The Oklahoma City bombing was a bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Timothy McVeigh detonated an explosive-filled truck that he had parked in front of the Federal Building. McVeigh's co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, had assisted in the bomb preparation. It was the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the most destructive act of domestic terrorism in American history. The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and more than 680 people were injured. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered building glass in a three mile square area. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of property damage.
Within the American center-left, our memories of past manifestations of right-wing extremism are often wiped clean by the shocking nature of current manifestations right-wing extremism. For example, when looking at the birther movement, or some of the worst elements of the tea parties, it might seem as though the current far right-wing in America is the most extreme version we have ever experienced. However, fifteen years ago, members of the far right-wing political movements then in vogue blew up a building that killed 168 people.
Rather than being a product of difficult economic times, it seems as though surges in right-wing extremism happen whenever Democrats win elections. We are just dealing with the latest version, but not the most extreme one.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today urged Attorney General Eric Holder to stick to his initial determination that the alleged 9/11 plotters should be tried in civilian court, and not bow to partisan politics on what should be a legal determination.
"This is an issue of first impression for the military commissions, yet again," conceded the lead military prosecutor, addressing the military commission judge in the case of Noor Muhammed on Wednesday in a courtroom in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
It's nice to see that even conservatives are disgusted with Liz Cheney's latest attack on Eric Holder. As you've no doubt heard, Cheney is miffed that there are attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in the past, have defended people accused of nasty crimes. Of course, that's what defense lawyers are supposed to do, but that doesn't stop Liz Cheney from sponsoring scary videos insinuating that defending someone swept up by US forces and accused of terrorism is just fundamentally worse than defending an ordinary serial murderer, rapist or corporate swindler.
The pressure is growing on the Justice Department to produce supposedly "deleted" e-mails that could reveal whether government lawyers during the Bush administration were instructed to devise legal justifications for torture.
At 10 a.m. on Friday, February 26, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation into the Justice Department memos that authorized the torture of detainees in U.S. custody during the Bush administration.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) likes to tout his experience as a former military lawyer. Graham apparently thinks this makes him sound more convincing when he goes around advocating military trials for all suspected terrorists, as he's been doing lately. Graham's now trying to get that idea signed into law in a bill he's introduced in the Senate. A similar provision is likely headed to a vote today in the House of Representatives.
Do you know one? Perchance your mother, father, brother, or sister is a person you would characterize as lovingly protective. He or she maybe an individual who works to shield loved ones from harm. This fine fellow or femme plots and plans in an attempt to prevent any crisis. People come to depend on caring souls such as he or she. Indeed, you may be the cautious crier who actively expresses concern for the health and welfare of those you treasure. It is a tough task, but you, or someone in your life may have assumed responsibility for the well-being of another. Surely, someone must keep us safe and sane. One never knows who might lurk or linger in the halls, bathroom stalls, on a plane, boat or train. Credentials must be checked. If family and friends cannot safeguard us from the crazies and fanatics certainly, our sweet Uncle Sam will.
Joss Whedon's Dollhouse only has two more episodes to go, alas, but it's not going down without a fight. Last night's episode, "Getting Closer" had so much going on, it was enough to fill half a 22-episode season of a lesser show, but I really just want to talk about one rather amazing thing that happened: The lead character (sort of) in an American TV show self-identified as a terrorist.
Let me say that again: The lead character in an American TV show self-identified as a terrorist.
It wasn't entirely accurate, of course. But in a sense, that only makes it better.
The last two weeks since the Christmas/underpants bomber episode have seen the utter and complete collapse into meaninglessness of "terrorist" discourse. As Rachel Maddow noted, Rudy ("A noun, a verb and 9/11") Guiliani has effectively destroyed his political career once and for all in the process of trying to make 9/11 disappear, and that's pretty much the symbolic crown of the mountain range of stupid that's been trotted out in the past two weeks.
In essence, the post-underpants GOP attacks on Obama can be summarized thus: "You can't fight terrorism, because you're not scared! And you're not scaring us and the American people!" You're not screaming "terrorism" every other word, just like Osama bin Laden wants!
And so now that "terrorism" has been made utterly meaningless as the final reductio absurdum of those who flew so high for more than half a decade based on their own spectacular failures, it's only fitting that a fictional character from Joss Whedon's fevered imagination should turn the ultimate linguistic trick, and--quite impossibly--turn "terrorist" into a Good Thing.
As a result of a recent event involving an aircraft and underpants Representative Peter King (R-Not From Iowa), the senior Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, has again come forth to bring his expertise on questions of international terrorism to the national debate.
King, a Congressman who represents a district that straddles New York's Long Island (NY-3), previously served as the Comptroller of Nassau County and a member of Hempstead, New York's Town Council, which wouldn't seem to be the kind of résumé that would give you much credibility in this arena-but Mr. King is a special case.
You see, Mr. King knows a great deal about terrorism...from the inside...because for many years the personal cause that drove his life was to be an active and public supporter of a terrorist group.
And that's why, today, we'll be connecting the dots between Congressman King and the Irish Republican Army.
Professor Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, the most god-awful piece of historical research ever published, would likely derive confirmation from this video, a caricature of his theory about a pending clash between Islam and the West, which is today promulgated by American and pro-Israel Neoconservatives. It is only a small step from Islam to Arabs, and an even smaller one from Arabs to terrorism.
And then we finally arrive at Islamophobia, the new bigotry.
The threat of violent acts against its citizenry has once again coerced the United States federal government into restricting the actions of hundreds of thousands of its citizens:
Security agents may pat the soles of your feet, work up your legs to your waist and run a wand across your whole body. Bags may be searched even after they pass the scanner. Bathroom breaks may be eliminated for the last hour of international flights. Blankets on your lap on those flights are verboten, too. Forget about that extra carry-on bag. And those controversial body scanners that can see under passengers' clothes? They could show up at more airports.(...)
For the time being, passengers flying to the USA must remain in their seats for about an hour before their flight lands and put away personal items, such as electronic equipment, bags, pillows and other bulky items, said two Transportation Security Administration officials familiar with the new rules.
There is an argument to be had about whether existing TSA policies are effective at preventing violent acts on airplanes flying in the United States. Unfortunately, there is no argument about whether the attempted bathroom bomber used the threat of violence to coerce the United States federal government into altering some of its policies. Also unfortunately, there is no argument that those policy changes will restrict the actions of several hundred thousand, possibly even millions, of United States citizens.
In the past few months and years, media coverage of Israel has had subtle but distinct change in tone. The mainstream media is taking a harder look at Israel's policies, and has found not everything is to its liking.
There are several reasons why coverage of Israel has previously been so positive, and why recently a slight change has occurred. In the first place, Israel is a country culturally very attuned to us. Israel is part of the West; it shares Western norms and values. Many Jews would be comfortable living in the West and do so to this very day. Some of them work in the media and are sympathetic to the struggles their peers face.
Moreover, many in the media (and the vast majority of our country) believed that Israel had been in the right before 2006. Israel had - has - a democracy and a free press and all the things we like a country to have; the Palestine cause and their Arab supporters by and large do not. Israelis such as Yitzhak Rabin were calling for peace; meanwhile, Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas were sending suicide bombers to kill Israelis civilians day after day.
Then came the 9-11 attacks by Muslim terrorists. In its aftermath media coverage of Israel was probably the most positive it had ever been.
There were three events, however, which changed things. At the very least, they have damaged Israeli prestige.
Since the end of July, there have been two massive bombings in Iraq. On July 31st, 29 were killed when a several bombs exploded outside Shiite mosques. On Friday, a truck bomb in another Shiite mosque detonated, killing another 37.
Regular days are also violent affairs. Take August 3rd. In the restive city of Mosul, five Iraqis were killed by separate attacks. Two bombs in Baghdad exploded, killing up to six Iraqis and wounding 26. Near Falluja, another bomb killed two and wounded seven.
In fact, according to the Associated Press, there have been 27 major bombings this year alone, the worst of which led to 82 deaths. The two months with the least number of major bombings were January and February. Since then there have been an average of four to five major bombings per month.
Politically, things look even worse. On important political issues ranging from the fate of Kurdistan to a new oil law, Iraqi politicians have failed to make progress. Worryingly, the current Shia-dominated government seems increasingly hostile to the Sunni-led Awakening movement that was a major factor in reducing insurgent violence.
