Last night, BBC Newsnight aired a warning that the programme contained ‘extremely strong and violent language’ – which immediately got my full attention – referring to a filmed report of US marines patrolling Helmand, Afghanistan’s most troubled province, demonstrating the ‘new’ counter insurgency strategy of ‘building trust and relationships with the local population.’ The Brits had tried this tactic, we were told, but although they got to know the territory, they hadn’t got enough ‘combat power’ and ‘capability’ to do what had to be done. The implication was that they were ill-equipped (surely not?) and a tad wussy and incompetent.

The marines found and searched an almost-deserted village, the natives having sensibly fled in advance of the hearts and minds brigade. Only a young boy remained, with four old men, including a ‘sinister man in black’ (Johnny Cash?). ”Why is he shaking? What’s he afraid of?” a 19 year old military genius asks, as camouflaged, helmeted goons, bristling with weaponry, jostle the kid at gunpoint after ransacking his house, finding a rifle – which turned out to be a BB gun (air rifle) and ‘urging’ him to reveal the whereabouts of his friends and family. ”Last time we searched this house they wanted nothing to do with us. Ask them why?” Lance-Corporal Bunch demanded of the interpretor. You didn’t need a PhD to answer that question, but the marines decided that the old men standing nearby were intimidating the boy (possibly they were, but telling him ‘you’re fucked, kid’ and threatening to ‘wax this guy’s ass,’ might have had some bearing on his situation). I bet that village can hardly wait for the next patrol to pass by.

In contrast to their base commander and to various gurning politicians, the marines on patrol, some (literally) sick with fear, were respectful of the Taliban’s abilities and skeptical that they would ultimately  ’defeat’ them. The most likely outcome would be to ‘chase their asses into Pakistan’. Later in the sequence, a soldier observes: ”(The) Iraq war was different from this. Here . . this is like some Vietnam shit. No-one even mentions 9/11 here.” He is entitled to be dazed and confused. The ‘War on Terror’ formed the pretext to invade Afghanistan, whose (elected) Taliban government had provided a safe haven for Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora as the US turned its attention to Iraq, having ‘defeated’ the Taliban in 2001 (another hubristic Mission Accomplished). Cleverer people than this kid can’t make sense of the tactics or strategy, but the difference is that they, like me, are sitting comfortably outside the firing line. Yesterday almost 200 people died in car bombs in (post-surge) Baghdad, confirming that the ‘surge’ was a chimaera (Thus passim) But hell, they’ve got democracy . . . .

Don't worry about getting elected, Hamid, I didn't and neither did George Bush. Afghanistan is a true democracy now.

Later in the programme we heard that democracy’s beacon, President Karzai’s last act prior to the election had been to confirm a ‘Status Law‘ enshrining the rights of Afghan men to rape or starve their wife if she withholds sexual favours, despite specific condemnation from towering world figures such as Gordon Brown. Douglas Alexander, the ludicrous Blairite UK Development Minister, brushing aside this minor setback, urged us to ‘celebrate’ the fact that no-one knows who will win the election.’ Bollocks. We do, and so does he. Alexander refused to condemn the principle of endorsing and funding – under the pretext of democracy – a government which passes medieval laws and has promised to include internationally-condemned war criminals such as Dostum (see previous post) in their next regime. In short, he is an example of the prevarication, hypocrisy and expedient madness of  bad compromises which have placed the US, UK and the so-called ‘international community’ in the hole into which they are digging themselves deeper by the day.

Thus we were given evidence of how and why the US stands no chance of ‘winning’ and how the election will be spun as a victory regardless of the outcome. The Newsnight bulletin, and the preceding reporting leading up to today’s election, has been enlightening and relatively objective, helped by the absence of posturing hounyhymn jackass, Jeremy Paxman. File under ‘you couldn’t make it up’ – and watch the sequence yourself.

Drone bombing insurgents, much less civilians, will not win the ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan, which has now spread to Pakistan, enabling the possibility of a nuclear-resourced Taliban. Former Pakistani SIS head, Lt-Gen Hameed Gul has been himself allegedly blacklisted as a terrorist by the UN for advocating dialogue with moderate elements of the Taliban and for stating the obvious. Gul was and is no angel. He masterminded US support for the Mujaheddin, who later became the Taliban, at a time when the US were primarily concerned with pissing off the Russians – but he is right to state that Afghans see any occupying force as a prime enemy, and thus that the US and Britain are as bad as the Russians in their eyes. Warlords expediently unite to repulse foreign occupiers. Invaders cannot and will not win a conventional war against guerillas in hostile terrain, fought against a backdrop of justifiable civilian outrage at ‘collateral damage,’ without huge attrition. Afghanistan could prove as costly to the US and its allies as it was to the end-of-empire Soviets. The only ‘winners’ are those who stand to gain from fanning the flames of Islamophobia and keeping the US committed to a bellicose policy.

Mission Accomplished. Democracy has triumphed. Mahdi Army rules OK.

Even if we acknowledge that US Middle East policy is modelled on the Keystone Cops, it is extraordinary that absolutely no lessons have been learned from history, or benchmarks taken from the Iraq farrago, where not only has the ‘surge’ failed to establish peace or a democratic mandate – civilian casualties have largely returned to pre-surge levels – but the entire 8 year multi trillion dollar misadventure has left the country infinitely worse off whilst empowering clan-led militias. Some, such as the Mahdi Army, are bent on establishing a version of Shiite fundamentalism and general extortion along the way. Others are simply motivated by the opportunities of corruption on a grand scale in a failed state. Al Qaida, the Taleban and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalyse have never been in ruder health.

Afghanistan, arguably the epicentre of the original problem, has fallen off a cliff. Puppet President, Pashtun warlord Hameed Karzai, whose credentials stem largely from his Mujaheddin past and US links stemming from the anti-Soviet insurgency period, has a brother Ahmed Wali Karzai who allegedly controls the largest syndicate in a country which supplies 93% of the world’s heroin-grade opium – infinitely more damaging to the West than the export of Islamic fundamentalism. On his chaotic watch a violent variant of rule of law is enforced in Taleban-controlled districts and US bombs are directed at his enemies while corruption is endemic. According to the New York Times: “kept afloat by billions of dollars in American and other foreign aid, the government of Afghanistan is shot through with corruption and graft. From the lowliest traffic policeman to the family of President Hamid Karzai himself, the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it.” (Bribes Corrode Afghans’ Trust in Government, New York Times, 1/01/08).

Ashraf Ghani. All he is saying, is give peace a chance. And stop stealing from the people. And give the stage over to civil society, not war and criminality.

I’m no expert on Afghanistan, but I know a failing state, and I know a man who knows a lot about both. I have a high personal regard for Ashraf Ghani, Finance Minister of Afghanistan from 2001-4, founder of The Institute for State Effectiveness and co-author, with Clare Lockhart, of ‘Fixing Failed States. Dr Ghani, a previous candidate for the role of UN Secretary General is also a member of the UNDP Commission of the Legal Empowerment of the Poor. As Finance Minister he was widely credited with restoring the country’s pillaged treasury to some form of accountability before he fell out with Karzai. Though highly connected, he is anything but a warlord, which admittedly has a downside of reducing his chances of success unless he has strong international support (not based on military threats). He has also urged a pragmatic dialogue with moderate elements of the Taliban, and has been fiercely critical of the vast waste of aid money on consultants and NGOs, which has not endeared him to the Powers that Be. But he has everything to play for. Last November, before Dr Ghani entered the fray, a poll gave Karzai a 25% popularity rating. ‘Nobody’ with 22%, came second.

Transparency International rank the Karzai administration as the fifth most corrupt government in the world. Last year only 40 billion Afghanis (approximately USD 800 million), were reported as revenues. In March this year the Finance Ministy estimated that 2/3rd of the government’s annual revenues, amounting to USD 1.6 billion, were ‘lost’ to waste and corruption, indicating potential annual revenues of USD 2.4 billion USD. According to Ghani’s campaign team: “the Karzai government has repeatedly expressed its inability to increase the salaries of civil servants, teachers or address the needs of the disabled, widows, and other vulnerable segments of our society. Lack of financial resources and dependence on donors who are unwilling to support these expenditures has been used as an excuse.” Ghani’s economic platform is based upon the simple expedient of establishing fiscal propriety and using the $US 1.6 billion additional revenues currently lost through corruption and waste to provide salaries and services to the most vulnerable groups of Afghani society. The extremist Taliban elements, meanwhile, draw power from the fact that there is seemingly no alternative between fanatic relgious law upheld by voilence or corruption and criminality, again upheld by violence. Ghani represents a thinking middle path.

According to Dr Ghani: “Citizen awareness of the cost of corruption and mobilization against it has been critical to promoting good governance from the early 20th century United States to Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa. We must address corruption as citizens. When citizens can count the cost of corruption on their wellbeing, and the loss of opportunities for their children and grandchildren, then they can transform their individual frustrations into a collective force for change.”

Bombing wedding parties in the name of the war on terror, propping up drug lords and radicalising a ferociously independent population by settling an army of occupation among them has proved a recipe for failure and misery for the past 35 years or more, not to mention several centuries. Afghanistan could become Obama’s Vietnam, if it isn’t already. Powerful people in the US and elsewhere would be delighted for that to happen, the same people, dare I say it, who convinced Bush to focus his misguided efforts on Iraq. While it is highly unlikely that the Afghan elections in August will be fair or democratic, Ashraf Ghani represents a better than outside chance of establishing a civil society and saving the US and Britain from another humiliating misadventure in the neo-colonial Great Game, which we shouldn’t be playing in the first place, to the detriment of world peace and the enrichment of arms dealers, drug dealers and fundamentalists of all stripes. He deserves a fair go. So does Afghanistan.

John J Kelly

The suffering population of another country on another continent was bombed into the stone age in pursuit of its oil, under the pretext of freeing its people and establishing democracy. Torture and illegal detention became the norm, as a ‘war on terror’ was pursued to the detriment of the lives and liberties of large parts of the planet, justified by a systematic disregard of international law. Breathtaking abuses of trust, enacted in the name of liberalisation, destabilised and pillaged the global financial system. Armed and supported by that great nation its Middle East client state annexed territories, built concentration camps, killed thousands of civilians, invaded a neighbouring sovereign state causing billions of dollars of damage and ensured the election of a fellow neocon hawk by murdering over 2300 men, women and children, fanning the flames of despair, hatred and fundamentalist terror. Eight years later, with thousands of its own soldiers dead and wounded, fighting another unwinnable war of aggression with a busted economy and its international reputation in tatters, it was time for another election. This time the good guy won. Or did he?

I’m not talking about Iran.

John J Kelly

President Barack Obama’s support for preventively detaining terrorism suspects undoubtedly surprised some of his longtime backers. Holding prisoners at Guantanamo, without the certainty of trial or release, was a defining feature of the previous administration’s counterterrorism policy – and some of its fiercest critics expected Obama to change the policies. But the possibility had been percolating for months. With his pledge in January to close the Guantanamo prison within a year, Obama set off a fierce, mostly under-the-radar debate among legal experts about whether it will be possible to meet the goal he announced yesterday: to build “a legitimate legal framework” for imprisoning terrorism suspects indefinitely.

The question affects more than Guantanamo. The fates of 169 detainees there remain undecided, according to Obama’s numbers yesterday, and administration officials have suggested that they will be unable to prosecute as many as 100. But the legal status of thousands more held by the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas also hangs in limbo, and any detention policy will have ongoing effects as the fight against al-Qaida continues. Here are some of the key issues facing the architects of a new preventive detention system, or, as it’s sometimes called, a “national security court”:

President Obama said yesterday that some suspected terrorists “cannot be prosecuted.” How could that be – haven’t there been plenty of previous cases involving terrorism?

Yes, there have been. A significant number of people have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses in federal trials, including several accused of acting on behalf of al-Qaida. From September 2001 to May of last year, the government won 145 convictions against terrorism suspects, according to an analysis by former federal prosecutors for the progressive legal nonprofit, Human Rights First. That’s not to say it’s easy. The criminal justice system was built to safeguard the rights of defendants. Prosecutors can’t win a case without enough admissible evidence. Sometimes, as in this week’s arrest of four suspects in New York, investigators have tape-recordings of the alleged illegal activity. But more often than not, they depend on witnesses. They can’t use testimony obtained through abusive interrogations. And intelligence agencies are typically loath to collaborate with a public prosecution that puts their sources on a witness stand.

Recent court filings by the Obama administration in cases challenging the legality of Guantanamo detentions offer a glimpse of possible hurdles to prosecuting an accused terrorist. Criminal defendants have the right to see information in government files that could help show their innocence, so prosecutors have a duty to search for all plausibly relevant documents to turn over. Officials said in the filings that evidence about the Guantanamo detainees tops 1.8 million pages, total. All of those would need to be searched for exculpatory information. A test query for several detainees yielded between several hundreds and tens of thousands of “hits” each.

Isn’t detention without trial illegal on its face?

Not necessarily. The traditional laws of war permit preventive detention of both enemy soldiers and hostile civilians until the end of the fight. Standards like the Geneva Conventions require humane treatment of these detainees. Holding aggressors without any intention of trying them is a time-honored right of fighting nations. Why? In wartime, combatants are supposed to fight – so, fighting itself is not a crime. Fighting dirty – for instance, purposefully killing innocent civilians – is prosecutable as a war crime. But even then, there’s no right to a speedy trial, and the captor nation can take its time deciding when or even whether to press charges. It has long been accepted that a nation at war has the right to protect itself by keeping enemies from returning to the battlefield, without having to invest resources or risk public release of military secrets in full-blown trials.

Every trial risks the possibility that a defendant could be acquitted or receive a moderate sentence. Under the laws of war, governments don’t need to take that risk.The possibility that convicted terrorists could win relatively quick release isn’t just theoretical. Of the three military commission convictions so far at Guantanamo, two resulted in sentences of, essentially, time served. One of those convicted was Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, for providing material support to al-Qaida. He was sentenced last year to five-and-a-half years in prison – six months more than time served – and now lives free in Yemen, in a case where the government had sought life imprisonment. A detention system premised on the laws of war would permit Obama to keep his promise of yesterday: “We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security.”

So is the United States at war with terrorists?

A trickier question than it might seem. Terrorists don’t wear uniforms or rush to a battlefield. The front, many argue, could be anywhere – a hotel room in Albania or an alley in Manila. For its part, al-Qaida declared war on the United States in 1998, shortly before its operatives blew up American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Obama has expressed no skepticism on this point, saying in his speech: “We are indeed at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.” He was able to say so because Congress, which has the constitutional power to declare war, issued the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force after the 9/11 attacks.

That means some terrorists can be held indefinitely as prisoners of war, according to David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor long associated with civil liberties causes. Cole recently stunned the progressive legal community by supporting preventive detention for some detainees in a Boston Review essay. Cole explained in an interview, “You might not have evidence that would satisfy the criminal-conviction standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but perhaps you have very good evidence that a person was a fighter for the Taliban. Should we just release him to go back to the caves and start shooting at U.S. soldiers, just because we don’t have sufficient proof to convict him of a crime?”

Retired U.S. Army Major General John Altenburg, who until resigning in November 2006 had the task of deciding which Guantanamo detainees would be slated for military commission trials, said the Bush administration’s “arrogance and naiveté” about public perception had tarnished the otherwise valid notion of detaining terrorism suspects under a wartime rationale. He said in an interview, “What the previous administration did was allow critics to define the terms of the debate to be the terms of domestic criminal law. So the public is reacting with, ‘What about their lawyer? What about their right to a speedy trial?’”

In fact, Altenburg said, the al-Qaida detainees are not entitled to a speedy trial any more than German prisoners of war in World War II were.

If wartime detention is OK, and the U.S. is at war with terrorists, then why does the nation need a new detention law?

This appears to be as much a question of political support as one of legal reasoning. Obama said yesterday that he’d seek a law spelling out procedures for preventative detention for reasons of political legitimacy. He said he wanted to avoid his predecessor’s “ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism.” Earlier this week, top Obama aides invited the most ardent opponents of preventive detention, including the head of the American Civil Liberties Union, to a two-and-a-half-hour meeting. Although administration officials have not publicly discussed that session, some guests were startled by the argument that the president already has sufficient authority to preventively detain terrorism suspects. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said afterward on a conference call with reporters that there was a “surprising misapprehension about what the laws of war permit.”

The legal authority that courts have recognized for the current military detentions of “enemy combatants” is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which doesn’t even mention detentions. If captives are moved to U.S. soil, they’ll likely be able to invoke greater legal protections than they’ve got now, according to a January analysis by Congressional Research Service lawyers. Possibly, some will even be able to seek political asylum under immigration laws. Long-term preventive detention would therefore require a new law and possibly amendments to others.

Part of the legal puzzle has to do with trying to apply traditional laws of war to the “novel” type of conflict that is terrorism, says Harvey Rishikof, professor of law and national security studies at the National War College. It’s just harder to tell who’s a combatant – and therefore detainable as a POW – and who’s a criminal suspect due for trial, because terrorists are “stateless actors” eschewing uniforms and avoiding battlefields. Attorney General Eric Holder hinted at the complexity of the “battlefield” question as it applies to terrorist combatants at his confirmation hearing. “There are physical battlefields, certainly, in Afghanistan,” he said. “But there are battlefields, potentially, you know, in our nation. There are cyber battlefields.” He went on, “There’s a battlefield, if you want to call it that, with regard to the hearts and minds of the people in the Islamic world.”

Major General Altenburg said, “I personally think the battlefield has to be beyond the ground of an Afghanistan, because al-Qaida is everywhere. Now, there’s no [court] holding anywhere that says that is the law of war, because again, this is unprecedented.”

How would preventive detention of terrorism suspects work?

The closest the public has gotten to a legislative blueprint for preventive detention of terrorism suspects appeared in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain. They called for a “uniform set of standards and procedures administered by a civilian judge,” who would decide the challenges to the legality of detention that the Supreme Court has said are a detainee’s right, and “an annual interagency review” to determine whether a detainee continues to threaten national security and should be held. The senators are expected to be influential voices as any new policy develops.

But before looking at the procedures, policymakers will have to decide who will face detention. The Bush administration initially claimed that it could indefinitely detain anyone the executive branch deemed an “enemy combatant.” The courts trimmed back that sweeping view, saying that the authority was shared with Congress and subject to judicial review. The question is especially acute for terrorism detention, says Harvard law professor and former Bush official Jack Goldsmith, who with Neal Katyal – then a Georgetown law professor, now Obama’s principal deputy solicitor general – was one of the earliest proponents of a new legal regime for terrorism suspects. Because this enemy doesn’t wear a uniform and, to the contrary, takes pains to blend with civilians, identifying candidates for military detention is harder. But since the end of this conflict may similarly be hard to know, there’s a risk that wrong decisions could harm innocent people for a very long time, Goldsmith warns.

One way to get lawmakers to seek utmost accuracy in any detention system, said Goldsmith at a recent Brookings Institution forum, would be to apply it to U.S. citizens as well. “The threat of terrorism can come as easily from a U.S. citizen,” he said. He noted, though, that the idea “is controversial and probably a nonstarter.” It could also be struck down by the Supreme Court, where there are some strong views that citizenship comes with special constitutional protections.

Cole, the Georgetown law professor, stressed that only detainees fitting a classic war-captive profile – members of an organization against whom Congress has authorized the use of military force, who deliberately act or plan harm in order to advance the military goals of the enemy – should be considered for preventive detention. Other terrorists, he said, “should be dealt with through the criminal law.” Broadening the field, he said, would be “a first step on a slippery slope of a broader use of preventive detention for other crimes.”

Some opponents of preventive detention say it’s Orwellian that such a system would imprison a person based on future dangerousness. But, says Cole, even if “we can’t predict the future,” it is possible to measure whether there is “a substantial risk that someone will engage in future dangerous conduct. Waiting for a wrong is not adequate.” Such judgments are made all the time, he said, in civil commitment proceedings, bail hearings and immigration decisions. He said that the key was to focus the inquiry narrowly, not on suspects’ character or beliefs, but on “whether they pose a risk of returning to the battle.”

Retired U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, who as a military lawyer represented Hamdan in his commission trial, worries that a preventive detention option will allow inaccurate judgments of dangerousness. He said that, after hearing all the evidence, “military [jurors] didn’t view Mr. Hamdan as a substantial war criminal.” But someone like Hamdan would be a prime candidate for indefinite detention over prosecution, he said: “The indicia of his criminality were extremely low, but his proximity to bin Laden was extremely high. The adversary system helped show how Hamdan was not dangerous – the question is, whether a national security court would allow that.”

Crucial questions will have to be answered about what burden of proof the government would have to meet to put someone in preventive detention. In civil trials, the prevailing party has to win by a preponderance of the evidence – meaning it’s more likely than not that the party is right. The criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is much higher. Cole advocates that preventive detention be permitted if the government shows “clear and convincing evidence” that the detainee fits certain dangerousness criteria – the current standard for deciding whether an ordinary criminal suspect can be released on bail.

Proponents agree the government should have to periodically renew its case for detaining a person. While wartime detention permits imprisonment until the end of hostilities, no one assumes that it will be clear when hostilities with al-Qaida and its affiliates have ended. Holder said at his confirmation hearing that he could see such reviews happening annually.

Any new system will also have to build in rights for people facing detention. Should they have lawyers of their own choosing? Can hearsay evidence – the testimony of people who don’t have to show up in court and answer for themselves – be accepted against them, as it is under certain exceptions in ordinary court proceedings? Should detention hearings be open or secret? Federal courts are permitted to seal documents or close sessions in cases involving classified or other sensitive information. The presumption, however, is that the courts are open. Goldsmith said preventive detention proceedings should also be presumed public, calling it “essential” to establishing legitimacy here and abroad.

Finally, there is the question of who will decide. The Supreme Court has said that a neutral decision-maker is required to ensure due process for detainees. One of many criticisms of Guantanamo’s Combatant Status Review Tribunals – instituted by the Bush administration and still in effect today – is that the decision-makers are subordinates of the very military commanders who claim the detainees should be held as enemy combatants. Most current proposals for a new detention system say independent federal judges should make the final call.

Media censorship has a habit of rebounding. For example, even friendly media would struggle to describe the actions of Hamas, (whom I’ve already described in several posts as a bunch of criminal sociopaths originally sponsored by Mossad), but who have been morally strengthened by what can only politely be described as Israel’s ill-advised use of disproportionate force. It is entirely likely that they have been firing rockets out of heavily-populated positions  - Gaza is one of the world’s most densely-populated areas, so it’s hard to see how they could avoid doing so. Thus, they must be aware that in doing so they put the lives of civilians at risk. However, this equally means that the invading Israeli forces must have knowledge that in bombing buildings (and UN compounds) they will kill inncocents. Moreover, as the aforementioned grainy YouTube clips (some dating back to 2007) show, they have sophisticated surveillance techniques which show in minute detail the exact position of Hamas armament and fighters. Knowingly Bombing civilians is a crime against International Law and an indisputable breach of the Geneva Convention. Both Hamas and Israel are guilty and both should be censured. (For that matter, so should Britain and the US, for crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that’s another sorry tale altogether).

I am equally certain that Hamas rockets might have done a lot more civilian damage over the past eight years, with a lot more international outrage, had the Southern Israel citizens not organised highly effective early warning systems and educated their children to flee to purpose-built shelters within a minute of hearing a siren. Whether or not the bombs don’t achieve their ‘goal’ of killing people, the effect of constant bombardment, even with toytown rockets, exacts a terrible toll on the hearts and minds of Israeli civilians, up to and including the biblical desire for revenge. Thus, Israel’s efficiency in defending its citizens has possibly and paradoxically contributed to the build-up to the present unequal contest. Allied to the sense of hopelessness in the face of muted international condemnation of Hamas (and Hizbollah), this may have led inexorably to a situation where the military hawks (vicious, opportunistic bullies but never the cleverest or most lateral thinkers) forced their ‘solution’ (bombing civilian populations) to the front of the agenda. 

The (deplorable) default position of the international liberal media is to don the keffiyeh and metaphorically chant Palestinian slogans, in a misplaced parody of 1968 and all that. On the other hand, the (majority) illiberal media, as represented by The Daily Mail and Telegraph in the UK, Fox News and most of the Murdoch gang in the US and elsewhere, are natural Neocon allies of Israel, especially in its current belligerent incarnation. By banning the media (in contravention of international law and in defiance of a ruling of the Israeli Parliament itself) Israel is laying itself open to the charge that it has all but abandoned any semblance of respect for natural human justice. In doing so, it puts itself on the same rogue state level as the criminal sociopaths from whom it so rightly feels the need to defend its citizens. 

Israel has now achieved its domestic objective: the forces of Netanyahu have prevailed and the country needs to dig in for a period of international ostracisation. The US and Britain will veto any Security Council Resolution condemning its actions, so it won’t face international sanctions. Hamas will be deposed and go underground (again), where its hard liners will resort to acts of covert terrorism which will kill many more innocent people. Likewise Hizbollah and other whacko Palestinian militants. The neighbours and relatives of the thousands killed, half-starved and displaced by the bombardments of Lebanon and Gaza will hate Israel even more and aid the terrorists (no change there). There is no other possible outcome at this stage than an increase in the likelihood of Terror – so thanks a lot from the rest of us. On the other hand, Israel will have its Right-Wing coalition and may well try and invade Iran. In which case, welcome to Armageddon (literally). 

Obama has his work cut out, though the composition of his advisors (Rham Emmanuel, Hilary Clinton and her Rubinesque cabal, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Soros et al) make it unlikely that much will change on the policy front. I’m not saying any more about this horrible mess, (even if I told you so) except that I am sorry for all the innocent people killed in the name of political expediency. It was ever thus.

John J Kelly

(Irish, friend of Jews everywhere but not fond of Israel, especially its Neanderthal politicians).

Gordon Brown looking sad in Helmand. 'This is paradise compared to Brussels'

We heard this morning that UK Gordon Brown has broken off his constructive discussions with EU leaders to appear in Afghanistan to mourn the death of four British soldiers, killed in two bomb incidents, one where a 13 year old suicide bomber killed 3 Royal Marines. We also heard that yesterday’s government announcement that UK knife crime had plunged by 14 per cent in a month was based on fraudulent statistics and that the ‘decision’ to withdraw the remaining 3000 British troops in Iraq was leaked to the press but not announced to Parliament (therefore might not happen). We heard that the jury in the de Menezes inquest returned an ‘open verdict,’ having been barred by the coroner to return a verdict of Unlawful Killing, but had rejected the mendacious accounts of the Metropolitan Police murder squad. We heard, we heard . . .

Head shot of Cressida Dick of the Met SO13 Shoot to Kill team. Scary name, scary hair, scary job in an institutionally racist, sexist force with no real accountability. Just plain scary, in fact. Dumb dumb bullets all round.

We heard former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, break his (unusually protracted) silence to state that he sincerely hoped this setback would not affect the promotion prospects of Cressida Dick, the Calamity Jane in charge of the Operation Kratos SO13 Licence to Kill gang. Last Thursday we heard of a foiled Al Quaeda plot in Belgium to allegedly blow up the EU Ministers gathered this weekend, a potentially huge outrage, but, mysteriously, having categorically stated that the target was Gordon Brown, the UK press have subsequently virtually ignored the story (including omitting to mention that 8 of the 14 suspects have been already released). The international press had no such emphasis on Gordon Brown. Apart from signalling the return to full fighting form of spinmeisters Mandelson and Campbell, all this whirling might mean that Brown intends to ease out of Iraq with a diplomatic cough (‘mission accomplished?’) but almost certainly ‘redeploy’ the troops to Afghanistan. On the basis that the War on Terror is continuing to pose clear and present danger to the UK we can expect continued pressure to proceed with the Identity Cards project and lots more sirens in the middle of the night to keep us in a state of fearful preparedness for – a UK general election. While in Afghanistan, Brown pledged a whopping £6 million to ensure free and fair elections (less than the cost of a Mayfair townhouse for an Afghan warlord) but nearer to home, the Tories are applying pressure for an early election. In the fog of war, we seem to forget that the glorious leader of the free world was not himself elected by the UK populace.

John J. Kelly

PS. THUS POLICY STATEMENT. My new policy is to byline opinion pieces (most of THUS falls into this category) since it is counter to free speech to hide behind anonymity when making speculative comment. We try to attribute sources wherever possible, hence the plethora of references to sources in the public domain but it’s mostly just me spoofing around acting the giddy goat. Believe nothing, believe me.