j_b

bullshit! Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. [...] 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. article 5 Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGAMR510772004 Amnesty International said that it has documented a pattern of abuse by US agents against detainees, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, stretching back over the past two years. Despite claims this week by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to be "stunned" by abuses in Abu Ghraib, and that these were an "exception" and "not a pattern or practice", Amnesty International has presented consistent allegations of brutality and cruelty by US agents against detainees at the highest levels of the US Government, including the White House, the Department of Defense, and the State Department for the past two years. Last July, the organization raised allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees by US and Coalition forces in a memorandum to the US Government and Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq. The allegations included beatings, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, hooding, and prolonged forced standing and kneeling. It received no response nor any indication from the administration or the CPA that an investigation took place. Despite repeated requests, Amnesty International has been denied access to all US detention facilities. [..]

meanwhile in afghanistan: http://hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/3.htm#_Toc64778171

what you call "hindsight is 20/20 card", i call history. thankfully, the record exists to show what people like powell really stand for. combat certainly is a brutal business, but is it really what you call undiscriminately shooting civilians?

link to story Top brass 'picked man who ordered torture' By William Lowther in London May 10, 2004 THE torture tactics used to "soften up" Iraqi detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail began under orders from the highest level of the US defence administration, it was claimed yesterday. The creation of torture units was the consequence of orders by the Defence Department – headed by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – to prise information out of prisoners. Last August, the Department ordered General Geoffrey Miller – then in charge at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay – to go to Iraq to find ways to improve the flow of intelligence from detainees, an investigation by Britain's Mail on Sunday newspaper has found. The general recommended creating a single central interrogation unit at Abu Ghraib. It was in this unit where the degradation of Iraqi prisoners – now graphically exposed by more than 1000 photographs – took place. Unit members, acting to the orders of Military Intelligence officers, carried out the sexual sadism and other abuses which have shamed the US – and there is still worse to come. [...]

http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/vietnam.html "While a horrific example of a Vietnam war crime, the My Lai massacre was not unique. It fit a long pattern of indiscriminate violence against civilians that had marred U.S. participation in the Vietnam War from its earliest days when Americans acted primarily as advisers. In 1963, Capt. Colin Powell was one of those advisers, serving a first tour with a South Vietnamese army unit. Powell's detachment sought to discourage support for the Viet Cong by torching villages throughout the A Shau Valley. While other U.S. advisers protested this countrywide strategy as brutal and counter-productive, Powell defended the "drain-the-sea" approach then -- and continued that defense in his 1995 memoirs, My American Journey." [...] "But a test soon confronted Maj. Powell. A letter had been written by a young specialist fourth class named Tom Glen, who had served in an Americal mortar platoon and was nearing the end of his Army tour. In a letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams, the commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, Glen accused the Americal division of routine brutality against civilians. Glen's letter was forwarded to the Americal headquarters at Chu Lai where it landed on Maj. Powell's desk. "The average GI's attitude toward and treatment of the Vietnamese people all too often is a complete denial of all our country is attempting to accomplish in the realm of human relations," Glen wrote. "Far beyond merely dismissing the Vietnamese as 'slopes' or 'gooks,' in both deed and thought, too many American soldiers seem to discount their very humanity; and with this attitude inflict upon the Vietnamese citizenry humiliations, both psychological and physical, that can have only a debilitating effect upon efforts to unify the people in loyalty to the Saigon government, particularly when such acts are carried out at unit levels and thereby acquire the aspect of sanctioned policy." [...] "Glen's letter echoed some of the complaints voiced by early advisers, such as Col. John Paul Vann, who protested the self-defeating strategy of treating Vietnamese civilians as the enemy. In 1995, when we questioned Glen about his letter, he said he had heard second-hand about the My Lai massacre, though he did not mention it specifically. The massacre was just one part of the abusive pattern that had become routine in the division, he said." [...] "There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs," Powell wrote in 1968. But "this by no means reflects the general attitude throughout the Division." Indeed, Powell's memo faulted Glen for not complaining earlier and for failing to be more specific in his letter. Powell reported back exactly what his superiors wanted to hear. "In direct refutation of this [Glen's] portrayal," Powell concluded, "is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's findings, of course, were false. But it would take another Americal hero, an infantryman named Ron Ridenhour, to piece together the truth about the atrocity at My Lai. After returning to the United States, Ridenhour interviewed Americal comrades who had participated in the massacre. [...] "Powell did include, however, a troubling recollection that belied his 1968 official denial of Glen's allegation that American soldiers "without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves." After mentioning the My Lai massacre in My American Journey, Powell penned a partial justification of the Americal's brutality. In a chilling passage, Powell explained the routine practice of murdering unarmed male Vietnamese. "I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male," Powell wrote. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen (West Germany), Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong." While it's certainly true that combat is brutal, mowing down unarmed civilians is not combat. It is, in fact, a war crime. Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse to murder civilians. Disturbingly, that was precisely the rationalization that the My Lai killers cited in their own defense."

the un does what we want most of the time but it's not enough for the war party. our neocons don't want a political resolution to the iraq situation and need to discredit the un; they'd rather slug it out for the next 5years at least, at great cost to everyone (almost). they also don't want to compromise with the international community about global problems like climate change, human rights and international crime court (just imagine the pickle we'd be in ), and of course equitable conflict resolution. it certainly does not change the problem of corruption at the un if this confirms to be true. remind me again, who pushed to have kofi annan as secretary ... also of note: it is odd that conservatives now seem to think that nepostism, conflict of interest, etc .. are enough to cast an aura of suspicious dealing. it sure does not seem to concern them when this administration exhibits the same attributes.

not true. read the statement by AGU in my post above.

it's historical data which goes back to 1880. there is no evidence to say that the little ice ice was a global phenomenon. the little ice age in europe was over ~1650, it's only in coastal alaska that some glaciers were still in an advanced position in ~1900. it is well established that natural variability cannot explain the warming of the 20th century. the medieval warm period was not global either, and it was not warmer than today. if you have reputable reference to refute the above please oblige me, and we will see who is the idiot. Perhaps you could cite the sources for your claims above that I have made bold. In the meantime, some good reading that refutes some of your statements... http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/asiamwp.htm the medieval warm period is a western european period and was from 900-1400: however from your own linkhttp://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/asiamwp.htm "Then, from 1700 to 850 years ago, there was what they call an "amelioration of climate,"... According to their analysis, the Medieval Warm Period was already firmly established and growing even warmer by the early 7th century..." thus, in fact, what the co2science write up shows is that warming was not synchronous globally. having examples of warming that are not synchronous is not evidence of a global climatic variation. btw CO2science is not a peer-reviewed publication but a mouth piece for the fossil fuel industry. warming of the 20th century: here is the december 2003 statement on climate change by AGU (the world largest association of scientists doing climate-realted research) http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century [...] Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer. [...] The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern. etc ... little ice age: "While there is evidence that many other regions outside Europe exhibited periods of cooler conditions, expanded glaciation, and significantly altered climate conditions, the timing and nature of these variations are highly variable from region to region, and the notion of the Little Ice Age as a globally synchronous cold period has all but been dismissed (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Mann et al., 1999). ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/littleiceage.pdf do as you wish. we'll see who, in the end, benefits from it weak ...

Now this turns into a game of "I know you think so, but I don't!". Science is religion! Either you believe, or you don't! no, science is based on observations and theories. if you have a reputable publication (as in peer-reviewed paper) which says that 20th century warming is due to natural variability why don't you provide it?

we have known about the greenhouse effect, especially co2 gas, since the mid-19th century (arrhenius) but you say we do not know about the link between greenhouse gas concentration and warming? i strongly suggest you crack open a book on the topic. the mainstream media tells you what the scientifc consensus is. if you'd rather listen to rush limbaugh to learn about global warming there is little i can do about it. too bad they aren't independent scientists (as in not funded by the fossil fuel industry) do you deny the greenhouse effect? gee, you are going to make some engineer .... the only one arguing on a non-scientific basis between the 2 of us is you i think i'll let this stand as is. it speaks for itself.

it's historical data which goes back to 1880. there is no evidence to say that the little ice age was a global phenomenon. the little ice age in europe was over ~1650, it's only in coastal alaska that some glaciers were still in an advanced position in ~1900. it is well established that natural variability cannot explain the warming of the 20th century. the medieval warm period was not global either, and it was not warmer than today. if you have reputable reference to refute the above please oblige me, and we will see who is the idiot.

i know it's not tea leaf reading, but perhaps you ought to consider becoming familiar with readily available data before you speak nonsense.

hm... kickbacks, cronism, nepotism, non-transparency .... why does all of this sound awfully familiar?

truly a good guy of the mountains and an amazing climber. cause of death is cornice failure. http://www.mountain.ru/expeditions/2004/patrik_beru/index_eng.shtml

you already got excellent advice, but i think the key to doing a very long route in a day is building mental endurance so as to keep going at a high pace throughout the day and not slack off under pressure because it becomes more confortable. doing lots of uninterrupted long day climbs is the best/only way to prepare so that you can focus on maintaining the drive to get the job done.

yes, indeed, amy goodman of democracy now is in seattle tonight and tomorrow night (tonight is free at the uw hub at 7pm) and tomorrow night is a benefit for kbcs, also with "Urban Scribes, Forgotten Sol, and a world-renowned "mystery jazz guitarist"" for $25. and don't forget about spike lee this saturday evening.

for those who don't like rappelling anymore than they absolutely have to, it's a couple of rappels down the backside, then a descent through old growth (little undercover) which ends up near the taylor river bridge. I'll bet it's faster than rappelling the entire route.

oh yes, it can! why are you going so early in the season if your goal is to climb?

in part only. the country went through 3 bloody wars and 10years of sanctions since the early 80's. 2 of the wars were saddam's fault (with our help for one of the two) and we are ultimately responsible for the 3rd war and the sanctions. iraqis can achieve some of that without adopting all the models from the west. my guess is they won't want us around to get there. especially after all that has happened.

considering that unemployment is greater than 50% and the average wage is ~$30 a month, it is a safe bet to say there are plenty of poor people in iraq. it's good to have eyes but they have to see what's there to be useful.

how handy, i like it!!!! in fact, i'll put it to use right away: Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 2/8/2004 Quote/Claim: "Iraq had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network." Fact: This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, "[A] CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'" Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq "has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups." And David Kay himself said, " I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists" in Iraq. - NIE, 2002; NY Times, 2/6/02, 1/29/03; NBC News, 1/26/02

Beware the fossil fools The dismissal of climate change by journalistic nincompoops is a danger to us all George Monbiot Tuesday April 27, 2004 The Guardian Picture a situation in which most of the media, despite the overwhelming weight of medical opinion, refused to accept that there was a connection between smoking and lung cancer. Imagine that every time new evidence emerged, they asked someone with no medical qualifications to write a piece dismissing the evidence and claiming that there was no consensus on the issue. Imagine that the BBC, in the interests of "debate", wheeled out one of the tiny number of scientists who says that smoking and cancer aren't linked, or that giving up isn't worth the trouble, every time the issue of cancer was raised. Imagine that, as a result, next to nothing was done about the problem, to the delight of the tobacco industry and the detriment of millions of smokers. We would surely describe the newspapers and the BBC as grossly irresponsible. Now stop imagining it, and take a look at what's happening. The issue is not smoking, but climate change. The scientific consensus is just as robust, the misreporting just as widespread, the consequences even graver. If it is true, as the government's new report suggested last week, that it is now too late to prevent hundreds of thousands of British people from being flooded out of their homes, then the journalists who have consistently and deliberately downplayed the threat carry much of the responsibility for the problem. It is time we stopped treating them as bystanders. It is time we started holding them to account. "The scientific community has reached a consensus," the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, told the House of Lords last month. "I do not believe that amongst the scientists there is a discussion as to whether global warming is due to anthropogenic effects. It is man-made and it is essentially [caused by] fossil fuel burning, increased methane production... and so on." Sir David chose his words carefully. There is a discussion about whether global warming is due to anthropogenic (man-made) effects. But it is not - or is only seldom - taking place among scientists. It is taking place in the media, and it seems to consist of a competition to establish the outer reaches of imbecility. During the heatwave last year, the Spectator made the case that because there was widespread concern in the 1970s about the possibility of a new ice age, we can safely dismiss concerns about global warming today. This is rather like saying that because Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's hypothesis on evolution once commanded scientific support and was later shown to be incorrect, then Charles Darwin's must also be wrong. Science differs from the leader writers of the Spectator in that it learns from its mistakes. A hypothesis is advanced and tested. If the evidence suggests it is wrong, it is discarded. If the evidence appears to support it, it is refined and subjected to further testing. That some climatologists predicted an ice age in the 1970s, and that the idea was dropped when others found that their predictions were flawed, is a cause for confidence in climatology. But the Spectator looks like the Journal of Atmospheric Physics compared to the Mail on Sunday and its Nobel laureate-in-waiting, Peter Hitchens. "The greenhouse effect probably doesn't exist," he wrote in 2001. "There is as yet no evidence for it." Perhaps Hitchens would care to explain why our climate differs from that of Mars. That some of the heat from the sun is trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by gases (the greenhouse effect) has been established since the mid-19th century. But, like most of these nincompoops, Hitchens claims to be defending science from its opponents. "The only reason these facts are so little known", he tells us, is (apart from the reason that he has just made them up), "that a self-righteous love of 'the environment' has now replaced religion as the new orthodoxy". Hitchens, in turn, is an Einstein beside that famous climate scientist Melanie Phillips. Writing in the Daily Mail in January, she dismissed the entire canon of climatology as "a global fraud" perpetrated by the "leftwing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked". This belief must be shared by the Pentagon, whose recent report pictures climate change as the foremost threat to global security. In an earlier article, she claimed that "most independent climate specialists, far from supporting [global warming], are deeply sceptical". She managed to name only one, however, and he receives his funding from the fossil fuel industry. Having blasted the world's climatologists for "scientific illiteracy", she then trumpeted her own. The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which collates the findings of climatologists) is, she complained, "studded with weasel words" such as "very likely" and "best estimate". These weasel words are, of course, what make it a scientific report, rather than a column by Melanie Phillips. If ever you meet one of these people, I suggest you ask them the following questions: 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no - at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics. But these dolts are rather less danger ous than the BBC, and its insistence on "balancing" its coverage of climate change. It appears to be incapable of running an item on the subject without inviting a sceptic to comment on it. Usually this is either someone from a corporate-funded thinktank (who is, of course, never introduced as such) or the professional anti-environmentalist Philip Stott. Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the "lies" of ecofundamentalists. This wouldn't be so objectionable if the BBC made it clear that these people are not climatologists, and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientific opinion is against them. Instead, it leaves us with the impression that professional opinion is split down the middle. It's a bit like continually bringing people on to the programme to suggest that there is no link between HIV and Aids. What makes all this so dangerous is that it plays into the hands of corporate lobbyists. A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the US Republican and corporate strategist, warned that "The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable... Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need... to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue." We can expect Professors Hitchens and Phillips to do what they're told. But isn't it time that the BBC stopped behaving like the public relations arm of the fossil fuel lobby? www.monbiot.com

too much suffering isn't much fun. i'd rather look at it as an opportunity for fast travel over a fair distance above treeline and have a good time while doing so. making it a short day and getting back in time for plenty of beer is much more stylin'.

i don't know if anyone decides what it has to be but different entry and exit points make for a much more esthetic (and satisfying) traverse imo.