There's a video game, not unlike many of the first person shooters, called America's Army. You fight in military formation, you kill terrorists, you get points. It's very popular, and has made its makers a lot of money. Except that this video game was made by the Pentagon to boost recruiting, and it's working great. An informal Army study of the same year showed that 4 out of 100 new recruits in Ft. Benning, Georgia, credit "America's Army" as the primary factor in convincing them to join the military. Sixty percent of those recruits surveyed said they played the game more than five times a week. And a 2004 Army survey found that nearly a third of young Americans aged 16 to 24 had some contact with the game in the previous six months. It also might be a violation of international treaty obligations, at least according to the ACLU, but I'm pretty sure those are non-binding on the US because of the awesomeness of this country.

More on juvenile militarism after the flip.  

What Johnathan Turley says, with heavy heart and disbelief we've gone this far as a Country, should be brought into public discussion and possible implementation, as our Representatives seem to be hell bent on going along with the administrations shredding of the Constitution and the Laws of this Country!

According to McClatchy Newspapers and former Defense and Administration officials, abuse of prisoners held without charges was a consequence of a legal firewall constructed by a War Council composed of Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Yoo, William Haynes and Timothy Flanigan which met in secret to deliberately and premeditatedly toss out US and International laws specifically designed to assure humane prisoner treatment at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan. This legal framework sought to justify detention in a way that thwarted Federal courts, international treaties and the Military Code of Justice, as well as obscuring accountability and preventing prosecution on all levels for what might be considered war crimes. The War Council was sanctioned following 9-11 by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Bruce Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.  

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...

There is a bill in the US Senate right now that deserves our support.  Senate Bill 594, the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act, currently has twenty-one sponsors in the Senate.  This bill would ban the use of cluster bombs, which injure thousands of innocent people each year. Unfortunately the Pentagon and Department of Defense officials have fought the effort to outlaw these weapons.  Their reasoning is difficult to understand given the sobering reality that almost thirty percent of the bomblets released in each bomb fail to explode initially, leaving a deadly legacy for future generations of children to discover.   The Middle East is filled with children who have lost arms and legs to unexploded cluster bombs.  This is not the legacy of freedom and democracy we wish to leave the people of Iraq.

The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal: an interview with author J. Patrick O’Connor
author: Hans Bennett

In his new book, O'Connor argues that Abu-Jamal was clearly framed by police, and that the actual shooter was a man named Kenneth Freeman. O'Connor criticizes the local media, who, he says "bought into the prosecution's story line early on and has never been able to see this case for what it is: a framing of an innocent and peace loving man."
The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal: an interview with author J. Patrick O'Connor

Remember recently Dick Cheney joked about his wife saying that portraying him as Darth Vader humanized him?  If it humanized him, it was just barely, and I suppose that this comment going back to September 16, 2001 introduced us to the real "Cheney"...

On September 16, 2001, Vice-President Richard Cheney appeared on "Meet the Press", in an interview you can read from the web pages of the White House itself...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

I will offer below, if you follow me, a few snippets of that interview, where we see the "Darth Vader" of Dick Cheney coming into the light...we should have been warned right then and there, but I suppose we were all in shock, I know I was, by the tragic events of 9/11...

Do you recognize this man?

His name is Rod Serling and he once hosted an amazing little television show called the Twilight Zone.  Each week, he would appear to announce the story of someone trapped in a bizarre set of circumstances, typically surreal and frightening.  It was fiction, but great fun.

I suddenly find myself looking for Rod Serling to appear again because I am suffering from the same uncomfortable sensation of surreality, except this time it is neither fiction nor fun.

Two weeks ago I agreed to take the side of supporters of the war in Iraq and argue that, under international law, the war was legal. We had a spirited debate and in the end I felt I presented the most convincing view even though that view was contrary to my own personal and legal opinion.

Now I have a chance to set the record straight. What follows is my argument, for my final paper in my international law class at NYU, that the war was illegal.

Because they stand up to power:

A Chinese ship carrying arms destined for Zimbabwe was last night forced to turn back after South African unions refused to unload it, claiming that to do so would be “grossly irresponsible”, South African media reported.

The reversal is a humiliation for President Mbeki, who had said that the Government was powerless to stop the shipment of three million rounds of AK47 ammunition, 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades and more than 3,000 mortar rounds and mortar tubes to President Mugabe’s armed forces.

It was not clear last night where the ship was now destined, or whether it was trying to deliver the arms by a different route. The retreat, if confirmed, would represent a victory for human rights activists, who had filed a legal petition to block the transfer of the goods, and also for the 300,000-strong South African Transport and Allied Workers’ Union, who had said that the arms would worsen the political crisis in Zimbabwe.

“Our members employed at Durban container terminal will not unload this cargo, neither will any of our members in the truck-driving sector move this cargo by road,” Randall Howard, a union spokesman, said.

“South Africa cannot be seen to be facilitating the flow of weapons into Zimbabwe at a time where there is a political dispute and a volatile situation between Zanu (PF) and the MDC [Movement for Democratic Change],” he said.

Legal action was taken to ensure that the ship would not be unloaded and the South African courts ruled against permitting the ship to be unloaded:

The court ruling followed an application brought with the support of the South African Litigation Centre under legislation prohibiting the supply of arms to "governments that systematically violate, or oppress ... human rights and fundamental freedoms".

The director of the centre, Nicole Fritz, said: "It is hard to imagine clearer circumstances in which South African authorities were obliged to refuse to grant any conveyance permit."

Helen Zille, the leader of South Africa's opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, warned that the shipment could result in carnage of "genocidal proportions".

Pointing out that a consignment of Chinese machetes had prefaced the genocide in Rwanda, she said: "The mind boggles when one considers the damage that could be done with the consignment of arms sitting in Durban harbour."

These arms are still a problem.  While the court was making its ruling, the ship left South African waters and its location isn't currently known, although there's speculation it's headed to Mozambique.  And even if this shipment of arms doesn't make it to Zimbabwe, things appear to be getting uglier, especially if this report is proven accurate:

Chinese troops have been seen on the streets of Zimbabwe's third largest city, Mutare, according to local witnesses. They were seen patrolling with Zimbabwean soldiers before and during Tuesday's ill-fated general strike called by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Earlier, 10 Chinese soldiers armed with pistols checked in at the city's Holiday Inn along with 70 Zimbabwean troops.

One eyewitness, who asked not to be named, said: "We've never seen Chinese soldiers in full regalia on our streets before. The entire delegation took 80 rooms from the hotel, 10 for the Chinese and 70 for Zimbabwean soldiers."

Officially, the Chinese were visiting strategic locations such as border posts, key companies and state institutions, he said. But it is unclear why they were patrolling at such a sensitive time. They were supposed to stay five days, but left after three to travel to Masvingo, in the south.

China's support for President Mugabe's regime has been highlighted by the arrival in South Africa of a ship carrying a large cache of weapons destined for Zimbabwe's armed forces...

According to [the South African newspaper] Beeld, the documentation for the shipment was completed on 1 April, three days after the presidential vote.

Zimbabwe and China have close military ties. Three years ago, Mr Mugabe signed extensive trade pacts with the Chinese as part of the "Look East" policy forced on him by his ostracising by Western governments over human rights abuses. The deal gave the Chinese mineral and trade concessions in exchange for economic help.

In previous crack downs Mugabe has used troops on loan from North Korea.  China should be asked why it has military advisors in Zimbabwe during a political crisis.  Just as they should be pressured over their suppression of Tibet, they should be pressured over their apparent active support of Robert Mugabe.  

In fact, it's the kind of pressure the world's most powerful state might be able to exert...if the Bush administration hadn't so devalued our international influence by its disdain for international law and institutions and for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  

TimesOnline (hat tip Raw Story) has an article which sheds new light on the circumstances that led to the capture of 15 British sailors by Iran last year.

According to documents obtained from the British Ministry of Defense, the sailors were captured in disputed waters. It is noteworthy, however, that the dispute on the demarcation of Iranian territory stemmed from the fact that "the coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was".  This might explain why Iranian forces had patrolled the waters in question an average of three times each week prior to the capture of the British sailors. On the ill-fated day in question it was the British who first pointed their weapons at the Iranians, before the Iranians came alongside.

So how does this report by the British Ministry of Defense jive with the contemporary narrative by the Bush administration and their domestic toadies? Well, here is a quote by President Bush from March 31, 2007:

This N.Y. Times story, Administration blesses pacts to protect civilians,is doomed to slide into obscurity in very short order. Out of 21 senators who sit on the committee only the chair, Senator Casey (D. Pa.) attended the hearing covered by the article.  

The witnesses were John Bellinger, top legal advisor of the State Department, Charles Allen a counsel for the Defense Department and Brig. Gen. Michelle Johnson who testified briefly on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These officials were present to give the support of the administration for a handful of treaties designed to lessen wartime civilian casualties, and wartime protection to cultural sites.

Maybe it's just bitter old moi, but I think the following blurb in the article is positively stuffed to the brim with rich and caustic irony:

Summing up, Bellinger said, ''We set an example to the world when it comes to humanitarian law,'' and other nations ''know we stand for the right thing.''

That quote is clearly an example of an administration toady creating an alternate reality which favors their warped outlook.

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

Read that again.  It is the opening paragraph of the lead story in today's Washington Post entitled Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators and subtitled "ustice Dept. Official in 2003 Said President's Wartime Authority Trumped Many Statutes."  Similar stories appear in other papers.  While we may have known about this second memo written by John Yoo, the implications frighten me, because I have just finished reading similar reasoning - from many of my best students.   I didn't believe I could still be shocked, but I am.

We can put an end to unjust empire building by creating a simple piece of international law and enforcing it.  This law would be fair to all citizens in all nations and protect their rights, as well as their resources, children, and environment. By reexamining what citizenship means, we can become very clear on what is needed to protect all citizens everywhere.  

The idea is very simple: Let the ruling of a region, whether land, sea, or space, be first and foremost the responsibility of those born in that region.  The idea of birthright is common to many cultures, and easily understood by all.  This is simply enshrining the idea that the birthright of citizenship is inviolable.

One of the more significant decisions of the Supreme Court's current term passed largely under the radar yesterday, drowned out by the ongoing drama of the democratic presidential primaries.

In a split decision, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Medellin v. Texas, a case involving whether or not the State of Texas is obligated to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the United States is a party.  

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas, held categorically that Texas is under no obligation to uphold the terms of the treaty.  This holding comes despite the fact that the United States is a party to the treaty, having signed and ratified it nearly forty years ago.  

The Court held that in order for an individual state to be bound by a treaty entered into by the Federal government, congress must pass, and the President must sign, a statute which expressly requires that specific state to be thus bound.

The ruling will likely have a far reaching impact on the way the United States enters into treaties, and could cause other Nations to hesitate before entering future treaties with the U.S.

More...

Well, this was rather unexpected and big news this morning. This is a front page story in the Toronto Star, Canada's foremost liberal newspaper with the biggest subscription across the country.  As you might know, Omar Khadr is the last remaining Westerner to be held in Guantanamo. He has been held there since 15, without charge or trial - for 6 years. Khadr's lawyers are already going to be arguing this week in court whether or not they are allowed to gather evidence from the government of Canada that could help in his defence at Guantanamo, and whether or not Canadian officials who travelled to the base to interrogate him in 2003 and 2004 breached his constitutional rights.

However, the Supreme Court has gone even father then that: they have agreed to hear arguments on whether or not Gitmo is legal under international law:

via MAL Contends
Listening to Bush at the Pentagon this morning on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, one would be generous to brand this callow and disingenuous performance as that of a braying ass.

The truth is that this war has shattered the lives of 100,000s of Americans and millions of Iraqis, in a calculated set of lies with consequences so grave that one struggles to find the appropriate words of condemnation.

Carlotta Gall and Andy Worthington wrote a shocking report Tuesday in the New York Times about the first prisoner to die at the Guantanamo Cuba prison camp.

KABUL, Afghanistan — Abdul Razzaq Hekmati was regarded here as a war hero, famous for his resistance to the Russian occupation in the 1980s and later for a daring prison break he organized for three opponents of the Taliban government in 1999.

But in 2003, Mr. Hekmati was arrested by American forces in southern Afghanistan when, senior Afghan officials here contend, he was falsely accused by his enemies of being a Taliban commander himself. For the next five years he was held at the American military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he died of cancer on Dec. 30.

Apparently, in response to political pressure, the Times editors have attacked their own excellent journalists in an act of shameful cowardice.

During Thursday's debate in Hollywood, Hillary Clinton was asked not only why she voted to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq (H.R. Res. 114), but also why she voted against the so-called Levin Amendment, which would have authorized

the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

Explaining her vote, Clinton replied:

"The way [the Levin] amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it.