the mojowire

This Way to the Egress...

Ms. Thomas, your airlock is waiting...

I have been a Helen Thomas fan for a long time, but talk about tone deaf... Look, she was about to turn 90, and that's pretty old to be in the White House gaggle by any current rubric.

But publicly proclaiming that the "Jews should get the hell out of Palestine" is a bit much, even for us here at the wire...

At the same time, though, we have legions of talking monkeys and flatulent asshat gasbags on hate radio and on FAUX News and other places saying similarly idiotic things like "Mexicans oughter just get the hell out of the United States" and they seem to only be getting paid for their trouble.

Moreover, from people I nominally agree with most of the time, comes the unsettling stench of genuine anti-semitism with commentary on how "well I guess we see the truth behind zionist control of the media..." and "boy, them Jews sure are a tetchy bunch, ain't they..."

For me, I will always remember the fearless Helen Thomas of the Bush years, whose daily diet consisted of the raw skull meat of Ari Fleishcer, Scotty McClellan, and the hapless Tony Snow (how she found enough nutrients in Snow's dome for sustenance is still a mystery to me...)

I think this was a faux pas, and I certainly don't believe she is a radical anti-semite or racist, even I believe her words and the sentiment behind them were reprehensible to me.

Helen, use these next few years to relax and don't worry, you'll get your "Helen Thomas Memorial Monstering Wing" at the Newseum in D.C. soon. You're clearly a first ballot nominee for the Hall of Fame.

mojo sends

Sunday Open Thread

Well, technically, all our posts are open threads, but this one is specific to just throwing out any topics our legion of readers want to discuss...

Feel free to bring up any topic... immigration, Israel, elections, general asshattery... its all up to you...

Flotilla Raid Version 2.x

So how many different versions of the Free Gaza Flotilla raid will the IDF have to trot out before they agree on a complete narrative that isn't compromised by witnesses, physical evidence or the fact that the IDF is apparently just making shit up out of whole cloth?

By the way for a pretty good explanation of what happened, head over to Comrade Joshua's kiosk and take a look at this. This is reasonably good rundown on what happened and what various witnesses are saying occurred.

This will be good  material for the inevitable water cooler asshat who believes the FAUXNews/Israeli Defense Ministry narrative that the Israeli Navy practically turned back the Al Qaeda version of the D-Day invasion.

mojo sends

Wish I Could Say This was Surprising...

So, according to Mississippi Governor and former GOP Chief Bottle Washer Haley Barbour, there is no problem with an oil spill on the Mississippi coast.

The problem? That darn news media telling everyone about that oil spill in Gulf of Mexico. If only the media would just hush, people would come to the Redneck Riviera and see for themselves... there is no oil on Mississippi beaches... just a few tar balls, and those are "naturally occurring" at that.

But because of the Haterati in the media spinning scurrilous tales of oil and environmental degradation, people are not coming to Mississippi to soak up the rays on the Gulf Coast.

Yeah... it's all the media's fault.

mojo sends

Attack of the Drones...

Over at Opinio Juris, there is currently a pretty good discussion – albeit pretty academic – on the legality and morality of extra-territorial targeted killing by UAVs operated by the CIA and others. This conversation is based on a report just released by a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the topic.

I won't get too into it here other than to say that I would be interested in seeing what others here have to say about the report, and what this adds to our current discussion about our South Asia foreign/military policy.

Frankly, I have not read the report in total yet, but the commentary I've seen so far seems to jibe with what I've heard; the report is seeking to create some kind of international legal basis for unmanned aerial vehicles cruising through anyone's airspace and cratering anyone the operator apparently thinks looks a little terroristy.

mojo sends

Return to the Planet of the Stoopidest Things Ever Said...

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, we hope you will attend, step inside, step inside...

Charles Krauthammer: 'nuff said...

...at least in some circles. But when he decides to open his pie-hole on Israel's latest self-induced military/political shot in the foot he really stretches it.

I caught this on Jon Stewart last night, which clipped it from FAUXNews, to wit:

What exactly is the humanitarian crisis that the flotilla was actually addressing? There is none. There's no one starving in Gaza. ... The reason that it did not want to allow this flotilla is because, as the spokesman for the flotilla said herself, this was not about humanitarian relief, it was about breaking the blockade.

Please. The irony-impaired need your help. Won't you give today?

I won't even go into the many, many ways that this statement is factually disconnected from the fabric of reality, but the stones it takes to go on TV – even on "Fox All Stars" – and say something that is so... seriously, I'm having a hard time finding the right word for this...

No humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Charles? Tell me, is this the same argument used by the Klansmen who bombed a Birmingham church in 1963, murdering four little girls?

Weren't murder, cause we ain't killed no people...

Is that it Charles? Can't be a humanitarian crisis without humans? Because even you can't possibly so deluded and ... (even as I write these words, the answer comes to me... "sure he can").

The Israelis know who will carry their water here in America, and Chuckles is right near the top of that list. This is the full court press we knew was coming, I just was expecting something with a little more political savvy than just the "liar, liar, pants on fire" offensive. Perhaps this is a sign that the upper echelons of the IDF and Defense Ministry are panicking a bit. 

When Bibi gets on the tube and starts trying to make Love Boat jokes, that, to me, is a sign that the Israelis aren't quite sure what to do here, now that it is clear they are using the blockade as a weapon against, not just Hamas, but the entire population of Gaza. (BTW, the Egyptians are also culpable here, as they are also enforcing the blockade and preventing third party aid from reaching Gaza.)

Starvation as a weapon? Pretty effective; just ask the Irish.

mojo sends

RE: Asia Policy

I read the NY Times article that Mojo linked to in his post about U.S. Asia policy. It seems to me that this directive from Petraeus does not represent a particularly important or dire escalation in our various conflicts and activities in this region. It seems a relatively benign expansion of what they are already doing. What I do think is that it raises serious questions less about our overarching strategy in this region and more about how we as a nation state that theoretically operates under the rule of law domestically and internationally fits these sorts of operations in that legal and moral framework, if indeed we can.

I don't think the article really touches on the ROE in Afghanistan or even the tribal areas. The COIN doctrine and FM3-24 are the guidelines for our operations in those areas. And yes, toadcranking civilians at will is directly at odds with that strategy, which is why I doubt Petraeus, the architect and main advocate of COIN, is looking to send Special Forces in to do exactly what he has been advocating against. I tend to believe that the intention is what they say it is, intelligence gathering and building contacts and networks. Remember, before the NeoCons spun up their Iraq shenanigans, Special Forces was having significant success in Afghanistan doing exactly what Petreaus says he wants from then now, building relationships and contacts. Pulling them from this duty to Iraq was one of the contributing reasons the Taliban became resurgent.

The point of Donald Rumsfelds and Boykin's version of this was not to gather intelligence. It was to engage in lethal operations outside of war zones without any of the restrictions and more importantly the oversight the CIA was subject to by Congress. The fact that they could have easily convinced their GOP Stooges and scared Democrats to change existing laws and practices to make this whole thing perfectly legal under American law if not international law never seemed to trouble them. The whole idea of having Congress impose any oversight was repugnant to them. Gates pretty much quashed most of this and sent Boykin packing. I doubt that Gates is looking for another turf war with CIA. He is a former CIA geek after all and has seemed pretty sceptical of using military personnel, even special forces to engage in weird operations where Green Berets pretend to be tourists so they can whack someone based on a tip from a CIA informant. Even Mossad, whom Rummy and the rest of the NeoCons wanted CIA to become, routinely jack up those sorts of ops, and they have much more experience with them. Gates wisely and I think for purely practical reasons took DOD out of that cloak and dagger crap.

I would suggest that what they are trying to do is fill in a gap that actually does exist, which is gathering intelligence in areas with minimal existing CIA assets and where the locals have gotten very good at evading satellite surveillance. The part I'm not remotely down with is the idea of us engaging in arming or assisting "opposition"groups in Iran or elsewhere. I think Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda stand as a pretty good example of where this can lead. But sending special forces and other units into areas to find out info I think is actually a good idea. Sending them in to whack people, not so much.

My complaints would be that we have virtually no reliable handle on what exactly is going on beyond sending in Drones to kill "bad guys" and special ops guys to take pictures and make friends. There is no framework, process, and more importantly will to impose oversight, a legal structure, and real consequences for stepping beyond whatever boundaries are set. You have to go on faith that your guy in the White House is not a dupe or a semi-closeted clone of Donald Rumsfeld. You have to assume the worst in these situations, even though I have doubts about this directive in the NY Times story I've laid out above. So while I'm sympathetic to Mojo's overall complaint, I think using this article as the jumping off point gets us off track.

I think the bigger question is about Drones. Not near enough people are troubled by what we are doing with these things. Who is holding the President accountable for how he is using them? What if decides to use them on Hamas or Hezbollah leaders? Is that within the scope of his authority? He would derive considerable political upside for using this technology against Israelis enemies. Obama probably won't do this, but a George Bush style administration certainly would.

The political environment is such that any action such as drone assassinations, clandestine strikes by special forces on sovereign states the U.S. is not at war with, and most especially the torture of people in U.S. custody is supported by a frightening portion of the public. That is the part that really scares me. What action,if any, is beyond the pale now? Not much if I understand the combination of support and indifference out in the electorate. That puts us at grave risk of going completely off the rails if another 9/11 event occurs. Christ, people wet their pants about a botched SUV bombing. Its only a matter of time before Al Queda or a subsidiary manages to pull off something. I would argue the best approach is to construct some kind of legal and political framework that encompasses what we are currently doing and sets boundaries of what we will do. I don't think we will, and we will reap the whirlwind because of it.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

Article V

North Atlantic Treaty; seems pretty simple to me:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

I am an unapologetic supporter of the Israelis right to exist and a supporter of their right of self-defense. This puts me at odds with other liberals at times. I only mention this by way of saying I am not one of these reflexively "everything Israel does is bad, nothing the Palestinians do is wrong" commentators.

Israel: how do I put this as delicately as I can in this situation? You guys screwed the pooch, this time.

What the hell were you people thinking? Attacking NATO-nation flagged private vessels in international waters, that were carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza, and slaughtering a portion of the crew and beating and injuring others... have I missed anything?

And as often is the case, the cover-up ends up being worse (or in this case, stoopider) than the original crime. At first Israeli commandos say they were fired on... too bad for them, one of the vessels had a live video feed to the Free Gaza home office on Cyprus. There were no guns. Then the Israelis trot out video of "captured weapons," to wit: sling shots w/ marbles, kitchen knives, sticks and chains. ZOMG! Chains! On a Ship! 

Nice job... Hamas is hammering your population with Qassam, Grad and Chinese made WeiShi (WS-1) rockets but I guess ma and pa Israeli can sleep tight knowing that the sling-shot-wielding, kitchen-knife using, stick-bearing, chain-swinging threat has been dealt a severe set back.

Moreover, I am unimpressed with Israeli apologists already leaping to the "the crew was fighting back with those sling shots, sticks and kitchen knives." I know of no court that would convict anyone for exercising the legitimate right of self-defense for themselves and their vessel on international waters.

And now, there is reportedly video that shows the Israelis shooting at people before they actually landed on the ships. Now Israel admits it shot first, but that (wait for it!) "they were only paintball guns."

[/crickets]

I will not start much of legal argument here other than to say that Israel is currently violating any number of international agreements and international maritime laws to which they are party, with regard to the embargo of Gaza.

But this... this come really close to the definition of an act of state sponsored terror. So my question for the Israeli government: y'all sure you wanna ride this train?

mojo sends