Journal BlackHat's Journal: We're sick of politicians/ Harassment and laws 4
There seems to be some discussion, and bewailing, of the lack of JE's from the usual suspects. Surprisingly, my JEs seem to be missed as well. So I'll post once again and attempt to find the time to continue to spread the bile more regularly. See eno2001's JE and Ethelred Unraed's JE.
However, I'll ask for a bit of patience, as I do have an all too large number of projects on the go at this time. But do feel free to email me to stir me to post-- if you need a fresh shot of vitriol.
Let's get right to the main features; Quotes, News, and the texttoon.
First off I'll mention BrownLeatherJacket has revised WAR and has updated it to include events upto 2003. isbn 0-679-31312-5 And the binding on this edition might survive re-reading --unlike the first edition that fell apart much to soon.
The first quote today is from it and from his section titled "A short history of nuclear war".
Quote(1):
The post 1945 period [...], has seen a striking change in the pattern of wars between states. None of the great powers has fought any other great power directly for the past six decades. Most of them have fought wars in or against smaller countries, so they haven't changed their spots entirely, but this is a new and important factor in international affairs. It is certainly connected to the fact that all the great powers now possess nuclear weapons or are closely allied to those who do; they spend a fortune on their nuclear weapons, but they have not so far dared to use them in war even once since 1945.
Indeed, they dare not fight one another directly at all (though they do engage in proxy wars from time to time), since any fighting could so quickly escalate into nuclear war. Perhaps this is only a lengthy pause in the historical pattern before normal service is resumed, but it is nevertheless remarkable.
There has been no other sixty-year period when no great power has fought any other since the emergence of the modern Western state system in the seventeenth century, and quite possibly since the rise of the mesopotamian city-states.
Moving down a notch, however, wars between middle rank neighbouring countries --Israel and the Arab countries, Pakistan and India, Iran and Iraq-- have continued to occur fairly regularly. There has been no general outbreak of pacifism in the international system.
These wars are now known as "conventional" wars, to distinguish them from nuclear war, and they can be quite destructive --but the also tend to be short. This is partly because the high cost and great efficiency of modern weapons means that countries can afford relatively few weapons and run out of them quickly after the fighting starts, but it is also because the United Nations is usually quick to propose ceasefires and offer peace-keeping troops. The losing side, at least, will generally grab at this, making it hard for the winning side to continue the war. As a result, the total fatal casualties in wars where both sides were using conventional World-War II-style heavy weapons --May 1945 with laser sights and precision-guided missiles, so to speak-- have not exceeded ten million people in six decades. Since the Korean War ended, the average has been fewer than a million per decade.
The majority of the people killed in war since 1945 have died in quite different and seemingly new kinds of struggle: guerilla warfare, "revolutionary war", counter-insurgency campaigns, terrorism, and the like. Mostly they have been killed by their own fellow citizens, yet few of the conflicts fit the classic model of civil war either. At one point these wars seemed to be breaking out everywhere, but they turned out to mainly associated with anti-imperial liberation wars and post-colonial power struggles, and they have now subsided in most parts of the world. Terrorism, the weapon of the weak, continues to flourish in a variety of contexts, but when divorced from a territorially based guerilla war, it is rarely a major threat (though it certainly succeeds in getting people's attention). -- G. Dyer
It is interesting to note that the current administration[USA+UK...+Poland, hehe] has managed to bypass the point about the losing side grabbing a quick peace via the UN. Although it's not that new-- make sure the loser's government can't make peace; by controlling it, before, during, and after the conflict. Which leads into a couple of other books I've recently finished reading; "David Howarth, British Sea Power, aka Sovereign of the Seas" and "Arthur Herman, To Rule the Waves". The latter author has been mentioned in this journal before and I'll quote a bit from both sometime in the future. However, Onwards!
The next quote is a more of my usual historical bile, and it seemed to be rather fitting in light of the events unfolding in our own time.
Quote(2):
It is an undertaking of some degree of delicacy to examine into the cause of public disorders.
If a man happens not to succeed in such an inquiry, he will be thought weak and visionary; if he touches the true grievance, there is a danger that he may come near to persons of weight and consequence, who will rather be exasperated at the discovery of their errors, than thankful for the occasion of correcting them. If he should be obliged to blame the favorites of the people, he will be considered as the tool of power; if he censures those in power, he will be looked on as an instrument of faction. But in all exertions of duty something is to be hazarded. In cases of tumult and disorder, our law has invested every man, in some sort, with the authority of a magistrate.
When the affairs of the nation are distracted, private people are, by the spirit of that law, justified in stepping a little out of their ordinary sphere. They enjoy a privilege, of somewhat more dignity and effect, than that of idle lamentation over the calamities of their country. They may look into them narrowly; they may reason upon them liberally; and if they should be so fortunate as to discover the true source of the mischief, and to suggest any probable method of removing it, though they may displease the rulers for the day, they are certainly of service to the cause of government. Government is deeply interested in everything which, even through the medium of some temporary uneasiness, may tend finally to compose the minds of the subject, and to conciliate their affections. I
have nothing to do here with the abstract value of the voice of the people. But as long as reputation, the most precious possession of every individual, and as long as opinion, the great support of the state, depend entirely upon that voice, it can never be considered as a thing of little consequence either to individuals or to governments. Nations are not primarily ruled by laws: less by violence. Whatever original energy may be supposed either in force or regulation, the operation of both is, in truth, merely instrumental.
Nations are governed by the same methods, and on the same principles, by which an individual without authority is often able to govern those who are his equals or his superiors; by a knowledge of their temper, and by a judicious management of it; I mean,--when public affairs are steadily and quietly conducted; not when government is nothing but a continued scuffle between the magistrate and the multitude; in which sometimes the one and sometimes the other is uppermost; in which they alternately yield and prevail, in a series of contemptible victories, and scandalous submissions. The temper of the people amongst whom he presides ought therefore to be the first study of a statesman. And the knowledge of this temper it is by no means impossible for him to attain, if he has not an interest in being ignorant of what it is his duty to learn.
To complain of the age we live in, to murmur at the present possessors of power, to lament the past, to conceive extravagant hopes of the future, are the common dispositions of the greatest part of mankind; indeed the necessary effects of the ignorance and levity of the vulgar. Such complaints and humors have existed in all times; yet as all times have not been alike, true political sagacity manifests itself in distinguishing that complaint which only characterizes the general infirmity of human nature, from those which are symptoms of the particular distemperature of our own air and season.
Nobody, I believe, will consider it merely as the language of spleen or disappointment, if I say, that there is something particularly alarming in the present conjuncture. There is hardly a man, in or out of power, who holds any other language. That government is at once dreaded and contemned; that the laws are despoiled of all their respected and salutary terrors; that their inaction is a subject of ridicule, and their exertion of abhorrence; that rank, and office and title, and all the solemn plausibilities of the world, have lost their reverence and effect; that our foreign politics are as much deranged as our domestic economy; that our dependencies are slackened in their affection, and loosened from their obedience; that we know neither how to yield nor how to enforce; that hardly anything above or below, abroad or at home, is sound and entire; but that disconnection and confusion, in offices, in parties, in families, in Parliament, in the nation, prevail beyond the disorders of any former time: these are facts universally admitted and lamented.
This state of things is the more extraordinary, because the great parties which formerly divided and agitated the kingdom are known to be in a manner entirely dissolved. No great external calamity has visited the nation; no pestilence or famine. We do not labor at present under any scheme of taxation new or oppressive in the quantity or in the mode. Nor are we engaged in unsuccessful war; in which, our misfortunes might easily pervert our judgment; and our minds, sore from the loss of national glory, might feel every blow of fortune as a crime in government.
It is impossible that the cause of this strange distemper should not sometimes become a subject of discourse. It is a compliment due, and which I willingly pay, to those who administer our affairs, to take notice in the first place of their speculation. Our ministers are of opinion, that the increase of our trade and manufactures, that our growth by colonization, and by conquest, have concurred to accumulate immense wealth in the hands of some individuals; and this again being dispersed among the people, has rendered them universally proud, ferocious, and ungovernable; that the insolence of some from their enormous wealth, and the boldness of others from a guilty poverty, have rendered them capable of the most atrocious attempts; so that they have trampled upon all subordination, and violently borne down the unarmed laws of a free government; barriers too feeble against the fury of a populace so fierce and licentious as ours. They contend, that no adequate provocation has been given for so spreading a discontent; our affairs having been conducted throughout with remarkable temper and consummate wisdom. The wicked industry of some libellers, joined to the intrigues of a few disappointed politicians, have, in their opinion, been able to produce this unnatural ferment in the nation.
Nothing indeed can be more unnatural than the present convulsions of this country, if the above account be a true one. I confess I shall assent to it with great reluctance, and only on the compulsion of the clearest and firmest proofs; because their account resolves itself into this short, but discouraging proposition, "That we have a very good ministry, but that we are a very bad people"; that we set ourselves to bite the hand that feeds us; that with a malignant insanity, we oppose the measures, and ungratefully vilify the persons, of those whose sole object is our own peace and prosperity. If a few puny libellers, acting under a knot of factious politicians, without virtue, parts, or character, (such they are constantly represented by these gentlemen,) are sufficient to excite this disturbance, very perverse must be the disposition of that people, amongst whom such a disturbance can be excited by such means.
It is besides no small aggravation of the public misfortune, that the disease, on this hypothesis, appears to be without remedy. If the wealth of the nation be the cause of its turbulence, I imagine it is not proposed to introduce poverty, as a constable to keep the peace.
If our dominions abroad are the roots which feed all this rank luxuriance of sedition, it is not intended to cut them off in order to famish the fruit.
If our liberty has enfeebled the executive power, there is no design, I hope, to call in the aid of despotism, to fill up the deficiencies of law. Whatever may be intended, these things are not yet professed.
We seem therefore to be driven to absolute despair; for we have no other materials to work upon, but those out of which God has been pleased to form the inhabitants of this island. If these be radically and essentially vicious, all that can be said is, that those men are very unhappy, to whose fortune or duty it falls to administer the affairs of this untoward people. I hear it indeed sometimes asserted, that a steady perseverance in the present measures, and a rigorous punishment of those who oppose them, will in course of time infallibly put an end to these disorders.
But this, in my opinion, is said without much observation of our present disposition, and without any knowledge at all of the general nature of mankind. If the matter of which this nation is composed be so very fermentable as these gentlemen describe it, leaven never will be wanting to work it up, as long as discontent, revenge, and ambition, have existence in the world. Particular punishments are the cure for accidental distempers in the state; they inflame rather than allay those heats which arise from the settled mismanagement of the government, or from a natural indisposition in the people. It is of the utmost moment not to make mistakes in the use of strong measures; and firmness is then only a virtue when it accompanies the most perfect wisdom. In truth, inconstancy is a sort of natural corrective of folly and ignorance.
I am not one of those who think that the people are never in the wrong. They have been so, frequently and outrageously, both in other countries and in this. But I do say, that in all disputes between them and their rulers, the presumption is at least upon a par in favor of the people. Experience may perhaps justify me in going further. When popular discontents have been very prevalent, it may well be affirmed and supported, that there has been generally something found amiss in the constitution, or in the conduct of government. The people have no interest in disorder. When they do wrong, it is their error, and not their crime. But with the governing part of the state, it is for otherwise. They certainly may act ill by design, as well as by mistake.
"Les revolutions qui arrivent dans les grands etats ne sont point un effect du hazard, ni du caprice des peuples. Rien ne revolte les grands d'un royaume comme un gouvernement foible et derange. Pour la populace, ce n'est jamais par envie d'attaquer qu'elle se souleve, mais par impatience de souffrir."
These are the words of a great man; of a minister of state; and a zealous assertor of monarchy. They are applied to the system of favoritism which was adopted by Henry the Third of France, and to the dreadful consequences it produced. What he says of revolutions, is equally true of all great disturbances. If this presumption in favor of the subjects against the trustees of power be not the more probable, I am sure it is the more comfortable speculation; because it is more easy to change an administration, than to reform a people.
Upon a supposition, therefore, that, in the opening of the cause, the presumptions stand equally balanced between the parties, there seems sufficient ground to entitle any person to a fair hearing, who attempts some other scheme beside that easy one which is fashionable in some fashionable companies, to account for the present discontents. It is not to be argued that we endure no grievance, because our grievances are not of the same sort with those under which we labored formerly; not precisely those which we bore from the Tudors, or vindicated on the Stuarts. A great change has taken place in the affairs of this country. For in the silent lapse of events as material alterations have been insensibly brought about in the policy and character of governments and nations, as those which have been marked by the tumult of public revolutions.
It is very rare indeed for men to be wrong in their feelings concerning public misconduct; as rare to be right in their speculation upon the cause of it. I have constantly observed, that the generality of people are fifty years, at least, behindhand in their politics. There are but very few who are capable of comparing and digesting what passes before their eyes at different times and occasions, so as to form the whole into a distinct system. But in books everything is settled for them, without the exertion of any considerable diligence or sagacity. For which reason men are wise with but little reflection, and good with little self-denial, in the business of all times except their own. We are very uncorrupt and tolerably enlightened judges of the transactions of past ages; where no passions deceive, and where the whole train of circumstances, from the trifling cause to the tragical event, is set in an orderly series before us.
Few are the partisans of departed tyranny; and to be a Whig on the business of an hundred years ago, is very consistent with every advantage of present servility. This retrospective wisdom, and historical patriotism, are things of wonderful convenience, and serve admirably to reconcile the old quarrel between speculation and practice. Many a stern republican, after gorging himself with a full feast of admiration of the Grecian commonwealths and of our true Saxon constitution, and discharging all the splendid bile of his virtuous indignation on King John and King James, sits down perfectly satisfied to the coarsest work and homeliest job of the day he lives in. I believe there was no professed admirer of Henry the Eighth among the instruments of the last King James; nor in the court of Henry the Eighth was there, I dare say, to be found a single advocate for the favorites of Richard the Second.
No complaisance to our court, or to our age, can make me believe nature to be so changed, but that public liberty will be among us as among our ancestors, obnoxious to some person or other; and that opportunities will be furnished for attempting, at least, some alteration to the prejudice of our constitution. These attempts will naturally vary in their mode according to times and circumstances. For ambition, though it has ever the same general views, has not at all times the same means, nor the same particular objects. A great deal of the furniture of ancient tyranny is worn to rags; the rest is entirely out of fashion. Besides, there are few statesmen so very clumsy and awkward in their business, as to fall into the identical snare which has proved fatal to their predecessors. When an arbitrary imposition is attempted upon the subject, undoubtedly it will not bear on its forehead the name of Ship-money. There is no danger that an extension of the Forest laws should be the chosen mode of oppression in this age. And when we hear any instance of ministerial rapacity, to the prejudice of the rights of private life, it will certainly not be the exaction of two hundred pullets, from a woman of fashion, for leave to lie with her own husband.
Every age has its own manners, and its politics dependent upon them; and the same attempts will not be made against a constitution fully formed and matured, that were used to destroy it in the cradle, or to resist its growth during its infancy.
Against the being of Parliament, I am satisfied, no designs have ever been entertained since the revolution. Every one must perceive, that it is strongly the interest of the court, to have some second cause interposed between the ministers and the people. The gentlemen of the House of Commons have an interest equally strong in sustaining the part of that intermediate cause. However they may hire out the usufruct of their voices, they never will part with the fee and inheritance. Accordingly those who have been of the most known devotion to the will and pleasure of a court have, at the same time, been most forward in asserting a high authority in the House of Commons. When they knew who were to use that authority, and how it was to be employed, they thought it never could be carried too far. It must be always the wish of an unconstitutional statesman, that a House of Commons, who are entirely dependent upon him, should have every right of the people entirely dependent upon their pleasure. It was soon discovered, that the forms of a free, and the ends of an arbitrary government, were things not altogether incompatible.
The power of the crown, almost dead and rotten as Prerogative, has grown up anew, with much more strength, and far less odium, under the name of Influence. An influence, which operated without noise and without violence; an influence, which converted the very antagonist into the instrument of power; which contained in itself a perpetual principle of growth and renovation; and which the distresses and the prosperity of the country equally tended to augment, was an admirable substitute for a prerogative, that, being only the offspring of antiquated prejudices, had moulded in its original stamina irresistible principles of decay and dissolution. The ignorance of the people is a bottom but for a temporary system; the interest of active men in the state is a foundation perpetual and infallible. However, some circumstances, arising, it must be confessed, in a great degree from accident, prevented the effects of this influence for a long time from breaking out in a manner capable of exciting any serious apprehensions. Although government was strong and flourished exceedingly, the court had drawn far less advantage than one would imagine from this great source of power.
At the revolution, the crown, deprived, for the ends of the revolution itself, of many prerogatives, was found too weak to struggle against all the difficulties which pressed so new and unsettled a government. The court was obliged therefore to delegate a part of its powers to men of such interest as could support, and of such fidelity as would adhere to, its establishment. Such men were able to draw in a greater number to a concurrence in the common defence. This connection, necessary at first, continued long after convenient; and properly conducted might indeed, in all situations, be an useful instrument of government.
At the same time, through the intervention of men of popular weight and character, the people possessed a security for their just proportion of importance in the state. But as the title to the crown grew stronger by long possession, and by the constant increase of its influence, these helps have of late seemed to certain persons no better than incumbrances. The powerful managers for government were not sufficiently submissive to the pleasure of the possessors of immediate and personal favor, sometimes from a confidence in their own strength, natural and acquired; sometimes from a fear of offending their friends, and weakening that lead in the country which gave them a consideration independent of the court. Men acted as if the court could receive, as well as confer, an obligation. The influence of government, thus divided in appearance between the court and the leaders of parties, became in many cases an accession rather to the popular than to the royal scale; and some part of that influence, which would otherwise have been possessed as in a sort of mortmain and unalienable domain, returned again to the great ocean from whence it arose, and circulated among the people.
This method, therefore, of governing by men of great natural interest or great acquired consideration was viewed in a very invidious light by the true lovers of absolute monarchy. It is the nature of despotism to abhor power held by any means but its own momentary pleasure; and to annihilate all intermediate situations between boundless strength on its own part, and total debility on the part of the people.
To get rid of all this intermediate and independent importance, and to secure to the court the unlimited and uncontrolled use of its own vast influence, under the sole direction of its own private favor, has for some years past been the great object of policy. If this were compassed, the influence of the crown must of course produce all the effects which the most sanguine partisans of the court could possibly desire. Government might then be carried on without any concurrence on the part of the people; without any attention to the dignity of the greater, or to the affections of the lower sorts. A new project was therefore devised by a certain set of intriguing men, totally different from the system of administration which had prevailed since the accession of the House of Brunswick. This project, I have heard, was first conceived by some persons in the court of Frederick Prince of Wales.
The earliest attempt in the execution of this design was to set up for minister, a person, in rank indeed respectable, and very ample in fortune; but who, to the moment of this vast and sudden elevation, was little known or considered in the kingdom. To him the whole nation was to yield an immediate and implicit submission. But whether it was from want of firmness to bear up against the first opposition; or that things were not yet fully ripened, or that this method was not found the most eligible; that idea was soon abandoned. The instrumental part of the project was a little altered, to accommodate it to the time and to bring things more gradually and more surely to the one great end proposed.
The first part of the reformed plan was to draw a line which should separate the court from the ministry. Hitherto these names had been looked upon as synonymous; but for the future, court and administration were to be considered as things totally distinct. By this operation, two systems of administration were to be formed; one which should be in the real secret and confidence; the other merely ostensible to perform the official and executory duties of government. The latter were alone to be responsible; whilst the real advisers, who enjoyed all the power, were effectually removed from all the danger.
Secondly, A party under these leaders was to be formed in favor of the court against the ministry: this party was to have a large share in the emoluments of government, and to hold it totally separate from, and independent of, ostensible administration.
The third point, and that on which the success of the whole scheme ultimately depended, was to bring Parliament to an acquiescence in this project. Parliament was therefore to be taught by degrees a total indifference to the persons, rank, influence, abilities, connections, and character of the ministers of the crown. By means of a discipline, on which I shall say more hereafter, that body was to be habituated to the most opposite interests, and the most discordant politics. All connections and dependencies among subjects were to be entirely dissolved.
As, hitherto, business had gone through the hands of leaders of Whigs or Tories, men of talents to conciliate the people, and to engage their confidence; now the method was to be altered: and the lead was to be given to men of no sort of consideration or credit in the country. This want of natural importance was to be their very title to delegated power. Members of Parliament were to be hardened into an insensibility to pride as well as to duty. Those high and haughty sentiments, which are the great support of independence, were to be let down gradually. Points of honor and precedence were no more to be regarded in Parliamentary decorum than in a Turkish army.
It was to be avowed, as a constitutional maxim, that the king might appoint one of his footmen, or one of your footmen for minister; and that he ought to be, and that he would be, as well followed as the first name for rank or wisdom in the nation. Thus Parliament was to look on as if perfectly unconcerned, while a cabal of the closet and back-stairs was substituted in the place of a national administration.
With such a degree of acquiescence, any measure of any court might well be deemed thoroughly secure. The capital objects, and by much the most flattering characteristics of arbitrary power, would be obtained. Everything would be drawn from its holdings in the country to the personal favor and inclination of the prince. This favor would be the sole introduction to power, and the only tenure by which it was to be held; so that no person looking towards another, and all looking towards the court, it was impossible but that the motive which solely influenced every man's hopes must come in time to govern every man's conduct; till at last the servility became universal, in spite of the dead letter of any laws or institutions whatsoever.
How it should happen that any man could be tempted to venture upon such a project of government, may at first view appear surprising. But the fact is that opportunities very inviting to such an attempt have offered; and the scheme itself was not destitute of some arguments, not wholly unplausible, to recommend it.
These opportunities and these arguments, the use that has been made of both, the plan for carrying this new scheme of government into execution, and the effects which it has produced, are, in my opinion, worthy of our serious consideration.--E. Burke
There is much much more to that section, including a number of points that should be addressed in any age, not just his and ours, and I've drawn from this/his 'well of wisdom' before --mayhap too often. And journal entries have been recently limited to a few paltry 'kay' --so I'll save it for another day. Until Then.
News with no chorus line:
The Vicar hangs tough, yet he must be laughing too. Now that Blunkett has been fully sidelined. And the forgotten war continues and continues to be in question.
King Silvio claims to be worth dying for. Ha.
Blogblock in China. Free and not dead press. A popular Chinese blog has been blocked by the Chinese authorities, according to Paris-based press freedom group Reporters Without Borders. Wang Yi's Microphone is run by a teacher in Sichuan province. Reporters Without Borders says the site deals with "sensitive subjects" - including local officials' corruption.
In Thicky Land they admit land reform did not work as they said previously. A Zimbabwean minister has said that many of those given land since 2000 know little about farming and this has led to food shortages. The authorities have previously blamed hunger on poor rains, while critics have pointed to the seizure of most of the country's white-owned land.
Bear on girl-boy was going to plead not guilty, but could not remember for what.
Our Lady of Endless Agit-Prop sings the same old tune. Well, I hear a lot of different things, one of the things that I've heard in every country I've visited, including here in Malaysia last night, very strongly made, was the importance of people-to-people exchanges. How important it is that we increase the number of Malaysians coming to America and Americans coming to Malaysia. There's no substitute for that sort of contact, for having the opportunity to go to America and experience for yourself what it is like, or having Americans have the opportunity to come to Malaysia, as I have, to see for myself the kindness and warmth of the people, the beauty of the country, the spirit of friendship and cooperation that exists between America and Malaysia. So that's one of the things I've heard emphasized.
Another thing I've heard emphasized, is the importance of education, is one of the things that came up at the buka puasa last night, and one of the things that I'm committed to doing as part of America's Public Diplomacy efforts is to increase our English language programs, and that's something the Ambassador and I have discussed as being something that might be very helpful here, particularly in rural parts of Malaysia. When you help young people with English language training, you give them a skill they want and need, and it helps them to have a better life, and also opens a window into America and our values. And so, like the Lincoln Corner that we opened here today, I think those educational opportunities are very important parts of our increasing friendship and understanding between our peoples.
I also hear, obviously, about areas where we disagree. I know that many people here have concerns about the war in Iraq, as do some of my own fellow Americans. No one likes war. We believe that when we are able to build a stable and unified and democratic Iraq, that the cause of peace in the world will have been furthered. So, I hear a lot of different things.
Here in Malaysia I think one of the things I've heard most strongly, again, is the importance of exchanges. We want to increase the number of students from Malaysia who are coming to America. It's dropped somewhat since 1998. In 1998, we had about 12,000 students from Malaysia come to the United States. That was down to about 6,000 last year, and we want to build that back up. We want Malaysian students to know they're welcome in the United States and that our universities want them, that the American people would welcome them, that our Embassy is working very hard and has improved the visa process. I know that it was a little slow after September 11th. But we've worked very hard to improve that situation and we now have, I believe, about a day to get an appointment and about a day to get a visa is the average. So, it's actually very quick, and the Embassy wants to help more Malaysians travel to the United States. The "...importance of people-to-people exchanges..." Hmmm... why does that sound kinda wrong to me?
While Rice pats the backs and hands out awards to the backers. SECRETARY RICE: Karen and I were just making a date to play four hands piano at some point in time. (Laughter.)
I would like to recognize the people who are here from Lapa Rios and of course members of the Lewis family. Thank you very much for being here.
I now have the pleasure of talking about Cisco Systems, which understands that education is the key to success and prosperity for all developing countries. Cisco Systems of San Jose, California, is honored today for its unprecedented contribution to education in Jordan, and I would like to welcome the Ambassador, His Excellency, from Jordan.
I am also pleased because John Chambers and I come from the same area. We've known each other for a number of years. And so, John, congratulations to you for your leadership at Cisco.
The company worked with Jordanian King Abdullah on a project on education and with many and other private and other partners to develop a vision for educational reform that is called the Jordanian Educational Initiative. This program is revolutionizing how teachers are trained, how subjects are taught and how students are prepared for the future. Working with a local Jordanian company, Cisco developed an online interactive mathematics curriculum that is already being used in Jordan's schools.
The company is also building an internet network to link together 100 primary and secondary schools, called the Discovery Schools, and to connect them to universities and community centers and research institutions around the country. By next year Cisco hopes to unite 1.5 million students across Jordan through the power and reach of information technology.
Cisco, however, has gone even further. Working with the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the company has created 12 Cisco academies which focus primarily on preparing young women in Jordan for careers in the high-tech job market of our global economy. These academies are teaching math and science and information technology and they have produced 600 graduates so far.
Cisco's commitment to the future of Jordan is an inspiration for businesses everywhere. It therefore gives me great pleasure to present our Award for Corporate Excellence to John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems. John, if you would join me here. (Applause.)
To fill out the tripple header it's SD-DPB Softball. And it is a real crap-fest today. Play ball!
QUESTION: About Iran, sir. There are news reports today, you know, mentioning that Iran announcing officially that they will go back to their nuclear programs whatever are the results and the consequences. Any comment today?
MR. MCCORMACK: I have seen some news reports that -- from anonymous foreign diplomats that Iran intends to resume uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant. I think if true, this is yet another step that takes Iran in the wrong direction and serves only to further isolate Iran from the international community. What Iran should be focused on is working with the IAEA to resolve the long list of questions that the IAEA and the international community have concerning their nuclear program.
I think we have spoken out many times and the international community has spoken quite clearly, and most recently in the Board of Governors vote, to refer the issue of Iran's failure to comply with their international obligations to the Security Council. Now that referral takes the form of an IAEA report. We know that there's going to be an IAEA report that gets sent to the Security Council. What is contained in that report, in terms of Iran's cooperation with the IAEA, as well as where they stand with their negotiations in the EU-3, are going to be quite important, I think, for the Security Council and the international community, the IAEA Board of Governors in determining what next steps there are with regard to Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. These are serious issues and really it is incumbent upon Iran now to answer the questions. And if true, acts like resuming uranium conversion are things that take Iran in the wrong direction. So again, I will withhold any sort of final comment on this, as I said, I'd seen the news reports but it's based on an anonymous sourcing.
Failure to comply? Care to cite which obligation that was/is? No? Didn't think so --Strike One.
QUESTION: Okay, the Minister of Defense is here today and he's meeting with the Secretary in a couple of hours. He was in Egypt last week and talked about corridors and transfer of people and other things to Gaza. What is her message going to be at this point? We have the Wolfensohn report and she commented on it last week in Canada, but things aren't going well. I don't know that there's any other way to say that. In terms of the violence and the responses and the response to the response, so the optimism seems to have faded a bit.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, she's going to have an opportunity to meet with the Defense Minister to talk about a variety of different issues, talk about regional issues, talk about ways that the Israelis and the Palestinians can coordinate their efforts to advance the cause of peace in the wake of Israel's historic withdrawal from Gaza. There are a number of different elements that you pointed out -- the issue on the crossings.
With the assistance of and the active intervention of Mr. Wolfensohn, and actually I think they have made progress on that issue. It's not done yet. We talked a little bit about that yesterday -- where there are still issues to work out. But these are, you know, these are difficult issues but they're important issues. They're important issues for the future economic viability of the Gaza and also to building on what most agreed was a successful withdrawal from the Gaza.
In terms of the violence, we've talked about that. We have talked about the importance of the Palestinian Authority acting to stop violence, to stop terror, to dismantle terrorist organizations. It's an obligation they have under the roadmap. On the Israeli side, they have obligations as well and part of them involve, under the roadmap, easing the daily plight of the Palestinian people. Part of that involves talking about crossings and checkpoints and those sorts of things.
But also we will underline, as we have in public and private, that Israel has a right to defend itself, but in taking steps and actions to defend itself, Israel must keep in mind the overall objective that all share and that is to building two states that live side by side in peace and security. So I'm sure that that will also part of the discussion this afternoon.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) recently that leads you to question that commitment of Israel -- two states living side by side in peace?
MR. MCCORMACK: No. No.
QUESTION: So why are you saying that you will emphasize this today?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you brought up the issue of the recent violence in the region, obviously that will be a topic. What we encourage the Israelis and the Palestinians to do is to work together to build up the mutual trust on issues related to addressing terrorism, on issues related to things like the crossings, so that's positive. We encourage the Israelis and the Palestinians to work together. Sometimes, that involves General Ward working with both sides. Sometimes, that involves Mr. Wolfensohn working with both sides. Sometimes, that involves the intervention of Assistant Secretary Welch and even the Secretary.
But we encourage -- the way that you are going to make -- the way that you are going to make progress is to encourage those contacts and their working together. We saw good progress during the Gaza withdrawal and we would encourage a continuation of those kinds of contacts. So that will also be part of the conversation I think this afternoon.
Sometimes there is a call of --Two and one. And a warning to stop "terror"-izing the dialog from the umpire.
QUESTION: I think one thing we're interested in is the public diplomacy, the image of the United States involving such reports. We saw what can happen when reports cause a reaction over the desecration of the Koran.
The question originally was about Karen Hughes. Karen Hughes said that there were task forces around the world in embassies when the reports would come out then, the U.S. embassies would be proactive. They would get their message out. What are you doing to preserve the image of the United States amid this report? Does everyone in their embassy say, "Sorry, it's a CIA issue, you have to go talk to them?"
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that the general issue -- and again, I can't comment on the particular news report that you're referring to -- the general issue before us in the war on terror is how do we deal with individuals who are committed to violence, who are committed to the use of terror and killing innocent civilians, people who do not recognize any set of international standards or any set of international rules or any set of commonly accepted behaviors.
We, of course, as a signatory of the Geneva Convention, as well as others, need to -- since 9/11 searched for ways to apply those rules to a group of individuals who don't play by any rules. And, you know, these are tough issues. These are difficult issues and we have ongoing discussions on a variety of different fronts with countries around the world about these issues because the threat from terrorism and individuals who are committed to use of terror is a common threat to democracies and peace-loving nations around the world, including the United States.
Our view with regard to detainees at Guantanamo Bay is clear. Our policy is to treat all detainees in accordance with international obligations and the principles of the Geneva Convention. And detainees are provided with proper shelter, clothing, three meals per day that meet cultural dietary requirements, and medical care. Each detainee is also allowed to exercise his religious beliefs and those requesting them have been issued prayer beads, rugs and copies of the Koran. And we always strive for transparency in our operation at Guantanamo to the extent possible in the light of security and operational requirements. We have a continuous ICRC -- International Committee of the Red Cross -- presence at Guantanamo Bay. There have been numerous journalists who have visited Guantanamo Bay. Numerous foreign diplomats have also visited Guantanamo Bay. So you know, certainly, we understand that this is a difficult issue.
Our effort is to try to explain in as clear a manner what it is that we do at Guantanamo Bay, how we treat terrorist enemy combatants. And in those cases, like Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers are accused of mistreating detainees, that those allegations are thoroughly, quickly and transparently investigated. We have seen the military deal with a number of these cases in which those who have been found guilty of offenses, mistreatment of detainees, have been punished. And that is what we can do in terms of trying to explain the general issue, but also how our attempts to address the issue.
QUESTION: Well, why can't you talk more about the allegations of secret camps?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again --
QUESTION: I mean, you talk about the openness at Gitmo, but you don't want to talk about other allegations which are out there and which affect people around the world in Arab and Muslim countries that you're trying to convince you're doing the right thing there.
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, you know, I know the news reports. I've read them myself. And in terms of what was reported, it refers to the CIA, the intelligence community, and I'd refer all questions on that matter to the intelligence community.
QUESTION: Understood. But reports like this that are out there -- true, untrue -- can only make Karen Hughes' job that much harder. How does she deal with that then?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think that those -- what I was trying to answer Saul's question in talking about the issue that we face. The issue that we face, again, is how to deal with a group of people, with individuals who are committed to killing innocents, who follow no set of rules. How do we as a country of laws, how do we as a country that stands by its international obligations, how do we deal with it, with that problem? And you know, we've had lots of discussions, from here at the State Department, at the White House, at Department of Defense and Department of Justice and elsewhere outlining how we have -- our attempts to deal with that issue.
And what we can do, what Karen can do, what I can do, what others can do, is to try to explain the issue before us, before the world, and talk about how we -- the solutions that we have come up with at this point to deal with this problem. It's a tough problem.
QUESTION: You talk about transparency, and now, you know, we've just heard from Rumsfeld that you're not going to allow this UN team to speak to prisoners in Guantanamo. That doesn't look very transparent, does it?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I guess appearances can be deceiving. I just talked a lot about who we have had visiting Guantanamo as well as who is there on a continuous basis. The decision that you talk about was announced by the Department of Defense but it was a government-wide decision and supported by the inter-agency.
The fact of the matter is, is that there is a continuous monitoring presence by the ICRC at Guantanamo Bay. They work very closely with the people running the facility at Guantanamo Bay to address any issues and concerns that may come up. We've had numerous foreign diplomats visit Guantanamo Bay as well. We have had many journalists travel down to Guantanamo Bay. So it is a place where we have made very real attempts, and I think very serious attempts, to open it up to the outside world.
Now, the Department of Defense can talk a little bit more and in more detail about the various restrictions that they -- and the reasons for the restrictions that they have for -- at Guantanamo. But the fact is there have been numerous visitors down there and there is a continuous presence down there.
QUESTION: The transparency applies only -- the transparency applies only to some detainees. The Red Cross does not have access to all detainees. Would you concede that?
MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, what I can talk about, George, are the people being held at Guantanamo Bay.
QUESTION: Sean, the matter is not just for CIA -- the allegation of these secret prisons -- because the State Department is the go-between with foreign governments and you comment all the time on Gitmo issues and conversations that you have with foreign governments on that. So how can you refer everything to the CIA? And if this isn't true, wouldn't it be easy and quick for you to say it's not true?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I don't have anything to add on the issue.
QUESTION: Well, it's not just a CIA issue.
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I don't have anything else for you on the issue.
And once "again" Sean is Out! There is, as usual, much more spinning to be found in the full text.
OYAITJ:
89484 : Falluja, Arafat did live long enough to make John Kerry eat his words, the Slope Slough dead went home, Mayor of Kabul does the dance of futility and we started another few years of USA's state dept. softball games.
TYAITJ:
51018 : Hitlers cottage pictures, more UK troops, rolls, and Tits serves for Bush.
Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Prince Charles and Laura Bush. Caption at the bottom; "Bad cross-overs: The Joker and The Man Who Would Be King."
Yo! (Score:1)
Re:Yo! (Score:2)
Whah (Score:1)
Re:Whah (Score:2)