liberal peace-mongering, bleeding-heart
People-self-governing, forced accountability Evil,
For ours and our elite is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
Wars without end. Amen.

OK, Hillary impressed me in the debates. She looks like she has a positive agenda on health care and "shared prosperity", economic measures aimed to bridge the gap, or gaping hole, between filthy ostentatiously don't-give-a-damnedly rich and we're-in-real-trouble-here poor. But it's foreign policy that tells the tale - just like with my great-eared hope, Barak Obama, who stood tall and firm with the War Without End Amen. Hillary got some boos in Washington's "Take Back America" fete for the following telling tale:

Sen. Hillary Clinton:
"The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions which are important for their own people.”

First, the American military - not policies, not negotiations, not gifts of infrastructure, food, housing assistance, humanitarian aid, not diplomacy, not advice, not any form of help whatsoever except military arms - is supposedly "giving" - tell me do, Hillary, how guns "give" anything but death to one side or another - "a chance"? So Iraq, according to Hillary, failed to take that "chance". But the "chance" was for elections. The "elected" government is accused thereafter of the "failure". Not failure to have elections for which they were given the chance. But failure to make "tough decisions".

How do military arms and personnel help a government to decide anything? This is pure doubletalk designed to get elected by a populace presumed "conservative" and duped into thinking it's true. "Conservatives" are extremely liberal with war, your tax dollars in warmongering, and liberal with restricting freedoms in favor of fear. "Conservatives" spend more money than "Liberals" who would rather spend your tax dollars at home on building a stable "Homeland" with freedom & justice for all than on foreign adventurist wars to promote neither freedom nor justice but only two things: corporate profit in the short run, and a thang called Israel in all runs.

Hillary is all about power, and I'm not convinced she'd be any better than anyone else at focusing on human issues, which is the big circle, not right and left, we all really face.

Meanwhile, some excerpts from Dear Amy Goodman, I love you, ... news:

Israeli Court Limits Entry of Wounded Gaza Residents
Meanwhile Israel’s High Court has rejected a motion for immediate entry of all Gaza residents in need of life-saving medical attention. Israel has allowed at least thirty-five Palestinians but some twenty-five remain stranded at Gaza’s crossing with Israel. Sari Bashi of the Israeli human rights group Gisha urged the Israeli government to allow them entry.

Sari Bashi: "Since Thursday Israel has closed the borders of Gaza, no one can leave. These are patients who if the they don't enter Israeli hospitals immediately their life is threatened. Because Israel continues to exercise control over Gaza's borders it has an obligation to let patients receive life-saving treatment outside of Gaza."

Our "democratic friends" in their moral hour of triumph.

True, what one Israeli said about the right-wingers of that land, sometimes it seems they care more about animal rights than the rights of human beings.

Make that "most of the time." Sorry, Ari.

Carter: US-led Boycott of Palestinians “Criminal”
Meanwhile former President Jimmy Carter has weighed in on the Bush administration’s role in the current crisis. Speaking in Ireland, Carter said the US, Israel and the European Union are trying to divide the Palestinian people. Carter also called the administration’s refusal to accept Hamas’ election win last year “criminal.” He said: “The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah.”

That's why Carter is always made out to look like a total failure and a disgrace to the office. Hillary knows what she's doing. You can't tell the truth without facing the consequences. We're in a government by liars with an agenda you can't easily know, because they are lying so much.

ACLU Sues for End to Drugging Immigrants Facing Deportation
And finally, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a class-action suit on behalf of two immigrant males who say they were drugged against their will as U.S. officials tried to deport them. One of the men is an Indonesian national seeking asyslym; the other a Senegalese married to a US citizen. Both say they were forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs. The ACLU wants a judge to block all drugging of immigrants facing deportation proceedings.

Did you know this was happening? We are getting more and more like Israelis: they're not people unless they're "one of us." And the category "subhuman" makes it OK to torture, to drug by force, etc. There are two moral codes: one for US, and one for THEM - whoever "they" may be - watch out! One day YOU may be one of THEM. And you won't know until you're blindfolded.

Why the Rivers of Blood Keep Flowing, While Water Dries Up: Mideast Fiascos breed Extremism

Bridgethought of the Day: Why does it seem the most reasonable majority get drowned in the volcanic flows of extremists who are far fewer?

This article by Jeffrey Sachs explains the situation very clearly, especially in terms of the current bloody situation in Palestine.

When laying blame, it's always advisable to look to the top of the pack, to those who have the power and resources to control outcomes best. They are the most responsible, and always blame those they have oppressed or mowed over. They live on the backs of fall guys.

Religious War Images

Let's see, we have the Protestant Orangemen vs. the Catholic Irish; the Orthodox vs. Reformed Jews now revving up for battle; the Shi'a vs. Sunni in Iraq and elsewhere; and ... now the Hamas vs. Fattah in Palestine, where religion was previously not the issue.

So, fellow Americans, let's all join the fun and make it the Western Pop Capitalists vs. the Eastern Religious Totalitarians. Sounds like a good Freedom Fight, and who doesn't love to die for freedom? Let's surge, to watch him spin faster and faster!

9-11 Revisited & Re-revisited

Bridgethought of the Day: Was 9-11 the result of insufficient draconian security measures, or inept foreign policy, or ... the consequences of ignoring intelligence information we had? Or shall we simply blame others, and solve all our problems by revenge?

Republican solution to all problems: Find your avenging angel, or avenging angelic host, as the case may be. Problem is, sometimes that "angel" turns devil on you. Revenge is never a cut-&-dried business, but always gets very messy.

Recent polls indicate that a significant number of Muslims in this country feel that 9-11 was somehow part of a conspiracy by the U.S. government. Being as the brunt of 9-11 vengeance hit the Muslim world and Muslims in particular over any other group by far, it should surprise no one that Muslims feel this is part of an American government conspiracy. Why suddenly are they targeted for wrath, when this was the work of a small group of extremists that many Muslims would argue are acting on anything but Islam, whose actions are actually prohibited by Islam? To them, it seems reasonable that a country like the U.S. could not be so incompetent as to allow a band of outlaws like this to cause such a major catastrophe, and a group of Muslims would not do such an obviously prohibited (haram) act.

However, they fail to take into account this Administration's penchant for incompetence, favoritism, and fantasy-led policies that often lead to totally incomprehensible conclusions. They also may fail to take into account that not all - in fact, many - Muslims are ignorant of their own religion, and use its name to justify agendas that have little nothing to do with religion to begin with.

With that, here are some excerpts from DC Downsizer's take on 9-11, which offers a reasonable assessment of U.S. culpability in this horrific event without jumping onto the conspiracy train:

"Given the subject of our latest campaign it seems incumbent upon us to
state where we stand on the subject of 9-11 Truth.

• We feel there is sufficient evidence to assert that the federal government
  had all the powers and resources it needed to prevent the 9-11 attacks. *
• It knew that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States.*
• It knew that Al Queda agents were operating in the country.* It knew that
  suicide attacks with airplanes were a real possibility.*
• It knew that suspicious person were learning how to fly airplanes, with, in
  at least one case, an alarming disinterest in learning how to land them.
• The federal government had the power, without the PATRIOT Act, or torture,
  or REAL ID, or illegal wiretaps, to learn everything it needed to know to stop
  the 9-11 attacks. If the federal government had simply used the powers and
  resources it already had the 9-11 attacks would have failed, and many thousands
  of people who are now dead would still be alive and in the arms of their
  families.9-11 is a textbook case of the government's congenital institutional
  inability to focus and perform competently.

If the federal government had simply done its job, using what it already had,
then there would have been no . . . *

• Disastrous war in Iraq, *
• Bloated Department of Homeland Security, *
• Overbearing TSA, *
• Invasive PATRIOT Act, *
• Dangerous REAL ID Act, *
• Unconscionable Torture-Tribunal law, *
• Illegal spying on American citizens, *
• Or a whole host of other government transgressions.

Here is the truth, with a little "t," about 9-11: It was a day of massive
government failure.

Here is another truth about 9-11: No one in government, and no institution of
the government, was held accountable, or paid any price, for this failure.

Here is another truth about 9-11: The federal government, and the people who
run it, were actually rewarded for their failure on 9-11, instead of being held
accountable. The federal government failed on 9-11, but the President and the
Congress did NOT hold themselves accountable for this failure. Instead, they
exploited their own incompetence to grant themselves massive new powers and
recources, at your expense. Worse still, Congress and the President have used
these massive new powers and resources to commit even larger failures, such as
the war in Iraq.

These new failures have made YOU LESS SECURE, rather than more secure.

Government fails consistently, because the institution of government, and the
people in government, NEVER PAY ANY PRICE for failure. Government fails
consistently, because the people in government are CONSISTENTLY REWARDED FOR FAILURE by gaining greater power and greater access to your wallet. The incentives by which our government operates are completely backward: Government is always rewarded for its failures, so its incentive is to constantly fail. This is the fundamental truth about 9-11.

Are there others truths that also matter and that have been neglected?
Perhaps. But the idea that the Bush administration somehow conspired with Al
Queda to bring about the attacks, is almost certainly not among them.It
makes zero sense that the Bush administration would have been capable of such a massive crime, but incapable, a few months later, of planting WMD's in Iraq. On this basis alone, most of the 9-11 conspiracy theories are non-starters. This does not mean that the Bush administration did not exploit 9-11 to do things it wanted to do anyway. Of course it did.
Neither does it rule out that some members of the administration may have been
intentionally incompetent in order to permit the inciting "Pearl Harbor
incident" they were on record as hoping for in advance. But both of these things
are a far cry from most of the conspiracy theories that parade under the banner
of "9-11 Truth."

Sadly, the focus on wild theories has tarnished the words "9-11 Truth," and
made it harder to actually get at the truth. We have been inundated with
films and books and articles about 9-11. We have heard all the claims and
studied all the supposed evidence.Big claims require big evidence and many "9-11
Truth" claims fail this test.

This is why we recommend a documentary film called "9/11 Press for
Truth.""9/11 Press for Truth" is different. It makes few claims, but presents a
lot of big evidence. Seeing this movie has prompted us to take action to compel
the federal government to re-investigate its own performance on 9-11, and to
assume a responsibility equal to its great powers. The proper federal response
to 9-11 should have been to downsize, streamline, and focus. Instead, it
used its own failures to upsize, complicate, and thrash about in all directions. We want Congress to take another look at 9-11, and this time attribute
blame, impose penalties, and adopt policies that will enable government to
better overcome its innate incompetence."

After hearing so many lies, one is naturally skeptical about anyone who comes along, claiming to have "The Truth." I myself wouldn't have used this expression. And in trying to "downsize" and "streamline" government, there's always the tricky situation of having to make more government laws and requiring more government enforcement in order to have less government intrusion. But I'm sure there are many intelligent enough to pull it off. If only there were more intelligent enough not to believe everything they hear.

Muslim Women: Behind the Cartoon

Bridgethought of the Day: People so sure of their position that they can't consider another one are like little kings who think their 2-acre kingdoms comprise the heavens & the earth & everything in them. How can they expand that kingdom while they think everything is in it? They will lord over that little plot of land with the utmost conceit, the laughingstock of the rest of the universe...


OK, now it's time to "liberate" the Muslim Woman, that poor creature scarfed in black, reduced to household chattel, denied the joys of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There she is, still wrapped to the teeth in robes and veils and God knows what cloth/net contraptions, subservient to her whim-driven, procreation-crazed, restriction-mongering, hyperventilating, super-Macho husband to whom eye contact with strangers is a death penalty offense. She is corralled into a den of Non-iniquity, where coerced knitting meets an Eternal Chain of child-rearing, and where she may be only one of four such corrallees, all vying for a share of Super-Macho's constrained affections and even more constrained funds. Is saving her from this horrid fate not a moral imperative of the highest order?


It's an almost insurmountable challenge. But someone's got to do it.


To see beyond the hype & stereotyping, that is.


Enter Lila Abu-Lughod, the noted anthropologist and scholar, of Columbia University. From

Bedouin Stories to The Politics of Television in Egypt, Ms. Abu-Lughod patiently and with great insight and intelligent analysis, examines Muslim women on their own turf and most importantly, on their own terms. Her basic premise is that we view women in Islamic cultures through projections based on our own quite different cultural terms, and hence we wildly misinterpret what we see, and worse, use this to further various political agendas, international political agendas, that begin and end with the premise of our superiority "saving" them from their "inferior" life-styles & culture. Thus, much of her work, and it is impressive in both scope and quality, offers scathing criticism of the West's penchant for trying to recreate foreign cultures in their own image, especially the latest post-9/11 round of "Let's Save Women from Islam", a movement focusing on Afghanistan in particular and the Islamic world in general.

As Ms. Abu-Lughod observes:

What images do we, in the United States or Europe, have of Muslim women, or
women from the region known as the Middle East? Our lives are saturated with
images, images that are strangely confined to a very limited set of tropes or
themes. The oppressed Muslim woman. The veiled Muslim woman. The Muslim woman who does not have the same freedoms we have. The woman ruled by her religion. The woman ruled by her men.

These images have a long history in the West but they have become
especially visible and persistent since 9/11. Many women in the US mobilized
around the cause of the Afghani women oppressed by the fundamentalist Taliban -
women who were represented in the media as covered from head to toe in their
burqas, unable to go to school or wear nail polish. An administration - George
W. Bush's - then used the oppression of these Muslim women as part of the moral
justification for the military invasion of Afghanistan.

These images of veiled and oppressed women have been used to drum up support for intervention. Besides the untold horrors, dislocations, and violence these US interventions have brought to the lives of Muslim women in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would argue that the use of these images has also been bad for us, in the countries of the West where they circulate, because of the deadening effect they have on our capacity to appreciate the complexity and diversity of Muslim women's lives - as human beings.

She does not shy away from the notion that women's rights in such countries need to be addressed, nor does she deny that there are serious violations against such rights, but rather her point is that we cause more harm thangood, not to mention it being an act of great hubris, when we rush in headlong, panting & breathless, to "liberate" women without consideration from what their actual needs are and situation is from their point of view and within the context of their own culture.

Women in Muslim countries do not they fit the traditional cartoon trotted out by the West for Western, especially American, consumption. Ms. Abu-Lughod warns us not to be blind consumers of this cartoon ad campaign. After living for years with a Bedouin tribe, for example, she developed long-term relationships with the women there and understood their points of view deeply, in some ways identifying with them, even though the society was polygamous and women were veiled in public. She speaks of the "homosocial" bonds between women as having power and value, something often lost in what she refers to as the "companionate marriage" model preferred by the West, even though the latter also has its advantages.We need to be sure it is not a self-serving agenda for our own needs akin to the Infant formula manufacturers' ad blitz to new mothers to sway them from breast-feeding.

"Feminists, leftists, progressives, and other intellectuals still haven't questioned the idea of development, progress, modernity, as wholly a good thing," she explains. "No one has challenged this concept of progressive achievement of enlightenment--that we have to follow a certain path, and as people get educated, they will get more enlightened. Feminists in general didn't question the idea that the vote, political participation or becoming more modern would essentially pave the road towards some kind of emancipation."

Lila Abu-Lughod, The Muslim Woman: The Power of Images & the Danger of Pity

Abu Lughod feels a sense of responsibility on her part to "speak to intellectuals, nationalists, progressives and other people who want Egypt to be "modern" and tell them that what happens in the villages and in the western desert is different from what they imagine and that they are not speaking to the real needs of the people. "

The need to "educate the masses so that they can be just as good as we are" is troubling, Abu-Lughod says, because it sets up a hierarchy at the top of which are the educated, while the bottom ranks lack adequate schooling. Resources needed for equal opportunity for education either don't exist, or are paltry, especially since funds from organizations like USAID are not allowed to be used for social services.

Wryly, she makes the classic observation that when one encounters issues of abuse or violence against women in the United States or England, there is not the linked assumption of backwardness of these nations and no risk of damaging the national image. "This is specifically related to the placement of postcolonial nations in that they are not in positions of power and that they have this whole history of having the "woman question" linked with their own [national] inferiority." ... The problem, of course, with ideas of "saving" other women is that they depend on and reinforce a sense of superiority by Westerners.

Abu-Lughod has a solution. She thinks "we need to work hard to respect and recognize difference." And, she adds, "We might do better to think how to make the world a more just place rather than trying to ‘save' women in other cultures."

And that is the best advice I can think of for world affairs.

Next question: Who among the leadership of this country (or those running for office) would take such great advice and act on it?

Religion: The Dye-Pack of the People

Bridgethought of the Day: If you want to really smear someone or a large number of someones, use a dye pack.

What does this mean? And What, in fact, is religion?

These are questions, profound questions, with which men like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Ariel Sharon, L. Ron Hubbard, and Jerry Falwell have wrestled, professionally I might add. And we'll start with the ex-World Bank heavyweight, Paul Wolfowitz, since Banks and Dye-Packs sort of go together.

You see, since the invention of the expression "politically correct" to undermine the taboo against racist, sexist, or otherwise demeaning speech, there's still been that contingent out there looking for a Plan B. But this Plan B was not to be an alternative to Plan A, but rather B was for "Big", as in Something Very All-Inclusive.

Bad-mouthing non-familiar social groups, aka racist/sexist/ethnic slurs, goes along with Free Speech in the minds of members of Familiar Social Groups, namely WASPS, as part of the American Way. And even more important, it goes along with the Institution of Xenophobia, where the more American a person is, the more '50's apple-pie/mom/smiling clean-clothed/Euro-ethnic or Jewish-professional-entertainer/ flag-obsessed/buck-earning/English-speaking/tax-paying/non-foreign-looking/white/ dentally-intact a person is - and vice versa. Patriotism is a culture with a club.

With that in mind, let's find a solution to terrorism. If only all terrorists could be easily identified. What we need is a good dye-pack, something to explode in their faces everytime they try to pull off a terrorist act, successful or not. Problem is, it's not like they're always after something like money that can be planted. But they are after something - somewhere between vengeance, attention, and that feeling of conquering an impossible beast, if only for a moment. Aha, the Beast! That's it!

The Beast reminds us all of what? Religion, of course! "And what rough Beast, its hour come 'round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born ..." What could be more religious than T.S. Eliot, Bethlehem, and Revelations? And to a terrorist, what is the Beast? America is!

Who else watches silently, slouching, as Israel slaughters Lebanese civilians from the air? Who else watches the Palestinians get bulldozed out of a pauper's lane of land for some rich, imported Chosen Ones - and claps with all the fervor and pride of the Romans in their amazing Coliseum? Who else cares so little for infants and children killed from starvation by sanctions, bombings or wars, referring to them callously as "collateral damage"? Who else clamors for more cruel torture and interrogations and demands and end to the humane treatment of prisoners of war? Who else doesn't give a damn about the international laws against assassination or invasion of countries against their will? The Beast, that's who!

So, in the gospel according to Rove, we call ourselves the Savior, and they are the Beast, see? Just reverse the roles. And then the dye-pack. It's religion, the religion of the Beast. Islam. All we do is associate Islam with the Beast and we've got it made! So every time someone who is Muslim fights against anyone from the West or Israel, or better yet, attacks civilian targets, the dye-pack explodes! They are "Islamic Terrorists." They are The Beast.

Religion is really, for the guys mentioned above, something of a racket, a thing that you use to get what you want. So now it's turned into a thing you use to splatter indelible ink all over the enemy you wish to create. So now we can find the Terrorists. They are Muslims! Anyone who is Muslim who does anything "suspicious", becomes a part of Terrorism. He's into the Beast! Then, just to be "politically correct", you have to say "Of course, we don't mean the Good Muslims." Like the Christian or Jewish ones. Or the ones who never pray. Or the ones who don't speak Arabic. Or the ones who work hard to make money and don't give a damn if children are dying in Palestine because it's none of their damn business, right? Those are the Good Muslims. We don't mean them.

The Beast is Islam. The religion of people who are so angry about the extreme continuous oppression of people around the world that they can't wait for the "system" run by the U.S. and Britain to work. Wasn't patience supposed to be a virtue?

Were the terrorists of 9-11 attacking America, their Beast? In the so-called "post 9-11 world", they were creating a new Beast - Islam! And we believe! All Americans follow closely "terror level - elevated" and wonder, where will they strike next? FBI officials dutifully interview every Muslim student, fishing for plots: "Do you know Osama?" As if every Muslim has some sort of conduit to America's Most Wanted Terrorist. Is America crazy, or are they just building up the dye-pack chemical base?

Listen closely to the news: "A group of Muslims has been linked to a terrorist plot." But no one said "Timothy McVeigh, the Christian who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City." Does anyone even know what his religion was? Before he was caught, the first to be arrested was a Muslim from Jordan - the old Middle East Muslim thing. If someone in a terrorist plot is not Muslim, his religion is never mentioned. Terrorism is not a religion, and yet the dye-pack security plan wants it to be. It's a new religon called "Islamist." It's The Beast.

It's driving tyrants crazy overseas. Look at Hosny Mubarak, Egypt's cruel dictator. He bends over backwards, even having his security forces rape innocent women, even locking down mosques to prevent people to pray, even making it a criminal act for any "sheikh" - all are now government-appointed, usually police officers - to say anything remotely construed as "activist" or political. Mubarak's going all out to destroy The Beast of Islam. He's undermining the teaching of the Arabic language. He's preventing the teaching of Islam as a religion. Freedom of religion is part of the Beast. Islam dictates that no religion be coerced or a state religion. That is another part of Islamism, the Terrorist Beast!

Kings Abdullah & Abdullah are trying to do their part to undermine The Beast. The Beast that wants to devour Childe Israel the beloved. The Beast that does not love Childe Israel as Childe Israel should be loved. And who doesn't love beauty, especially beauty that comes from pampering and wealth, flaunted before the filthy vermin that they call the poor people? Ooooh, those stinky poor! Royals understand the disgust of the Israelis. They understand the need to be special. They understand birthright, wealth, inheritance, and being born on a higher plane, born to be pampered, special, Chosen, the Chosen Few, God's beloved. And how could God not love the Beautiful People who live in splendor and indulge their every desire while unworthy creatures do not even deserve a few shekels' worth of drudgery to feed their always-devouring children's mouths?

Yes, Royals and tyrants understand the need for security to protect what was stolen from others less deserving. You know how low-lifes are, always ranting and raving about "rights" and "humanity" and "compassion". But that's not what religion is about. It's about creating fear, love, and loathing. It's about mass emotional manipulation, or so I overheard from those guys who're supposed to know.

Religion is about dye-packs, about putting to sleep 300 million people so they can BELIEVE that they are always RIGHT just because they are Americans and to say otherwise would be unpatriotic, just like the Israelis are always right, because to say otherwise would be anti-Semitic, and that Muslims are always terrorists unless they are the Good Muslims who just want to assimilate and believe the same dye-pack of lies, just like everybody else, so we can all go to hell on the back of one great big Beast.

Whose hour has come 'round at last...

CHARGES DISMISSED! Now the Downplaying Begins

Finally, some semblance of justice in the long, slow tragedy known as the Torture of Omar Khadr, by the Bush/Cheney-led Anti-Terror Army of God. The long-suffering, young Omar Khadr who was driven to near-if-not-dead-on insanity by the "inept" psycho-torture of American "keepers". On a mere technicality. He's classified an "enemy combatant." But not an "illegal alien enemy combatant." And how, pray tell - or prey tell, as the case may be - do you classify the war in which he "combated" at the age of 15? The War Against Islamism Whatever That Is? So children are fair game for torture, right?


Next step - when? - Goodbye, Gitmo. Goodbye, American Torturers. Goodbye, Child-tormenters. But no goodbyes to Guilt by Association. That's too precious to the still-monolithic neocon "movement". A movement from the bowels of human nature, no doubt. How long will it be before he, an innocent accused of atrocity, victimized by the atrocities of his accusers, be REALLY free? Not now, at least.



He is the icon, the symbol of everything wrong with the so-called War on Terror. That war is not against terror at all. It just wants to be the Chief Terrorizer. If Khadr survives intact psychologically, it will be a true miracle. If not, which is likely the case, who do you think he will combat next? Does he pose a threat worth losing our Constitution for?

Hail to the Chief

And while you're at it, folks, it wouldn't hurt to try a little prostration...

Hey,I just signed my first Royal Decree on May 9th, and nobody even gave a hoot. Well, we have to start out real democratic-like, using all the right words, like "Constitutional", "democratic" and "separation of powers." Who would think "proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers" means what I say it means: Congress and the Courts stay out of it! If there's an emergency, somebody's got to be in charge! And that somebody's got to be The Executive... yours truly.

And now we're doing something about it! Right here in writing, the President's National Security and Homeland Security Decree that I signed...

"The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, sir."

Right, thank you. As I said, this would finally, at last, give the people what they want in a time of national crisis, in say a terrorist attack like 9-11 - Remember 9-11 - yep, and remember how we all pulled together for America. For patriotism. For the flag. For what it all stands for. For the President. And I stood tall. And I stood for what we needed. We needed strength. At the top. We needed The Executive. And that would be ... yours truly...

So you'll be glad to know it reads here in black-n-white: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." That's of course in case of an emergency.

"Mr. President, does that mean we would have martial law and you would have dictatorial powers?"

(Aside) Who's this guy? Get him the @#&#$#!&(%$ out of here!

(To the young questioner) Sorry- could hardly hear ya. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Look, it says right here: we'd have a "cooperative effort" with the legislative and the judicial. Says here, this effort would be, and I quote: "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers." That means respect and that means democracy.

"But Mr. President, do you know what 'comity' means?"

Of course, I know what it means, but that's not the point. The point is that someone's in charge in time of crisis, so we don't have any more fiascos, if you know what I mean...

(Aside) What's "comity"? (Aide answers softly) "Courtesy."

And just to let you know, "comity" means that thing we need more of in government, "courtesy."

"So you're saying the involvement of the legislative and judicial branches in government at that point would be just a matter of courtesy? That means, no checks. And without checks, no balances."

Sorry, you're wrong. Already said we'd have "proper respect for the Constitutional balance of power." That means checks and balances. Nananana - na - na...

"And who determines how 'respect' is to be shown?"

The buck stops here, young man.

"You?"

Yours truly.

"The Commander-in-Chief?"

Affirmative.

"We're supposed to completely trust you to make all the decisions in a time of crisis, and no one can oppose you unless you happen to respect them. As the Commander-in-Chief, that makes you Military Dictator. So our security in a crisis - like we never had crises before 9-11 - is supposed to be enhanced by giving the President the powers of Military Dictator. Is that right?"

I like to think of it as "King". And I already decreed it. So as a loyal subject, all you have to do is ... obey it.

And while you're at it, it wouldn't hurt to try a little prostration...