WoT On Earth

The Death of the Opposition

2006-03-05T13:27:00.001+11:00

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Campbell to give Lib Dems a US-style facelift:

The new Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell will today signal his determination to overhaul the party's economic and social policy and streamline its campaign machinery with the kind of US-style techniques imported by Labour and the Tories.

'Liberal Democrats are modernisers,' he will tell delegates to the party's spring conference in Harrogate, in his first major address since winning the leadership crown. He will pledge to 'play a key role' in producing updated policies on the economy, the environment, welfare reform, better government, education, crime and social issues' capable of withstanding 'new levels of aggressive scrutiny' by rival parties.

Setting the tone for an agenda in tune with the core of young economically liberal [emphasis added] MPs who backed him for the leadership, the 64-year-old Campbell yesterday secured an overwhelming conference endorsement for a plan to part-privatise the post office. The idea was thrown out at last autumn's Lib Dem conference by delegates who argued it was too right-wing.

So now the UK has three political parties, all espousing economic liberalism. Where are the dissenting voices? Who can represent my views in parliament? During the last election, we had one party--the Liberal Democrats--who championed society before the free market. Now there is none.

Tony Blair tells me that “God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq” but I say God did not elect him to office, the people of the United Kingdom did, and he needs to answer to that constituency.

We are witnessing the end of the democratic project. The Enlightenment is being rolled back by free marketeers who see everything as economic rationalism: people are excluded from their calculations. Listen to politicians in developed nations and they will talk about the security of property before the mention security of people.

There is nothing left to vote for. Time for a change

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Campbell to give Lib Dems a US-style facelift

2006-03-05T13:27:00.000+11:00

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Campbell to give Lib Dems a US-style facelift:

The new Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell will today signal his determination to overhaul the party's economic and social policy and streamline its campaign machinery with the kind of US-style techniques imported by Labour and the Tories.

'Liberal Democrats are modernisers,' he will tell delegates to the party's spring conference in Harrogate, in his first major address since winning the leadership crown. He will pledge to 'play a key role' in producing updated policies on the economy, the environment, welfare reform, better government, education, crime and social issues' capable of withstanding 'new levels of aggressive scrutiny' by rival parties.

Setting the tone for an agenda in tune with the core of young economically liberal [emphasis added] MPs who backed him for the leadership, the 64-year-old Campbell yesterday secured an overwhelming conference endorsement for a plan to part-privatise the post office. The idea was thrown out at last autumn's Lib Dem conference by delegates who argued it was too right-wing.

There is nothing left to vote for. Time for a change

Iran warns of missile strike

2006-01-29T14:10:00.000+11:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Iran warns of missile strike:

Senior Iranian officials further raised tensions with the West yesterday, implicitly warning that Tehran would use missiles to strike Israel or Western forces stationed in the Gulf if attacked.The statements came as world leaders met at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, with the Middle East high on the agenda. The hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has pressed ahead with a controversial nuclear programme since his election last year.'The world knows Iran has a ballistic missile power with a range of 2,000km (1,300 miles),' General Yahya Rahim Safavi said on state-run television. 'We have no intention to invade any country [but] we will take effective defence measures if attacked.'

Essay Question

2006-01-24T17:33:00.000+11:00

Question

Jack Lule states:

We can recognise in news stories the siren song of myth. These news stories offer more than a retelling of common story forms. These news stories offer sacred, societal narratives with shared values and beliefs, with lessons and themes, and with exemplary models that instruct and inform. They are offering myths.

Discuss this proposition with regard to news reporting of the “War on Terror” since 2001.

Summary

The last four years have seen tumultuous changes in the global political landscape which have been reported upon, and in many cases shaped, by news and current affairs.

Post-9/11, the case for conflict in Iraq was manufactured by a meticulous public relations--“public diplomacy”--campaign in which elements of the news media were complicit. A large part of this public diplomacy campaign was the prorogation of certain myths and archetypes that exacerbated the public's fear and swung opinion in favor of an unnecessary war.

The “War on Terror” can be read as a myth to unify the citizens of Liberal Democracies around the world in a motivating cause that has no defined end, its purpose: to use the myth of security to re-establish the authority of politicians in a postmodern age of moral relativism.

My essay will cover the historical roots of the “War on Terror” myth and how public relations, with the aid of the news media, shaped certain mythological archetypes during and after the Iraq conflict in order to frame the conflict as an inevitable “good” versus “evil” battle for survival.

Working Bibliography

Daily News, Eternal Stories, J. Lule

This book explores Lule's argument that news stories can be distilled down to seven mythologic archetypes, which he supports with research of twenty years-worth of New York Times stories.

The Hero with A Thousand Faces, J. Campbell

The work cited by Lule that posits that all mythological narratives share a common master myth. Also draws on the work of GC Jung's unconscious and archetypes.

The Power of Nightmares, A. Curtis

A three part television documentary outlining the history of neoconservativism and islam fundamentalism in the latter half of the 20th Century. His argument that the “politics of fear” is part of a political “myth” of security, with which to bind the populations of liberal democracies with a sense of purpose.

Weapons of Mass Deception, Rampton & Stauber

Documents how public relations, through the media, manufactured the case for the second Iraq war.

Tell me lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the attack on Iraq, D. Miller

Written by leading journalists and commentators, it documents the role of mainstream media in legitimizing government action and undermining dissent.

The Security Approach and the Peace Approach, J. Galtung

A presentation given by Galtung in 2004 outlining the differences between the Security Approach and the Peace Approach to “building peace through harmonious diversity.” It highlights the issue of fear in the Security approach.

Frisk on War Reporting

2006-01-24T12:04:00.000+11:00

The Independent has this article about Robert Fisk addressing a debate on war reporting. He argues that

The sanitised images of war broadcast on television are a “lethal weapon” masking atrocities which demonstrate that conflict can “never be justified.”

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Bin Laden tape' warns of attacks

2006-01-20T05:17:00.000+11:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Bin Laden tape' warns of attacks:

Reporting the Iran Nuclear Issue: Peace Journalism

2006-01-17T11:40:00.000+11:00

As a follow up to my previous Iran entry, I discovered this excellent piece from Peace Journalism, in which Jake Lynch points out how conscious or unconscious selection of certain words and phrases reinforce the propaganda of the western political elites.

Consider the word ‘fears’ – is that justified in these cases, or misleading? Was the West really ‘afraid’ that Iraq was developing ‘weapons of mass destruction’? Or was this, as US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told an interviewer from Vanity Fair, merely a pretext – the ‘lowest common denominator’ among advocates of regime change? Are there really such fears vis-à-vis Iran or is that, too, a convenient stick with which to rally international support against another member of the ‘axis of evil’?

However, I was mistaken when I said there was “no obvious Goldstein-esque hate-figure” because, as Lynch highlights, it is very much Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Lynch points out Ahmadinejad “was relentlessly demonised as a fanatical ‘hardliner’” for pointing out that “countries ‘which have used nuclear weapons against defenseless civilians and used depleted uranium in Iraq’, [are] taking it upon themselves to ‘be suspicious of Iran’s nuclear programme.’”

Without clear, unambiguous and rational reporting of this issue, the news media are doing nothing more than propagating political propaganda that is building “good”/'evil“ myths necessary to frame a future military intervention in Iran.

Coverage of the Air Attacks in Pakistan

2006-01-17T09:39:00.000+11:00

So the war continues in the remote boarder regions of Pakistan.

According to the BBC :

The raid took place in the village of Damadola in the Bajaur tribal area, about 7km (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border. Jets - or in some accounts a Predator drone - reportedly fired missiles at a particular housing compound in the village. Tribesmen there are convinced the strike was the work of the Americans and are very angry at the attack. Reporters who reached Damadola spoke of three houses hundreds of metres apart that had been destroyed.

The Associated Press of Pakistan, the official press agency makes no mention on their website, while talking up a visit by former US President George Bush senior. This is not surprising, considering that the Pakistan government is giving regional assistance to the US in exchange for military aid. However, just because they're not reporting doesn't mean their not furious at the violation of their sovereignty. according to the UK Telegraph “Pakistan is preparing to lodge a formal diplomatic protest over the attack” over the alleged airspace incursion by remote pilotless vehicles. Some of the opposition papers are more forthcoming, the Daily Times giving the situation front page coverage.

Fox News, on the other hand, says that US Senators defended the bombings: “We have to do what we think is necessary to take out Al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives. This guy has been more visible than Usama bin Laden lately.” The piece quotes unverifiable sources “who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the information's sensitivity.”

In short, this exercise in state-sponsored terrorism is another exercise in news myth. According to the US, all is justified in the pursuit of “evil” and the Fox reporting especially, plays the clear-cut good/evil context for something which is patently against international law.

But that doesn't bring back the dead of Damadola.

Iran: Building a Myth For War - Iraq Part II?

2006-01-17T07:48:00.000+11:00

There is a striking similarity between what has been happening over Iran's push for nuclear technology and the lead up to the last Iraq war, with calls for Iran to be UN Security Council.

This time there is no obvious Goldstein-esque hate-figure for the pro-action faction to direct our fear toward. but that does not stop the relentless march towards Security Council sanction.

And unlike Iraq, not all the permanent members are on-side. Russian and China have economic ties with Iran. Russia's president Putin is quoted as saying “The Iranian nuclear problem requires a very accurate approach without rash or erroneous moves”
But in a good example of framing, CNN has been banned from working in Iran because they have “violated 'professional ethics', the Iran news agency quoted the [culture] ministry as saying.” During a live broadcast of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press conference on Saturday, CNN translated the farsi word for “technology” as “weapon”, thus:

“We believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons”, and that the West should not “deprive us to have nuclear weapons”

Nice one CNN, that's how wars start.

But perhaps, we are seeing the new “Gold this is part of the unconscious building of an Evil/”Satan“ myth around the Iranian President. We don't get to hear much about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here in the west, unless its controversial. When we came to power, the first thing we heard about was his taking part in the US Embassy siege. Since then there has been the slow bubbling nuclear stand-off. More recently, and in language guaranteed to interest the press and stir up the masses, Ahmadinejad has been quoted as saying that Israel should either be ”wiped off the map,“ or less drastically, relocated to somewhere in Germany or Austria.

Language is a barrier here, with the English-speaking media acting as Gate-Keeper to news emanating from the non-english speaking world. A form of negotiating power between the source and the journalist. At least the internet gives the source more direct right-of-reply.

So, what we are seeing here is a confluence of many theories of news production: Myth, rival narratives, negotiating control between journalist and source and a great deal of public relations.

The war of words has already begun. Who will win, remains to be seen.

Peer Review

2006-01-12T08:37:00.000+11:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UK officer slams US Iraq tactics:
Something about a man with a hammer seeing nothing but nails springs to mind...

Apparently, “A senior British Army officer has sparked indignation in the US with a scathing article criticising the US Army's performance in Iraq”:

In [the article] Brig Aylwin-Foster says American officers displayed such cultural insensitivities that it “arguably amounted to institutional racism” and may have helped spur the insurgency.

While the army is “indisputably the master of conventional war fighting, it is notably less proficient in... what the US defence community often calls Operations Other Than War,” the officer wrote.

Operations to win the peace in Iraq were “weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head on”, he added.

Ouch. It's always hardest when it comes from the ones we love.

The British Army has had a long and bloody history of dealing with insurgency/terrorism/“winning the peace” and this reported article reflects that. Seen through the lens of the politics of terror, this highlights the neoconservative need to exercise force in support of their grand-unifying myth. A pity that the civilian population of Iraq have to pay for this myth with their lives.

In a plain, brown envelope...

2006-01-10T14:31:00.000+11:00

If you live in the US, be careful about what you order over the net from abroad. That plain brown envelope might not be so private after all...

CNN.com - U.S. opening some private mail in terror fight - Jan 9, 2006:

U.S. officials are opening personal mail that arrives from abroad when they deem it necessary to protect the country from terrorism, a Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman said Monday.

News of the little-known practice follows revelations that the government approved eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without judicial oversight after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which sparked concern from civil liberties advocates and some lawmakers, who called for congressional hearings.

Singapore stages large-scale mock terror attacks

2006-01-08T15:27:00.000+11:00

International News Article | Reuters.com:

Singapore mounted its biggest civil emergency exercise on Sunday, staging a series of mock bombings on its public transport system to test the readiness of the public and emergency agencies for a terrorist attack.

Starting before dawn, the drill involved four subway stations along the city-state's famous shopping belt and in the central business district, and a bus terminal in a residential area.

The exercise follows bloody attacks on mass transit systems in Madrid and London, and fears that the same thing could happen here.

“We hope that through exercises like these, we will be able to educate the public because such a thing can happen in Singapore and when it does happen, we have to know what to do,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told state broadcaster Channel NewsAsia.

This is an interesting example of the politics of fear. Singapore is major regional economic commercial hub in SE Asia, but is it really a high profile target?

How much of this exercise is about preparedness and how much about instilling fear in the population, that can only be mitigated by the State?

Myth and the Politics of Fear

2006-01-08T12:00:00.000+11:00

Thanks to the new Google Video service, I have been able to watch a BBC documentary from January 2005 called “The Power of Nightmares -The Rise of the Politics of Fear.”

This documentary cuts to the heart of the WoT and highlights the crucial part Myth has played in the inception, growth and subsequent power of neo-conservativism in the Globalised world, and how it has cast Islamism as the new mythical “evil” that the United States must vanquish to make the world safe.

Unlike myth, with its clear distinction between black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, this story is more “lifelike” -- a little complicated and open to interpretation -- and therefore the reason why a myth is needed to frame it for the “average person”.

The Power of Nightmares begins in the US back in the late 1940s when the Democrats where in ascendency. Two different people observed the new consumerism, Liberalism and moral relativism and saw it as sign of societal stagnation, even as a prelude to eventual disintegration.

One was a visiting Egyptian scholar Sayid Qutb who thought the liberal democratic emphasis on the individual bred selfishness that would ultimately destroy society. Upon returning to Egypt, he saw evidence of American influence spreading across the arab world and felt these values would destroy Islam.

The other was philosopher Leo Strauss.

Strauss taught that Liberalism, strictly speaking, contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to a sort of nihilism--a kind of decadence, value-free aimlessness, and hedonism which he believed he saw permeating through the very fabric of contemporary American society [4].

Both Qutb and Strauss wanted to reverse what they saw as the rot of Liberalism, but they had different ways of going about it.

Qutb, appalled by the spread of Jahiliyya within islamic society, became an activist within the “Muslim Brotherhood”. Qutb is seen by many as the philosophical root of contemporary Islamism, and much of the rhetoric used by individuals or groups purporting connection with al-Qaeda.

Strauss on the other hand, took a more secular approach. To counter the liberal tendency to relativism, and for the betterment of society, the political/philosophical elites needed to recreate moral certainty for the populace in order to counteract the spreading nihilism. “He believed that liberal societies needed simple, powerful myths to inspire the people”[1], to give meaning to their lives.

Many of the names we associate with neo-conservatism were students of, or influenced by, Straussian philosophy: Donald Rumsfled, Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Perle among them and by the 1980s, the neo-conservatives in the Ford and Reagan administrations had “set out to re-assert the myth of America as a unique country whose destiny was to struggle against evil throughout the world”[2].

In those days, the big “evil” was Communist Russia and when its political infrastructure collapsed in 1989, both the neo-conservatives in the Reagan government and the radical Islamists in Afghanistan, who had fought against the Soviet occupation there, believed they alone were responsible for the demise of Communism.

But with Russia now “on-side” the neo-conservatives needed a new agent of myth. First they sought out Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. But when George Bush senior refused to follow their urgings to push on to Baghdad and “finish him off”, the neo-conservatives needed someone else to cast in the mould of “evil.”

So during the mid-to-late 90s, when the neo-conservatives were out of government, they turned to Bill Clinton, casting him in the role, the embodiment of everything immoral, intent on destroying the American way of life. Monica Lewinsky notwithstanding, the allegations brought against Bill Clinton by the neo-conservative press turned out to be false: Whitewater, drug smuggling even conspiracy to murder[2].

Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, the precepts of Qutb were finding new adherents in the guise of Ayman al-Zawahiri, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama bin Laden, who was fighting with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

They too knew the power of myth and in 1998 al-Zawahiri and bin Laden issued a joint fatwa placing the United States squarely in the role of their own “evil” myth.

So the stage was set, and in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, the neo-conservatives had a name--al-Qaeda--and a new evil with which to inspire the American people:

the neo-conservative myth that still inspires them today: that through the aggressive use of American power they could transform the world and spread democracy.[2]

And it is this myth and its associated “War on Terror” that is driving the discourse of early 21st century politics, news and current affairs.

In the 20th century, politicians inspired people with ideologies that promised a better tomorrow. But as these ideologies worn thin--the fall of communism, the triumph of the free market--people stopped believing their politicians, who they now saw as mere “managers of public life”[3]. But post 11 September, politicians have discovered a new and powerful way to manage the public: fear. Now, politicians can frighten us into consent with bogeymen they do not have to prove exist, merely that they have “intelligence” of “probable” events. The new myth: that only politicians cam keep us secure in a world full of invisible threats.

And the media do their part too. Propelled by the credo that they are supplying what their consumers demand, the less ethical press feed on our fear, uncertainty and doubt. Even the denizens of Liberal press--New York Times, BBC, Guardian--are not beyond building their own counter-myths of political conspiracy that generate more fear and distrust.

Liberalism has done much for society, and to renounce it out of hand as either “selfish” or “nihilistic” is to throw the hard-fought baby out with the bath water. William Kristol, a neo-conservative lobbyist, says that Leo Strauss's philosophies offer society a way of “Creating admirable human beings”[2]. But these admirable people tend to be overwhelmingly, powerful males.

So perhaps the problem here is “man.” Both Qutb and Strauss are right as far as they go. Individual freedom without individual responsibility is dangerous. And maybe we do need myths to inspire us, though the State or elites cannot create visions that bring meaning to people lives. Only individuals can do that for themselves. Perhaps its time to lose the “man” out of “mankind”. Qutb and Strauss are both hobbled by a masculine mindset engendered by strict interpretations of Abrahamic beliefs, and all the patriarchal authority that entails. Perhaps a new myth is needed, a secular synthesis of Qutb and Strauss' critiques checked by feminist inclusivity:

A myth that excludes artificial divisions and includes everyone, fosters individual freedom meshed with a duty to all and will harness the creative aspect of the masculine competitive drive, while restraining its excesses.

A myth for all of us.

References

[1] The Power of Nightmares - The Rise of the Politics of Fear, Part 1
[2] The Power of Nightmares - The Rise of the Politics of Fear, Part 2
[3] The Power of Nightmares - The Rise of the Politics of Fear, Part 3
[4] Wikipedia: Leo Strauss

Bush consults elder statesmen over war

2006-01-06T10:38:00.000+11:00

America, United States, Times Online, The Times, Sunday Times:

“As part of a vigorous public relations offensive on Iraq Mr Bush spent more than an hour with former defence secretaries including Robert McNamara, the Vietnam-era Pentagon chief under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Harold Brown, who oversaw the disastrous Iranian hostage rescue attempt under Jimmy Carter, and William Perry, Bill Clinton's Defence Secretary, who advised John Kerry during the 2004 election campaign.

Others briefed by Mr Bush and General George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, included Madeleine Albright, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig and Colin Powell.

Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's spokesman, said that the purpose of the gathering was a hope by the White House that the prominent figures would be persuaded that there was 'a clear plan in place for victory in Iraq' and would spread the word.

After the meeting Mr Bush preferred to persuade people that it was he who had done the listening.
'Not everybody around this table agreed with my decision to go into Iraq. I fully understand that,' Mr Bush said.”

Anon blogger unmasked as GOP political operative

2006-01-05T19:55:00.000+11:00

Anon blogger unmasked as GOP political operative | News.blog | CNET News.com:

“An anonymous Minnesota blogger, who took pains to poke fun at Democrats and question their qualifications for elected office, has been unmasked as a -- gasp! -- Republican political operative.”

New Year squabbles

2006-01-05T15:41:00.000+11:00

BBC NEWS | Americas | Washington diary: New Year squabbles:

The administration is blaming the messenger for undermining an essential tool of surprise in the war on terror. Capitol Hill is huffing and puffing that it was never consulted by the White House. The New York Times is trying to work out whether to be victim or hero.

Cheney Says Eavesdropping Program Might Have Prevented 9/11

2006-01-05T10:51:00.000+11:00

Cheney Says Eavesdropping Program Might Have Prevented 9/11:

“Cheney referred to a report by the U.S. commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks. In criticizing federal agencies' inability to detect the plot, the commission cited the phone calls of two hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, to other al Qaeda members overseas.'The authorization the president made after September 11th helped address that problem in a manner that is fully consistent with the Constitutional responsibilities and legal authority of the president and with the civil liberties of the American people,' Cheney said.”

Time to Go

2006-01-04T18:00:00.000+11:00

Bush Says U.S. May Reduce Troop Levels This Year:

President Bush today raised the prospect of further reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq later this year because of what he said was growing progress by the Iraqi army. But he said Iraqi police units need more American help in view of “troubling” reports of abuses.

Timing is everything. With approval ratings still flagging and Republicans uneasy, the Bush Administration needs to bolster support. Tuesday saw the disclosure that the Iraq reconstruction budget is to be cut by $18.4 billion:

“The decision is a tacit admission of the failure of the US rebuilding effort in the face of a relentless insurgency. Nearly half the funds earmarked for reconstruction were diverted towards fighting the insurgency and preparations to put Saddam Hussein on trial.”

The administration has November 2006 foremost in it's mind, with mid-term election that could see a resurgence of Democrat power, if the polls can be believed.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Washington diary: New Year squabbles:

The administration is blaming the messenger for undermining an essential tool of surprise in the war on terror. Capitol Hill is huffing and puffing that it was never consulted by the White House. The New York Times is trying to work out whether to be victim or hero.

Bush, Cheney defend Iraq War, Spying.

Cheney said the domestic surveillance is ``totally appropriate and within the president's authority under the Constitution and laws of the country.''

``This wartime measure is limited in scope to surveillance associated with terrorists,'' he said at the Heritage Foundation. ``It is carefully conducted and the information obtained is used strictly for national security purposes. ... The civil liberties of the American people are unimpeded by these actions.''

Parts of the Patriot Act are set to expire on Feb. 3. Whether to renew them will dominate debate on Capitol Hill this month.

``We look forward to a renewal of the Patriot Act in 2006 because that law has done exactly what it was intended to do, and this country cannot afford to be without its protections,'' Cheney said.

Terror on the Cheap

2006-01-03T17:01:00.000+11:00

BBC NEWS | UK | London bombs cost just hundreds

This is a very telling piece regarding the cost of mounting the July 2005 London Bombings. If such an attack can be mounted for "several hundred pounds", then monitoring back accounts and large money transfers means little.

Independent Online Edition > World Politics

2005-12-28T12:13:00.000+11:00

Independent Online Edition > World Politics: "Lorne Waldman, the human rights lawyer representing Maher Arar, said it was 'ridiculous' for the US Ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, to deny any renditions by the US of terrorist suspects to Syria had taken place.
Mr Tuttle denied there was evidence of a rendition to Syria but the US Embassy in London later issued a clarification admitting there were reports of one case involving Mr Arar.
'The case of Mr Arar is too public for someone to claim they are not aware of it,'' Mr Waldman said on BBC radio. 'To suggest, as the US ambassador did, that they were not aware of the case is ridiculous.''"

I'll take that back

2005-12-27T11:24:00.000+11:00

OK, maybe there is some WoT related news after all. The Independent reports that the US Embassy in London has had to retract remarks about extraordinary rendition to Syria made in a BBC interview by its ambassador“

”Robert Tuttle [the US Ambassador] told Radio 4's Today programme last Thursday that there was no evidence that US forces had sent suspected terrorists for questioning in Syria“

Its not the first time either.

”Mr Tuttle was involved in an earlier embarrassing denial when he insisted in a letter to The Independent that US forces did not use white phosphorous as a weapon. His remarks were quickly contradicted by US gun crews in their own internet magazine, in which they boasted of using white phosphorous in a “shake and bake” mission against insurgents in the assault on Fallujah.“

The article also notes:

”Robert 'Bob' Holmes Tuttle, Republican fundraiser and Beverley Hills car-dealer, was sworn in as Ambassador to the Court of St James on 14 July, 2005.

Tuttle's appointment came after nearly a year without a US ambassador, which sparked controversy over how seriously the US treats the position.“

Mayor of London talks about WoT

2005-12-27T10:29:00.000+11:00

It's that slow-news time of year, particular in the WoT arena. However, the BBC interviewed London Mayor Ken Livingston and he is quoyed as saying that 10 terrorist plots against targets in London have been defeated since 11 September 2001. Livingston went on to say that:

“Largely what you're talking about is fairly disorganised and small groups of disaffected people...”

Which does beg the question “What are they disaffected about?” Perhaps that is why it is so problematic in defining what a terrorist is.

“Hanging on the telephone”

2005-12-27T07:18:00.000+11:00

With suitable apologies to Debbie Harry et al...

The Whitehouse must be full of Christmas Cheer this year. I've been following the NSA wiretapping story for about a week and it appears that the Bush Administration is on the defensive in a way that has not been seen since the Abu Ghraib photos last year.

The New York Times first broke the story on Friday 16/12/2005 and I logged it here. About 500 suspects were having their telephone and email communication monitored for National Security purposes.

What is most interesting from a News and Current Affairs perspective is that the NYT sat on the story for about a year, at the behest of the Bush Administration. Apparently, it would jeopardize National Security operations if it were revealed. This makes the timing of its disclosure all the more interesting. The Administration is having a trying time with Republican led Senate and Congress. In theory, the two houses should be a source of rubber-stamp support for executive decisions, but these days the republican party is split over the Presidents actions.

The Whitehouse was so shaken by the NYT piece, and the subsequent media frenzy over it, that the President ditched his previously recorded weekly radio speech about the Iraqi elections and the spread of democracy. Instead he went with a live broadcast, and “often appearing angry”, defended his decision to authorize the surveillance.

Not that the Whitehouse has anything to hide, apparently. Vice President Chenney says that Americans back wiretapping, while ex secretary of state Colin Powell says saw “nothing wrong” with the President's decision. And anyway members of congress were informed of what was going on. Not so, say some Democrats, who deny they gave approval.

Which brings me back to the New York Times. Perhaps what we are seeing is a case of “indexing”, where the News media is sensing the split, not only between Democrats and Republicans, but within the Republican party itself, and is now digging into the split, widening it and offering stories that create political debate.

Later, Yahoo reported the New York Times as saying that the wire tapping was much wider spread than first stated. Instead of the 500-or-so specific suspects, the NSA were data mining the electronic records of the phone companies and internet service providers, to find patterns of activity that might indicate terrorist behavior. Patterns, like “Calls to and from Afghanistan.”

Now it seems the NYT is keeping the pressure up. It's latest article, “The Agency That Could Be Big Brother”, is a feature on the contemporary work of the NSA, which was set up during the Cold War to monitor the communications of States deemed to be dangerous to the interests of the United States. But now:

“the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed to be turned inward.”

But hey, the troops are coming home. That's a nice christmas present, even if the timing is suspicious.

Whatever the new year may bring, at least the Administration will be able to sleep soundly, knowing the national defense is secure from dangerous saboteurs.

Obituary

2005-12-26T22:13:00.000+11:00

Albert L. Weimorts Jr. 1938-2005

“Time after time, Weimorts has put weapons in the warfighter's hands and has made a difference in the national defense of our country”

Mosques in US checked for radiation

2005-12-25T11:17:00.000+11:00

The latest twist on US-Islamo Relations

Keeping "On Message"

2005-12-19T08:21:00.000+11:00

Following my last entry, I listened to he President Bush's radio broadcast and read the transcript here.

Just out of interest I counted the frequency of certain words within this speech. Here are the results:

Terrorist: 19
Terror: 2
Freedom: 2 (In first paragraph)
Liberty: 1
Democracy: 0

Not Happy, George

2005-12-18T09:46:00.000+11:00

Bush: Eavesdropping Helps Save U.S. Lives - Yahoo! News:

"One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader. But Bush said congressional leaders had been briefed on the operation more than a dozen times. That included Democrats as well as Republicans in the House and Senate, a GOP lawmaker said.

Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address, the president made clear he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the monitoring activities and said public disclosure of the program by the news media had endangered Americans.

Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge a highly classified spying program was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House. Just a day earlier he had refused to talk about it....

The NSA program's existence surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Democrats and a few Republicans who say the law gives so much latitude to law enforcement officials that it threatens Americans' constitutional liberties succeeded Friday in stalling its renewal.

So Bush scrapped the version of his weekly radio address that he had already taped — on the recent elections in Iraq — and delivered a live speech from the Roosevelt Room in which he lashed out at the senators blocking the Patriot Act as irresponsible and confirmed the NSA program."

What is interesting is that the Bush Whitehouse machine decided to forego an opportunity to talk up the fruits of WoT (Democracy in Iraq) and instead fight domestic fires. The Bush Whitehouse is on the defensive, with crack opening in the party line over torture and now journalists are driving a wedge into the crack with the release of a story that the New York Times has sat on for a year.

Supporters of Patriot Act Suffer a Stinging Defeat in Senate

2005-12-17T07:05:00.000+11:00

Supporters of Patriot Act Suffer a Stinging Defeat in Senate - New York Times: "After an emotional debate about the balance between national security and personal liberties and the very character of the republic, the Senate voted, 52 to 47, to end debate and take a yes-or-no vote on the law itself.But since 60 votes are required under Senate rules to end debate, the Patriot Act was left hanging. The House of Representatives voted, 251 to 174, last week in favor of the latest version of the bill, which had been worked out in negotiations between the two chambers. The Senate action today leaves the bill up in the air and due to expire on Dec. 31. President Bush and House Republican leaders had pushed hard for the bill and had spoken strongly against any further compromises. But no one would be surprised if yet another round of talks is undertaken to avoid the prospect of the lawmakers going home for Christmas and allowing the statute to lapse."

Off you go, sonny...And don't do it again

2005-12-17T06:58:00.000+11:00

Ouch. The Guardian report:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, America's most wanted man in Iraq, was arrested last year but released because his captors did not know who he was, an Iraqi government minister has claimed.

Now that had to hurt.

WoT Becomes WoB/A/G/K/I/M ?

2005-12-16T19:58:00.000+11:00

The Guardian reports that the BBC are issuing guidelines on "the use of language when reporting terrorism."

Bush Lets NSA Spy on Citizens Phone Calls

2005-12-16T18:10:00.000+11:00

The New York Times has this article about the NSA spying on American citizens, in contravention of the US constitution. According to Yahoo, The Whitehouse asked the NYT to sit on the article for about a year so not to "jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists they were under scrutiny."

White House 'agrees torture ban'

2005-12-16T07:37:00.000+11:00

In the 'Oh, I getcha' Department (See Cultural Reference for decryption):

The BBC resports that the White House has agrred to a ban on the torture or degrading of foreign terror suspects. The Bush Administration is under a lot of domestic pressure and this incident has but them between a rock and a hard place: Refuse and risk implicating itself in allegations of torture or comply and 'back down' from the argument, something this administration does not like to do.

But is this a tacit admission by the Bush Administration that they have lost control of the agenda? Only yesterday, George W. Bush got as close to saying sorry about the WMD intelligence as he ever has. I'm not getting too excited. He's a second term president with nowhere to go but out. Already this year he has lost the moment he had during his re-election, what with the climb-down over Social Security and the fallout from Hurricane Katrina. Libby, and possibly Rove, or on the legal hitlist over their involvement in the Plame Affair (no, I refuse to gate-erise).

However, on a more post-modern tack, what the Whitehouse agree to and what the Whitehouse do are two completely different things. This is a case of Strategic Communications, even Public Diplomacy: that's Public Relations "spin" to the un-initiated.

Only one thing will allows us to know for sure: transparency in government. Don't hold your breath.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

2005-12-15T07:05:00.000+11:00

The Guardian reports that George W. Bush has apologised for the Bad Intelligence:

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Mr Bush said. "As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
However, he added: "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat, and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

The intelligence Mr Bush could have been referring to may be the pre-war information gathered from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan, who claimed al-Qaida was linked to Iraq.

Mr Libi later said he made his most specific claims whilst in Egyptian custody in a bid to avoid "harsh treatment".

In a CIA report published in the New York Times last week, unnamed officials admitted that Mr Libi been subjected to rendition when he told his interrogators that Iraq had trained al-Qaida operatives.

Before the Iraq war, the Bush administration frequently cited Mr Libi's information as "credible evidence".

What is Torture?

2005-12-14T07:54:00.000+11:00

This article on BBC News looks at definitions of torture.

First the Ashes, Now Hicks

2005-12-14T07:15:00.000+11:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Australian terror suspect can become UK citizen: "Mr Hicks's lawyers argue that the Australian government has refused to plead for his release and has made no attempt to prevent his trial by a US military commission. They say that, in contrast, the UK government has acted to remove all nine of its citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo, and would be compelled to call for the release of Mr Hicks. After today's ruling, his lawyers will now press the British government to make arrangements for him to take the required citizenship oath and pledge. They will then urge the Home Office to seek his release from the detention centre, in Cuba, and bring him to the UK."

When pragmatism prevails

2005-12-13T16:11:00.000+11:00

This piece is particularly interesting. What is the ethicacy of using intelligence extracted under torture in a third-party country. Can we fight terror and ignore torture? What is more compelling: The human rights of a lesser group or the security of society-at-large?

The favourite question posed in defence of the torutre question is: What if there is a nuclear bomb which is about to explode in a city of millions and one person knows the location of the device? Surely the nees of the many outweigh the needs of the few?Shame that utilitarian imperative isn't extended to society in times of relative peace.

"The Sky Is Dark"

2005-12-13T15:59:00.000+11:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Terrorism threat has increased: Met chief: "'The level of threat has intensified and continues to intensify. The terrorists are here and they are going to go on attempting to kill people like you and people like me,' he said. 'The sky is dark. You may argue on the current legal position or British government's position, but we are in a different place than before the opening of this century.'There are currently people in the UK as we speak who are planning mass atrocities and who will use suicide as a weapon. That's a different place to where we have been in my lifetime.'"

Is there a connection?

2005-12-13T12:34:00.000+11:00

I was interested if anyone else in the Blogosphere was making connections between WoT and what's been happening in Sydney over the last few days. The answer seems to be 'yes.' A quick look on Google Blog search found more than one or two entries about what's going. Of course, John Howard wants to paint the rioters as simple law breakers. "Don't complicate things" is his plea.

Which is rich, considering the track record of the Liberal government involvement in WoT. If Tampa was the beginning, WoT was the "gift from heaven", then Cronulla is a predictable result.

Like Gahan wrote this on his blog:

It is no surprise that this weekends race riots in Sydney occurred when the Australian Prime Minister John Howard enacts Xenophobic legislation such as the August 13 2004 Marriage Equality Ban, sends Afghan refugees to Concentration Camps and joins the US in an illegal invasion of Iraq.

There is more to this, of course. It's not a simple one-to-one connection: Socio-economic, gender and other factors play a part. But maybe the "Aussies" involved are just following the example set by the man-in-charge. I guess its better than just "following orders."

Patriot Act up for renewal

2005-12-10T07:14:00.000+11:00

GOP Seeks Quick Passage of New Patriot Act - Yahoo! News: "Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, issued a statement saying the measure would aid 'in the detection, disruption and dismantling of terrorist cells before they strike.'
Key provisions cover the ability of law enforcement officials to gain access to a wealth of personal data, including library and medical records, as part of investigations into suspected terrorist activity.
The measure provides a four-year extension of the government's ability to conduct roving wiretaps -- which may involve multiple phones -- and to seek access to many of the personal records covered by the bill.
Also extended for four years is the power to wiretap 'lone wolf' terrorists who may operate on their own, without control from a foreign agent or power. An earlier, pre-Thanksgiving stab at compromise had called for seven-year extensions of these provisions.
Yet another provision, which applies to all criminal cases, gives the government 30 days to provide notice that it has carried out a search warrant."

Technorati Tags: Terrorism, Torture, US Administration

All Quiet on the Western (Suburbs) Front

2005-12-10T07:04:00.000+11:00

I've been a little preoccupied the last couple of days with another summer session course at UTS. I'm also taking Public Relations Principles, which is giving me some interesting insights into the other side of News and Current Affairs: The Source.

I will be back tomorrow with some analysis of this week in WoT.

Enjoy the beach, while I'm stuck inside Bon Marche on a Saturday. I must be insane.

It's all in the semantics

2005-12-08T07:48:00.000+11:00

Rice Signals Shift in Interrogation Policy - Yahoo! News: "Rice said cruel and degrading interrogation methods are off limits for all U.S. personnel at home and abroad. But she gave no examples of banned practices, did not define the meaning of cruelty or degradation, did not say if the rules would apply to private contractors or foreign interrogators and made no mention of whether exceptions would be allowed."

In the "That was money well spent" Department...

2005-12-07T17:19:00.000+11:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bin Laden is 'alive and fighting'

US court clears professor of terrorism

2005-12-07T12:40:00.000+11:00

Independent Online Edition > Americas: "In a major defeat for the federal government, a Florida jury last night acquitted a Palestinian professor on charges of leading a terrorist group that carried out suicide bombings in Israel. Three of his co-defendants were also cleared of dozens of related charges."

Independent Online Edition > World

2005-12-07T12:34:00.000+11:00

Independent Online Edition > World: "Condoleezza Rice virtually shrugged off a formal EU request for clarification about CIA-chartered 'ghost flights' last night, as the American intelligence agency was accused of having deliberately misled Italian investigators looking into the disappearance of an Islamic cleric."

EU hypocrisy on CIA secret prisons

2005-12-06T08:40:00.000+11:00

EU hypocrisy on CIA secret prisons

UK Government "Breaking the Law"?

2005-12-06T08:35:00.000+11:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | UK 'breaking law' over CIA secret flights: "The British government is guilty of breaking international law if it allowed secret CIA 'rendition' flights of terror suspects to land at UK airports, according to a report by American legal scholars."

It's just for the Duty Free Allowance

2005-12-06T08:27:00.000+11:00

BBC NEWS | Americas | Rice defends US terror policies: "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted that terror suspects are flown abroad for interrogation, but denied they were tortured."

Then why fly them out of the US? Why rely on interogation in a third party country?

'She said renditions had been carried out for decades between the US and its allies.

"Renditions take terrorists out of action, and save lives," she said. "Such renditions are permissible under international law."

However, some legal experts have suggested that the process of rendition is open to challenge under international law.'

If a week in politics is a long time...

2005-12-06T08:15:00.000+11:00

Then what about...

NSW Parliament expected to endorse terror law - National - smh.com.au: "The law includes a 10-year sunset clause."

Breaking Sports News

2005-12-06T07:58:00.000+11:00

OK, first off: I am not a sports fan. This is a congenital condition, something I was born with. My passport says I'm British, and until very recently, that meant we were crap at sport--all sport. Although, having said that, we are probably the greatest threat to the Australian way of life.

This is all, by round-about method, leading to the Wot connection. A search for "terror" on today's SMH website has this little ditty regarding the up coming commonwealth games:

ASIO conducts terror checks for Games - Breaking News - Sport - Breaking News

Of particular interest to me, in the wider story of WoT is this quote:

"Those involved in the event will have their names checked against information held in the intelligence agency's terrorism databases, The Australian reports...

I have to ask -- If someone is desperate to pull off an act of terrorism, then surely they are not going to use their own identity? Of course, authorities have to give the perception they are in control, doing something to protect their publics. Some undesirables will be filtered out by this process:

"...ASIO said so far no-one checked had been rejected."

There's still time.

"And So We Begin..."

2005-12-05T15:28:00.000+11:00

Ah, university: home of many an orphan blog.

This is a project for my News and Current Affairs class, and as with every good enterprise, I start with a mission statement:

WoT on Earth will present a perspective on the "global War on Terror" from internet, print, TV and radio sources from around the world.

That should do for now.