newsrack blog |
|
|
Fair and balanced news and opinion commentary by Thomas Nephew. Can you hear me now? e-mail
front page archives, selected posts about this blog news links, blogrolls subscriptions  coalition for darfur other blogs german blogs maryland blogs md  DC Bloggers rocky top brigade specialty blogs resources charities international law iraq detainee abuse iraq sanctions islam subscriptions blog feed (Atom)  comments feed (RSS) bloglines, my yahoo  controls 
![[Valid Atom]](http://pages.prodigy.net/thomasn528/misc/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
ttlb |
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Camera phone ban update In a footnote to my German bloggers post on Monday, I mentioned a possible camera phone ban for soldiers in Iraq, but noted that the story hadn't made the 'American media radar screens.'* I added the "cautionary note" because I had the same trouble Mark Kleimann did locating the ostensible source of the news, an Australian outfit called "The Business". The Defense Department's Ken McClellan is now denying that story as follows (RCR Wireless News): “There is a new policy—but it wasn't signed by Mr. Rumsfeld. It had nothing to do with cameras, and it wasn't about Iraq. ... The new directive is about wireless devices and how they can be used on the Global Information Grid where DoD does its business.”Via a Joi Ito update on the issue, the directive in question appears to be "Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 8100.2," (Acrobat PDF file) signed on April 14, 2004 by Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. It has 14 pages worth of eye-glazing directives about wireless devices; buried among them on page 4: Cellular/PCS and/or other RF or Infrared (IR) wireless devices shall not be allowed into an area where classified information is discussed or processed without written approval from the DAA in consultation with the Cognizant Security Authority (CSA) Certified TEMPEST Technical Authority (CTTA).I guess "areas where classified information is discussed or processed" could include prisons like Abu Ghraib, especially interrogations/"softening ups" in such prisons. Still, this is a little different than the blanket ban on camera phones that the news item suggested; it's a little hard to believe this document was dreamed up for the sake of a relatively ineffective response to the Abu Ghraib scandal. ===== * Not quite true, given the Washington Times item Kleimann cites, but even that story simply reprinted a wire service account. UPDATE, 5/30: More articles essentially saying "it ain't quite so... yet": Xeni Jardin, Wired.com - Wartime Wireless Worries Pentagon; Guy Kewney, Newswireless via The Register - Did Rumsfeld ban Iraq camera phones?. Bottom line: Jeff Jarvis gets it right: "ban stupidity, don't ban exposing it." Pathetic In Bush's speech on Monday evening, Abu Ghraib was always just a symbol, never an actual place: Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison. When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then, with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning.Notice also that while Abu Ghraib "symbolized" death and torture under Saddam, it "symbolized" merely disgraceful conduct by American troops, even though both death and torture occurred under their supervision as well. The Bush administration's inability to face up to the crimes and disgraces on its watch is pathetic. If it's symbolism Bush wants, I can suggest some involving Rumsfeld and, at minimum, undersecretaries Feith and Cambone, who've all left their fingerprints on the policies at Abu Ghraib. Their resignations would "symbolize" accountability -- why, they might actually be accountability -- and they would restore a little desperately needed credibility to the United States in Iraq. But someone is responsible for Rumsfeld et al as well. So vote for Kerry in November, and if you just can't do that for some reason, at least don't vote for Bush. Tuesday, May 25, 2004
The plan On June 30 our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government. It will be a government of Iraqi citizens. A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. You heard that correctly. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops. So we will demolish it and build a modern, maximum security prison. This will be a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning. Marvel for yourselves. I think they might still need one or two more all-nighters to pull off the June 30 transition. Monday, May 24, 2004
German blogger series: reactions to Abu Ghraib Most German blogger reactions to the American disgraces and crimes at Abu Ghraib run the spectrum from moderate to leftish to I-told-you-so(-damn-it). But at least one German blog joins a number of American blogs with a 'what's all the fuss, there's a war on' attitude. Herewith a sampling: if you've seen the video, you know that even words like decapitation can be horribly hypocritical euphemisms. But if I'd had to write a one-liner as to why (I though the war in Iraq was a good idea), it would have been something along the lines of 'to stop the torture and brutality in the Baghdad hellholes.' Well, so much for that. It was obvious that it could go badly to occupy an Arab country for the purpose of any sort of fascistic power plan of any sort, while simultaneously thoroughly lying to the public about the true motive. Abu Ghraib could really be a step forward there. I argued with Jens about the war before it started, and still don't agree with his pacifism. I do agree that the Bush administration seems to care more about Abu Ghraib as a propaganda setback than as a wakeup call or grounds for resignations.If Bush could tell the truth, one would hear him saying that the pictures of the torture by American soldiers bother him much more than the torture itself.*And that's exactly how it is. And everyone knows it and will basically just nod in agreement, which I think is very good. In Germany people are possibly once and for all done with the idea that one can achieve any sensible goal by war. That's what I believe. I don't understand the 'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling?I haven't seen "cold blood" or boots on heads, but maybe that's because of not looking for it. The question is whether what Riverbend describes is the rule or the exception. Another cost of Abu Ghraib: if the American military can conduct itself so poorly in relative safety, it undermines confidence how they conduct themselves in combat. Kantel also points to the leftie group blog "Rollberg" for added coverage, some of which he contributes. Purely as a point of information, Kantel appeared to oppose the Afghanistan war as well as far as I could tell, but it's hard to argue with his disgust about Abu Ghraib now. It is to be feared that this report is not yet the whole truth by a long shot about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. Army. And that these horrible facts, even if only confirmed in part, will irrevocably end every moral legitimacy for the American occupation forces.Brett Marston later noted a May 17 post of Herzinger's that identifies (via the progressive-left German daily TAZ) one of the few people entitled to put the American crimes at Abu Ghraib in the perspective of those by Saddam's regime: Iraqi Governing Council Minister for Human Rights Bhaktiar Amin. Of course, I'd have liked a comparison of the U.S Army with Saddam's regime to provide a much stronger contrast than this. Couldn't get worse? The next decades no one from the West will dare show their face in an Arab country. Democracy, peace, equal rights, market economy -- all that was regarded with the highest skepticism -- but now? Not a soul will believe us about any of that any more. And with good reason. Folks, you don't get it.Well, yes, the Cheney administration reactions seem to bear that out. Grasping at straws here, the best that can be said is that at least some Germans see Abu Ghraib and the U.S. failures in Iraq -- either going in in the first place, or the incessant screwups and worse since getting there -- as bad news for them and their ideals as well. It's not the most important aspect of this disgrace, but the Bush administration isn't just guilty of fomenting and committing crimes against Iraqi prisoners, or for dishonoring my country, but for letting down friends of America's ideals around the world as well. ===== * Bingo: Rumsfeld bans camera phones in Iraq. Cautionary note: this is still not on American media radar screens as of Monday. On the other hand, that's almost a point in the story's favor. ** "Weather thistle", a.k.a. Carina acaulis, a wildflower adapted to open and close its petals depending on the weather. UPDATE, June 4: Atomz search link to archival pages with other "German blogger series" items on this site. 
Copyright © 2001-2007 Thomas Nephew All rights reserved |
