Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« December 2003 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Monday, 15 December 2003

Topic: The Culture

Quote for the day - having something to do with the death penalty, or war, or any of the ideological reasons one might have for killing other folks because it's the right thing to do, as with the Saddam Hussein or the DC snipers. Or maybe it's the right thing because it's someone who disagrees with your particular ideological preference... whatever.

"A further reason for my hatred of National Socialism and other ideologies is quite a primitive one. I have an aversion to killing people for the fun of it. What the fun is, I did not quite understand at the time, but in the intervening years the ample exploration of revolutionary consciousness has cast some light on this matter. The fun consists in gaining a pseudo-identity through asserting one's power, optimally by killing somebody--a pseudo-identity that serves as a substitute for the human self that has been lost."
- Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections


Say what? Interesting, but way too deep.

So see Iraqi-Run Trial Holds Promise and Peril
The nation could grow as a democracy if it adheres to the rule of law -- not vengeance.
Alissa J. Rubin and Henry Weinstein, Los Angeles Times, December 15, 2003

They quote Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch: "The capture of Saddam provides an opportunity that either will continue the cycle of revenge or begin the rule of law."

So what's this justice stuff? Not the same as revenge (vengeance)? How so?

See Definitions of Justice at the site Body and Soul where "Joan" has some thoughts:
I've been thinking this morning about a moment in 2000 that helped move me from simply not voting for Bush to actually fearing he might win. During a debate, Al Gore raised the issue of hate crimes legislation, and spoke about the death of James Byrd, who was chained to a truck and dragged to his death. There are reasonable objections to hate crimes legislation. I have some concerns about them myself. But Bush's objections were far from reasonable:

"The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them?" Bush said, smiling. "They'll be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It will be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death."

... no matter how much benefit of the doubt I tried to give Bush, I ended up seeing a man grinning at the thought of execution, smug in what seemed to me the bizarre belief that justice is all about catching bad people and killing them. I'll try to give Bush the benefit of the doubt once more and assume it was not bloodlust that provoked that smile, but reveling in his own sense of righteousness. But it was repulsive either way.

That revelation of character and beliefs has come to be far more important than I imagined. So much of what has gone wrong with this country since Bush became president stems from a belief in simple justice, a belief that if we just eliminate all the bad guys, good will triumph.

Saddam Hussein's capture this morning triggered this old memory. I'm happy that one of the most brutal tyrants on earth was captured, not killed. Good. Maybe we will get some answers. Certainly there will be a trial.

I admit to a somewhat less civilized pleasure over the fact that he was caught in a hole in the ground, imprisoned by himself, buried. Is anyone so noble that he doesn't delight in that? Would God herself expect us to rise above such pleasure? (On the other hand, I will never get used to the sound of joy and gloating at misery. It is simply beyond my understanding, and there is always something that startles and scares me about that noise.) "Enchanting" is a horrible word choice to describe it, but it is certainly a fitting end for a man who imprisoned and buried so many innocent people.

But there was something very disturbing in the reports of Saddam's own response to his capture:

"He was unrepentant and defiant," said Adel Abdel-Mahdi, a senior official of a Shiite Muslim political party who, along with other Iraqi leaders, visited Saddam in captivity.

"When we told him, 'If you go to the streets now, you will see the people celebrating,'" Abdel-Mahdi said. "He answered, 'Those are mobs.' When we told him about the mass graves, he replied, 'Those are thieves.'"

Justice is simple. If you capture and kill all the bad people, all the people who oppose you, good will triumph.
Well Joan, "simple" works for most folks these days.

Back in the sixties I shouldn't have read that long, book-length poem by that Jewish writer from the UK - In a Cold Season by Michael Hamburger, about the trial and execution of Adolf Eichmann. Apart from the poet's odd and amusing last name, as I recall the idea was to ask the question of whether it was good for us that instead of six million dead, we now had six million and one dead. What does that make us? Yadda, yadda. You get the idea.

Well, everyone these days thinks death is a good thing. Or at least a useful thing. I don't want to be the odd man out here.
____

Readers of the magazine might want to reference my October 12, 2003 Review of Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing With the Death Penalty; Scott Turow; Farrar, Straus & Giroux: 166 pp., $18 - where such things are further discussed.

As Turow points out, on the one hand, murder is a crime so extreme that it requires the most extreme retribution. On the other, state-sanctioned killing reduces our society to its lowest common denominator, making all of us complicit in the taking of a life. But then again as for those who are enthusiastic about the death penalty as "a statement of moral value" to be applied widely, and often, to say exactly who we are - to clearly show what we just won't tolerate - what about that view?

I guess I'm basically a Hamburger helper.

Posted by Alan at 09:18 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Monday, 15 December 2003 09:35 PST home

Sunday, 14 December 2003

Topic: Photos

A rainy Sunday in Los Angeles, and these guys don't like it much...


Posted by Alan at 14:21 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: Iraq

One more view on the question of the French - Should we "share" contracts with Old Europe now that Saddam Hussein has been taken care of?

James Taranto in his Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal: Best of the Web Today - December 14, 2003 regarding the comments of John Kerry:
On "Fox News Sunday," the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, elaborated: "Diplomacy is critical. You need to reach out here and bring other countries to the table. It's the lack of the United States' willingness to share the authority and responsibility that is keeping other countries from being involved."

Kerry has a rather blinkered view of diplomacy; he seems to equate it to "making nice with your adversaries."

Sometimes, of course, that's a wise thing to do, but this isn't one of them. This is a time for recrimination and finger-pointing! The French and others actively worked to obstruct the liberation of Iraq and keep this vicious tyrant in power. We didn't need their help, we did it without them, and rewarding them now would send precisely the wrong message to all the nations of the world. They must pay for their perfidy so that everyone else will know such betrayal has a price. That's diplomacy too.
Indeed, it is.

Well, we won a big one today - without anyone else's help at all. One knows some gloating is a natural reaction.

And he adds this:
Oh, and isn't it a sweet coincidence that Saddam's capture occurred on the third anniversary of Gore's concession?
Really? Today? Interesting.

Posted by Alan at 12:45 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: Iraq

Saddam Hussein captured alive: other voices

From the Left - "DhinMI" on the site Daily Kos:
It's one of the most ignominious ends to a tyrant's freedom, almost as humiliating an end to his reign as when the bodies of Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were dangled from a pole in the Piazza Loreto in Milan, like deer carcasses being bled out in a hunting camp. Saddam's done, and the world is a better place for it.

Clearly there will be celebrating by many in Iraq. But what's next? The U.S. officials haven't indicated what will be done with Saddam, but Ahmed Chalabi is already making declarations that Saddam will go on public trial before the Iraqi people. Will there be a public trial? Will the U.S. chose to keep Saddam quiet?

What about weapons of mass destruction? Now we've got the guy in custody, and he's probably beaten and demoralized. Maybe he'll be like Milosevic and stay defiant, but the early pictures don't show a man with the energy to maintain resistance. So he may be inclined to tell the truth about WMD. But is the truth what the Bush administration wants Saddam to tell?

And what about the continued attacks on American troops? It's hard to imagine Saddam was exerting much operational leadership over the attackers from inside a "spider hole" in which he barely had room to move around. The people attacking coalition troops don't appear to need Saddam around to tell them what to do, and their actions don't appear to be necessarily directed at restoring Baathist control over Iraq as much as evicting the occupying forces from their country. The biggest positive from Saddam's capture will probably be in eliminating the fear that he will return to power. That's a huge relief for many common Iraqis who may now be more emboldened to assist U.S. forces with intelligence about the resistance forces attacking out troops. There may also be less acquiescence by the general population to having the resistance forces move as effortlessly through the country. But it's too early to tell.

Capturing Saddam is good news (although not as exciting or important as would be news of capturing the guy Bob Graham called "Osama Bin Forgotten"). But capturing him alive might not have been the best news for the Bush administration.

There are many questions to be answered over the next hours, days and months, and it's not clear that anyone has the answers.
From the Right - Glen Reynolds at InstaPundit:
THE LESSON: Saddam's capture also shows the importance of patience, and of ignoring the kvetching of the Coalition Of The Pissy. While people bitched, the military just kept gathering intelligence and keeping Saddam on the run until he slipped and they caught him. And looking at the TV images, he seems docile, exhausted, and ready to be caught. That's the fruit not just of a single lucky break, but of the sustained campaign of keeping him moving.

Those who, frankly, would just as soon see the entire war as a failure, are ready to call anything short of perfection a failure. But persistence pays off. It's worth keeping in mind on other subjects.

Interestingly, the American public seems to have gotten that all along, as a pre-capture Gallup poll showing support for the war was already actually climbing in recent months makes clear.

So, on the one hand, he's caught (I assume by now it's clearly not one of those doubles), and that's likely to be a rather major blow to the "insurgents" -- though I rather suspect that some of that has been supported by Syria, Iran, and Saudi elements in the hopes of keeping the United States busy. With Saddam gone, though, it'll be harder for them to escape responsibility, which is likely to cause them to reduce their exposure in this area. That's unalloyed good news, unless we're looking for an excuse to invade Syria.

On the other hand, we're confronted with the question of what to do with Saddam. I've thought about this before, and the options seemed to break down this way: (1) Shoot him out of hand. Appealing for a variety of reasons, but not really our style, and obviously we decided against it. (2) Try him for war crimes ourselves. Potentially messy, and perhaps looking a bit imperialistic to some. (3) Turn him over to the Iraqis and let them try him.

The last is the most appealing for a variety of reasons, as long as we make sure that the process isn't in the hands of covert Saddam loyalists, which shouldn't be hard. On the other hand, he's likely to have some value in terms of information and cooperation, which might encourage people to want to cut a deal with him. That's tricky: He's a dreadful guy who deserves to be executed, probably via a plastic-shredder or some similar method, in light of his crimes. (A Mussolini-style ending probably would have been best, in my opinion). But he may offer enough to make his cooperation worthwhile, though letting him live, or go into exile (where would he go?) seems troublesome too, and offers him the possibility for future mischief.

I imagine that this has been given a lot of thought at the highest levels.
Lots out there on the web....

Posted by Alan at 10:08 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 14 December 2003 10:15 PST home


Topic: Iraq

Breaking News: Saddam Hussein captured alive (nothing else today will be covered in the media, of course)
A friend in Atlanta (Rick) writes:
I assume you've heard.

If not, turn on the TV. It seems they caught Saddam.

(Oh, well, there goes the election. Unless, of course, this guy turns out to be one of the twelve imposters that were never found either.)
I replied:
Yeah, I heard. I've been up since four. Damned cat walking all over me - she's bored? Hungry? Evil?

I watched a bit of CNN and all the rest. I might drift into the next room and catch Bush. I think he's speaking now.

Here's one reaction that seems right -

"But, it really doesn't change much. Capturing Saddam isn't going to end the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq. It may improve things slightly, or it could even make it worse, but the net effect will probably be negligible. Saddam was a bad guy, but it isn't clear he's any worse of a guy than some of the folks who are a part of our `Coalition of the Willing,' so this pretense of moral clarity, etc... is ridiculous.

"Saddam wasn't a threat to us. This was a war of choice and we made a bad choice (and many more bad choices subsequently). Kosovo was also a war of choice. Whether or not that was a bad choice, consider the disparity in the media coverage of those wars.

"And, cynical me just has to ask - who's the enemy now? The [neoconservative] base needs one.

"Did they really call it `operation Red Dawn?' Oy.
"
Rick replies:
Who said all that? I disagree to a degree.

So Bush is speaking now. I think he delayed it because he wanted his writers to come up with better soundbites.

I think Saddam being gone will affect some of the insurgents not at all. But of the "swing voters," I think the most likely to be moved will be those who were taking comfort in the fact that these big American conquerors couldn't catch him. I don't think many rebels will be moved to action by this. But yes, the war will go on.

The big question: They say he'll be tried by Iraqis. So what if they find him not guilty? Any chance he'll make a comeback?

So Bush is done. Another forgettable speech.
The source, by the way, was the anonymous "Atrios" - as the link will show you.

And now? Use the comment option below to suggest what comes next, or send an email via the "profile" page.

I need more coffee.

Posted by Alan at 09:41 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 14 December 2003 10:16 PST home

Newer | Latest | Older