"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons." Bertrand Russell

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Logic commits hari-kari

In a 2002 Downing Street Memo, based on a meeting that took place involving Tony Blair,Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw and several other high ranking officials, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General 'said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.'

Tony Blair countered that 'Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD.' He added, 'If the political context were right, people would support regime change.' 'The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.'

What occured at this meeting, in essence, is the planning of a military campaign against a sovereign nation without the backing of international law. An illegal war to be conducted under false pretences and for those responsible, with impunity.

If you've ever seen a documentary or read a book detailing the events of the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas you may have several or many questions left unanswered. No matter how emphatic the ex-CIA investigator seems, or how detailed the reconstructions are, there will still be pieces that simply don't fit togeather.

Bill Hicks said "No fucking way! I can't even see the road. Shit they're lying to us. Fuck! Where are they? There's no fucking way. Not unless Oswald was hanging by his toes, upside down from the ledge. Either that or some pigeons grabbed onto him, flew him over the motorcade..." and we laughed, but that was it. We understood why it was funny, but the relation between Bill's insight and our reasoning just didn't click. Many people will tell you they don't believe the government line on that days events, some believe it was a 'hit' ordered from within Kennedy's own administration, but even if everyone believed this, would we be up in arms calling for a new investigation?

Logic says yes, if the evidence doesn't support the official declaration then this is sufficient reason to warrant the re-opening of the investigation. In this case it is not just warranted, it is essential. However, when it comes to the investigation of officials, logic seems to go out the window. Re-opening an investigation that was offcially closed decades ago is obviously absurd.

Following the events of 9/11 an 'independent' commission was set up to investigate the attack and to find the responsible parties. The results of this investigation were inconclusive at best. The largest single human catastrophe in American history, and the results the of official investigation are completely inadequate. Most people with any knowledge of the subject recognise that this commission's findings were insufficient, logically, a re-opening is in order. This is not just a feeling one finds in the backrooms of internet chatrooms, within the press there is a sizeable list of acedemics and journalists who recognise that the holes in this one are gaping, but the call for further investigation is muffled. Logic, has commited hari-kari.

We can be quite sure that the US administration is, at least, guilty of shocking levels of incompetence regarding both its reaction to 9/11 and the measures it employed to prevent such a catastrophe from happening. But they have escaped any punishment. In fact they were basically excused from taking any responsibility at all. It begs the question, what is it about Blair and cohorts that make them the free from any sort of liability? No matter what sort of evidence is stacked against them, the water seems to roll off these ducks' backs. Are we so conditioned that asking for a full and final investigation into wars, terrorist atacks and assassinations is not worth fighting for? Is our role as 'the public' limited to infrequent criticisms and then general subordination to power?

What is more absurd, calling for the re-opening of investigations into Kennedy's assination or the fact that a war criminal is likely to be re-elected, in one of the world's 'great' democracies?