How depressing is that?!

I can't say I'm surprised that it passed, and I probably shouldn't be surprised that there was no debate on the matter, but I do still feel surprise when that happens, or doesn't happen, as in this case...

So we live in a world where most political surprises have the ability to inspire a depression. Ai yai yaiii

A sad and horrifying story.

Much of the story was previously reported.

Ondelette wrote about it in December 2008, and, as you may recall, Ondelette urged people to support the PHR at:

http://afghanistan.phrblog.org/2008/12/12/phr-calls-for-probe-into-removal-of-mass-grave-in-afghanistan/

PHR today has a new post up:

http://afghanistan.phrblog.org/2009/07/10/new-evidence-that-bush-administration-impeded-3-investigations-into-alleged-massacre-of-up-to-2000-prisoners-in-afghanistan/

Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, was on the payroll of the C.I.A. and his militia worked closely with United States Special Forces in 2001

No, they are not responsible for what's going on there now, but they did train and equip al qaeda originally, along with the taliban

You seem to be trying to prove something about the CIA, since this is the second time you mentioned the organization. But I don't know what it is. Are you trying to prove that the CIA worked with the Northern Alliance during the invasion of Afghanistan along with US regular forces? Because Dostum is a Northern Alliance hack from way back. That's well known, but not I think what you were getting at before--that the CIA is responsible for equipping the Taliban.

Unless you clarify that you know the difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban; or that the CIA ceased having an active role with the Taliban way before they marched in and took over Afghanistan-you're in danger of really undermining your point beyond repair.

I agree with you, the Northern Alliance is not much of an alternative to the Taliban, and we should get out of there as soon as we can leave the place. It would be preferable to leave the place in better shape than we found it, or barring that in better shape than what we've made it. But, it doesn't seem like there's the political will to do that anyway, given the amount of corruption and end-run around democracy we've enabled there.

But Ondellette has a very good point when he says that the people who typically oppose him on these points are under-informed. Generally, they have a choice--do some homework and meet him on equal ground with well-armed points, or decide that you can't confront him on that battleground and simply swing around the facts. I'm not saying he's right, but the amount of knowledge he has at his disposal does make people pay attention; if you want to prove him wrong, its going to take some homework. One of the things that has been bothering me here lately is the real lack of rigor people have assumed when trying to make their points. It almost doesn't matter whether I agree with them or not at this point--its just not acceptable from people who claim to respect and admire the work Glenn Greenwald does.

Mueller also stated that he 'would not dismiss the potency of a program based on the percentage of hits,'" the report said. "Even though most [warrantless wiretapping] leads were determined not to have any connection to terrorism, many of the FBI witnesses believed the mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made investigating the leads worthwhile."

According to the report, the Bush administration also authorized other secret surveillance activities that still have not been made public.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/10/warrantless-wiretapping-yielded-limited-results-report-says/

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Yes, I'm sure they did.

Saying that Hezbollah and Hamas have the right to run Lebanon and Palestine--really ultra-liberal. Pretty sure you didn't listen to any of it.

'fraid I did. 30 minutes or so of your link (enough to see that your post is pure Aslan) and I saw him praising Obama on the Daily Show. I damn near shut him off the tube then, too.

So Hezbollah and Hamas have the right to governance -- after being elected to their various government posts! Isn't that simply radical? I imagine all of Marin County must have filed out after this very stimulating talk to write a strongly worded email to their congressman.

1. I agree that that the nations of a globalized world with a substantial transnational population built on nearly one hundred years of capitalist momentum, cannot not just suddenly and on a whim begin divesting themselves from each other. The sheer feat of becoming a self-sustaining country in this current environment is simply impossible to imagine--and why the arguments of those like Heru are so silly. Of course, it would be better if we were one nation dealing with our own problems--but where would the oil come to sustain this lifestyle, the timber, the meat, the plastics and rubber? The large influx of Mexican labor to do the work that there is no economic imperative to get done? What would happen to our tech industry? It would be utter chaos--and perhaps it should be. But I've never heard these proponents of that unimaginable and completely inapplicable model claim the horrifying chaos so engendered as part of the outcome, intended or otherwise.

2. As for your math stuff, keep it out of these discussions, please. Others are right when they opine that you may be using it--perhaps without knowing it--as a way of creating an expert paradigm around yourself that others can't assail. I have no idea of the names or theorems you're dropping here, nor do I think them necessary to discuss this issue. Obviously, when one sees the world through a prism of their study, its hard not to bring in such precepts, but you're only alienating people to your argument by doing that.

Finally, 3. If its true that the US is operating outside of the UN "mandate" [for lack of a better word] with its own forces in addition to the UN forces and project, then they've obviously compromised the whole affair. How can the largest superpower be said to be working in tandem with and independently of the UN at the same time in such a region? Indeed, given the history of the US in that region, it should have been the last country involved in any major way. Obviously, the UN was well capable of doing whatever nation-building you feel was appropriate without any US involvement whatsoever. The whole thing is well beyond reparable, at least by these geniuses. Just take a look at this:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan, could assume a powerful, unelected position inside the Afghan government under a plan he is discussing with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, according to senior American and Afghan officials.

Mr. Khalilzad, an American citizen who was born in Afghanistan, had considered challenging Mr. Karzai for the presidency in elections scheduled for this summer....the position would allow Mr. Khalilzad to serve as “a prime minister, except not prime minister because he wouldn’t be responsible to a parliamentary system,” a senior Obama administration official said. Taking the unelected position would also allow Mr. Khalilzad to keep his American citizenship.

Literally, we're about to install an American governor in that country. It would be bad enough, but we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can't even run our own country, much less that of others.

I respect your view, that the world community has an obligation to failed states. In fact, the West has generally had a good hand in the failure of those states. But there has to be another way that has a list of goals and a way to achieve them in mind. We already fucked this up beyond belief; we couldn't make it any worse by leaving.

That being said, your knowledge of international law has been a great tool for this site and I've learned quite a bit from reading your posts about applicable Geneva Conventions and the CAT. Most of your detractors add absolutely zero here.