A Political Bird

08:55 pm - Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

kirabug

06:08 pm - In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.

From Roger Cohen, hat-tip to Andrew Sullivan:

Of the 770 detainees grabbed here and there and flown to Guantánamo, only 23 have ever been charged with a crime. Of the more than 500 so far released, many traumatized by those “enhanced” techniques, not one has received an apology or compensation for their season in hell.

What they got on release was a single piece of paper from the American government. A U.S. official met one of the dozens of Afghans now released from Guantánamo and was so appalled by this document that he forwarded me a copy.

Dated Oct. 7, 2006, it reads as follows:

“An Administrative Review Board has reviewed the information about you that was talked about at the meeting on 02 December 2005 and the deciding official in the United States has made a decision about what will happen to you. You will be sent to the country of Afghanistan. Your departure will occur as soon as possible.”

That’s it, the one and only record on paper of protracted U.S. incarceration: three sentences for four years of a young Afghan’s life, written in language Orwell would have recognized.

04:39 pm - On Prickly City, Leap Year's Day.

I've never been a fan of Prickly City. Generally, I find it to be of poor quality - I suppose The Wizard of Id is the easiest comparison - and so it rarely crosses my radar.

redneckgaijin just sent out an alert on today's strip.

I still say it's a poor quality strip. But I will praise it for this: it states, badly but boldly, that torture is not something that "good guys" do, and waterboarding is torture. That once you get beyond a certain threshold, relative comparisons don’t really matter, and waterboarding is horrible, terrible, inhuman torture.

I don't know Scott Stantis from Adam, and I still ain't fond of his strip. But, sickening as it is, speaking truth about this subject paints a bullseye on yourself, and the man said it anyway.

So: good job, Mr. Stantis. I'm rooting for you.

09:08 am - "Resolved: Ron Paul, as US President, would be disastrous for America."

Being a liberal Republican, it is meet* for me to state my stance on Ron Paul.

I believe that Ron Paul would be a terrible President for the reasons cited here. Most prominently among these are:

• The gold standard would lead to economic turmoil (not to mention devastate industries which use gold),
  
• The abolition of the income tax would cripple the federal government,
  
• A law to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on an issue is un-American, even when it is not explicitly intended to bolster prejudice,
  
• Racism - be it against black men in DC or immigrants throughout America - is wrong, (edit: I cannot defend this claim; I withdraw it.) and
  
• Undermining modern medicine would destroy millions of lives in the most brutal fashion.

08:19 pm - Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Via Mahablog, which reposted from Orcinus: The President has just issued this, titled 'Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq'.

You, who is reading this: if you are in America, and you do not believe that the war in Iraq is succeeding, you should be terrified.

I will not quote the whole text - it's legalese, and dense - but here's some of the crucial bits to explain myself.

First, the declaration of motive.

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps [...]

(a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in[.]

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. (emphases added)

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order. (emphasis added)

Current Mood: angry

10:20 am - The Poems of Guantanamo

jfs posted about this yesterday, I'm passing it on.

Did you know that they banned poetry in Guantánamo? It is true. Prisoners did not even receive writing implementia – the only means they had to produce this was scratching on styrofoam cups with rocks. And whenever those cups, furtively passed from prisoner to prisoner, were found, the guards would smash them to prevent any 'coded messages' from escaping. Nevertheless, a few have.

The article from the Independent includes three of the poems. jfs (and the writers of the article) quote four lines from one of them, "Humiliated In The Shackles" by Sami al Hajj:

They have monuments to liberty
And freedom of opinion, which is well and good.
But I explained to them that
Architecture is not justice.