Hieronymus Blogsch http://www.rjray.org rjray.org - Journal and Log for Randy J. Ray en Randy J. Ray (rjray@blackperl.com) Copyright Randy J. Ray Hollywood Prognostication http://www.rjray.org/politics/thesiege.html The Siege is not exactly an Oscar-calibre film. But watching it (more or less, in the background as I write code) this evening, it strikes me how prescient it seems to be; the setting of NYC, encroachment on civil liberties, unlawful surveillance of citizens, torture and murder of suspects by military persons. It was released in 1998, almost obviously as a response to the 1995 World Trade Center attack. But the relevance and resemblance to the present-day, to the way things have gone since 2001, is almost uncanny. (All except the "happy" ending, where all the terrorists are caught and the bad army man is jailed for the murder of a prisoner. I don't really expect to see anything like that any time soon.)

I could do without the over-the-top dialoque, particularly the really bad lines Denzel Washington was given. And I don't necessarily see the president putting a major city under martial law, or said military presence leading to the rounding up of people en masse and locking them up in makeshift detention facilities. But with so much of the rest of it having come around, I do worry. I don't see it, but four years ago I wouldn't have seen our military engaged in torture, and memos from the administration's own legal team justifying it.

(Still, don't watch it expecting any break-out performances.)

]]> /politics Randy J. Ray 2006-08-27T07:17-07:00 The Siege is not exactly an Oscar-calibre film. But watching it (more or less, in the background as I write code) this evening, it strikes me how prescient it seems to be; the setting of NYC, encroachment on civil liberties, unlawful surveillance of citizens, torture and murder of suspects by military persons. It was released in 1998, almost obviously as a response to the 1995 World Trade Center attack. But the relevance and resemblance to the present-day, to the way things have gone since 2001, is almost uncanny. (All except the "happy" ending, where all the terrorists are caught and the bad army man is jailed for the murder of a prisoner. I don't really expect to see anything like that any time soon.)

I could do without the over-the-top dialoque, particularly the really bad lines Denzel Washington was given. And I don't necessarily see the president putting a major city under martial law, or said military presence leading to the rounding up of people en masse and locking them up in makeshift detention facilities. But with so much of the rest of it having come around, I do worry. I don't see it, but four years ago I wouldn't have seen our military engaged in torture, and memos from the administration's own legal team justifying it.

(Still, don't watch it expecting any break-out performances.)

]]> Why I Don't Think the Liquid-Bomb Plot is a Worry http://www.rjray.org/politics/londonbombers2.html As the initial "OH SWEET MOTHER OF GOD THEY CAN BLOW US UP WITH SNAPPLE BOTTLES!!" hysteria subsides, we discover that these guys had been under surveillance, completely penetrated, by no less than three major intelligence agencies. That they were planning on cell phones, and some of them openly travelled to Pakistan (way to keep the cover, Reilly, Ace of Spies). Hell, Chertoff knew about this two weeks ago, and the only reason that some people can scream this headline:

"The London Bombers were within DAYS of trying a dry run!!!"

– was because MI-5, MI-6, and Scotland Yard let them get that close, so they could suck in the largest number of contacts (again, very spiffy police work). The fact that these wingnuts could have been rolled up, at will, at any time, seems to have competely escaped the media buzz.

This, and the quickness with which the administration tried to make political hay out of this (VP Cheney implying that our democratic process encourages the enemy, and a CNN anchor going so far as to imply that one of the candidates in the Connecticut senate race might be "the al Qaeda candidate"), these are the reasons I'm not running around wetting myself in fear. Another point that seems to be lost on the media: Of all the intelligence gathered by the various British agencies in this operation, none of it involved torture.

]]> /politics Randy J. Ray 2006-08-20T02:44-07:00 As the initial "OH SWEET MOTHER OF GOD THEY CAN BLOW US UP WITH SNAPPLE BOTTLES!!" hysteria subsides, we discover that these guys had been under surveillance, completely penetrated, by no less than three major intelligence agencies. That they were planning on cell phones, and some of them openly travelled to Pakistan (way to keep the cover, Reilly, Ace of Spies). Hell, Chertoff knew about this two weeks ago, and the only reason that some people can scream this headline:

"The London Bombers were within DAYS of trying a dry run!!!"

– was because MI-5, MI-6, and Scotland Yard let them get that close, so they could suck in the largest number of contacts (again, very spiffy police work). The fact that these wingnuts could have been rolled up, at will, at any time, seems to have competely escaped the media buzz.

This, and the quickness with which the administration tried to make political hay out of this (VP Cheney implying that our democratic process encourages the enemy, and a CNN anchor going so far as to imply that one of the candidates in the Connecticut senate race might be "the al Qaeda candidate"), these are the reasons I'm not running around wetting myself in fear. Another point that seems to be lost on the media: Of all the intelligence gathered by the various British agencies in this operation, none of it involved torture.

]]> The Threat That Wasn't http://www.rjray.org/politics/londonbombers.html Since I have a strong interest in things London, I've been following the arrest of the so-called bombing plot conspirators. It's looked fishy from the very start, and the following editorial from Craig Murray doesn't help:

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

I'm not saying they didn't want to blow up planes, just that they probably weren't going to. At least, not anytime soon. What I am strongly implying is that the timing of this was politically-driven.

]]> /politics Randy J. Ray 2006-08-17T05:35-07:00 Since I have a strong interest in things London, I've been following the arrest of the so-called bombing plot conspirators. It's looked fishy from the very start, and the following editorial from Craig Murray doesn't help:

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

I'm not saying they didn't want to blow up planes, just that they probably weren't going to. At least, not anytime soon. What I am strongly implying is that the timing of this was politically-driven.

]]>