Turns out the Russians are causing trouble again, according to the FT: the editorial today opens with:

President Vladimir Putin has raised the stakes in Russia's deepening conflict with the west over missiles, deterrence and security.

By suspending the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Russian leader hit at a key pact ending the cold war. Mr Putin complained the treaty was unfair because Nato states had not ratified it. Nato said it had not been ratified because Russia had not met key conditions - pulling troops from Georgia and Moldova.

Nasty Mr Putin up to his old tricks again. Except ...

The US is entitled to look after its own security. But it must accept security is often easier to build in partnership with others than alone. America, not Russia, was the first to pull out of a cold war arms pact when in 2001 it abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Washington's recent effort to explain its missile defence plans to sceptical European states, including Russia, is long overdue.

That's later in the same article. So it's Russia's conflict with the West, not a US conflict with damn near everyone else?

As he desperately pushes his new book and tries to distance himself and his crazy theories from the debacle in Iraq, Francis Fukuyama is warning Europeans not to enjoy the smug feeling of schadenfreude that is so hard to avoid for those of us who screamed "Are you insane?" when the US invaded Iraq and are currently trying to avoid either writing "Told you so!" in letters big enough to be seen across the Atlantic or falling into the depths of flabbergasted depression caused by the entirely rational fear that a replay is being enacted around Iran. In the Guardian he writes:

While many might intellectually support the emergence of a stable, democratic, pro-western government in Baghdad, "success" in this matter would be seen as a vindication of all of the baggage that the Bush administration loaded on to this project, including its unilateralism, use of force and incompetent execution of the war's aftermath. Many would therefore be happy seeing Washington suffer a setback, to deter such interventions in the future.

We might, were it not for the 100,000 or so dead men, women and children that would be required to teach the arrogant fools in Washington their lesson and if we felt that they were capable of learning anything useful. As it stands we're horrified that the US system of checks and balances is incapable of restraining the executive.

We were wondering how long this would take. From the Guardian:

The west's confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end of the year.

A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials also indicated that London would back Washington's efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran's compliance with international demands.

So now the concern that triggers action is not nuclear weapons but nuclear technology. Obviously the previous talking points weren't working for them. A five to ten-year window doesn't sound scary enough, does it?

A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it might gain the technical knowhow within months. "By the end of the year is a ... realistic period," said the official. "It would be really damaging to regional security if Iran even acquired the technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon."

Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to 10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the level of Iran's technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

"Roll over Tony. Now, sit and beg. Good boy."

Britain maintains that military action to destroy Iran's suspect facilities is not under discussion. But the Bush administration, backed by Israel, has refused to rule out the use of force.

This is not about convincing the UN. This is about convincing the US public. Same pattern as Iraq: when the mild propaganda doesn't work, ramp it up and make the threat sound more imminent. It's the same channel as well as far as I recall.

I can't believe that the US administration is insane enough to want to go to war in Iran but I can't avoid the parallels between the build-up to Iraq and now.

Crossposted from European Tribune

Written for EuroTrib originally, but a little relevant here as well.

Ironically, I've been reluctant to write this story for fear of the consequences: I don't really want to open up a divisive debate again. However, I am astonished at the lack of outrage around here at the jailing of David Irving for exercising his right to free speech, even if it was nasty, repulsive and untrue speech. Over the last few weeks there has been an out-pouring of rage about the words and acts of assorted Muslims in reaction to the exploitation of the cartoon controversy. Horror and anger and indignation filled diaries and the front page that people should threaten boycotts and violence and destroy property over the publishing of some offensive cartoons. Cartoons were republished in an act of support and solidarity. Those who didn't wholeheartedly support the prevailing point of view were treated less than gently.

Last year the trial of Orhan Pamuk was given as evidence that Turkey was not fit to join the EU because it didn't respect human rights. When it was argued that the law he was being tried under was similiar to laws in Austria and Germany it was suggested that since he was affirming a genocide we believe did happen rather than denying one we believe happened he should not be subject to sanction.

Today, a citizen the EU had actual violence carried out against him by another EU state for exercising the freedom of speech that newspapers were being praised for defending last week. He was deprived of his liberty - the application of force that we allow ourselves in civilised society - for speaking out. Where is the outrage at that? Where are the diaries? Why aren't we reprinting his speeches in to demonstrate our solidarity? Why aren't we denouncing Austria as a medieval state unfit for membership of the EU?

The only conclusion that I can draw is that we only really believe in free speech for people we agree with attacking people we don't like much.

For a reminder of the horror that Irving was denying read this diary from Keone Michaels.

Good overview of what they are up to.

The NSA is not only the world's largest spy agency (far larger than the CIA, for example), but it possesses the most advanced technology for intercepting communications. We know it has long had the ability to focus powerful surveillance capabilities on particular individuals or communications. But the current scandal has indicated two new and significant elements of the agency's eavesdropping:

• The NSA has gained direct access to the telecommunications infrastructure through some of America's largest companies


• The agency appears to be not only targeting individuals, but also using broad "data mining" systems that allow them to intercept and evaluate the communications of millions of people within the United States.

The Parliament report is here.

Via a commentator on dKos, I came across this little house of horrors:

The Henry Jackson Society is a non-profit organisation that seeks to promote the following principles: that liberal democracy should be spread across the world; that as the world's most powerful democracies, the United States and the European Union - under British leadership - must shape the world more actively by intervention and example; that such leadership requires political will, a commitment to universal human rights and the maintenance of a strong military with global expeditionary reach; and that too few of our leaders in Britain and the rest of Europe today are ready to play a role in the world that matches our strength and responsibilities.

Their "principles" include forceful democratisation, an emphasis on military power, "the importance of unity between the world's great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, amongst many others" and "Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organisation which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed."

Their list of signatories is interesting: their list of patrons reads like a most-wanted list.

From one of their editorials we get the following, appropriate, quote:

Equally, there have been stirrings throughout British society that tolerance - an intrinsic part of British culture - can only be taken so far, especially when dealing with bigots.

Crossposted from EuroTrib

Last night I drew attention to the commission spokeswoman who said of secret CIA prisions that "This is an issue between the US and any member states concerned", and "this has nothing to do with the European Union". Apparently they've realised this is an inadequate response:

The European commission is to investigate claims the CIA is holding al-Qaida captives at Soviet era compounds in eastern Europe.

...

Poland and Romania are thought the most likely locations in Europe, according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch and Polish press reports. If the reports are true, the secret jails would violate European human rights law prohibiting unlawful detention.

A commission spokesman said it would informally question the 25 national governments on the claims. "We have to find out what is exactly happening. We have all heard about this, then we have to see if it is confirmed," he said.(Guardian Unlimited)

Everyone has denied now, though some of the denials are barely plausible let us say.

[Promoted by susanhu. Colman is one of the best writers at EuroTrib.com]

Crossposted from EuroTrib : One of our aims is to stand against the cascade of corporate capitalist propaganda that constantly floods over Europe. This article is part of that effort, and might be useful to American progressives when this nonsense comes up.

One of the key complaints levelled against the European social and economic model by corporate capitalists is that it causes high unemployment. The examples chosen are generally France and Germany who are compared against the US.

Before we concede that EU unemployment is substantially higher than in the US we need to examine the numbers cited. Often the official national numbers are used despite the fact that they differ fundamentally on what they measure and how they measure it. Reporting the German rate as 12% and the US rate as 5.1% is either lazy, clueless or dishonest. The official German rate includes people working less than 15 hours a week but who want a full-time job as unemployed while the headline US figures count anyone who works for even one hour a week as employed.

It's a Saturday night in Dublin, it's Summer, and it's not raining. Bright and sunny all day. Gorgeous weather for a ride in the park.

Time to pop a can of Guinness in the freezer and see what's in the Irish news.

Cross-posted from ... nowhere .. honest.