kobayashi morituri

the rest of task force 141 brought in the ACS, allen. two men took down an entire base. i ask much more from you now. yesterday you were a soldier on the front lines, but today, front lines are history. uniforms are relics. the war rages everywhere and there will be casualties. this man makarov is fighting his own war and he has no rules, no boundaries. he doesn't flinch at torture, human trafficking or genocide. he's not loyal to a flag or country or any set of ideals. he trades blood for money. he's your new best friend. you don't wanna know what it's cost already to put you next to him. it will cost you a piece of yourself. it will cost nothing compared to everything you'll save.

that was your mission commander speaking. you're a covert cia operative inserted into a freelance russian terror group.

their plan: kill everyone in a busy moscow airport during broad daylight.

your mission?

for some reason, you're never actually told.

and that's the set-up to the graphic and controversial airport massacre scene in infinity ward's latest first-person shooter call of duty: modern warfare 2.

*** warning: spoiler alert ***

the faint of heart have the option of skipping this mission. those who choose to participate have only two options: to idly watch or to shoot. you may shoot bystanders or you may shoot your teammates.

either way, the scene ends the same. you die.

star trek fans will be reminded of the kobayashi maru scenario:

the infamous starfleet academy test challenges the cadet to rescue a defenseless ship under enemy attack. however, despite the superficial similarities, the airport massacre is no kobayashi.

that's because your mission is not to save innocent lives and/or to stop the terrorists. you're not there to learn how to conquer fear in a no-win situation. you're not there to stare down death and go out a hero.

your mission is to die, so that your corpse can trigger the next world war.

according to the game's story arc, each of the characters you inhabit is only the unwitting pawn of your mission commander, who is ultimately exposed as a traitor. at the end of the airport massacre, the terrorists leave your corpse as evidence of american treachery, which provokes the new ultranationalist government to launch a massive surprise invasion of the U.S.

so the airport scene was made a no-win situation not as a character-building exercise. it's no-win because the game simply can't move forward without it, even if you are allowed to skip it. and unless you enjoy the methodical, withering, loud and joyless mowing of screaming civilians, you might want to.

ioiytus 1

juan cole:

meanwhile, the voice of america reports that the bush administration will freeze the assets of persons or organizations that attempt to destabilize iraq. voa says: president bush has signed an order that allows the u.s. government to block the assets of any person or group that threatens the stability of iraq. the order exempts the united states. either the voa copy writer is a little clueless or this person has a wicked, dry sense of humor.

recalling that the daily show host jon stewart recently remarked that "there is nothing the administration can do that is not ironic," i'm going to have to go with door number one, juan.

---

¹ it's okay if you're the united states.

from the mouths of babes

(cross-posted at daily kos)

from today's "grim" new unicef report on child welfare in the the top 21 industrialized nations, in which the netherlands and scandinavia came out on top, while the united states and britain sat "roundly bottom":

peter marshall, narrator: in the netherlands, home of liberal views on sex and drugs, their young people rank at the top of unicef's survey for well-being. we went to a school in the heart of amsterdam to talk to sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds. laura vos, student: in this country it's very free. you can do what you like, you can smoke when you're sixteen, you can buy pot in the store next to the school — [laughter] because it's not illegal, it's not that interesting for us to just — to provoke our parents with.

are you listening, mr. social conservative, mrs. moral majority, uncle christian coalition and auntie no-child-left-behind?

probably not.

still, miss vos does leave us with an interesting question: just what do dutch kids have to do there, to provoke their parents?

overall rankings from the report:
1. netherlands 2. sweden 3. denmark 4. finland 5. spain 6. switzerland 7. norway 8. italy 9. ireland 10. belgium 11. germany	12. canada 13. greece 14. poland 15. czech republic 16. france 17. portugal 18. austria 19. hungary 20. united states 21. united kingdom

all kidding aside, it is of course simplistic to attribute the success of the dutch solely or even primarily to its liberal attitudes. after all, a number of conservative and strongly religious nations like spain, italy and ireland made it into the top ten.

but what's noteworthy is how the report discredits the long-standing conservative-religious argument that morally permissive societies are dangerous to its children's moral and physical well-being. presumably this is the argument propping up their endless campaigns against hollywood, music, drugs, sex education, birth control, abortion, and the rest of their entire program. it's all about saving the children, don't you see?

and uncle christian coalition and auntie no-child-left-behind would have us all believe that only a strict country devoted to dogma can protect the young, not that a "decadent" country like the netherlands could ever rate such a list, much less come out on top.

finally, someone grew some stones

oh wait — he isn't one of ours ... ?

hat tip to crooks and liars.

the speaker: order. order. the honorable leader of the opposition? opposition leader kevin rudd: thank you, mr. speaker. i seek leave to move the following motion: this house censures the prime minister — [scattered boos] rudd: — for his statement that al-qaeda is praying — the speaker: order! order! rudd: — for a democratic party candidate to win the next united states presidential election. two: his false statements today in parliament that his statement yesterday was restricted to one u.s. senator, and not the democratic party as a whole. three: the damage that this partisan comment has done to the united states-australia alliance and to australia's relationships with both american democratic and republican members of congress and four: the gross insensitivity in lecturing united states presidential candidates on iraq, when the war in iraq is responsible for the deaths more than 3,000 u.s. servicemen and -women, the wounding of 20,000, and expenditures exceeding 360 billion, and finally demands that the prime minister unreservedly withdraws this remark. the speaker: his leave granted. leave is granted. the honorable leader of the opposition: rudd: thank you, mr. speaker. how can the man who is prime minister of this country come into this parliament and say that he is a person of experience on the question of national security when within the last 24 hours he has made this statement, that when it comes to the operation of al-qaeda and its dealings in the world of international affairs today, that somehow al-qaeda is an organisation, a terrorist organisation that would prefer to see a democrat win the next presidential elections rather than any other representative of another political party? the prime minister today has inserted that in fact he was only making a reference to mr. obama, one of the us democratic party presidential candidates. it's important that we place this unequivocally on the record. yesterday the prime minister was asked this question, in relation to the obama plan: yes, i think he's wrong. i mean, he's a long way from being president of united states. i think he's wrong. i think that that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy iraq and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and to hope for obama victory. if i was running al-qaeda in iraq, i would put a circle around march 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory — not only for obama but also for the democrats. but also for the democrats. that is not an addition invented by the australian labor party. that's not an addition invented by anybody else. that was spoken yesterday — or would we dare say misspoken yesterday — by the prime minister of australia on a matter of great consequence — that is, the future of this country's relationship with the united states, particularly on the question of the future direction of iraq policy. to accuse the democratic party of the united states as being al-qaeda's party of choice, to accuse the democratic party as being the terrorists' party of choice — this is a most serious charge. to accuse the party of roosevelt, to accuse the party of truman, to accuse the party of kennedy and johnson of being the terrorists' party of choice. i cannot understand how any responsible leader of this country can say to the nation that it's his serious view that the democratic party of the united states is the terrorists' party of choice. but these are your words, prime minister. i did not invent them; they are yours. and in this parliament today we gave you every opportunity to say that you got it wrong — the speaker: order! order! the leader will refer his remarks through the chair. mr rudd: — we gave the prime minister every opportunity to say that it was wrong. it may have been that he got caught up in the flurry of the interview. it may have been that he didn't hear it clearly. it may have been that he didn't understand it clearly. i understand that these things can happen, but when you are given given not once, not twice but on three separate occasions in this place today an opportunity to say, "i got that wrong; i didn't mean that." and for him to pass each of those up i think says much about the partisan nature with which this prime minister now views the relationship with our great american ally. let us be absolutely clear about what is at stake here: not just an attack on a single u.s. senator, but an attack upon an entire political party. and here is where australia's national interest kicks in: this party, the democratic party, currently controls the majority in the united states house, it controls the majority in the united states senate, and within a year or so's time, may control the white house itself. and this is the party which this prime minister, in this country, and this parliament today, has reaffirmed he describes this party as the terrorists' party of choice. this is a serious matter. prime minister, could you imagine if i stood up in this parliament as the alternative prime minister and said to the people of australia that the terrorists would be advantaged if the republicans were to return to the white house at the next presidential election? ponder for a moment how that would be regarded. how would it be seized on by those opposite? [scattered assent] can you imagine the reaction from those opposite. if i stood at this dispatch box, if i appeared on national television and said that the republicans, if they won, would cause an eruption of joy on the part of al-qaeda and on the part of the terrorists? can you imagine the reaction from those opposite? [scattered assent] this is a grave mistake and i fear that it reflects a deep view on the part of the prime minister in turn to those with whom he may not share a view within the u.s. political system.

the complaint against king george

to celebrate the 230th birthday of the united states, juan cole is having a little holiday contest. can you identify how many of the complaints which thomas jefferson and his fellow signatories leveled against king george and britain in the declaration of independence could be leveled against george bush and his administration by current american and/or iraqi citizens?

the first one on jefferson's list is easy:

he has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good

this complaint against the department of homeland security is oddly comical in its archaic construction:

he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance

while these offenses of the military occupation should be familiar to the iraqis:

he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us for protecting them, by a mock trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states

and these offenses familiar to the anonymous captives at guantanamo bay and hidden elsewhere in once-abandoned gulags scattered around the globe.

for depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences

jefferson's list is quite long. for now, the rest of king george's crimes i leave to you.

what so proudly we hide

... at least until president bush is finished making the world safer:

associated press: frankfurt, germany — the official team bus to be used by the united states during the world cup will not bear a flag for security reasons. the 32 official buses were presented thursday in frankfurt and the other 31 buses have large national flags of the their teams painted on rear sides. ... at the 2002 world cup, the united states was among the most heavily guarded teams. when the americans arrived at incheon international airport, about 500 police formed a corridor the players walked through as they came out of customs, with swat team commandos mixed in. when the team's charter flight landed at daegu airport before a game against south korea, two tanks were on the runway. metal detectors were placed at the entrance of the team hotel throughout the team's stay.

(hat tip to think progress.)

elegy

all good things, it is said, must come to an end.

it is now entirely possible that within your lifetime and mine a historian will one day record:

on friday, march 24, 2006, democracy in the united states passed into oblivion, escorted not with the blast of an explosive but only the hush of a smothered breath.

but what happened on friday, march 24, 2006, such that the founding principles which had carried the nation, at times lurching, but never completely collapsing, through almost 230 years of blood and sweat and toil, should so quietly vanish?

on friday, march 24, 2006, the united states department of justice delivered its answer to the house judiciary committee regarding its basis in law for conducting domestic surveillance on american citizens without judicial writ.

by way of background our historian will write, perhaps with a wistful sigh, that the united states:

was once based on a quaint system of checks and balances, now obsolete, designed to distribute the three primary functions of government among three interdependent and complementary bodies. the congress was created to write and enact the law. the judicial branch was created to interpret the law and ensure its conformance to the constitution. the executive branch was created to enforce the law. and no citizen of that nation was considered exempt from the law. james madison, destined to become the fourth president, writing in the federalist papers, in his argument for ratification of the fledging constitution, claimed that "there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers".

on friday, march 24, 2006, the forty-third president and chief executive, one george walker bush, speaking through the department of justice, the enforcement arm of the executive branch, in his answer to the house judiciary committee, assumed sole authority and expanded his "unitary" claim to power over the whole of government, limited only by his "special and unique competence" alone.

his words were like the seal on a tomb:

the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statutes inconsistent with the constitution must yield. the basic principle of our system of government means that no president, merely by assenting to a piece of legislation, can diminish the scope of the president's constitutional power. ... just as one president may not, through signing legislation, eliminate the executive branch's inherent constitutional powers, congress may not renounce inherent presidential authority. the constitution grants the president the inherent power to protect the nation from foreign attack, and congress may not impede the president's ability to perform his constitutional duty. ... in order to execute the laws and defend the constitution, the president must be able to interpret them. the interpretation of law, both statutory and constitutional, is therefore an indispensable and well established government function. ... the president's power to interpret the law is particularly important when he is engaged in a task — such as the direction of the operations of an armed conflict — that falls within the special and unique competence of the executive branch.

and thus, on friday, march 24, 2006, the president so declared himself not answerable to the other two bodies of government.

and thus, on friday, march 24, 2006, the president so usurped their powers and claimed them for his own.

and thus, on friday, march 24, 2006, democracy did die its quiet death.

however — it is yet possible to avert that future and stay our historian's hand.

because the events he will ultimately record shall depend upon the other two branches of government and their willingness to assert their respective inherent authorities to write and interpret the law.

will they claim the powers rightly granted them by the constitution?

or will they bow in craven bondage to their newborn king?

the future is now and history awaits us.