The president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev fired the head of the countries military intelligence agency the GRU today.
You can read the BBC article about it here:
But that doesn't make Russia cool, this makes Russia cool:
Believe it or not, that's what the GRU's emblem is.
Yes, today is April 24th. Wondering what happened today in history? Take a look: April 24th.
You might have noticed that one of the items in the long list was the onset of the Armenian Genocide. Right. So all good Armenians have to be outraged and righteous about the Armenian Genocide today.
And you know, as far as it goes, they're right too. Yes, there was genocide, yes the evidence is overwhelming (no, I'm not going to link to the "proof" here. Proof isn't like that). And from what I understand, it was pretty horrible too. Genocides are like that.
But listen Armenians: get over it already. A lot of people, had suffered much the same before, a lot of people have suffered much the same after.
And please don't give me the it was the "first genocide of the century" crap. If it had been the second, would that have made it better?
So like I said, get over it already. Really. You're just making matters worse for yourself and everyone around you. You're using it as a crutch.
Worse, you've turned into a political issue. You've made it into a matter of partisan politics in far away and irrelevant countries like the France, the U.S. and Canada. What the hell do these places have to do with Anatolia?
This just cheapens the whole thing. Since when politicians or bureaucrat get to decide what's true? What the hell are you doing asking for them to weigh in on the question? Face it: most these guys couldn't find Anatolia on the map. Any opinions they have is for domestic or strategic reasons so what they say doesn't really matter.
And what, your going to get the Modern state of Turkey to acknowledge what happened and apologize like this? With pressure? That would be funny if it wasn't pathetic.
First, Turks are every little bit as stubborn and intractable as Armenians. Notice how you can't make an Armenian do something he doesn't want to by threatening him, no matter with what? Well, that's the way Turks are too. Just like us, proud and stubborn. Good luck pressuring them.
Second, when I was a kid, my parents used to make me apologize for all kinds of things that I didn't think was wrong. But since I didn't think I was in the wrong, I never meant the apologies. I never could understand what they got out of that then, so, even if it was possible to make Turkey apologize, I can't understand what Armenians would get out of a forced apology now.
I'm not saying forget the whole thing, I'm just saying that blaming people and forcing an appology at this point is misguided. The The reality is that, just like the victims, almost everyone who was remotely guilty of anything is dead now.
It's over. They got away with it. Too bad. Life's like that. Grow up. Move on.
The problem isn't one of recognition, it's one of education and recociliation.
And in this Turks are Armenians' partners not enemies.
The Obama administration published a series of memoranda on torture issued under the Bush administration. The memoranda, most of which dated from the period after 9/11, authorized measures including depriving prisoners of solid food, having them stand shackled and in uncomfortable positions, leaving them in cold cells with inadequate clothing, slapping their heads and/or abdomens, and telling them that their families might be harmed if they didn’t cooperate with their interrogators.
On the scale of human cruelty, these actions do not rise anywhere near the top. At the same time, anyone who thinks that being placed without food in a freezing cell subject to random mild beatings — all while being told that your family might be joining you — isn’t agonizing clearly lacks imagination. The treatment of detainees could have been worse. It was terrible nonetheless.
Torture and the Intelligence Gap
But torture is meant to be terrible, and we must judge the torturer in the context of his own desperation. In the wake of 9/11, anyone who wasn’t terrified was not in touch with reality. We know several people who now are quite blasé about 9/11. Unfortunately for them, we knew them in the months after, and they were not nearly as composed then as they are now.
Sept. 11 was terrifying for one main reason: We had little idea about al Qaeda’s capabilities. It was a very reasonable assumption that other al Qaeda cells were operating in the United States and that any day might bring follow-on attacks. (Especially given the group’s reputation for one-two attacks.) We still remember our first flight after 9/11, looking at our fellow passengers, planning what we would do if one of them moved. Every time a passenger visited the lavatory, one could see the tensions soar.
And while Sept. 11 was frightening enough, there were ample fears that al Qaeda had secured a “suitcase bomb” and that a nuclear attack on a major U.S. city could come at any moment. For individuals, such an attack was simply another possibility. We remember staying at a hotel in Washington close to the White House and realizing that we were at ground zero — and imagining what the next moment might be like. For the government, however, the problem was having scraps of intelligence indicating that al Qaeda might have a nuclear weapon, but not having any way of telling whether those scraps had any value. The president and vice president accordingly were continually kept at different locations, and not for any frivolous reason.
This lack of intelligence led directly to the most extreme fears, which in turn led to extreme measures. Washington simply did not know very much about al Qaeda and its capabilities and intentions in the United States. A lack of knowledge forces people to think of worst-case scenarios. In the absence of intelligence to the contrary after 9/11, the only reasonable assumption was that al Qaeda was planning more — and perhaps worse — attacks.
Collecting intelligence rapidly became the highest national priority. Given the genuine and reasonable fears, no action in pursuit of intelligence was out of the question, so long as it promised quick answers. This led to the authorization of torture, among other things. Torture offered a rapid means to accumulate intelligence, or at least — given the time lag on other means — it was something that had to be tried.
And this raises the moral question. The United States is a moral project: its Declaration of Independence and Constitution state that. The president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution does not speak to the question of torture of non-citizens, but it implies an abhorrence of rights violations (at least for citizens). But the Declaration of Independence contains the phrase, “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” This indicates that world opinion matters.
At the same time, the president is sworn to protect the Constitution. In practical terms, this means protecting the physical security of the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Protecting the principles of the declaration and the Constitution are meaningless without regime preservation and defending the nation.
While this all makes for an interesting seminar in political philosophy, presidents — and others who have taken the same oath — do not have the luxury of the contemplative life. They must act on their oaths, and inaction is an action. Former U.S. President George W. Bush knew that he did not know the threat, and that in order to carry out his oath, he needed very rapidly to find out the threat. He could not know that torture would work, but he clearly did not feel that he had the right to avoid it.
Consider this example. Assume you knew that a certain individual knew the location of a nuclear device planted in an American city. The device would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, but he individual refused to divulge the information. Would anyone who had sworn the oath have the right not to torture the individual? Torture might or might not work, but either way, would it be moral to protect the individual’s rights while allowing hundreds of thousands to die? It would seem that in this case, torture is a moral imperative; the rights of the one with the information cannot transcend the life of a city.
But here is the problem: You would not find yourself in this situation. Knowing a bomb had been planted, knowing who knew that the bomb had been planted, and needing only to apply torture to extract this information is not how the real world works. Post-9/11, the United States knew much less about the extent of the threat from al Qaeda. This hypothetical sort of torture was not the issue.
Discrete information was not needed, but situational awareness. The United States did not know what it needed to know, it did not know who was of value and who wasn’t, and it did not know how much time it had. Torture thus was not a precise solution to a specific problem: It became an intelligence-gathering technique. The nature of the problem the United States faced forced it into indiscriminate intelligence gathering. When you don’t know what you need to know, you cast a wide net. And when torture is included in the mix, it is cast wide as well. In such a case, you know you will be following many false leads — and when you carry torture with you, you will be torturing people with little to tell you. Moreover, torture applied by anyone other than well-trained, experienced personnel (who are in exceptionally short supply) will only compound these problems, and make the practice less productive.
Defenders of torture frequently seem to believe that the person in custody is known to have valuable information, and that this information must be forced out of him. His possession of the information is proof of his guilt. The problem is that unless you have excellent intelligence to begin with, you will become engaged in developing baseline intelligence, and the person you are torturing may well know nothing at all. Torture thus becomes not only a waste of time and a violation of decency, it actually undermines good intelligence. After a while, scooping up suspects in a dragnet and trying to extract intelligence becomes a substitute for competent intelligence techniques — and can potentially blind the intelligence service. This is especially true as people will tell you what they think you want to hear to make torture stop.
Critics of torture, on the other hand, seem to assume the torture was brutality for the sake of brutality instead of a desperate attempt to get some clarity on what might well have been a catastrophic outcome. The critics also cannot know the extent to which the use of torture actually prevented follow-on attacks. They assume that to the extent that torture was useful, it was not essential; that there were other ways to find out what was needed. In the long run, they might have been correct. But neither they, nor anyone else, had the right to assume in late 2001 that there was a long run. One of the things that wasn’t known was how much time there was.
The endless argument over torture, the posturing of both critics and defenders, misses the crucial point. The United States turned to torture because it has experienced a massive intelligence failure reaching back a decade. The U.S. intelligence community simply failed to gather sufficient information on al Qaeda’s intentions, capability, organization and personnel. The use of torture was not part of a competent intelligence effort, but a response to a massive intelligence failure.
That failure was rooted in a range of miscalculations over time. There was the public belief that the end of the Cold War meant the United States didn’t need a major intelligence effort, a point made by the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan. There were the intelligence people who regarded Afghanistan as old news. There was the Torricelli amendment that made recruiting people with ties to terrorist groups illegal without special approval. There were the Middle East experts who could not understand that al Qaeda was fundamentally different from anything seen before. The list of the guilty is endless, and ultimately includes the American people, who always seem to believe that the view of the world as a dangerous place is something made up by contractors and bureaucrats.
Bush was handed an impossible situation on Sept. 11, after just nine months in office. The country demanded protection, and given the intelligence shambles he inherited, he reacted about as well or badly as anyone else might have in the situation. He used the tools he had, and hoped they were good enough.
The problem with torture — as with other exceptional measures — is that it is useful, at best, in extraordinary situations. The problem with all such techniques in the hands of bureaucracies is that the extraordinary in due course becomes the routine, and torture as a desperate stopgap measure becomes a routine part of the intelligence interrogator’s tool kit.
At a certain point, the emergency was over. U.S. intelligence had focused itself and had developed an increasingly coherent picture of al Qaeda, with the aid of allied Muslim intelligence agencies, and was able to start taking a toll on al Qaeda. The war had become routinized, and extraordinary measures were no longer essential. But the routinization of the extraordinary is the built-in danger of bureaucracy, and what began as a response to unprecedented dangers became part of the process. Bush had an opportunity to move beyond the emergency. He didn’t.
If you know that an individual is loaded with information, torture can be a useful tool. But if you have so much intelligence that you already know enough to identify the individual is loaded with information, then you have come pretty close to winning the intelligence war. That’s not when you use torture. That’s when you simply point out to the prisoner that, “for you the war is over.” You lay out all you already know and how much you know about him. That is as demoralizing as freezing in a cell — and helps your interrogators keep their balance.
U.S. President Barack Obama has handled this issue in the style to which we have become accustomed, and which is as practical a solution as possible. He has published the memos authorizing torture to make this entirely a Bush administration problem while refusing to prosecute anyone associated with torture, keeping the issue from becoming overly divisive. Good politics perhaps, but not something that deals with the fundamental question.
The fundamental question remains unanswered, and may remain unanswered. When a president takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” what are the limits on his obligation? We take the oath for granted. But it should be considered carefully by anyone entering this debate, particularly for presidents.
Damn! I forgot to repost my favorite Easter Story on Easter! Oh well, better late than never:
A while ago, a Georgian friend of mine sent me this article by Latynina: Невменяемая грузинская оппозиция. (Aside: you may recall that this isn't the only article by Latynina I've posted here. Take a look at: An interesting article about Saakashvili).
Another Georgian friend, one of the ones I had sent the article to responded with:
"idiotskaia statia, nichego interesnogo."
Which frankly surprised me. When I asked for a clarification, this is what i got back:
kak ti znaesh, ia chelovek politikoi ne interesuiushchiisa. no, konechno mogu podelitsa svoimi vpechatleniami. u Mishi vse menshe i menshe storonnikov, i na mitingi i demonstratsii xodit ochen' mnogo ludei, eto ludi ne obiazatelno politicheski aktivnie, eto ludi, kotorie ne vinosiat lzhi i nespravedlivosti. Misha i ego okruzhenie uverenni, chto mogut delat' absolutno vse - otnimat' biznessi, sazhat' ludei v turmu iz-za togo, chto oni ne soglasni s etim pravitelstvom, pri etom podsovivaia im narkotiki, ne trogat' i ne nakazivat' dazhe ubiits esli eto ne xochetsa ludiam blizkim k pravitelstvu, i tak dalee. net svobodi slova na televidenii, naprimer. a chto kasaetsa voini s russkimi - eto voobshche uzhas, dazhe govorit' ob etom ne xochetsa. vobshchem, delo v tom chto bolshenstvo ludei uzhe ne doveriaiut etomu pravitelstvu, i v pervuiu ochered' prezidentu. nado otmetit', chto mitingi i manifestatsii proxodiat ochen' organizovonno, ia bi skazala - inteligentno, nikakix katanii na mashinax s flagami, nikakix krikov na ulitsax.. kazhdi den' v 15.00 vse sobiraiutsa u doma pravitelstva , a potom organizovanno provodiat aktsii v raznix mestax - u televidenia, u rezidentsii prezidenta, pered parlamentom. lideri i aktivisti opozitsii nochuiut poocheredi pered parlamentom i rezidentsiei. glavnoe trebovanie - otstavka prezidenta. i na etom fone, Misha mozhno skazat' priachetsa, po krainei mere ne delaet nikakix zaiavlenii, ne pokazivaetsa na ludiax. pravitelstvo delaet vid, chto nichego osobennogo ne proisxodit, i delaet ochen' obshcie zaiavlenia, nekonkretnie i neponiatnie, i vidimo stroit plani, poka ix plani dal'she melkogo xuliganstva ne poshli. vot primer: v voskresenie bil pravoslavni prazdnik, eto verbnoe voskresenie. v Subbotu lideri opozitsii obiavili, chto v verbnoe voskresenie oni ne provedut aktsii protesta, chtobi ludi smogli svobodno peredvigatsa po gorodu (tak kak vo vremia aktsii perekrit Rustaveli, Kostava pered televideniem i Avlabar) i chtobi ludi smogli provesti prazdnik vmeste s rodnimi, smogli poiti v tserkov'. i reshili, chto, tak kak ne budet aktsii, nochiu s suboti na voskresenie sanitarnaia sluzhba merii goroda dolzhna bila ochstit' prospekt rustaveli ot musora, kotori tam bil iz-za mitingov. vse zvuchit prekrasno, ne tak li? i chto sluchilos? v 11 chasov nochi prishli mashini i ludi , uborshchiki, a vmeste s nimi priblizitelno 50-60 chelovek molodix ludei, kotorie v nachale predstavilis rabotnikami merii, oni rugalis, lomali apparaturu (tam komputeri, videokameri, tribuna, etc...) s pomoshchiu kotoroi mitingi peredavalis v priamoi efir, kstati tolko po tomu kanalu, kotori mozhno smotret' tolko v Tbilisi (!!) , telekanali Rustavi 2 i Imedi ne peredaiut polnoi informatsii o proisxpdivshem. vobshchem, eti molodie ludi, kotorie prishli vmeste s uborshchikami, uzhastno orali, rugalis, lomali vse, brosali v musor komputeri i xoteli slomat' tribunu, oni bili odeti v grazhdanskuiu odezhdu, no nekotorie iz nix bili v maskax. v eto vremia mitinguiushchix na ulitse ne bilo, bili tolko dezhurnie, kotorie presmatrivali za apparaturoi, kogda oni popitalis zashchitit' svoi veshchi "predstaviteli merii" dostali dubinki i stali ix bit'. no v eto vremia uzh stal sobiratsa narod, lideri, uzhe ob etom stali govorit' po telekanalu "maestro" i eta kamanda pravitelstvennix xuliganov skrilas. chto proisxodit potom: lideri oppozitsii pozvonili v politsiu, v patrul' i skazali, chto proizoshlo takoe napadenie, razgrom, i poprosili priexat'. patrul' ne prexal !!! kogda ob etom fakte obiavili po tomu zhe telekanalu "maestro" (dlia drugix kanalov etogo vidimo ne slochilos) posle etogo zamestitel' ministra vnutrennix del vistupila po Rustavi 2 i skazala, chto pered parlamentom proizoshol insident mezhdu oppozitsionerami i ludmi kotorie ubirali teritoriu, a patrul ne priexal, chtob ne uslozhniat' situetsiu.. a na sleduiushchi den' mer goroda v interviu skazal - chto "mitinguiushchim pridiotsa samim ubirat' ulitsi (eto oni uzhe delaiut) i ni odnogo chelovaka v forme", on imenno tak skazal - "ni uborshchikov, ni patrulnix, ni pazharnikov, ni medpersonala - v mestax gde sobiraiutsa mitinguiushchie ne budet.." i chto eto znachit?? kak doveriat' takomu pravitelstvu? znachit oni uzhe otkazalis' ot vlasti? esli komuto nuzhen doktor - skoraia ne priedet? vozmozhno. ved' patrul' ne priexal. i voobshche, mi, gruzini, muzhestvenni i krasivi narod. razve Misha nashe litso?
I trust both of these friends. Opinions do seem to be divided. I simply don't know what to think.
Here is my reply to this letter:
obromnoe spasibo za tvoe dlinoe io podrobnoe pismo. Ia chitaiu tut vse istochniki novostei, no ia nigde ne chital podobnoe. Obshoe mnenie na zapade, chto Misha sdelal "oshibki" kogda byli mintingi god nazad no seichas on vedet sebia prekrasno, kak dostoino nastiashemu demokratu.
Govororiat chto opizitsiia ploxo organzovana, ne obedenena, i sredi nix mnogo idiotov i ne opotnix liudei. Osobono govoriat chto Gachachiladze polniy durak.
A prichina mitingi govoriat to, chto ekonomika pod rukovodstov Mishi ne stalo luchshe tak bystro kak vse xoteli. Krome etogo est' "fakt" chto gruzine neterplivye i goriachie liudi. Pishut vse, kak budto krome Mishi v strane ni odnogo sposobnogo cheloveka.
I lichno ne znaiu uzhe chto dumat'. Ego reformy v strane deistviltel'no pogresivynye i dlia strane byshego soiuza iskliuchitel'nye, no on prosto ne smog upravliat stranu mezhdu amerikantsami i russkimi. I davno mne kazhetsia, chto uzhe ne xochet': mne davno kazhetsia chto on xochet pozhervovat' svoiu stranu radi kakie-to printsipy...
No, ia ne znaiu u menia pravil'nye vpechetlenie ili ne pravil'nye... Ia ne v gruzii i davno ponimaiu chto gruziiu izdeleko slozhno ponimat'.
And here is the response:
kak nastoiashchi demokrat? o, da, kogda nachalis mitingi, on poexal v Gudauri, katalsa na lizhax, nervi naverno uspokaival :))) to, chto rasskazannogo mnoi sluchaia ne bilo v presse - eto podtverzhdaet tot fakt, chto etot fakt xorosho priachut. eto bilo po televideniu, eto ne ia pridumala, ia smotrela priamoi efir nochiu. a to chto on ne proiavliaet agressiu, on boitsa, i pravilno delaet, potomu chto, esli xot' polovina iz togo chto sluchilos god nazat, to est' - rezinovie puli, izbienie ludei, slezotochivi gaz - esli xot' chast' etogo povtoritsa, ludei na ulitsax stanet vdvoe, vtroe bolshe, i Mishe ostanetsa odin vixod - bezhat'. Gachechiladze ne idiot, on ne kandidatura, za kogo budet golosovat' gruzia, no on xoroshi organizator i chelovek, kotori ne boitsa. chto kasaetsa neorganizovannosti aktsii - eto absolutnaia nepravda!! naoborot, vse ochen' i ochen' organizovanno. opozitsia govorit, chto ni v parlament ne v drugie zdania ona ne budet lomit'sa nezakonnim putem, a na nereagirovanie pravitelstva oni otvechaiut rostom masshtaba aktsii. posle informatsionnogo mitinga, ludi raspredeliaiutsa v raznie tochki tbilisi - rezidentsia, televidenie, parlament, a segodnia nachnut delat' palatochni gorod okolo televidenia, eto uzhe sdelanno u rezidentsii prezidenta. govoriat misha letaet nochevat' v Batumi, vernee v Bobokvati, na pravitelstvennuiu dachu, gde lubil priatatsa Abashidze - eto na urovne sluxov, no ne udivlus' esli eto pravda :) chto kasaetsa raznoglasii v oppozitsii. eto ne pravda. no poniatno otkuda idet eta informatsia - vriadi oppozitsii nekotoroe vremia nazad perebralsa bivshi ministr finansov i bivshi premier Nogaideli. u nego ne men'she grexov, chem u samogo Mishi - eto finansovie maxinatsii, prodazha vazhnix obiektov... ego figura vizvala nedovolstvo ludei, ego ne xoteli videt' i on postupil umno, - on skazal, chto ne budet prinimat' uchastie v aktsiax, xotia ostaiotsa oppozitsionerom. a chto kasaetsa liderov - to eto Irakli Alasania (moia simpatia :) ); Salome Zurabishvili , Nino Burjanadze (xotia ona mne ne nravitsa), Zviad Dzidziguri, David Berdzenishvili... ni ob odnom iz nix nelzia skazat', chto u nix net opita v politike. u nix dazhe bolshoi opit. nenavizhu politiku, no eshcho bolshe nenavizhi dezinformatsiu i nespravedlivost'.
I'm interested in other views. If you're in Tbilisi, especially if you're Georgian, please leave a comment.
I always approve comments that are polite and relevant.
I know, it's old news, but still...
Don't forget to check out CADIE's hompage! and her blog.
You may remember Dr. Dot In Georgia and More Dr. Dot Fun...
Well, the mainstream press is finally catching up with Gl.Mimino.Org! Dr. Dot made the New York Times: A President, His Masseuse And Her Blog
Remember, you read about it here first!
Georgia: April 9 Protests
Robert Wood
Acting Department Spokesman, Office of the Spokesman
Bureau Of Public Affairs
Washington, DC April 8, 2009As a friend of Georgia, the United States stands with all Georgians in their continuing efforts to build democracy. It is this shared quest for democracy that reflects the common values that bind our countries together as strategic partners. We urge the Government of Georgia and all those participating in the April 9 protest rally to ensure that the demonstrations are peaceful and without violence. Peaceful protests are an important part of any democracy and an integral and acceptable way to express political views. Building a democracy can be facilitated when all political forces engage in dialogue, follow through on commitments, and collaborate on the hard work of democratic reform, including the electoral code and political environment, the judiciary, and independent media. The United States stands ready to sustain and deepen its support for these reforms, which are essential to Georgia’s success as a democracy in which voters determine the country’s political future.
Here is the statement on the U.S. State Departments website.
I've been watching this HBO mini series True Blood and I must say, as vampire flicks go, it's really quite good.
Really, really good actually. The idea is that vampires are real, and because a synthetic form of blood they can live on has been recently invented they've "come out of the coffin" so to speak. They insisted on and have received the same rights as humans, but there still is a fair bit of discrimination against them. The twist is that they are far from complete agreement among themselves whether or not coming out of the coffin was a good idea in the first place, and besides many vampire still view humans as, well, sub-vampire. So the "discrimination" goes two ways.
From their side, people are appalled at having to treat vampires within the law, and they point out that vampires have been killing people for centuries. The vampires point out that people have been killing people for centuries too, but this doesn't mean people don't have rights.
Anyway, what really makes the series is the opening theme. It's has be one of the best pieces of cinematography I've ever seen.
Oh, by the way, the title of the series "True Blood", comes from the trademarked name of the synthetic blood drink. It's available in grocery stores and corner stores everywhere.
What: Maka Batiashvili's Latest Show
When: Opening April 9 , 2009 6.00 6:00 PM
Where: Lithuanian Theatre, Music and Cinema Museum, Vilnius Street 41, Vilnius
To see more of Maka's work see her website: Maka.Batiashvili.Net
Here's a quote from Richard Feynman:
There are 1011 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
And and here is GL.Mimino.Org's little guide to help you understand these economical numbers:
This is what a hundred dollars looks like:
No problem here. We've all seen them.
This is what a ten thousand dollars looks like:
In cash economies, these are commonly called "bricks". I had to count out and hand over a few of these when I bought my house in Tbilisi. You want spring you your step? Stuff your pocket with these and walk across town to meet someone.
This is what a million dollars looks like:
Your on your own now. All I got is pictures from here on.
This is what a hundred million dollars looks like:
This is what a billion dollars looks like:
Finally, This is what a trillion dollars looks like:
Don't miss the little dot on the lower right hand side: that's the person.
N.B.These pictures were emailed to me butI have no idea who the original artist is. Whoever you are, thanks!
