Condensed translation from sueddeutsche.de (for a comment see РИА - no worries, it is in English): The US-defense department plans to replace nuclear warheads on submarine based missiles with conventional ones. Opposition from Russia.
At a meeting with Russian defense minister Sergej Ivanov at Fairbanks, Alaska, on Sunday, Rumsfeld prompted Moskov to align with the plan, which is opposed by Russia and parts of US-congress.
Critics warn that the launching of a conventionally equipped trident-rocket could be mistaken for a nuclear attack and provoke a counterstrike.
Rumsfeld dismissed the argument. The US would inform about the conversion in "full transparency" and leave no room for miscalculation. Moreover "everybody" in the world would know 30 minutes after an impact that the rocket did not carry a nuclear warhead. However, Ivanov reissued the objections of his gouvernment against the US-plans.
[And than it goes on about Rumsfeld being concerned about North Korea to pass on WMD and ballistic rockets].
Also see the report in the Boston Globe.
The US army paid some soldiers after they deserted, apparently due to a lack of coordination between the responsible departments.
I cannot make up my mind whether this pacifist imperfection is comforting, in the light of total control scenarios, or rather threatening, in case it works against you.
Interesting figures to note along the way: US-army desertion rates were 0.9% in 2002 and 0.3% in 2005.
Translating and assembling from sueddeutsche.de and other sources of the German press:
Murat Kurnaz was 19 when he was arrested in autumn 2001. He is ship-builder, used to live with his parents in Bremen, Germany, and had secretly left his family to study Islam at a Koran-school in Pakistan he claimed. His family is non-religious but he had discovered religious faith by himself and held contacts with the Islamic missioning movement Jamaa at-Tabligh. German security officials suspect he was recruited for Afghan Djihad and never went to a Koran-school. He also never reached Afghanistan and claims he mostly travelled around until he was arrested from a bus by Pakistan security officers for, as he claims, no apparent reason other than his looks and the fact that his passport identified him as a Turk living in Germany. They passed him on to the US-Americans who detained him to Guantánamo as "enemy combatant" at the beginning of 2002. In September 2004 he briefly appeared in front of a military tribunal but still heard no detailed accusation nor did he have a lawyer. He denied knowledge of terror involvement of the Jamaa movement and the plans for an assault of a former close friend.
When he finally gets to see a lawyer in October 2004 he tells him about being beaten by the US-Americans on the way to Guantánamo, being tied up for days and pushed into cold water with the head during interrogations. Later a US-judge stated that he was only kept for his contacts and not for actual involvement, but this trial was never finished. Also Germany did not really want to get him back. An extradition offer in 2002 was apparently turned down by the former gouvernment and the federal state of Bremen claimed just a few months ago that his residence visa had expired - which was ruled down by a court. German secret service agents went to talk to him in Guantánamo to find out about the Islamistic scene in Germany but apparently learned little. He claimes that he just had been in Pakistan at the wrong time. A sad example of double standards towards Guantánamo which started an enquiry commission at German Bundestag.
Acording to his lawyer, when he was passed to German officials in Rammstein yesterday, he was hancduffed on legs and hands and tied to the aircraft floor. His eyes had been closed with tape. In Guantánamo most brutal physical torture had been used systematically. The aim had been to deprive the captives of orientation and hope. A Pentagon official had asked during the negotiations leading to the release to treat Kurnaz "in a humane way".
He now faces an indictment of "foundating a terrorist association" in Bremen. For him, the first constitutional process in five years.
In case you haven't read it, I would like to point you to the
Guantanamo interview transcript by the BBC. This is not breaking news but I guess that for domestic terrorists, Guantanamo is one of the symbols, if not issues, for their loathing of western societies. Slowly the courts are saving the situation but way too late. I am curious to see what Germany is going to do about this man who had been held for five years in total now, even cleared from the suspicion of beeing an al-Qaeda member by a "US review board". Apparently they just let him go home to his family.
Okay, I guess the sudden increase in traffic means that people want to read this article. But you will quickly learn that this blog is different in nature from the comments I made in a different place. All I can say about the Masturgate affair (I start liking this word) is there. And if that is not already all speculation on somebody else's expense, it certainly would be here. If you do not know what I am talking about, click on the headline or go here.
"Anna Mikhailova" is the name that signed for an article in the Sunday Times on August 6th which revealed the identity of formerly anonymous blogger and book author "the girl". Now many bloggers are out to push Ms. Mikhailovas into public awareness, even a mock-blog was set up, and manyarewriting about it.
The idea seems to be that she burns her fingers on this. For me it is hard to judge how much sense that makes. But signing that article actually asks for it. Looks very much like a professional selling her soul for a career. By her standards she probably just was successful and I wonder whether she will approach the girl for a share of the increased book sales or at least take them as a justification. Along the lines of 'quo bono' there also is the editor to consider. I wonder how that actually leaked. But maybe they just tailed her agent who was probably not so hard to identify.
Btw. doing a picture search on Ms. Mikhailova rather confuses matters. I suspect they can all be discarded although I am tempted to use one to illustrate my post.
Ein Versuch:
Der Snob, heißt es, sei oberflächlich und blicke auf andere herab, die nicht den Kriterien entsprechen, die er für die ausschlaggebenden hält, um zu einer bestimmten Klasse zu gehören. Dazu gehört eben auch ein ausgeprägtes Klassenbewußtsein mit höher- und minderwertigen Klassen. Gleichzeitig wird er aber von der Klasse abgelehnt, zu der er sich die Zugehörigkeit wünscht. Denn der Snob besitzt in ihren Augen nur die äußerlichen, meist finanziellen, sowie weitere oberflächliche Zugehörigkeitsmerkmale.
Da aber wo Kapitalismus es ermöglicht, diese Merkmale unabhängig von sozialer Herkunft zu erwerben, ist die Gefahr für den Aufschwung dieser "Unedelen" besonders groß (mit allen Einschränkungen). Aus diesem Grund sind Oligarchie und Feudalismus die bevorzugten Gesellschaftsmodelle. Eine stabile Plutokratie scheint auch noch akzeptabel, soziale Marktwirtschaft, egalitäre Bildungschancen etc. sind dagegen bedenklich. Und wäre die Welt nicht besser? Die Oligarchen könnten uneingeschrängkt auf das Wohl der subordinaten Klassen achten, da sie keine Konkurrenz zu fürchten hätten. Wenn dann alle am Gesamtwohl berauscht sind, wird am Ende gar die Entfremdung der Arbeit aufgehoben - durch Sadomasochismus.
Aber bevor ich mich ganz versteige, bleibt festzuhalten: wer "snob" sagt, erkennt an, daß es "Edle" gibt, von denen er sich wider Willen eben doch (noch?) unterscheidet, und er kritisiert den "Aufstieg" dieser Person (da haben wir die konservative Kapitalismuskritk) oder aber er kritisiert eine Person, die sich in einem solchen Weltbild bewegt und die entsprechenden Ambitionen hegt - die zugegebenermaßen (hoffentlich) gängigere Variante.
