you break it, you buy it.

He's very charismatic. He can convince you even when you know he is lying. He is a con artist.
-Archbishop Francis, Liberia


Charles Taylor has finally been given over to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, after two and a half years in exile in Nigeria and a foiled escape attempt.

Taylor was president of Liberia from 1997 until 2003, winning "free and fair" elections after fighting a seven-year civil war. While in power, he created, armed, and supported rebels in Sierra Leone, who in their civil war committed horrible crimes, including using child soldiers, rape, and amputation.

During Taylor's presidency, rebels in Liberia fought another civil war to oust him from power. The country asked for international help to stabilize the situation. The US said it wouldn't send peacekeepers until Charles Taylor left the country. Charles Taylor said he wouldn't leave until peacekeepers arrived. The rebels eventually made it to the capital, Charles Taylor accepted exile in Nigeria, and the peacekeepers finally came.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was elected president of Liberia in 2005. The country is held together by a fragile peace, and some members of the new government are former followers of Charles Taylor. Nigeria's government had indicated that they would return Taylor only to Liberia and only under request from Liberia's government. Johnson-Sirleaf worried, quite reasonably, that returning Taylor to Liberia now might undermine the stability of the government by reigniting his followers and bringing them out of the woodwork. However, the US - as part of its campaign to undermine the International Criminal Court in favor of regional Special Courts - put significant pressure on Liberia's government to request extradition now. Johnson-Sirleaf caved and let Nigeria's president know they wanted him back.

Charles Taylor disappeared for three days.

He was caught at the Cameroon border, because his Land Rover had easily traceable diplomatic license plates.

He was flown to Liberia and immediately handed over to the Special Court in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where he will be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Update 4/3/06: Charles Taylor pleads not guilty to war crimes.

the minds of madmen: riddles at best?

(From the Economist (March 18th), article in full. Links and notes have been added.)

Inside the box
New insights on what Saddam Hussein thought he was doing

When the American army overran Iraq three years ago, it was famously short of military policemen, Arabic-speakers and good ideas for putting the broken country back together again. But the army's historians have since then made the most of a unique opportunity: the chance to question Saddam Hussein's top generals and advisers about what happened inside the regime before and during the war. The findings are to be published next month in a book-length report. But its authors have published a preview on the website of the New York-based journal, Foreign Affairs. It contains some riveting findings.

One of these, based mainly on the testimony of Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister, is that right up to the last moment the dictator did not expect America to attack, because of the faith he had in pressure from Russia and France in the UN Security Council. Mr. Aziz told his interrogators that the two countries had received millions of dollars of trade and service contracts with Iraq, "with the implied understanding that their political posture... would be pro-Iraqi."(1) Even after the invasion started, Saddam did not expect the Americans to fight all the way to Baghdad - a delusion that prevented him from torching his oilfields or opening the dams to flood southern Iraq.(2) Fixated at first on internal threats, instead of the advancing American army, Saddam later came to believe that Iraq was winning, and continued to think so until American tanks reached Baghdad. His own generals were far too scared of him to risk breaking the bad news.

As for those weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it seems that some senior members of the ruling circle never stopped believing, even after the war, that Iraq had these, even though Saddam himself knew otherwise.(3) When he revealed the truth to members of his Revolutionary Command Council not long before the war, their morale slumped. But he refused a suggestion to make the truth clear to the wider world on the ground that his presumed possession of WMD was a form of deterrence, and that coming clean might encourage an attack by Israel.(4) Instead, of course, the dictator's non-existent WMD became one reason America gave for its decision not to topple him. This was, without a doubt, the mother of all ironies.


Some or all of these points may be addressed in the report, which I haven't yet read:
(1) What did this contribute, if anything, to France's rabid resistance to the war? I don't remember the country's motives being questioned much in the media, except to say they were lilly-livered sissies, but maybe that's just my selective memory. This bears futher research.
(2) Flood southern Iraq? Seriously? I mean, I know the guy was off his rocker, but would he really put part of his country under water? How many people would this have killed, I wonder?
(3) This is a HUGE boon to the US (and UK) intelligence community. If Saddam was deliberately spreading information about a WMD program among all ranks of officials, any information gotten through surveillance of conversations, or interrogation of key members of the party, or good old fashioned spying, might have led the CIA to conclude that Iraqi WMDs were a viable threat. Maybe Saddam even went so far as to try to purchase parts (or uranium?) to make it more believable that Iraq was building chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. I wonder if any how this'll be used by the Administration's public relations machine.
(4) Why would Israel go out of its way to attack a neighboring country without direct provocation? Maybe it was just Saddam's crazy paranoia talking, or maybe there's a reason buried (or obvious) in Arab-Israeli relations.

chaos, minus order

While it is a Republican refrain that Democrats criticize Bush but have no positive vision, for now the governing party also has no national platform around which lawmakers are prepared to rally. Every effort so far to produce such a platform has stumbled.

great. now neither party has a plan.

well, i guess harry reid kinda has one, but it might have been more effective if it weren't easily accessible to anyone with a computer.

it even cures warts!

the amazing awesomeness of duct tape.

you mean there are LOOPHOLES in tax laws?

utility companies collect for taxes they never pay.

companies paying little or no tax. hey, what a surprise.

bizarre

The LA Times has a short report defending itself against President Bush's accusation that its article on IED neutralizers tipped off insurgents in Iraq. I can't find the original article, but today's report makes it sound like the accusations come from nowhere. I wish there was an impartial report - or at least some comparison of the original and Bush's remarks - somewhere, because as it stands, the situation seems just very strange.

The writer is Secretary of State.

Condi on India, in today's Washington Post. She makes a strong point about false comparisons between India, Iran, and North Korea, but on the whole the editorial seems like just a lot of mush.

Nuclear (non)proliferation is one of the issues I know least about. Why is it a good thing for India to separate its military and civilian facilities? What's the point of international inspectors having access to the civilian plants if they can't get to the military ones? Why are we OK with India even having military weapons if they didn't sign the NPT? Will Congress agree to change the laws to allow us to share technology with India, and if they don't, will we do it anyway?

Mainly, I'm confused about the emphasis on India's civilian nuclear activities when we, they, and everyone else acknowledge that they have weapons. Is it just a smoke screen? Why is it important for us to see their civilian things when they won't give us access to their weapons? The Indian Prime Minister has even acknowledged publicly that this deal won't in any way constrain India's "strategic" activities. What does the US get in return, besides money for the US-based nuclear reactor business and some bad blood in the Middle East?

These are sincere questions. I really don't understand. Please, explain if you can.

Other related links from WP (which I've only skimmed) here, here, here, and here. By the way, is anyone else annoyed at the New York Times for limiting access to their archives for non-subscribers? I personally find it quite frustrating.

not encouraging

one more reason to buy a shredder.

office spaces

Reviled by workers, demonized by designers, disowned by its very creator, it still claims the largest share of office furniture sales--$3 billion or so a year--and has outlived every "office of the future" meant to replace it. It is the Fidel Castro of office furniture.

the cubicle.

in a nutshell, don't move to south dakota.

here's a very brief update, to fill the space between now and when i have time to comment.

South Dakota Governor Signs Abortion Ban...

which looks like this...

because...

he wants to get rid of this.

so that's what librarians do.

British librarians list books everyone should read before they die (via fark):

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Bible
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by JRR Tolkien
1984 by George Orwell
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
All Quite on the Western Front by E M Remarque
His Dark Materials Trilogy by Phillip Pullman
Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon
Tess of the D'urbevilles by Thomas Hardy
Winnie the Pooh by AA Milne
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold
The Prophet by Khalil Gibran
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens
The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov
Life of Pi by Yann Martel
Middlemarch by George Eliot
The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzenhitsyn


EVERYONE should read Life of Pi. Go buy it. Open it up. Start reading it. Right. Now.

an imam grows in brooklyn

Time and again, Mr. Shata's new country has called for creativity and patience, for a careful negotiation between tradition and modernity.

"Here you don't know what will solve a problem," he said. "It's about looking for a key."

-New York Times


generally a good and insightful article, though with some unpleasant parts, like when the imam makes a man who burned his wife with an iron sign a paper that says he'll owe her $10,000 if he ever does it again. and, the police had intervened before, so clearly this is a pattern of abuse.

hey, freedom of religion, right?

interesting legal gymnastics

US Cites Exception to Torture Ban: McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison

According to the article, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 has the following provisions (among, I'm sure, many others):
1. No cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees in US custody
2. Guantanamo Bay prisoners have access to US courts only (a) to appeal enemy combatant status determinations; and (b) to appeal convictions by military commissions.

The government is arguing that this makes the current torture case, of Mohammed Bawazir, unarguable, and that there is no legal basis for the court to intervene. Other lawyers, even from Human Rights Watch, agree that, as written, the law says you can't torture people at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that ban through the courts.

The article also reports that the method in question, which involves strapping detainees on hunger strike to restraint chairs and painfully force-feeding them through large nasal tubes, was used much more frequently after the Detainee Treatment Act was passed (though, to be fair, that information comes from the lawyer defending Bawazir and isn't corroborated).

Pretty clever, don't you think?


[EDIT: see the text of the Detainee Treatment Act here.]

gaaagh!!!

"A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state.... The only abortions allowed under the bill would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest. It's similar to a bill that South Dakota lawmakers passed last week."


falksdjf; aoiusedr;ljkashd;fokuas;oeru;lkajsdgpaoiuawe!!!! motherfuckers!

[UPDATE 3.5.06: Bill passes House, with exceptions for rape and incest added during discussion, and moves to the state Senate. Governor Haley Barbour anticipates signing it once it's on his desk.

The bill came out of the House Public Health Committee. One article has the Senate Public Health Committee chairman saying he will recommend passage by the Senate.]

why i love (LOVE) dan savage

Q. I am a 26-year-old female, and I've been with my boyfriend for almost five years. Our relationship is pretty good, for the most part, but I'm having reservations. I don't really know how to broach this subject, because I feel like I'm just being a bratty little princess. But I feel like I'm at the bottom of my boyfriend's priority list. He'll stay up until 5 a.m. working on something, but won't sacrifice an hour to do something with me. He leaves for work around 9:30 a.m., and most nights doesn't come home until 10 p.m. Every household expense must be split exactly 50-50, regardless of the fact that he makes four times what I make. If I eat a little more than my fair share, he makes me pay him back. He has a car and I don't, but he'll only ever give me a lift somewhere (like work) if he's already going that way—but he still makes me pay for gas, even though he was already going that way. He doesn't bat an eyelash at spending $2,500 on new stereo equipment, but puts a $50 cap on my birthday dinner, saying, "If it goes over $50, you're paying the rest." If I'm stranded in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night and call him crying (this actually happened), he'll tell me to call my other friends first and if none of them can come, then he'll come get me—but I'm paying for gas.

We only ever have sex when he's in the mood. If I want to change position because I don't like being twisted like a pretzel, he gets angry and stops. So if I want it, I just have to pretend it doesn't hurt to have my legs pushed so far back they're gonna pop out of my hip sockets. He wants me to go to college, which I'm doing this September, so I asked him if he would let me pay slightly less than 50-50 for rent so I could afford it. His response was: "Lots of people put themselves through college, why should you get any special treatment?"

Isn't it only fair to split our expenses 50-50, even if it breaks me? And isn't it fair to ask for gas money when he has to do all the driving? Can I expect a man to spend more on me than I can spend on him? I don't want to be showered with expensive gifts and lavish vacations. I just want to feel like I'm worth something, you know? Am I being selfish? —Stressed and Depressed

A. If you're a new reader, SAD, you may not be familiar with this handy acronym: DTMFA. It stands for "dump the motherfucker already," and halfway through your letter I started muttering DTMFA under my breath. By the end, I was screaming DTMFA at my laptop. On an airplane. Look, this isn't a relationship. It's a hostage situation. Your boyfriend is an asshole. Wait, maybe I'm not being fair—to assholes, which are as delightful as they are functional. Your boyfriend is a piece of shit, a loose stool, a santorum slick. And you, my dear, have the worst case of lousy-relationship-induced Stockholm syndrome that I've ever encountered. Stockholm syndrome—when a hostage begins to identify with, and feel sympathy for, her captor—is the only possible explanation for the final paragraph of your letter, in which you meekly justify your boyfriend's appalling behavior. Stop identifying with your captor! Stop making excuses for the way he treats you! DTMFA!

To steel your resolve to leave this piece of shit, let me clue you in to a few secrets of healthy relationships: Where a large income disparity exists, household expenses are split based on the percentage that each individual's income means to a couple's total combined income. If he makes four times what you make, he should pay—and pay gladly—80 percent of the household expenses, while you pay 20 percent. By insisting on a 50-50 split, your boyfriend is treating you like a roommate, not a girlfriend.

Moving on, a boyfriend is someone who comes to your aid when you need him. If you get stuck somewhere and you call him, he jumps out of bed and comes to help you. He doesn't tell you to call everyone else you know, or leave you standing out there in the rain. He certainly doesn't hit you up for gas money! We should avoid overburdening our significant others, but we have a right to expect that they will be there for us in emergencies.

I could go on and on. Sex? A loving boyfriend may make special requests about positions—hell, he can make demands (and a good girlfriend can as well)—but he does not force his girlfriend's body into uncomfortable positions against her wishes, and he doesn't withhold sex to punish her if she refuses to consent to being so abused. College? Yes, lots of people put themselves through college, but lots of people have partners who helped them out when they were paying their way through college. Birthday dinners? Only a piece of shit threatens his less well-off girlfriend with having to pay the difference if her birthday dinner goes over $50. DTMFA, SAD, DTMFA! You can do better—hell, being alone would be better than being with this asshole. DTMFA!