Product Description
This digital document is an article from Middle East Policy, published by Middle East Policy Council on March 22, 2005. The length of the article is 6352 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: The continuing crisis in Iraqi Kurdistan.(Iraq)
Author: Michael M. Gunter
Publication: Middle East Policy (Refereed)
Date: March 22, 2005
Publisher: Middle East Policy Council
Volume: 12Issue: 1Page: 122(12)

Distributed by Thomson Gale ... Read more

Product Description
This digital document is an article from Middle East Quarterly, published by Thomson Gale on January 1, 2007. The length of the article is 2215 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: The Kurdish case.(Who Owns Kirkuk?)(the right of Kurdish people over Kirkuk)
Author: Nouri Talabany
Publication: Middle East Quarterly (Magazine/Journal)
Date: January 1, 2007
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Volume: 14Issue: 1Page: 75(4)

Distributed by Thomson Gale ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (25)

Valuable and instructive, but not as clear and even-handed as I would like
In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld approved a memo outlining new "Counter-Resistance Techniques" or "aggressive interrogation techniques" for use with selected detainees at Guantánamo, especially and specifically Detainee 063, Muhammed al-Qahtani.Almost all Americans would be extremely upset over the prospect of these techniques being used against their sons and daughters, wives and husbands, or close friends.Most intelligent, reasonable-minded Americans, in the calm and quiet of their den or a college library, would conclude that most of these techniques, especially when used in conjunction with one another and for a prolonged period of time, constitute torture or are otherwise prohibited under a variety of treaties, conventions, and bodies of law, both national and international.Yet, in the post-9/11 hysteria, a small band of zealots -- exercising the mantle of executive-branch authority -- developed, endorsed, and used these aggressive interrogation techniques, thereby staining national integrity and with indeterminable consequences for the treatment of Americans in similar circumstances in the future.(And, it appears from the known record, with absolutely ZERO results in terms of worthwhile intelligence.)

TORTURE TEAM is the not-altogether-satisfactory account of this regrettable episode in our national history.For the most part, Sands is objective, fair, and (as far as I can tell) reliable.But there are instances in which he shows his spots, as it were -- beginning with the highly charged (and unfair) title "Torture Team".In truth, as I read the book, those responsible for the creation and implementation of the "Rumsfeld memo" were operating in good faith. But some were in way over their heads.And all were so blinded by what they perceived to be the desperate exigencies of the situation - and the illusory hope that someone like al-Qahtani might still possess intelligence which, if extracted, could be used to prevent another 9/11 -- that they excluded from the decisionmaking process any and all who did not share their vision or retained an inconvenient respect for the "rule of law."In short, they panicked.

Even though the book focuses on the December 2002 "Rumsfeld memo", the most egregious error - the critical step towards this country's enlistment of the hellhounds of torture - was the decision of George W. Bush in February 2002 that the Geneva conventions did not apply to al-Qaeda personnel or Taliban fighters.That decision, and its specious underlying "rationale", was repudiated by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006.Can we conclude, therefore, that the torture of al-Qahtani and others -- at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and likely elsewhere - was a one-off aberration occasioned by the exceptional atmosphere of fear that prevailed in the wake of 9/11?I doubt it.In all likelihood it will happen again (and again) that those in the executive branch will be tempted by the mindset that they are faced with a "new world", fraught with cataclysmic danger, in which the old rules are obsolete and new paradigms of "flexibility" are necessary to protect freedom and democracy.It is on those occasions that the period immediately following 9/11, including the events surrounding the "Rumsfeld memo", need to be remembered.What good is it to ignore our traditions, our procedures, our wisdom, our collective democracy, and our Constitution in the name of freedom - as discerned by a small band of like-minded zealots put in place by the vagaries of the last election?That is presumptuous arrogance of the highest order.TORTURE TEAM demonstrates this point, though not as clearly and even-handedly as I would like.Still, it is a valuable and instructive book.

First, Let's Kill All the Lawyers
"Military necessity does not admit of cruelty, nor of torture to extort confessions." Abraham Lincoln, 1863.


In 2002 that part of Lincoln would be forgotten, and that tradition and humanity would also disappear in the quest for actionable intelligence at a place called Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, against Mohammed al-Qahtani, inmate #063. But the question remained, who started the torture?Was it soldiers and agents who decided that if a little force was good, a little more might be better, or did someone above them sanction it in Washington D. C.?

Philippe Sands tells us how this happened and who is responsible. It started with Diane Beaver, an Army Lieutenant Colonel and lawyer who was asked to write a position on the use of 18 interrogation techniques. There were no resources for her in Guantanamo Bay. She had no experience in anything close to international law, and she could not contact associates for help. She okayed the techniques. From that, Jim Haynes, who reported to the Secretary of Defense would use Beaver's paper as his reason for carrying out his agenda, and if the plop started to fly, then she would be the fall guy. Complicit in this legal justification were more lawyers: John Yoo, Douglas Feith, Jay Bybee, Alberto Gonzalez and David Addington. Combined, they allowed policy to establish legal opinion rather than the other way around. "Take the gloves off" became unofficial policy even before legal benediction was rendered. They side-stepped the Joint Chiefs, the Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG), and they deceived the public. They also gave the president dictatorial powers.

Sands is anything but dry as he tells the story and events in easy-to-follow detail. He takes you through the elaborate deceptions by a government attempting to hide its actions, which begs the question: if it was legal in the first place, why would it have been necessary to shield it from scrutiny?To be fair, it was also lawyers who finally caught on to what was going on and moved mountains to try and stop it. What also becomes very clear in this book is that the policy of torture started right at the top, and that lawyers who abrogate their legal responsibilities can also be held for trial as war criminals.

There are no exceptions.









P.S.After months of torture, Mohammed al-Qahtani gave up no "actionable" intelligence.

hugs for bin laden.....
liberal pratter.....by this author we should miranda a terrorist prior to capture,provide health care to his dependents and refund the 9/11 hijackers their unused frequent flyer miles.....

Geneva Common Article 3 Scrapped by US officials
Sands interviewed many senior personnel in the US government. Military, Judges, Senior Lawers and the middle men and women involved in the manipulation to subvert Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Sands shows that when people become passionate or pressured into extracting information in the effort to secure a nation under a further terrorist attack, measures taken, which include re-drafting laws and essentially throwing out the old are taken into consideration.

What should be well known is that even if a torture technique (described as being aggressive interrogation technique in this book) is applied to a suspect to extract information, often the information is compromised or useless. Most people will say almost anything to make torture and humiliation stop.
In Sands book, he exposes the way lawyers worked their magic to pass new interrogation techniques through and how they were convincing enough for inexperienced interrogators to use on the Guantanamo detainees.

The book is more legal reading than general educational reading and I generally prefer the educational, but it is well structured and will give you an insight into how the system manipulates others in the system to do things they might not normally do.

The US government may not have brought back the 'rack', or 'pressed someone to death' to get a confession, but their techniques have been well planned out and layered in such a way that they create psychological anomalies and trauma that would otherwise not have been present. Instead of looking at "well he's a Muslim" - think of "what if I was subjected to such attacks on myself and I had no way to defend myself or recourse to make it stop?"

There used to be a saying: "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". But because someone is 'suspected' of terrorism, that no longer applies. Is this the justice system that is supposed to be fair? This is no justice for either people who genuinely fear for their lives, or for a suspect to have access to a legal trial and have their case fairly represented. In centuries passed, they had the Inquisition. It was horrendous reading. The techniques are not those used, but how long before it is deemed 'necessary' to do so? History repeats itself over and over.

Sands brings up a good point that other people who were trying to get the interrogation techniques stopped, also pointed out: If we're doing this to our detainees, what might happen to our troops and civilians when they are caught? Someone determined they would cut off our heads. But that is not always the case. Should we be as bad as 'them'. Or stop being bullies and start towing the line. The fear factory that has been created as a result of 9/11 has not made the US safer. It has in fact pushed civilian rights out the window - and they're disappearing into the wilderness.

Unlike some books, I did not find this was geared at attacking Republican views, but rather an examination of how erosion of international laws, that the US agreed on, came about.

a waste of your time and money
Whether you favor or scorn the Bush administration, whatever your political leanings, if you're interested in a serious book, that rigorously and honestly presents the facts -- go not here. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/12/022381.php ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

A good overview of 90's-era Kurdish politics
The content of the book includes a very brief generic history chapter, with chapters analyzing the events of the 90's.I think the analysis chapters do a relatively good job of handling the material and I found nothing that appeared factually inacurate based on my other readings.The scope of the book is very brief, limited to the 90's, but concise and to the point.

This is an informative book that would make a nice contribution to the reference collection of a regional specialist like myself, but it does not cover enough generalized history of material to be helpful to a random person wanting to learn more about the Middle East or the Kurds.Try the Modern History of the Kurds by David McDowall or After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness? by Jonathan Randall.

good information, unsatisfactory analysis
The subtitle of this book promises "a political analysis", but instead of a coherent argument about the sources of Kurdish oppression and disunity the reader gets a collection of poorly-integrated essays on political issues related to Iraq's Kurds. Nevertheless, Gunter is able to convey two important themes -- the chronic conflict among Kurds and the different regional powers' tendency to use the Kurds for their own ends, betraying them whenever convenient.

The topics Gunter chooses are important: the personalities of Iraqi Kurdistan's two reigning warlords and their 5-year armed struggle in the mid-1990s, the Turkish-Iranian proxy war fought through them, the development of the Iraqi National Congress, and Kurdish nationalism. The last two, while surveyed competently, are not particularly insightful or complete. Gunter is much more interesting when he chronicles the war between Barzani and Talabani and external interference in it. Chapter 4, "The KDP-PUK Civil War", is as coherent as any narrative on that byzantine struggle, while chapter 5 ably summarizes the conflict between Turkey and Iran in Iraqi Kurdistan.

But even these analyses leave the reader dissatisfied. Why have Barzani's KDP and Talabani's PUK engaged in such destructive conflict? Evidence from Gunter's text points to a struggle over the lucrative trade routes between Iraq and Turkey, but Gunter never explores the economic basis of Kurdish disunity. How is power organized within the KDP and PUK? What role did the PKK (Turkey's now mostly-defunct Kurdish insurgents) play in Iraqi Kurdistan? Will the United States, which has promoted unity and autonomy for Iraq's Kurds as long as the disobedient Saddam Hussein holds power, revert to form and assent to renewed oppression when a more pliable regime is installed? This last question is a little unfair since Hussein's demise seemed unlikely when Gunter was writing, but the US role in the region is left so far in the background that we can draw few conclusions about this increasingly central issue.

Despite the book's failings, its emphasis on Kurdish disunity and external meddling could both use a wider audience these days. As the media prepare the public for America's latest hegemonic war in the Middle East, predictably ahistorical and acontexual coverage of the Kurds has reemerged. The authoritarian nature of Kurdish politics in Iraq, the likely reemergence of intra-Kurd violence, and America's normal pattern of support for the Kurds followed hard upon by betrayal could all use some more attention.

The Kurds in Iraq
In the first chapter titled "The Past as Prologue", Gunter analyzes Wilgram's book Cradle of Mankind as a way of presenting the reader with a foundation of the divisions that still plague the Iraqi Kurds today.In this chapter, Gunter basically summarizes the findings of Wilgram's book, which was first published in 1914.By summarizing the book, Gunter is attempting to lay down a foundation for which the reader can gain some rudimentary knowledge of the roots of the Kurdish predicament.This chapter is void of any novel insight from Gunter himself because he spends the entire chapter just quoting from Wigram's book.I think that this chapter would have been much more effective if Gunter had actually inserted his own revelations regarding the early Kurdish people.Instead, he cites Wigram's accounts of the early, uneducated Kurds who lacked national cohesion.
The second chapter in Gunter's book compares the two Kurdish leaders Barzani and Talabani, analyzing how their personalities contributed to the Kurdish predicament and the inner fighting amongst the Kurds.I think this chapter is very strong, because Gunter uses the facts that he learned first hand by interviewing members of the Barzani and Talabani families.First Gunter lays out the history of both groups and then contrasts this methodical, conservative leader with the more liberal leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Jalal Talabani.The two leaders are also different in that, Barzani thinks regionally and is more defensive while Talabani thinks globally and takes the initiative.Talabani used to be a member of the KDP, but then Gunter goes on to explain the conflicts that arose, causing Talabani to leave and begin his own group, the PUK.Gunter recounts how, even in these early years, fighting between these two parties remained constant.Gunter summarizes the main problem to be that the Kurds were following two very different leaders, with different outlooks and dissimilar approaches to resolving the Kurdish problem.
Gunter's goal in chapter three is to analyze the Iraqi opposition groups that emerged against Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War.In this chapter, Gunter uses documentary evidence obtained from two interviews with Ahmad Chalabi, president of Iraqi National Congress' (INC)'s executive council, and an interview with General Wafiq al-Samarra'I, the head of the Iraqi military intelligence.Gunter first gives a brief assessment of the opposition to the Iraqi's in the past as a basis for understanding the current opposition groups.Gunter traces the rocky beginnings of the INC at the Joint Action Committee in 1990.He then discusses the national assembly created at the second conference held in Vienna, Austria in 1992.Gunter then discusses the Salah al-Din Conference, which was attended by 90 percent of the Iraqi opposition groups.The US did not want the INC to actually establish a Kurdish state, so the US gave them just enough support to irritate Saddam, but never actually overthrow him.Then Gunter describes the collapse of the INC beginning in 1995.
In chapter four, Gunter goes into detail about the civil war between the KDP and PUK.The previous chapters serve as a nice foundation for the information presented in this chapter.Gunter first lays out the background of the two groups, which I think is slightly unnecessary because he already discussed their history in the previous chapters.After delving once again into the conflict-ridden history of the two groups, Gunter outlines the attempts at conciliation made by the two sides.But Gunter states his belief that the inherent struggle for power between the two parties makes long term peace virtually impossible.
In chapter five, Gunter analyzes how this fighting between the two groups contributes to a power vacuum that has emerged in Iraqi Kurdistan.Gunter claims that an understanding of this power struggle will lead to greater comprehension of the competition between Turkey and Iran over Iraqi Kurdistan.In the long civil war between the Kurdish groups, Turkey has supported the KDP against the PUK and PKK.Iran was guilty of attacking Iraqi Kurdistan in an attempt to find the Iranian Kurds living there.But Gunter resolves that although the political vacuum of Iraqi Kurdistan has drawn Turkey and Iran into conflicts, the situation is not as severe as expected.In this chapter, Gunter claims that the Kurds have never fully developed a sense of nationalism because they did and still are suffering from a type of internal colonialism.Gunter then proceeds to quote other observers of nationalism in other countries and compare their findings to the stunted nationalism of the Kurds.I think that using other people's ideas of reasons and issues surrounding nationalism is a good idea.But I think what makes this chapter weak is that Gunter does not give any background information on the person whose ideas he is using.Instead, he just goes into this person's theories of nationalism, without really even introducing them.Gunter uses examples from Crawford Young, Eugene Weber, E.J. Hobsbawm, Arend Lijphart, and James Mayall before proceeding to the conclusion where he makes his own remarks regarding the future of the Kurds.Although he notes that the inner Kurdish fighting between the KDP and PUK hinders the establishment of democracy amongst the Kurds, he does not believe that the problem is irreversible.
I think that Michael M. Gunter's book, The Kurdish Predicament in Iraq, is a worthwhile and informative book.Gunter presents his information in a logical and clear manner.The set up of the information in the chapters mimics a textbook and are easy to follow and understand.Gunter definitely fulfills his objective of supplying the reader with a better understanding of the Kurdish problem.I think that the information presented by Gunter is significant and he writes about a subject and leaders that are difficult to get accurate information about.The book is mostly factual but also contains a lot of good analysis from Gunter himself. ... Read more

Product Description
Amnesty International consistently urges all governments to condemn and prohibit torture and ill-treatment, to investigate all allegations of such abuse, and to prosecute any official who condones, acquiesces in or commits torture or ill-treatment. Al is now mobilizing people in a campaign to challenge the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the "war on terror". The USA, which has led the assault on international human rights standards during the "war on terror", should set the example in reasserting these standards. All governments must play their part. ... Read more

Product Description

This book analyzes the role of human rights in the foreign policy of the George W. Bush Administrations.

References to human rights, freedom and democracy became prominent explanations for post-9/11 foreign policy, yet human rights have been neither impartially nor universally integrated into decision-making. Jan Hancock addresses this apparent paradox by considering three distinct explanations. The first position holds that human rights form a constitutive foreign policy goal, the second that evident double standards refute the first perspective. This book seeks to progress beyond this familiar discussion by employing a Foucaultian method of discourse analysis to suggest a third explanation. Through this analysis, the author examines how a discourse of human rights has been artificially produced and implemented in the presentation of US foreign policy. This illuminating study builds on a wealth of primary source evidence from human rights organizations to document the contradictions between the claims and practice of human rights made by the Bush Administrations, as well as the political significance of denying this disjuncture.

Human Rights and US Foreign Policy will be of interest to advanced students and researchers of US foreign policy, human rights, international relations and security studies.

Product Description
This edition includes a section on the border issue both during and after the 1990-1991 Kuwait Crisis and Gulf War. It analyzes the United Nations attempt to finally settle this historically troublesome territorial issue. ... Read more

Product Description
“Because democracy is noble, it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than democracy. To assume blithely that we can export democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad.”—from Why Are We at War?

Why Are We at War? is an explosive argument about George W. Bush and his quest for empire. Norman Mailer, one of the greatest authors of our time, lays bare the White House’s position on why war in Iraq is necessary and justified. By scrutinizing the administration’s words and actions leading up to the current crisis, Mailer carefully builds his case that Bush is pursuing war not in the name of security or anti-terrorism or human rights but in an undeclared yet fully realized ambition of global empire.

Mailer unleashes his trademark moral rigor on an administration he believes is recklessly endangering our very notion of freedom and democracy. For more than fifty years, in classic works of both fiction and nonfiction, Mailer has persistently exposed the folly of the powerful and the mighty. Beginning with his debut masterpiece, The Naked and the Dead, Mailer has repeatedly told the truth about war and why men fight. Why Are We at War? returns Mailer to the subject he knows better than any other writer in America today: the gravity of the battlefield and the grand hubris of the politicians who send soldiers there to die. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (23)

Prescience
I read the booklet again some four years after I bought it. Mind you: it was written after 9/11 but BEFORE the US attack on Iraq. What struck me is the sober analysis of the background including the split in the Republican party between traditional conservatives (like me!) who were opposed and the neoconservative hubris of US empire. Mailer accurately predicted the disaster that we eventually faced. He names, the people who were responsible, those who opposed them and the large number who "just went along" (Congress). I am buying several copies for friends on both sides of the issue.

Why are WE at War
This book has all you will ever need to understand America's involvement in Afgansitan/Iraq. Norman Mailer hits a robust warning to America in this book of future events which have transpired since its writing. It takes an Old Soldier (me) into the mindwork of the Bush Adminstration and exposes all of its seething secrets. You will find more enlightenment in the passages of this book,maybe more than you may be prepared to accept. I am a conservative,a previous fighting soldier from the Nam era. I also voted for the Bush campaign. I also admit I was wrong (but had no choice of something better from the Dems)in letting this get to where Norman said it was going. Can you say the same. Get this book and give it a read, then, pass it on to someone you care about and help us get out of the mess we are in with a vote and the power of the pen.

Give Reason a Chance
Being a person who attempts to validate the merit of conservative positions as well as liberal, I decided to give this book a try for myself after reading several positive and negative reviews posted here. Among the negative reviews there are several that make Mailer out to be a bitter, ranting old fool, someone filled more with spite than insight. After reading the book for myself I can honestly say this could not be further from the truth. Critical assessment is anti-patriotic only to the truly blind, or dull minded. Mailer does not hate America anymore than Kierkegaard hated his fellow Dane's or Nietzsche the Germans (the subjects from whom they drew their often harsh observations of culture and values). Some of the negative reviews also allude to Mailers issues with his wife as if this some how invalidates the argument's he makes. Believe me, do a bit of digging and you will find there are plenty of vigorous flag waivers who are not to shy to throw a punch- We'd be wise to stick to the merits of the argument, not chase after the messenger!
Mailer makes the valid argument that although democracies are probably the best system, they are volatile and should not be taken for granted. A strong democracy should be receptive to self-assessment and scrutiny. This is the bread and butter of democracy; something sorely lacking in the days leading up to Iraq, which might have spared us a lot of pain.
Why are we at war, published before things in Iraq started to degenerate to the point of sectarian bloodletting, and civil war it is now at, offers insight and foresight that our leaders would have been wise to consider. Chief amongst these considerations is the notion that democracy can be exported and imposed anywhere, wholesale, with little consideration of local history. Both the Romans and the British believed, without reservation, that their superior systems could be imposed, but need the vast distinction between Rome, monarchies, and democracies be made?
If you can recall the Neo Con's also made frequent comparisons between Iraq and Post World War II. This book offers significant insight into to the flaws in such general, simplistic, thinking.
In recalling president George Bush standing on deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln -Mission accomplished - ina show of military might and bravado, basically declaring that Iraq was as good as done, Mailers view of Neo Con `dreams of empire' seem eerily prophetic.

Mailer is pathalogically anti american
Norman Mailer's great idol is Henry Miller. Miller, though a great writer, has a disgust for almost all things american and even of the american people. He wasno Walt Whitman who loved America and the American people.

Unfortunantly, Norman Mailer from early on picked up some of the worst aspects (in my opinion) of henry miller's attitudes about America. I am convinced that a chinese immigrant fresh off the boat would be more "objective" and do better for america than Mailer and his ilk.


I don't much like Norman's idea of "allowing the terrorists" to terrorize america "a little bit". This is so against the very best ideals of america-- of some of its greatest thinkers like whitman and emerson -- a nation of robust free men who would rather fight and die than stand passively by while they are raped ... that I dismiss it totally. Nor do I care for his romanticization of the islamic terrorists. There is nothing romantic about the Islamic fundamentalist movements that were behind the terror attacks.Norman would do well to aquaint himself with just how fanatical these people really are. It is this kind of double standard which drives thoughtful liberals crazy and provides cannon fodder for the conservatives.

All this comes from a man who appears to have learned very little from the attacks he has taken from radical feminists... from the convict he supported for release who committed murder upon his release ... and even from the time he attacked his wife with a knife (universal brotherhood indeed). How many times do you have to be wrong about important things before you gain a little wisdom regarding important things ?

Mailer should have been less of a hostage to other men's ideas, and attempted to develop common sense, objectivity, and a voice of his own. As it is Mailer cannot be trusted with america's safety or future because he is without a doubtbiased against america.

There are many things wrong in iraq ... but norman is not the man to lead us to the promised land. I for one, am not so quick to want to dismantleand evicerate the so called american empire.

Mailer's triple spaced liner says:the devil did it---ignore.
[Why War has lingered, unceasing, in many forms.]
The projection of technology once again has applied constant pressure to impose autocratic rule, the projection of its control to affirm its self identity in supremacy.It's very important for certain egos that they have that as a recourse to assuage the wounds of superficial defeats and rejection of history in the open, aboveboard world.And it is thought better to humor that arrogance by affording it some constructs of sovereignty, havening, or undeclared exclusivity because of how it may or may not stabilize and sate the appetites it has for Grand Gestures of Abject Brutality, such as the JFK Assassination, or any assaults on humanity taking genocidal tolls for suspicious causes given their media explanations. It is the only hobby a relic caste of ethnic self infatuation has left to pride itself in.The strategic wisdom has been, going on history for example, that is perhaps the only recourse there be something for everybody, and that otherwise `idle hands become the devil's workshop'.This has proven to only expand operations of that workshop into Iraq and other places where it manufactures bluffs , preempts and feints to focus discriminatory accusations, then overwhelming U.S. retaliations on populations it targets for `ethnic cleansing'.America has become, through all the Armed Forces, the Congress and the Executive, a permanently exiled warcrime industrialist's bitch: Janes All The World's Pleasurecraft; who also flubbed the V-22's schematics between 1989 and 2001, revealing suspicious proprotor blade rework.

That, Norman Mailer, is `Why We Are At War'.We are at war for something's persistent and unrepentant, begrudging racism; something that has foolishly taken comfort believing it has refuge under cover, hidden away in the corners of the earth, and something who's zealotry has misled it to believe it will fool all the people with its strategic subterranean nuclear violations every time, or any time; or how it still wants Iraq for a military industrial waste-dump to tinker with concoctions like the auto-immune virus bundled SARS race-WMD; then to weaponize and vector it via the clumsiness of its plaything, (the U.S.) blowing up its storage bunkers, a very lowbrow chicanery fooling no one, as it didn't before in the Gulf-I worldwide pandemics of micoplasma and fibromyalgia, or Gulf War Syndrome.

We are at war solely for the grudge match over who will dispense the primacy of holding weapons on others, and who will have those coercion rights.It is such a rare commodity to arrange for our recreation, that the pretext for military expeditions to go on exercises against the live human combatant targets they know will be there opposed to us, that the temptation is greater than premeditated acts of war highest treason was supposed to condemn and shield America by her own laws.The World Trade Center was blown up, they didn't burn down, it was the worlds largest engineered pyrotechnics demolition, and recruitment for that operation was wrangled in the United States for years in advance, allowing known terrorists to be trained in Florida to fly the cosmetic airliners to impact on the buildings (two of three that were detonated) shortly before the firing sequence daisy chains were blown.

We are at war because subversion has grown to become a covert insurgence in America, perpetrating bombings on major buildings, (anthrax letters that are left unsolved for a coercive media tool of ominous reminder supposed to cow the public into submission and curbing of its criticism) preempting a Civil War on America, in America in order to control our government through a totalitarian organizing called 'republican'.Your book has not offered the country factual analysis, it is shallow apologetic, and a trite boogeyman retreat to blame it on `the devil', in extremely poor taste.Why don't don't you call the 9-11 victim's lives suitable for trivia and stupid allusions?

We are at war from an owned and controlled mass media imposing the coverup, sheltering the aggressive faction's war crimes by upholding and maintaining its alibis. It is used to propagate misinformation to Americans about acts of war and treason on Americans, it is used to hold the news agenda in permanent suspended animation, to protect criminal syndicates by showcasing their patsies like Mc Veigh, who instead of being prosecuted by the U.S., was instead more useful for his trite poetic license of remorseless vainglory.Then the public is led down the garden path of suspecting the Waco massacre atrocity all had to do with the custom modifications on a single, unremarkable firearm, as the provocation for a virtual lined up machine gunning; then Mr. Mailer, how perfect a cause for crusade it instantly became for the Oklahoma Federal's prime suspect.That is too convenient, well within taking the precise shape `preemption', asymmetric war, dodging attributions leaving convenient dupes holding the bag to cover up the scale of insurrection.What better way to further attack the parting Clinton Administration, a big sendoff putting to shame the bimbo bowling from the Pentagon?

Exploring the scale of the insurrection some more, the stubborn false pride attacking the conscience of White power structure, what are the dimensions of the infiltration of America by clandestine civil war moves?They would be surreptitious, sneakily contrived and inveigled; could they perhaps be vectoring chemicals into water supplies?What would be the outcomes, is there evidence?If for no reason it's secondarily reported the CDC so happens to remove government records, statistics tracking longitudinal incidence of rising autism in North America, donating them to a private HMO where the public cannot have access for research; that looks suspicious. MSNBC'sMeet the Press on August 7, 2005, David Kirby and Dr. Harvey Fineberg for The Institute of Medicine were interviewed reported findings of no scientific merit to the vaccine injury theory of autism.

The question Norman Mailer has failed to present in its fullest scope is why we have been at war, a civil war in this country since the end of the Second World War.Why has our system caved in to the preposterous canard of public drinking water fluoropoisoning under such frivolously and blatantly misrepresented medical fraud?Why is its installation going into full swing under the illegitimate regime and all its other impostures?

... Read more

Product Description
With contributions by five Nobel Peace Prize winners, former government officials, scholars, religious leaders, journalists, activists, and prominent cultural figures, the documentary film XXI Century explores American reactions to recent global events captured through the lens of interviews and political rallies. This book presents selected excerpts from the filming of prominent U.S. citizens voicing their views on Bush administration policies in the new century. These events include the much-contested 2000 election, the September 11, 2001, attacks, the impact of the USA Patriot Act, the accelerated growth of peace movements, the recruitment of U.S. soldiers, U.S. policy and attitudes toward the Middle East, sanctions and war in Iraq, and human rights violations. The speakers also consider how the rise of media spectacle and punditry at the expense of quality journalism inhibits the ability of Americans to react to these events as informed citizens. The voices of Americans, both ordinary and famous, resonate with passion and urgency in response to the injustice and far-reaching effects of the current U.S. foreign policy. American Voices of Dissent highlights the other side of the story and makes a case for global solidarity against U.S. imperialism.

With Leslie Cagan, Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, Curt Goering, Amy Goodman, Arno J. Mayer, Greg Palast,Katha Pollitt, Scott Ritter, Danny Schechter, Pete Seeger, Gore Vidal, Edmund White, Howard Zinn, Amy Goodman, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrow. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Heartening
Almost every page of this book has a quote that just strikes so incredibly true.Discussing as wide a variety of topics as corporate media censorship, the Iraq war and opposition to it, and American foreign policy, this book will give hope to those who feel isolated in their anger and hopelessness.Almost every page is cold water dumped on the faces of those who have never looked for the truth, who have never questioned.Read this.Read this and escape the propoganda of the newspapers and televisions stations owned by massive corporations with their own interests in mind.Even if you fully support the Iraq war, read this and take a look at the other side.It may shock you but it will definetly challenge you to expand your mind.For those who feel insignificant against a corporate dictatorship, this book offers hope.There are others and they have important things to say to us.Buy and read, and always hunt for the truth wherever it may be found because truth and understanding are the path to peace. ... Read more

Product Description
How Do I Save My Honor? is a powerful exploration of individual moral responsibility in a time of war. When individuals conclude that their leaders have violated fundamental ethical principles, what are they to do? Through the compelling personal stories of those in the U.S. and British government and military who struggled with these thorny issues during the war in Iraq, William F. Felice analyzes the degrees of moral responsibility that public officials, soldiers, and private citizens bear for the actions of their governments. Examining the struggles of these contemporary men and women, as well as of historical figures facing similar dilemmas, the author weighs the profound difficulties of overcoming the intense pressures of misguided loyalty, patriotism, and groupthink that predominate during war. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Everything old is new again
It's amazing how the same moral questions continue to crop up throughout history.

William Felice has writen an insightful treatise that puts the decisions surrounding the invansion of Iraq into a well researched historic perspective.

Drawing on similar examples of moral and ethical dilemmas, he sheds new light on the actions and reactions of several individuals who found themselves conflicted between their duty to country and their duty to humanity.

Highly recommended.

An excellent study of a perennial political issue
William Felice has written a smart, engaging study of a continually recurring political-moral problem: when someone serves in office and deeply believes that his/her government is embarked upon a deeply troubling course of action, what is the best response?Felice argues for what he calls "an ethic of principled resignation."He gives a survey of several classic positions in moral philosophy to help sort out some of the issues, but in many ways the most engaging parts of the book come out of the interviews he conducted with various American and British officials who resigned in protest of policies their governments embarked on after 9-11.

This book is not another "Iraq book," although it does use debates (and resignations) coming out of that conflict as a lens through which to view the larger dilemma that Felice is engaging.No review can capture the way the author does such a good job of weighing the difficult moral questions involved, at the same time that he recognizes (and surveys) the relevant practical considerations.For instance, if someone stays in office, even if he/she thinks the government has launched an aggressive, unjustified war, might not that person be able to affect subsequent policy discussions?If many of the internal opponents of a war resign in protest, won't the government simply become more hardline in both its internal delibrations and actual policies?It is a credit to the author that he seriously considers these objections, shows keen attention to bureaucratic and policy-making detail (again largely in the context of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq), and yet shows good reasons for the importance of principled resignation and the need for a strong moral element to the conduct of public policy, especially in foreign relations.This really is an excellent book at the intersection of moral philosophy and international affairs. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (9)

Phenomenal!
In simple terms, using hard facts, William Pitt lays out exactly how and why our ship of state, America, has lost her rudder. No name-calling, no straw man arguments, no ad hominem attacks, just clear, factual arguments on how America has suffered under the present administration. Should be required reading in current events and history classes.

Read this and weep, America
An excellent essay on the ravages inflicted on this great nation by the few who needed a war in the Middle East at the sacrifice of our nation's reputation and abilities to negotiate and use diplomacy to end conflict.

This should be required reading for the Administration and all members of Congress.

Another excellent, finger-on-the-pulse writing from Mr. Pitt.

A must read for all Americans!
This is an excellent book which lays out the truth about the Bush Administration. If you love America, read this book as soon as possible. The author has a gift for writing with such clarity, you will read through it with ease. I finished this book in one sitting, as I could not put it down. Now I have passed it on to family and friends. I highly recommend that you purchase this book.

Tedious Tome
This book could not be more wearisome and erroneous.Rather than attempting a chapter by chapter refutation of this leftist assault on America masquerading as non-fiction, let me just suffice this review with the fact that Mr. Pitt cherry picks his facts to suit his conclusions.He makes leaps of logic that only a shill for al Qeada could find their way through.

On the positive, Mr Pitt has a gift for prose, but for my personal taste it is long winded.The book could be made significantly more readable by shortening it to a pamphlet.

A well written truthful book

Whether we like to admit it or not, the Bush administration has left us in amess. Iraq, Katrina, Oil dependency, 911 happening on their watch....

This book takes us back and lets us revisit these troubling issues, so hopefully we can correct the mistakes and not let them happen again.

Those that are critical of this book - have. not. read. it.

When was the last time people were so afraid of a book, or the truth? It tells you that there is something worth reading here. And there is. ... Read more

Product Description
Americans and Europeans are divided by more than an ocean when it comes to designing and carrying out policies toward countries that repress human rights, develop weapons of mass destruction, and/or support terrorism and subversion. Accounting for this divide are distinct interests, domestic politics, and above all profound disagreements between Americans and their counterparts in European capitals and Brussels over what tools of foreign policy - sanctions, engagement, military force - to employ to change the behaviour of problem countries. The result is that Americans and Europeans often work at cross purposes - and that disagreements over policy toward problem countries threaten transatlantic cooperation in other areas, be it within Europe or in building an open world trading system. "Problem" countries selected for treatment in this study are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. In each case, leading study are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. In each case, leading American and European experts contribute separate chapters explaining sources of US and European differences, consequences for policies designed to influence problem states, and prospects for bridging policy rifts.Contributors are Pauline H. Baker, Antony Goldman, Kenneth I. Juster, Geoffrey Kemp, Dominique Moisi, Richard A. Nuccio, Gideon Rose, Joaquin Roy, Peter Rudolf, Stefano Silvestri, and John J. Stremlau. Richard N. Haass is Director of the Foreign Policy Studies prgram at the Brookings Institution. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States after the Cold War (Council on Foreign Relations, 1997) and Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy (Council on Foreign Relations, 1998). ... Read more

Product Description

With a renewed emphasis on national and homeland security, the United States is once again seeking to balance the needs of the state with both the rights of its citizens as well as those of other nations. This book represents an interdisciplinary approach to the legal dilemmas borne out by the war on terror-against the specific background of Afghanistan, Iraq, and this new kind of conflict. It is a strong contribution to a broader debate visible since 9/11, which will remain in the public eye for the foreseeable future. It addresses the overlap between religion, ethics, armed conflict, and law, within the context of the current conflict. While many issues in areas such as intelligence, reconciliation of civil liberties, dealing with terrorist threats, and the permissible bounds of interrogation, treatment of prisoners and laws governing armed conflict have long standing precedents under domestic and international law, this war has challenged even long standing legal interpretations. The contributors to this volume explore those precedents and contemporary challenges to them.

Now that traditional wars between nation states are no longer the rule, the terrorist threat has gained credence (popularly, terrorism and its claimed breeding ground in failed states), linked in practice to issues of intervention on the territory of states harboring such groups. In military circles the idea of armed struggle between modern military forces and what were formerly called guerillas has now largely been replaced by asymmetric warfare and the concept of intelligence and preventive action interchangeably within U.S. borders and overseas. Opposing views contemplate that different-and presumably lower-legal standards may apply in internal armed conflicts. Such legal issues are visible under current circumstances of asymmetric warfare in conjunction with questions about prisoner status and detentions, including the permissible bounds of interrogation versus torture following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq but also the treatment at the Guantanamo Bay facility of alleged Al Q'aeda captives from Afghanistan. All of the contributors in this book explore the changing circumstances against which these contentious new legal issues now unfold. The experts strike no consensus. Indeed, one of the work's many strengths can be attributed to the fact that the many facets of the ongoing debate are represented herein.

Product Description
This digital document is an article from Strategic Review for Southern Africa, published by Thomson Gale on November 1, 2005. The length of the article is 5879 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Private military companies: some legal issues.
Author: Hennie Strydom
Publication: Strategic Review for Southern Africa (Magazine/Journal)
Date: November 1, 2005
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Volume: 27Issue: 2Page: 85(15)

Distributed by Thomson Gale ... Read more

Product Description
The author charts how Americans' understanding of the pursuit of happiness has changed through the years as the nation itself has changed. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Dense but enjoyable reading
There is a lot of information in this book, but Mr. Cannon makes it entertaining and memorable.Introduction is particularly good.

A truly enjoyable, meandering history
The Publishers Weekly review that is posted above criticizes the book for not truly exploring the meanings behind Jefferson's famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence that lists among the rights of all people the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." To be fair to Cannon, he does explore that and both explicitly and implicitly tells the reader that the genius of the phrase is that it is so hard to define. It can be used by people from all over the political landscape to define their goals and they are all using it correctly (I think he does this rather brilliantly in the chapter concerning anti-war protesters vs. George W. Bush.)

The Publishers Weekly review correctly points out that Cannon's focus is, at times, lacking. However, the text is still informative and well-written. I would compare it to a pleasant conversation that strays a bit from its original focus but eventually does return.

Cannon pulls quotes from a great multitude of sources and he correctly, in my mind, expounds on his thesis that one of the Great Themes of the American experience is expanding the concept of the "pursuit of happiness" and making it apply to more and more people within our own society and also throughout the world. His view that this is one of the goals of the invasion of Iraq is so consistent with Bush's own statements and my own observations that it shocked me to read it in print. Why was I shocked? I was shocked because this was the first time I read it in print - he is the first journalist I've seen to analyze it in this way and I feel that he is one of the few who actually has an intellectual grasp of what Bush's goals are in Iraq (be they successfully reached or not and Cannon really does not address the correctness or not of the war in Iraq - he is merely looking into motivations).

His quotes from leaders of nations that were once part of the Soviet Bloc and are now part of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq are so concise and insightful that I was struck dounbfounded in many ways.

On a pet peeve note, Cannon has lots of endnotes - many with excellent additional commentary. I wish his publisher had seen fit to make them footnotes so that I would not have had to keep two bookmarks in the book and continually have to flip back and forth.

Don't just buy one, buy a few and hand them out!
Cannon's book reads like a poetic novel yet is chalked full of insight and reflection on our political American landscape.While examining the transformation of our unalienable rights, brought to light by Thomas Jefferson, from 1789 to present, Cannon has uncovered what it truly means to be an American in this day and age when we have reason to question our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness not just on the shores of the United States but as a global society.Each chapter contains an essay that lends itself beautifully to the book at large.This is a must read for an aspiring historian or political scientist and will make a great stocking stuffer! ... Read more

Product Description
XIII. INTRODUCTION
XXVII. LIST OF CRIMES
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
3. Article I: Creating a Secret Propaganda
Campaign to Manufacture a
False Case for War Against Iraq
7. Article II: Falsely, Systematically,
and with Criminal Intent Conflating
the Attacks of September 11, 2001,
With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a
Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent
Justification for a War of Aggression
14. Article III: Misleading the American
People and Members of Congress to
Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of
Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a
False Case for War
20. Article IV: Misleading the
American People and Members of
Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an
Imminent Threat to the United States
25. Article V: Illegally Misspending
Funds to Secretly Begin a War of
Aggression
27. Article VI: Invading Iraq in Violation
of the Requirements of HJRes114
31. Article VII: Invading Iraq Absent a
Declaration of War
33. Article VIII: Invading Iraq,
A Sovereign Nation, in Violation
of the UN Charter
37. Article IX: Failing to Provide Troops
With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
39. Article X: Falsifying Accounts of
US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political
Purposes
42. Article XI: Establishment of
Permanent US Military Bases in Iraq
44. Article XII: Initiating a War
Against Iraq for Control of That
Nation’s Natural Resources
47. Article XIIII: Creating a Secret Task
Force to Develop Energy and Military
Policies With Respect to Iraq and
Other Countries
50. Article XIV: Misprision of a Felony,
Misuse and Exposure of Classified
Information And Obstruction of
Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame
Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the
Central Intelligence Agency
52. Article XV: Providing Immunity
from Prosecution for Criminal
Contractors in Iraq
54. Article XVI: Reckless Misspending
and Waste of US Tax Dollars in Connection
With Iraq and US Contractors
59. Article XVII: Illegal Detention:
Detaining Indefinitely And Without
Charge Persons Both US Citizens and
Foreign Captives
62. Article XVIII: Torture: Secretly
Authorizing, and Encouraging the
Use of Torture Against Captives in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as
a Matter of Official Policy
65. Article XIX: Rendition: Kidnapping
People and Taking Them Against Their
Will to “Black Sites” Located in Other
Nations, Including Nations Known to
Practice Torture
69. Article XX: Imprisoning Children
72. Article XXI: Misleading Congress
and the American People About
Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist
Organizations Within Iran, With
the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian
Government
76. Article XXII: Creating Secret Laws
80. Article XXIII: Violation of the Posse
Comitatus Act
83. Article XXIV: Spying on American
Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered
Warrant, in Violation of the Law and
the Fourth Amendment
88. Article XXV: Directing Telecommunications
Companies to Create an
Illegal and Unconstitutional Database
of the Private Telephone Numbers and
Emails of American Citizens
90. Article XXVI: Announcing the
Intent to ... Read more