Inconvenient Democracies

The conventional wisdom since WWII has demanded installing, with more or less direct US intervention, strongman-dictators in troubled regions for our own benefit. Who cares about the cute-yet-disastrously-poor-and-oppressed colored people in those unfortunate parts of the world. The international community is safer if we help a dictator keep order (by whatever means necessary), as long as he’s a friend to us.

To their credit, the Neocons have bucked this tradition. They have claimed (one might say shouted) that democracy is the best antidote for troubled regions, and that it will serve our best interests better than the possibility of a turncoat strongman, e.g., Hussein. This strategy has been lauded in the past (with slightly more open elections occurring around the Middle East last year). However, it is an obviously terrifying gamble: witness the democratic election of Hamas as the most benign of the worst case scenario. What happens when a people chooses a bad person for a leader?

Apparently, what happens is that we declare that democracy to be defunct, and don’t recognize it. Though the US embassy has denied it, apparently Bush (through Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq) recently told al-Hakim (head of the Iraqi Alliance) that he “doesn’t want, doesn’t support, doesn’t accept Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister” of Iraq. Mr. Jaafari’s spokesman “accused the US of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty” (BBC, “US envoy ‘calls for new Iraqi PM’”). Even though the Shia United Iraqi Alliance chose Jaafari as its candidate, the Kurdish and Sunni parties in Iraq “have threatened to boycott a national unity government unless it [Jaafari’s candidacy] is withdrawn.” The reasons are simple: they think that the nomination is “partly responsible for fuelling the increasing sectarian violence;” we are horrified of any further delays in the formation of an Iraqi government.

That’s right: even though it has become a tiresome refrain to hear the president bring up the glorious elections that took place in Iraq and Afghanistan, as proof that his policies are just (etc.), it would seem that his opinion is different when not standing in front of cameras and trying to garner public support. To quote a bit more from the BBC article:

“‘How can they do this?’ Haidar al-Ubaidi [spokesman for Prime Minister Jaafari] asked. ‘An ambassador telling a sovereign country what to do is unacceptable,’ he added. ‘The perception is very strong among certain Shia parties that the US, led by Mr Khalilzad, is trying to unseat Mr Jaafari.’”

Just what we need.

-W.

Apparently, what happens is that we declare that democracy to be defunct, and don’t recognize it. Though the US embassy has denied it, apparently Bush (through Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq) recently told al-Hakim (head of the Iraqi Alliance) that he “doesn’t want, doesn’t support, doesn’t accept Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister” of Iraq. Mr. Jaafari’s spokesman “accused the US of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty” (BBC, “US envoy ‘calls for new Iraqi PM’”). Even though the Shia United Iraqi Alliance chose Jaafari as its candidate, the Kurdish and Sunni parties in Iraq “have threatened to boycott a national unity government unless it [Jaafari’s candidacy] is withdrawn.” The reasons are simple: they think that the nomination is “partly responsible for fuelling the increasing sectarian violence;” we are horrified of any further delays in the formation of an Iraqi government.

That’s right: even though it has become a tiresome refrain to hear the president bring up the glorious elections that took place in Iraq and Afghanistan, as proof that his policies are just (etc.), it would seem that his opinion is different when not standing in front of cameras and trying to garner public support. To quote a bit more from the BBC article:

“‘How can they do this?’ Haidar al-Ubaidi [spokesman for Prime Minister Jaafari] asked. ‘An ambassador telling a sovereign country what to do is unacceptable,’ he added. ‘The perception is very strong among certain Shia parties that the US, led by Mr Khalilzad, is trying to unseat Mr Jaafari.’”

Just what we need.

-W.

Immigration

I don’t have the time or energy to write much on this. However, I want to make sure everyone on this list, at least, knows one thing about the current immigration debate going on in this country right now.

The House passed a proposal recently which makes it illegal for anyone to offer food, shelter, medical care, and/or counseling to any undocumented illegal immigrant. This holds for individuals as well as charities, churches, doctors, hospitals, etc. Best of all, it is not just illegal. It is a felony.

Alright. Read on if your enraged. If you’re not, let me know and I’ll take you off this list. Right after I have you committed.

No wonder there were 500,000 people in the streets of LA and Phoenix a couple of days ago to protest immigration laws in the US. The most amazing part, however, is how bad things are already. Whether one looks at grapes in California, or meatpacking in Texas and Nebraska, or oranges in Florida, or countless industries (like WalMart) with massive records of exploiting illegals, we may as well continue to have slaves in America. The most hilarious part, though, is the insane and dangerous hypocrisy within factions of the Republican party on this one. The libertarian and more “traditional” crowd of Republicans has apparently awoken from their spell under the neo-cons, but only in order to choose this as their issue! How spectacular that the party with the most self-identifying Christians is salivating over a bill that would make it a felony to give a person food. Why not just go ahead and call these people godless savage mongoloids? The big business wing, however, is scared as hell. They know that the economy would tank if we suddenly dried up the virtually free labor force that has been guaranteed for the last however many years. What’s more, these people do all the jobs that normal Americans won’t do. The lower-middle class heartland Republican may not realize it, they say, but no American is stupid enough to work in a job with no benefits that requires you to risk life and limb, work overtime without extra pay, and pays $3 an hour. Finally, the party wonks are chewing their fingers to pieces. With supposedly 11 million illegals in the country, even if one supposed that all or most of them did not pay taxes on wages (which is untrue, by the way), nevertheless they all pay taxes every single time they buy anything. How much do you think state coffers will be hit, let alone the economy? $3/hr. is not a lot of buying power, but 11 million people is a major chunk of the economy, regardless of how you slice it.

The shame! This statement has been said by everyone under the sun, from the illegals and their leaders to the president himself. My God, how offensive is it that our own president has said outloud that Mexicans (et al) do jobs that are too utterly atrocious for an American to even consider. Regardless of how downtrodden and abject an American could get, she would never work in the meatpacking industry (which, by the way, has consistently been ranked as the most dangerous job in America; this is particularly amazing considering that a large percentage of its workers never report their lost limbs, as they have been told by the company that they will thereby be fired and thrown in jail for being illegals).

Are we really so stupid as all this? Is it really so inevitable that we would pass this type of legislation because people like my own father have jumped on the xenophobic, proud-to-be-an-American bandwagon? Is the populace so unbelievably retarded as to not recognize that they would be complaining within a year of the massive price increase on every single agricultural product in the country? Can’t you just see it now? Angry middle-Americans upset about massive price inflation at the grocery store, demanding that Congress find some way to deal with it without raising taxes or giving in to those touchy-feely-liberal types who want to help out anybody except for me and my wallet or my racism (depending on the day). And remember: I’m not taking about Democrat or Republican. Unfortunately, Stupid is the third unifying party that is rapidly gobbling up the ranks of both sides. Finally, are we so brainwashed by Hollywood and bad textbooks in high school as to forget the fundamental irony of this position? I.e., that these laws are tantamount to urinating in the face of the Native Americans, whose situation as a whole in this country need not even be mentioned? (I presume that everyone here is so aware of their impoverished world that you all share my consistent apathy. That is, once you have had something proven so absolutely to you, yet at the same time not had your life affected by it, it would seem that the only sane response is complete resignation and lack of concern. Simon Weil is at least right about that: evil is not the opposite of good, but apathy is.) After all, they are the sole folks who can put the word NATIVE before America. Where is Toby Keith’s song for them?

Too bad these people are so disastrously desperate that they can’t and won’t go on strike. Just imagine: 11 million undocumented workers suddenly go on strike. Just imagine! All those same people who want to kick them out of the country would suddenly call for the government to send out the national guard and force those ungrateful wetback spics to go back to work! That’s right, shoot a few if you have to, but I’ll be damned if I have to pay more than 30 cents/pound for grapes!

-W.

Short Term Memory

I would just like to send kudos out to Jon Stewart again for noting something that was bereft from all the networks and papers, to my knowledge. Admittedly, this type of multi-story comparison tends to end up on op/ed pages (though I can’t for the life of me understand why; the BBC and the Economist are big fans of this type of writing as it gives the reader the context to HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS GOING ON), and admittedly I don’t tend to read them that often. But enough introduction.

(Note: the Daily Show was very brief, for time purposes I imagine. In investigating the quotes, I have extended them quite a bit; they just get more dazzling…)

“President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Iraq” (Couldn’t they think of a better title than that for his speech?) March 13, 2006 at George Washington University:

“Some of the most powerful IEDs [improvised explosive device, the weapon of choice for insurgent carbombers] we’re seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress, ‘Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devises’ in Iraq. Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions -- along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons -- are increasingly isolating Iran, and America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”

Wow. I don’t know if anybody remembers, but this is the exact type of insinuation and loose-yet-malevolent connections that were first used to get the majority of Americans to believe that Iraq somehow had anything to do with al Qaeda (prior to our invading, that is). Not that I think this is his intent, but one would practically think Mr. Bush was preparing us for military action with such intelligence. For those who want to be sympathetic, remember: I can get IED “components” from Radio Shack and WalMart. Presumably this does not mean that the leaders of those two corporations are in cahoots with my terrorist actions. It is a massively different order of inquiry to claim that Tehran is responsible.

(As an aside: haven’t we consistently tried to claim that the insurgency is almost completely foreign fighters and disaffected, disgruntled Sunnis? What sense does it make that the Shia would be supplied by Iran, when they have control of the government and their Leaders either encourage them not to kill anyone or to kill Sunnis? In other words, neither the Shia nor Iran can benefit from Shiite insurgents, do they?)

Stewart: “And you know this president: if he is going to put something that incendiary in one of his speeches, he’s got the proof to back it up!”

General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary Rumsfeld, head of the Dept. of Defense were giving a press conference the next day. A reporter asked them both the following question: “"Do you have proof that they are, indeed, behind this, the government of Iran?" They both pause for just a second. Rumsfeld (in a beautifully obvious dodge) then turns to the general and says, “Pete?” General Pace looks quite uncomfortable. He then leans in to the microphone and says, "I do not, sir." Rumsfeld, I’m sure in an attempt at damage control, then rambles out the following: “As to equipment, unless you physically see it coming in (a government-sponsored vehicle, or with government-sponsored troops) you can’t know it. All you know is that you find equipment (weapons, explosives, whatever) in a country that came from the neighboring country. With respect to people, it’s very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran.”

I don’t think this even needs any commentary or analysis.

Stewart’s response: “You know what? Forgetaboutit! Forget it! Good enough for me! Line ‘em up, boys, we’re heading to Tehran!”

Personally, I think the president should be like a lover. If she’s going to lie to me, at least have enough respect for me to make the lie brilliant, intricate, and difficult to unravel. Don’t just shove something malformed in my face: that is awfully insulting to my intelligence.

-W.

O'Connor Unleashed

Thanks to Chuck for the following article. I have never met Chuck, so I won’t vouch for his character. I also don’t recommend that anyone buy an apple from him. Quite frankly, you should probably stay away from him; I’m getting a bad vibe. (Henry, where do you find these people?)

Nevertheless, he just notified me of a delightful encounter between former Justice O’Connor and Georgetown. I searched for a full transcript, but all I could find was the following summary by Nina Totenburg (NPR) on Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.html).

Sadly, I have found no major network or paper which covered the speech. Indeed, I tried several Google combinations and got nothing. When I Googled the terms O’Connor, Georgetown, and the only quote Totenberg cites from the speech (which is an obvious one for networks: “really, really angry”), I got 79 results. Many had nothing to do with the Justice; those that I checked all credited NPR. I also searched NYTimes and Washington Post for anything involving the Justice (I just searched for “O’Connor”) since 2006 began, with very few results. Odd at best, shameful at worst.

Thanks again Chuck, even if you are a terrible person.

-W.

Retired Supreme Court Justice hits attacks on courts and warns of dictatorship

RAW STORY

Published: March 10, 2006

Via NPR. Rush transcript by RAW STORY. Listen to the audio report here.

Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private but Sandra Day O’Connor no longer faces that obligation. Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts. She said they challenge the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans. O’Connor’s speech at Georgetown University was not available for broadcast but NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg was there.

Nina Totenberg: In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O’Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O’Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or the Congress or governors, as she put it “really, really angry.” But, she continued, if we don’t make them mad some of the time we probably aren’t doing our jobs as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won’t be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation’s founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O’Connor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions don’t protect judicial independence, people do.

And then she took aim at former House GOP leader Tom DeLay. She didn’t name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case. This, said O’Connor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress’ onetime only statute about Schiavo as it was written. Not, said O’Connor, as the congressman might have wished it were written. This response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint, said O’Connor, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the congressman blasted the courts.

It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn’t help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didn’t name him, but it was Texas senator John Cornyn who made that statement, after a Georgia judge was murdered in the courtroom and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge’s home. O’Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms, recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges, stripping the courts of jurisdiction and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decisions that political leaders disagree with.

I, said O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Abortion, Federalism and Hypocrisy

All,

I hope that you all heard about the abortion bill recently signed into law by Governor Rounds of S. Dakota. You may be thinking, “What does this have to do with me? What do I care if the people of S. Dakota are insane/wonderful [fill in the adjective appropriate to your beliefs]?” Well, here’s two reasons why you should care, regardless of your beliefs on abortion.

1. Allow me to quote a couple of people who were integrally involved in the writing and passage of the bill. State Rep. Napoli (R) said, "I believe the message from Roe v. Wade is simple -- abortion on demand, abortion as a means of birth control, abortion as a means to destroy human life -- however you want to define it. That's the message from Roe v. Wade that I believe should not be the message from this country or this state," said Napoli. State Rep. Bartling (D), said, "There is still another chance that President Bush will have to place another justice on that bench, as Justice Stevens is 87 years old and nearing his retirement years," Bartling reminded fellow lawmakers. "In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and the rights of unborn children." OK. They think they are doing the right thing.

However, I have two problems with this. First is the issue of their being representatives of the people. Interestingly enough, the supporters of the bill blocked four attempts to modify it. These included attempts to amend the bill with exceptions involving rape, incest, health (beyond life). Most important, some lawmakers attempted to refer the ban to a vote of the people. Each amendment was blocked.

Now I am not in favor of rampant article votes. California has been a testament to the kind of unfortunate abuse that these votes incur, alongside of massive amounts of money paid both by government and NGO groups in an attempt to inform (read: convince, skew) the public’s interest in the particular issue. In other words, there is a reason we opted for a representative government (even though that reason was originally, according to the “Founders,” because the people is too stupid to decide on its own what is just). There is also the issue of protecting the minority from tyranny. Indeed, given the option of plebiscite referendum vote, many or even most states in America would (1) make homosexuality illegal; (2) force creationism to be taught in schools; (3) deport anyone who looks Arab. Yet I would like you to note that regarding an issue as important, controversial, divisive, etc., as abortion legislation, the state legislature was loath to offer the public the option of weighing in and deciding the issue for themselves.

Second, there is that old argument about Federalism. The supporters of the bill, as quoted above, prove that they are not acting in their roles as state legislators. Rather, they specifically wrote the bill with the intent of changing federal law. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want South Dakota’s legislature to be poking its nose in my Pennsylvania business. Aside from the already questionable recantation involved in the passage of a bill that is unquestionably unconstitutional (insofar as it directly contradicts the interpretation of the Constitution by Supreme Court precedent; remember that elected officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution), there is the further concern that they did it not necessarily in the interests of their constituents, but of the nation as a whole. Quite frankly, if you want to craft national legislation, and if you blame activist judges for butting into the legislative process, why not run for national office? Indeed, instead these people, who might be dubbed “activist state legislators,” have attempted to manipulate national legislation by forcing the Supreme Court to look at a law that was intentionally written for their eyes, in order to change it without the input of Congress. Remember: activist judges are not defined by their political leanings, they are defined by their attempts to overturn or write laws. It’s awfully interesting that conservatives don’t use the term when referring to incidents like this S. Dakota law going before conservative justices, or their hopes that Bush might appoint a third such justice.

2. Allow me to quote the Governor’s comments, when he signed the law. "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.”

I tend to agree with the first part. I agree with most of the words in the second part.

However, lets see whether Governor Rounds, or those in the legislature that he “agrees” with, actually believe what they say.

(My thanks go to Kitten for all the following stats and cites.)

As of January 2005, 14.4% of S. Dakota’s children were living in poverty.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/childwelfare/financing/factsheets/sd.pdf

Out of 50 states, SD is ranked 34th in child poverty (1 being the best).

66-67% of 4th graders in the state test below age levels in both reading and math.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/data/childreninthestates/sd.pdf

In 2003, SD was evaluated for its child welfare according to seven federal measures. To pass, 90% of reviewed cases had to be in compliance with the measures. SD passed zero of the seven. As for the reasons SD failed, here are just some of the highlights:

1/4 of the kids surveyed did not receive sufficient physical health care.

When children were put in foster care due to neglect or abuse, psychological services were not part of the normal process of dealing with the child. In 21% of the cases reviewed, mental health care was deemed insufficient.

SD did not meet requirements for providing sufficient and ongoing training to its case workers.

22% of SD's kids in foster care suffer "repeat maltreatment," as opposed to 6.1% (the national standard).

27% of child welfare cases were not investigated in the amount of time proscribed by the state's laws.

14.2% of children who left foster care returned to it, which is above the ~8% nationally established average.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/08/19/loc_wwwloc4awelf19.html

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/08/19/loc_wwwloc4awelf19.html

If you are still reading this, I congratulate you on your ability to simultaneously endure infuriating statistics on the treatment of children alongside nauseating tripe spewed at us by politicians. In all honesty, if any government in the world could boast honest, efficient, adequate and complete care for all its children in all areas (health, education, etc.), then I MIGHT consider the Governor’s statements worthy of discussion and dialogue. (They still completely overlook the rights of women, but at least then he would be presenting a consistent position.) As it stands, the nation as a whole has a pathetic record in most every area related to child care. That S. Dakota’s record exceeds the nation’s in its ineptitude is shameful. But that the Governor would then actually encourage us to consider the state’s record in this area as a reason to support the bill, that takes the issue into the realm of the hysterical.

Poor Madison.

-W.

Brits and Gitmo

All,

The British House of Commons foreign affairs committee released a formal statement urging all MPs to make their opposition to Guantanamo “loud and public.” They also agreed with many both here and abroad who have concluded that Gitmo is severely hurting the US war on terror. (Every day these things are in the papers and the conversations around the world in the Saudi equivalent of Podunk, Nebraska.)

Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently was not willing to join in: he merely reiterated his former stance. What was that, you might ask? (1) Gitmo is an “anomaly.” (2) It should be closed. Don’t forget: Britain is our closest ally in the war on terror (aside from the Australians, though they are starting to act in such a manner that we may want to distance ourselves from them, rather than the other way around).

But when asked for a justification, Tony’s response is all too telling:

"I have said why I think Guantanamo is an anomaly and should come to an end. I also think, however, it is important that we never forget the context in which this has happened, which is the context of the war in Afghanistan and the reason for that was the slaughter of 3,000 innocent people on 11 September. Now, it is important of course that we pursue the action against terrorism, maintaining absolutely our commitment to proper civil liberties and human rights. But it's also important that we remember those people that died in that terrorist act and have some understanding therefore of the huge amount of anger there is in American over what happened there."

It makes me sad whenever I hear a politician invoke 9/11 in order to press their own view or to excuse something egregious, like suspension of habeas corpus (the ONLY right found in the body of the Constitution, as the Founders considered SO important and inalienable that it should not be subject to alteration by amendment) or torture or posse comitatus or spying on Americans (let’s see: that takes care of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, not to mention some trampling on the sections on the Separation of Powers…) or befriending countries with atrocious human rights violations and other political crimes (how did we become bedfellows with Musharraf and Pakistan?)… etc. (Again, that list just off the top of my head.) This invocation makes me sad, not only because it does a terrible disservice to those folks who did die that day (by turning legitimate grief into political leverage), but, more importantly, because it is totally and utterly specious. It has nothing to do with anything involving legality, politics, jurisprudence, constitutional law, etc., etc., etc. It is simply an attempt (quite successful at this point, I might add) to play on the emotions of the populace, who may not understand the problems with the following argument: “How dare you refuse to vote for the Patriot Act? How dare you look in the face of the families of those who died on 9/11? How dare you all but ask the terrorists to attack again, while you’re pissing on the smoking ruins of the Towers?

But Tony had the guts to cut through all this smokescreen and to tell it like it is. Though he doesn’t agree with Gitmo, and though he doesn’t think that it is justified under any standing statutes in the international community of countries that believe in human rights, he wants to remind the British people of why it is that Gitmo exists. Because it is useful? Necessary? Legal? Important? Security? None of the above. Because America was so overcome with emotion and so incapable of making decisions except on the basis of that emotion. In other words, Gitmo has no rational basis; in order to understand its founding one must remember the irrational circumstances that led to its creation.

The subtext is left for others to discuss. Does this justify its continued existence? Of course not. But what do you do after you realize that you let your irrationality get away with you. What do you do when you realize that you have 450 guys who want to die because they are so miserable (“Death in this situation is better than being alive and staying here without hope,” Fawzi al-Odah, Kuwaiti who was force-fed through a tube shoved down throat through his nose when his hunger strike threatened to kill him), some of whom never picked up a gun in their lives but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time (Last I heard only about half the people at Gitmo ever fired a rifle, the camp included at least 13 kids until last year, when three who were 13-15 years old were apparently repatriated to their home countries), who now have spent 4 years in this prison 8000 miles from home? To put it another way, what will they do when you let them go? For those of you who know my father, I ask you this: if you put him in similar conditions for four years, would you EVER consider letting him go? The question would never arise as to whether he would be a future threat. The question would simply be a matter of accounting: how many scores of Americans do you think he would slaughter before getting himself killed in the process?

Thus, if we remember Tony’s comments, we’ve got 450 people who we through in a special type of prison because we were being quite irrational at the time, and we now don’t seem to have any recourse to let them go. The majority of them were either forced to fight against us in the first place or were not even involved (farmers, taxi drivers, peasants, minors have been identified as being very confused about the whole thing). However, now they are so desperate that somewhere between 60-80 of them have tried to commit suicide, some several times. So you’ve got a bunch of Muslims whose lives you have ruined, who are now ready to kill themselves, and whose only company over the last four years (aside from the guards) are fanatic violent twisted religious types. It sounds like a recipe: “How To Make A Suicide Bomber.”

Maybe this is the reason for Tony’s hesitation. It sounds like we shouldn’t ever release these people. After all, they may have been innocent when they showed up. But there’s a good chance we’ve turned them into ruthless psychotics by now.