Q&A: Targeted Killings in Damadola, Pakistan - New York Times

A representative of the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations interviewed on the topic of "targeted killings," focusing on the recent Predator bombing in Damadola, Pakistan, answers this question from the NY Times: "Have recent U.S. attempts at targeted killings gone awry before?"

Two instances are worth noting. The first, originally reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, occurred in Afghanistan in October 2001 when a CIA-operated Predator aircraft picked up the convoy carrying ousted Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. At the time, the CIA did not have the authority to launch a missile and deferred the decision to Gen. Tommy Franks, then-commander of United States Central Command, who explained, 'My JAG [military lawyer] doesn't like this, so we're not going to fire.' Omar escaped and remains at large.

The second example occurred on April of 2003, when U.S. intelligence suggested Saddam Hussein and his sons were dining in a Baghdad restaurant. U.S. forces rained scores of missiles down on the area, destroying the restaurant and a few nearby homes, only to discover Hussein was not present. The blasts did kill fourteen civilians. While U.S. officials likely knew the attack could harm some civilians, they clearly believed the military advantage gained by Hussein's death would outweigh the civilian cost.

If he is correct in what he says in that last sentence, and I think he probably is, then my eyes have been opened. I don't know what, except the mainstream television news and my own hopeful naivete, perhaps, made me think that the leaders of this country would not knowingly or intentionally kill innocent civilians in attacks like this. I don't know why it suddenly seems so clear to me whereas I willingly ignored evidence of it in the past, giving the US the benefit of the doubt that civilian deaths like these were truly accidental (like negligent homicide or manslaughter rather than premeditated murder). But I was just wrong. There really are people in power, in government, who consider themselves equal to God, deciding who lives dies and when and how. But they fuck it up all the time, which goes to show how arrogant and misguided they really are in thinking they have a right to use that power.

It doesn't take the compassion and will of a Gandhi or a Mother Theresa to set a better, more peaceful, life-affirming example in the world, does it? If you asked me and, I'm sure, millions of mainstream Americans to search our consciences and vote whether to bomb that restaurant, knowing we'd be sending fourteen, give or take, unknowing civilians to certain death, I would simply say "No, not at all. Find another way. Find another way or find something else to do in this world. There's plenty to do right here at home. Let's let them eat while we think over our own choices here. Perhaps we can try again somehow."

The problem with everyone, including me, is that our thinking is infected with a delusion that not just Saddam or al Qaeda or Bin Laden or even "terrorism" can be eradicated, but that evil itself can be. And in our deluded quest to achieve the impossible, we end up becoming that which we destroy.

I'm running out of steam here with the politics. Railing against the infinite wind of ignorance, violence and anger is a fool's errand that goes nowhere, though it may accomplish catharsis, which can be therapeutic. I do feel the US is on a bad track. I hated the fact that Clinton lied. I was just a kid when the old Bush, Reagan and Carter did their terms in office. The first election I was eligible to participate in was when Clinton ran the first time. But George Bush is the first President in my life whom I've really felt is just terrible.

September 11 was horrible, yes, no matter where it happened. It happened to occur in the US. You have to wonder why, but few of us do. We're content to lash back with our anger without really questioning what motivates all these suicidal, hyper-religious maniacs. Some 2,752 were murdered. So was the tsunami that killed some 283,000 people, which defies all logic and should cause us to stop for a moment and consider what the hell we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. The US is well on the road to causing a death toll of tsunamic proprtions. The US has obliterated far, far too many good, innocent, normal human beings in Bush's well-intentioned (arguably, though some have posited darker motives having to do with Middle East oil pipelines, and you'd be naive not to consider the possibility of ulterior motives which even Bush may be unable or unwilling to admit) but naively optimistic quest to eradicate terrorism.

Bush and his cronies are arguably the worst terrorists in the world now. According to a conservative and well-documented source, around 30,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the US's involvement in Iraq, not to mention 2,238 American soldiers. Might as well add to these totals the estimated 3,800 Afghan civilians the US killed, but which we all seem to have forgotten long ago. Don't neglect the 14-18 Pakistani civilians we just pulverized in Damadola this month (still waiting for someone to find the remains of those al Qaeda we supposedly killed there, so the numbers are still sketchy).

I have no faith in this mission. I never did. But now I am really uncomfortable about it. It's gone on far too long and there is no end in sight. It's really, really time for a change of course.

Iran - Going Nuclear . Interview with Paul Kenyon: Searching for Secrets | PBS

From an interview with BBC journalist, Paul Kenyon, who got access to a UN inspection team and high ranking officials inside Iran. Some interesting subtleties about this issue surface in the interview, not least of which is the fact that the US signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with Iran and many other countries to define the parameters of the international peaceful nuclear technology game and then changed the rules at will. Part of the treaty was an agreement that advanced countries should aid the less advanced in their goals of nuclear power and research. The US changed the rules first, not Iran, which led Iran to seek other means to build technology for nuclear power and keep their progress secret. The US recently discovered what Iran has been up to for the past 18 years, has accused them of building or planning to build nuclear weapons, and now there's a race to heal the differences by diplomacy rather than violence. No points for guessing who the aggressor would be; the Bush administration has already publicly bullied, accused and disrespected Iran around this issue while the leaders of Britain, France and Germany are trying to bring everyone to the table for diplomatic talks.

On the specific issue of whether the BBC journalist thinks Iran has nuclear weapons:

Do I think Iran actually has weapons? There is no smoking gun; there's no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons. But there's obviously a pattern of behavior which has led to suspicion. It's a fact that they deceived the world for 18 years. They say they did it because of U.S. sanctions on Iran, which is a reasonably plausible explanation. Of course, the Americans say that if Iran had been open and asked for help, they might have helped. That seems unlikely to me. In any case, Iran's bottom line is that they will not abandon their nuclear program. They've spent millions and millions on it; they have vast natural deposits of natural uranium; and they want to be an exporter of nuclear fuel. They feel that they're abiding by the law and that there's a double standard for them. The Europeans persuaded the Iranians to suspend their enrichment program. But there was still a fundamental difference of opinion: the Europeans want it to be a 'permanent suspension'-- in other words, a cessation -- and Iran will not abandon its program. Naseri has made that clear.

The recurring theme appears yet again: the Bush administration's decision to solve foreign relations by force rather than diplomacy creates a scenario akin to an unstoppable force running up against an immovable object. The US and the Muslim world of the Middle East are well-matched, it seems.

Kerry's Senate floor speech against Alito confirmation

You can read the entire speech by clicking the link above or various other places, I'm sure. I excerpted the most convincing portion, as far as I am concerned, here:

In 1984, for example, Judge Alito wrote a Justice Department memorandum concluding that the use of deadly force against a fleeing unarmed suspect did not violate the fourth amendment. The victim was a 15-year-old African American. He was 5 foot 4. He weighed 100 to 110 pounds. This unarmed eighth grader was attempting to jump a fence with a stolen purse containing $10 when he was shot in the back of the head in order to prevent escape. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found the shooting unconstitutional because deadly force can only be used when there is ‘probable cause that the suspect poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large.’ That is what we teach law enforcement officials.

But Judge Alito disagreed. Judge Alito said: No, he believed the shooting was reasonable because ‘the State is justified in using whatever force is necessary to enforce its laws’--even deadly force. That is his conclusion. That is the standard that is going to go to the Supreme Court if ratified. It is OK to shoot a 15-year-old, 110 pounds, a 5-foot-4-inch kid who is trying to get over a fence with a purse, shoot him in the back of the head.

Otherwise, Judge Alito believed that any suspect could evade arrest by making the State choose between killing them or letting them escape. That is the conclusion. Think about that. Judge Alito believed that the State could use whatever force was necessary to enforce its laws regardless of whether the suspect was armed or dangerous. Does the Chair believe that? Do the other Senators believe that? I don't think so. Do mainstream Americans believe that?

Lucky for us, we did not have to answer that question. Why? Because in 1985, Justice White rejected Judge Alito's position, and the court held that deadly force is not justified ‘where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others.’ The court stated unequivocally, ‘a police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.’

Kerry is arguing for a filibuster to attempt to stall and, presumably, block Alito's confirmation until the State of the Union Address is over Tuesday. I think Kerry's got a good idea. There should not be undue haste to confirm a Supreme Court justice for any reason, much less a Presidential speech that's usually more about self-promotion than useful information.

NYTimes: Live on 'Oprah,' a Memoirist Is Kicked Out of the Book Club

Live on 'Oprah,' a Memoirist Is Kicked Out of the Book Club: "She then confronted Mr. Frey about his fabrications, leading him to admit that in addition to exaggerating the amount of time he had spent in jail, he had lied about how his girlfriend had died; about the details of a foray outside a rehabilitation center; and about his claim that he had received a root canal without anesthesia because the center prohibited the use of Novocaine."

Thank you, Oprah and The Smoking Gun. James Frey, keep writing, by all means, just don't publish any more fiction as non-fiction. Seriously, I'm impressed that Oprah turned around and did the right thing after her somewhat flippant phone call during Frey's interview on Larry King a couple weeks ago.

Scientists develop bird flu vaccine

Scientists develop bird flu vaccine

Well, that was quick.

The US's Lethal Policy of Non-negotiation

According to today's New York Times update on journalist Jill Carroll, terrorist abductee in Iraq:

Four Iraqi women remain in American custody after today's release, and the fate of Ms. Carroll had not become any clearer this evening. Nothing has been heard from the kidnappers since the Jan. 17 broadcast, when she was shown in a silent video.

'We do not negotiate or bend to demands of terrorists,' said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman."

I am so sick of hearing this mantra parroted by the leadership of the US government and military. It doesn't take a genius to point out that there is a lethal, self-defeating conclusion implicit in this stance. Here is a syllogism to demonstrate:

• Terrorists take US hostages and will kill them unless the US complies with their demands.
• Negotiation might be possible, but the US does not negotiate with terrorists or comply with their demands.
• Therefore, the US implicitly guarantees the deaths of terrorist hostages. QED.

US politicians, government and military officials, take note: Your fundamentalism and extremism are no less destructive and idiotic than that of the terrorists. You deserve each other. May you waste your lifetimes away accomplishing nothing. This is how you represent the American people and the western world, whose intelligence, courage, willingness and thoughtfulness are totally lost on you. What a waste.

Khaleej Times Online - insightful editorial on the Damadola bombing in Pakistan

A brilliant, well-balanced editorial by a London-based Pakistani columnist, Irfan Husain, here speaking from a Muslim Pakistani perspective:

The fact is that we are very ambiguous about our attitude towards extremists and terrorists. While secretly cheering them on when they kill Westerners, we fulminate against the West for tightening visa and security requirements for Muslims. In particular, we deplore the tendency to lump all Muslims into a single category of potential terrorists.

Score one for reason and insight. Another excellent point:

Protestors have made much of the 'loss of sovereignty' caused by this attack. But sovereignty is never absolute. If we cannot control our own borders, how can we expect neighbours not to do something about it, especially when our territory is being used to harbour their enemies?

Irfan analyzes the situation from several perspectives and raises some interesting issues that highlight the subtleties of the relationships between the US and Pakistan and many of the terrorists we're after. Irfan and others have said they suspect the Pakistani government at least tacitly consented to the bombing, citing previous bombings and the lack of a public apology from the US as evidence.

HAMAS wins election in Palestine; the rise of democracies founded on Islam

The Bush administration called the Palestinian election a "historic and significant moment for the Palestinian people." But then turned right around and said this non sequitur: "We do not deal with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Under current circumstances, I don't see any change in that." Thanks, Scott McClellan, for at least being consistent. I think he could be economically and efficiently replaced with a tape recorder loop and a Howdy Doody puppet.

There's an odd chimera of democracy and Islam popping up in the Middle East these days; first Iraq and now Palestine. Unfortunately, these democracies lack an essential ingredient: separation of Church and State. On the contrary, the political parties and Parliaments of these democracies are defined by Islamic factions. This is not what westerners would recognize as free democracy in the sense of the ancient Greek or 18th century American and French exemplars.

The Damadola airstrike - (aka, 18 civilians killed in Pakistan by US bombing drones)

I'm glad someone at Wikipedia has created an article to document the Damadola airstrike in Pakistan. One of the questions I've been trying to answer is: What are the names of the civilians who were killed? The Wikipedia authors haven't had more luck than me, apparently. We just know of 17 or 18 civilians, or maybe it's 13 or 14, depending who you believe at the moment.

Like most news stories reported by the mainstream media you have to wonder how we verify anything the news tells us. Who told the media that two secretly deployed drones bombed a Pakistan village? I can only guess it was our own government touting what it believed was a military success. But I have no idea. I have searched for the names of the civilians, but no one has reported them. This just confirms my belief that the mainstream media is more about titillation than information. Even Arab and Muslim news sources are no more specific about the details of who was actually killed, except one civilian whose house and family were destroyed who was a known al Qaeda sympathizer. The innocents remain nameless. Why? Decency? I suppose we can give that benefit of the doubt. I just thought no one really cared enough to ask who they were. I'd like to know.

When we prefer not to see dead bodies and real violence (though we apparently love cathartic movie violence, as shown by the box office receipts for "Hostel"), we lose visual confirmation of the supposed "facts" the media reports to us constantly. The more I read and watch the news, the more I realize that I can get the news much faster and more in-depth online than on TV. But even then, reading the same story from multiple angles, pro-American and anti-American, neutral, left and right, I am left hungry for details, for names, addresses, images, firsthand accounts . . .

Some things are clear though, regardless of the foggy haze that obscures our vision of the facts around the nation and the world: the US is a nation vigorously at war, strenuously trying to solve some of the world's toughest problems with bloodshed and violence. Even John McCain says about the Damadola strike (on Face the Nation):
"It's terrible when innocent people are killed; we regret that [. . .] but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again. We have to do what we think is necessary to take out al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives."

He also said the following (according to the online edition of The Courier Mail), which confirms the complete loss of reason, which seems to have infected all our top government leaders:

"This war on terror has no boundaries"

McCain's first statement is just jaded. But the second exemplifies the US government's ant-terrorism fanatacism, which is just as irrational as the fanaticism of violent Muslim extremists. Why? Because we are violating the boundaries of other countries and killing their civilians at will and without permission (think about it: what country would willingly grant another the power to kill its civilians?) in a crusade to eradicate terrorists. Folks, if there are no boundaries, then there is no US. McCain's logic is as absurd as it is exemplary of current US foreign policy: "better to ask forgiveness than permission," except the US barely pauses for the formality of asking forgiveness. Our leaders offer apologies and economic or military gifts and wave their hands frantically about the War on Terror; they don't ask forgiveness. We have given notice to the rest of the world, if they are paying attention, that the the US no longer recognizes your borders in its quest for retribution and cleansing the world of terrorists. And what is a nation without borders but an uncharted expanse of land? There's a slippery slope to the decline of civilization.

Of course, McCain is not totally irrational. He doesn't really mean there are "no" national borders. What he means is, the US doesn't respect any other country's borders or the lives of their civilians or the decisions of their leaders. That's all. Our borders are quite intact, thank you. And we will maintain them at the cost of ruining our reputation as a civilized nation. What hypocrites we must become to wage this war on terrorists. The end justifies the means, though, right?

Do I need to interpret the following quote on freedom from Abe Lincoln? Or is it clear that what he said here about freedom encapsulates a principle of fairnesss (i.e., justice) that applies in our time and to the sovereignty of nations and the integrity of national borders? If we say that other countries have no borders, then we cannot expect our borders to be respected and we declare ourselves a hostile nation to the world:

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." -- April 6, 1859, Letter to Henry Pierce

I just saw news footage of the election in Palestine where there was reportedly a 78% voter turn out! HAMAS is one of the political parties representing there. The leader of HAMAS was on the news, dressed in western business attire, submitting his ballot and stating to a news camera that his organization's "attitude" is that all problems of modern life are to be solved by the Islamic religion, period. Such is the extremism, the black and white thinking, the dogmatism of peoples in this world which our country must deal with. Our leadership's current response is to fight fire with fire, live by the sword, answer fundamentalism with fundamentalism. Our response to the world lacks subtlety, but so do those we wish to influence (if we take the HAMAS leader's words as reflective of his true position).

There will be military conscription if the US continues the mantra of "stay the course" spoken by our President. The US needs to develop its diplomacy, its persuasiveness to scale to meet the world's problems head-on. No country can forever maintain such an aggressive stance to the rest of the world. Soldiers get killed and battalions must be replenished, just like any other military resource. The world is a very big place. India and China both have far, far more people than the US does, and China especially seems to have a predisposition to treat its people as disposable resources. The US is setting dangerous precedents in blowing off the UN, crossing borders and killing the civilians of other countries in military operations as it pleases, always following up with diplomacy and promises, never leading with them.

I don't like the trend I'm seeing. I am worried about this country's near future, which looks to be fraught with wars for, rough guess, at least a decade. This matters to me because the state of the world affects how we all feel and act. And something like a draft, which isn't hard to imagine, taking our young men and women away to fight because our diplomats are too stupid or lazy to think of a more intelligent, compassionate response to the world -- such a thing will affect many of us and those we know and love. And if this country's leaders become desperate enough and continue to respond to the pressures of the world with violence, well, I don't see why they wouldn't choose to nuke some of our "enemies" rather than incur a revolution (which they'd be unable to quell if our military is all engaged in wars overseas). I don't mean to be a Cassandra. I am just speaking as an average citizen, not even a political one, just someone who's poked his head up from work and a divorce to see what's going on in the rest of the world. I can't ignore it. 2006 has so far been a bloody and tyrannical year, and the blood is on America's hands, and the tyrant is us.

Certainly there's an advantage to being the winner in any life or death situation. If it's come to that and it's the US versus the rest of the world, then by all means, let's fight. But my point is that our leaders should be using higher human traits such as intelligence, compassion, diplomacy and negotiation -- not the barbarism of violent force, threats, and harsh language which our, supposedly, inferior enemies use to achieve their aims. I can't believe our leaders are not cognizant of the irony of their reaction to terrorists.

"Iran has an inalienable right to nuclear energy," says editorial

Iran has inalienable right to nuclear energy

This editorial sounds reasonable and well-argued. It adds some interesting back story.

Unfortunately, the average US citizen will never know if half of what the editorial reports is true (such as that the invasion of Iraq is part of a plan to checkmate Iran's euro-based oil market plans in the years ahead when world oil production peaks). But on the face of it, as I said before, I don't see why Iran, or any nation, shouldn't be allowed a peaceful entry to nuclear power if they want it. Just put in the proper checks and balances.

As the editorial concludes, with a quote from witers in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "The best way to know the full extent of Iran's nuclear doings is to offer it help."

Thousands rally against U.S. air strike in second week of Pakistan protests

Thousands rally against U.S. air strike in second week of Pakistan protests

After reading this article from The Canadian Press I can guess at chilling reasons for why our government and media have let this story of killing, supposedly, at least a dozen innocent women and children slide. If the article is correct, the area the US bombed is full of Pashtun's, the ethnic group from which the Taliban arose. The US bombed a podunk place in Pakistan, populated by potential Taliban recruits. Well, the US made sure of that at least. Since dropping bombs on their village the area has swelled with support for Bin Laden and inflamed hate for the US.

Interesting Paper on Evolutionary Epistemology

Selection Criteria for the Evolution of Knowledge, by Francis Heylighen.

Found via Knowledge Selection Criteria

Iraq's Political Party System Aligns with Religious Sects: Sunnis and Shiites

This description of Sunnis and Shiites describes the two major sects of Islam. There are further shades of distinction beyond the high level schism, but the major split, which goes back to Mohammed's original historical successors, is interesting to note.

Iraq's first (in 50 years) democratic election results were announced today. The elections, voters, candidates and, by deduction, their Parliament, aligned with Islamic religious sects. At least that is how the TV news described it. Could there be economic causes for these political divisions? Are the election results caused by or only correlated with religious affiliation?

We are spectators of a historical experimental hybrid of democracy and religion in Iraq.

ringtonia.com: "Gran Vals", by Francisco Tarrega - which inspired the infamous Nokia ringtone

This page has a link to an excerpt of classical guitar music, Fransisco Tarrega's "Gran Vals," composed in 1800s, which provided the basis for the most well-known, annoying, overplayed cellphone ringtone of all: ringtonia.com: "Gran Vals", by Francisco Tarrega

American Muslims Working for Release of Jill Carroll to Appear on Arab TV in Iraq

From a Turkish newspaper today: ZAMAN DAILY NEWSPAPER: "American Muslims Working for Release of Carroll"

Good. Very good, I think.

Aljazeera.Net - Bin Laden offers Americans truce

Aljazeera.Net - Bin Laden offers Americans truce

I think the truce is a good idea. Accept all that Bin Laden says. He speaks strangely, like a foreigner. I'm sure he thinks we are strange too. Let it be done.

As the Saudi Muslim scholar and analyst, Shaikh Said bin Zughair, reports: "if Bin Laden is sincere, we will be winners, if not, we will not lose anything."

Supposedly "the White House said on Thursday that the US 'does not negotiate with terrorists'." I went to whitehouse.gov and searched for "Bin Laden" and got a "404, file not found." The the whitehouse front page is lit up with smiling pictures of Bush and Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Where is the acknowledgement of the wars we are fighting?

Surely we can do better than that! We are English speakers and descendants and heirs of long lines of intelligent, compassionate, courageous and willing peoples with science, literature and art. Are we incapable of negotiating with anyone who shows willingness to negotiate? Do it to save the lives of people like me and you, like Jill Carroll.

UPDATE: White House Briefing, January 19 from Scott McClellan, today, in a press conference on the Bin Laden truce, replying to a leading question:

Question: He seemed to be offering a conditional truce under fair conditions, and seemed to be tying it to a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: And as I indicated, clearly, the al Qaeda leaders and the terrorists are on the run. They're under a lot of pressure. We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business. The terrorists started this war, and the President made it clear that we will end it at a time and place of our choosing. We continue to pursue all those who are seeking to do harm to the American people, and to bring them to justice.

If you read the rest of the transcript you will see that McClellan has nothing intelligent to say. He defers all intelligence, literally, to "the intelligence community," wherever they may be. If you met this guy in real life and needed something you would immediately ask to speak to his manager. He knows nothing. He tells us nothing. It's fixed, folks. Who's going to tell us the truth? Just the news, like brainelss dumb waiters faithfully bringing us rotted meat and curdled milk, always too late to change anything: the ever sad truths of the aftermath of 9/11, Nicholas Berg, the wedding the US bombed accidentally in Afghanistan a couple years ago, the 18 civilians the US killed this week in Pakistan . . .

Who do we, the people of the US, talk to in order to be heard and have our voice and will be done in the international world? Our Republic is too dependent on democratically elected officials in Washington. We need more of a true democracy at the national level, the Athenian model writ large, rather than the Roman model we have. With the Web most, if not all, of us could vote in a truly democratic way on "real time" issues that are important to us.

Defiance, Iran and Nuclear Power

Iran's president has decided to re-open some nuclear power plants and America, France, Germany and Britain have decided to oppose this action. I do not know why, though I would like to understand. Condoleeza Rice has publicly stated that Iran is acting in "dangerous defiance" of the "entire international community." I am sure no such community exists in reality -- surely the entire world of people outside of Iran is not united unanimously about much of anything. And "dangerous defiance," for a country with a revolutionary history such as ours, is hardly a phrase to be interpreted without qualification.

The NBC Nightly News tonight reported that the US military is so busy in Iraq that we must rely on the UN and diplomacy to align Iran's actions to our desires. I find that to be disingenuous. Surely if there is an imminent threat to the world we can spare some military force to quell Iran if necessary. I believe we, the American public, may be being "set up" for a play wherein our President is going to be portrayed as a hero of diplomacy in a drama involving Iran and nuclear power.

I'm still learning about the situation. I suppose I share the sentiment of many westerners that the Middle East is full of barbarians living a in a prolonged Medieval culture sustained by the irrationalism of fundamentalist Muslims and the wealth we provide them for their oil. This is a bias and I admit that, not having been there myself, I only know what I read in the papers and see on television. But nuclear power seems dangerous in principle and it seems arrogant of us to think only we have the right to use it. Again, this is a complicated issue and something the average American, like me, can only understand dimly and through a haze of information watered down by the news and other popular media. It returns me to the theme of government and trust. I'd like to understand it better.

How Much do You Trust the Government? Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay on Hunger Strike

In this week's edition of The Week I read that several of the prisoners, aka detainees, our country is holding in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba went on a hunger strike. Some or all of those on the strike have had feeding tubes forced into their bodies to keep them alive. These people have no rights, not even the right to exercise protest or non-violent resistance. I had almost forgotten about them. I'm no sympathizer with terrorists, but I think what we're doing with these people is just wrong. I don't understand why they haven't been charged with crimes and tried, or released. They are in a legal limbo (side note -- I also read this week that the Catholic Church is planning to eliminate Limbo from their theological ontology). It seems time to ask that something be done to resolve the question of what we are doing with these men and boys in Cuba, as much for our own consciences as for the humanity of the prisoners. America is not a tyranny or a dictatorship, but it seems to be proving itself one with its actions in recent years. The reason we don't see it, many of us, is that the exercise of power and control is being focused outward, away from our citizens and onto the citizens of other countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran.

Here is a timely editorial with some interesting facts and figures about the "detainees":
Where's the Outrage Over Guantanamo Prisoners?

James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces" is Fiction

I spotted the bright sky blue binding of Frey's now famous (soon to be infamous) book, A Million Little Pieces in the recovery and addiction section of a Borders bookstore back in December, 2004. It was labeled as non-fiction. I wouldn't have been interested in it if it had been labeled as fiction and the book probably wouldn't have found it's way onto the recovery and addiction section. I read it and liked it a lot. I found a couple of things hard to believe, especially one riveting and graphic scene of root canals without anesthetic (supposedly because as a rehab patient, Frey's dentist wasn't allowed to administer anesthetic, something I found hard to believe mainly because I couldn't imagine any sane dentist willing to attempt such a thing for fear of his own safety, let alone that of his patient). I'd never heard anything about the book. I had been reading Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones after reading her non-fictional rape and retribution account Lucky. Frey's book fit my then theme of reading long, contemporary stories depicting hardcore suffering and tragedy. Like Sebold, Frey related a tale of real life extreme suffering that I could relate to. I was trying to evoke, reconnect with some bad experiences from my past to help myself get through the excruciating emotional pain of my divorce.

Cut to late 2005. Oprah Winfrey featured Frey's book on her show (which I learned from my therapist, who recommended the book to me, not knowing I'd already read it a year before) and decreed it a selection for her book club. Suddenly everyone was reading it. Since then a friend of mine has read it and liked it. Just a week ago I conversed briefly with a woman on an airplane who was reading it. My therapist read it, etc. I thought it interesting that so many people were thoroughly enjoying such a hardcore tale of drug abuse, violence, rebellion, forbidden love and redemption. But now that I spell out its themes I can see why it has such appeal.

I identified strongly with the main character in the book. I thought Frey was a hard case, lucky, like me, who'd seen some even tougher times than me yet lived to enjoy a successful life. Tales such as that of the main character (ostensibly James Frey, himself) in Frey's book usually end more like they did for his character's friend, Lilly, or some of the others who die or wind up in jail, according to the afterword in the book. I was lucky. My luck was a friend who was murdered, whose death propelled me into a new life. I could identify with Frey's character, as I said.

Then this week I read in The Boston Globe and New York Times that a Web site, The Smoking Gun, known for publishing mug shots of celebrities, had debunked much of Frey's non-fictional account. I was taken aback. I doubted it. I read the newspaper stories, which included responses from Frey and Oprah Winfrey, both of whom downplayed the allegations and admitted minor tweaks of details (for "dramatic effect," which is the crux of the distinction, in my mind, between fiction and non-fiction, but I digress) but insisted that nothing substantial had been fabricated and it was all an unfortunate attack on Frey. I decided to withold judgment until I could read the original report myself. I did that tonight. Here is the link: A Million Little Lies.

The Smoking Gun research is very convincing. They disproved everything Frey claims about his police record and completely undermine his self-portrayal as a hardnosed criminal and thug. Frey's book is a deception far beyond what Oprah or Frey are claiming as minor fabrications. The entire thing is called into question by the Web of lies uncovered by the exhaustive research into events described in the book. The book should be reclassified as fiction. In fact, as The Smoking Gun observes, Frey initially tried to get the book published as fiction and re-worked it in order to publish it as non-fiction, per his publisher's request.

I'm disappointed to discover this. I think Frey has betrayed a lot of people. I don't think he necessarily intended to, but he has and so has his publisher. With the amount of evidence uncovered by The Smoking Gun, I find it impossible to believe much of anything in the book. It should be re-classified as fiction and sold as such.

Let the Good Times Roll by Guy Kawasaki: The Top Ten Lies of Entrepreneurs

Let the Good Times Roll by Guy Kawasaki: The Top Ten Lies of Entrepreneurs

A humorous and insightful blog write up of a list of "top 10" (11 actually) lies entrepeneurs make when pitching business ideas to VCs. I would add that these lies are also perpetuated and retold to potential employees in hiring and to customers and partners when selling. Basically, most of these "lies" could be called "rhetorical techniques" used by businesses and individuals in varying stages of development (even well-established ones) to persaude others of the value of a new idea, product, strategy, etc.

Old Grandma Hardcore

Old Grandma Hardcore: "Old Grandma Hardcore" is a blog about an avid senior citizen video-gamer written by her grandson. Good on them.