I just like this:

“We cannot teach and you cannot learn in these conditions.”

It’s a sign of the times. A good friend of mine goes to Berkeley and received this email from one of his professors. He said it was sent out to the entire English department. He also mentioned that “they” (the student and teachers) have demanded the resignation of the chancellor and are planning an even larger protest this coming week (perhaps November 15th?!)

Dear students,

You will by now have seen many video clips of police violence against our peaceful protesters.  But I want to make sure you see this one:  a fuller
version of this video was originally posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-5y03GonkI) but later, after growing awareness that it documented the mistreatment of UCB faculty, was mysteriously taken down so that it is no longer accessible, as you will see if you click on the original link.  However, a secure copy of a portion of it–documenting the arrest of English professor Celeste Langan who is yanked to the ground by her hair after presenting her wrists for arrest–was fortunately preserved in a Baycitizen article.  This is the link:

http://www.baycitizen.org/occupy-movement/story/uc-berkeley-pledges-investigate-police/

This video also shows, though not as clearly as the original, English professor and poet, Geoffrey O’Brien, at the top left perimeter of the student crowd interposing himself, arms extended, between police and students.  This is, as I mentioned in class, the protective stance many faculty took two years ago.  The results were different this time. Professor O’Brien was later hit with batons–his injuries may take two months to heal–when he put his body between a young woman and the police who were beating her.

The physical and psychological abuse of students and faculty is inimical to the educational mission of our university and has no place in our community.  We cannot teach and you cannot learn in these conditions.  All of this is quite apart from our legal rights to assemble and speak.  The
violence exercised against us was no accident.  It was calculated and planned, as the following YouTube video shows.  This was taken in October
by an alert student who had the foresight to comprehend how it might prove relevant; let it remind us that in the current climate we must, sadly,
remain vigilant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAx_tDn2zus&sns=em

What happened last week may have surprised many of us (many of us can no longer be surprised), but it was no surprise to those who have been
planning on it for some time.

Many faculty and students are mobilizing to ensure the safety of our campus against those who should be protecting, not hurting us.  I want thank
those of you who have already begun to make your voices heard, and to reassure those of you who hesitate in this unconscionable climate of fear,
that there is safety in the growing numbers of people with and behind you. You don’t have to be ‘political’, just a person.

There are many powerfully responsive movements in swing; I myself have articulated strong support for a resolution of the Academic Senate (UCB
faculty) along these lines:  no weapons, no exterior forces on campus unless explicitly called for by the Chancellor.  Such a resolution would clarify responsibility for future violence against our students and faculty and lay the ground for future censure of those responsible (i.e. a vote of no-confidence).  A great many faculty have already signed a powerfully-worded protest petition.  Legal experts around the country are getting involved, and as are other national organizations.

Check out these links:

Berkeley City Council is behind us  (remember those tents by Berkeley High haven’t seemed to issue in violent beatings of protesters!)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/10/1035074/-Breaking:-Berkeley-City-Council-has-Ended-Mutual-Aid-Agreements-With-Other-Jurisdictions?via=siderec

Steven Colbert is behind us (and also funny, whether you are conservative or liberal!)

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402024/november-10-2011/occupy-u-c–berkeley?xrs=share_copy

And this one is just, well, sad.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/164535/penn-state-and-berkeley-tale-two-protests

There is so much more to say and do, but I will end by saying that, in honour of my colleagues and my students–to whom I have devoted every day
of the last 17 years–and in honour of the principle and possibility of public education in which I fervently believe, we will not be having class next Tuesday; and by doing:  I will be participating, body and mind, in the strike/day of action (15th November), and invite you to join me and many,
many others who want something different for ourselves and for those who will come after us.

All best wishes (and don’t forget to study *Guy of Warwick* as an act of protest against those who would eradicate the humanities because it’s not,
well, lucrative; without us, it dies),

Jennifer Miller

“My heart has drifted out into a place I cannot find.”

Here’s another short I submitted to workshop. Direct quote from my professor on the piece: “I like this–it’s not very edgy (what I expect from you), but there is more attention to language and voice.” Hm. Thanks, I guess. Pretty good critique for a first draft I suppose.

Dash

We started training back in February. Initially, we would go on walks together around the neighborhood. When we would get back within two blocks of the house, she’d want to race me. We’d take off, the wind in our ears and the first couple times I beat her, but very quickly, she became faster than me. I assumed she must have been practicing. We had tried to go jogging together before, but she just couldn’t go the distance—she never lasted and it didn’t help that she’d been built with such stubby legs. I’d end up waiting for her on the curb, half of a mile in. I guess sprinting was her thing and I’m sure she loved the fact that she was better at it than me. I had run track in high school and so I took it upon myself to become her trainer.

We still went on walks, but having the long, narrow backyard that we did, made for a perfect 100-meter-dash practice track. I bought a stop watch and built her a starting block out of some wood scraps I got from dad, who would also help out, standing at the finish line with me, calling her, cheering her on. She loved the extra motivation and the treats he usually had waiting for her.

Training wasn’t always easy. She would get bored and run into the house, ignoring my calls or get distracted and wander down the opposite side of the yard. This is usually when her selective hearing would kick in; when the cookies or jerky weren’t worth her time. But I was relentless and somehow we managed to get a good solid training in at least five days a week. And at the end of practice, you could tell that she felt good, that she was proud of herself, that she was top dog.

The day of the big race was finally upon us. We both woke up a little nervous, but she was obviously more excited than anything else. You could tell by the way she kept running and jumping around the house. I kept having to tell her to calm down; save that nervous energy to propel her in the race. When we got down to the Del Mar fairground the crowd was a lot larger than I had expected. We checked in and picked up her numbered jersey, which I promptly helped her into. We walked down to the track to see if we could get a quick warm up in and size up the competition. Being an open race made for a pretty diverse group. There were a lot of younger, leaner looking runners, but overall, I was confident in her abilities.

An announcement was made that the race would start in 10 minutes and that runners, coaches and spectators needed to take their places. We looked at each other—it was time. I wished her luck, gave her a quick kiss on the head and left her at the starting block. I walked down to the finish line, my stomach in knots.

It all came down to this:  the Weiner Nationals—the annual dachshund race hosted by Wienerschnitzel.

Oops, I did it again.

Last time I said I might post some of the stories I’ve been working on for my big critique in my creative writing class. With my critique right around the corner (Tuesday), I figured what better time than now to share one of these stories. My bf told me this particular story reminds him of the way Raymond Carver writes. I thought that was nice of him to say.

Enjoy! (Or don’t. I don’t really care. That’s the kind of mood I’m in. I blame my filthy history homework.)

 

Settled by Me

 

“I can play this song on the guitar.”

“Really?” She changes the station.

“I can play this song too.”

“Cool.” The song ends and a new one begins to play.

“Oh, and this one.”

She takes her hand from the button.

“I scored one hundred percent singing ‘Maps’ on RockBand once.” She gives him an expectant sideways glance, a half smile forming on her lips. He says nothing, eyes on the road.

Hmph. She leans her head on the window, eyes tracing the rolling green hills. I could do this. I could live here; settle down. It can’t be that bad, it’s what people do. The scenery is pretty. I might get bored. No, only boring people get bored. Maybe if we got a dog—

“You know you still haven’t given me a song to learn on the guitar for you. One that will make you go all butter knees.” He takes his right hand off the wheel and rests it on her knee, shaking it gently, smiling.

That’s because I don’t want you to ruin one of my favorite songs, she thinks to herself.

“I’m just trying to think of the perfect song. It’s not an easy decision.” Plus your range is limited and I want to be sure it’s a song I won’t mind never listening to again.

“You’re the only girl I’ve ever met that is unimpressed with and hasn’t succumbed to my guitar playing charms.”

“Well maybe it’s time you learned some new tricks. And who said I was unimpressed?” She nudges him playfully on the shoulder and puts her hand in his, interlocking their fingers.

“You’re just so—“

“You know I’m not the kind of girl that falls all over herself like that.”

She gives his hand a quick squeeze and pulls away, turning her eyes back on the rolling green hills, not knowing what else to say; not wanting to hurt his feelings.

“I know, I know. Just let me know when you think of a song.” He turns up the radio and starts to sing along. She watches him out of the corner of her eye, studying his face. He’s not bad looking.

He catches her and gives a grin, his front teeth overcoming his bottom lip.

Oh God, I hate that goofy bucked-tooth smile. He doesn’t even have bucked teeth and he somehow manages to make himself look like that. The way he juts his chin out. Is he trying to be cute? It’s embarrassing. I can’t stand it.

She gives him a squinty-eyed smile back, gritting her teeth.

“There it is.” She looks up to see the football stadium sized building in its trademark blue with yellow letters that are roughly three-stories tall.

“The Swedish furniture mecca! We’ll practically fill your apartment in a one trip.”

“That’s the plan.”

After spending hours agonizing over dressers, end tables, chairs, shelving and everything else under the bright florescent lights, they finally found themselves at the end in textiles and home accessories.

“Will you stop rushing me?” There was an edge in his voice.

“How can you not know what you like and want? There are only so many options here.” She plops down on a display bed and crosses her arms, watching him as he goes over his list and the myriad of numbers he’s written down.

“Well I want to make sure I make the right choice. So just hang on.”

She gets up and walks on ahead of him anyway. “Look, there are all of the dishes. Isn’t that on your list?”

He catches up to her standing in front of the wall display of tableware. “What about the blue ones over there?”

“Everything you pick out is blue.”

“It’s a good color.”

She walks to one end of the display, he to the other. “What about these white ones?” he asks.

“These brown ones are cool. Neutral. Square.”

“I think I like the white.”

Of course you do. White like your t-shirts. White like your SUV. White like the walls of your apartment are and will remain.

“OK.”

“Hey, I think I see pillows and bedding over there.” He says pointing.

“Yes! Replace those bags of sand you call bed pillows.”

They walk over and begin feeling out all of the pillows on display. Foam, cotton, feather. She rests her head the fluffiest down pillow she can find.

“I’ve found one.” He motions for her to come over, holding the pillow out for her to touch.

“Feels good to me.”

“Will you put it in the bag?” she takes it from him and puts it in the obnoxious oversized bag she’s been carrying around for the last hour.

“You’re only getting one?”

“Yeah, it’s all I need.”

“Oh. OK.”

He puts his arm around her shoulders as they start walking toward the warehouse, “I’m really glad you came with me today.”

She stares on ahead of her, “Me too.”

I haven’t posted for two months!

Oh the horror. I used to feel guilty about this, but the other day I thinking, “You know, I just have no urge to blog right now. Maybe I should just delete it?” But that would be ridiculous and then all of that terrible Puritan guilt kicked in and now here I am.

So I am happy to report that I was published again back in early August! A little literary journal called The Bay Bridge Review has taken three of my stories. I’d post a link to their site, but I can’t seem to find it at the moment. Weird.

I suppose I have been busier writing stories than I have blogs. Which is probably a good thing. And some of my stories have actually ended up more than 150 words! Perhaps I will post some of the first drafts of the stories I wrote for my massive creative writing critique for this semester. We’ll see…

It’s good to be back!

Could this be considered a form of discrimination?

For reals?!

I saw this a couple of weeks ago whilst trying to spend some birthday dough. Honestly, it’s not like they’re disabled. Most pregnant women choose to be pregnant and have small children. And what if one was a week or a month pregnant? Would one still be eligible to park there? Ridiculous!

Where’s my “Single Female” special parking spot?!

The Seven (and then some) Stages of a Break Up.

 1. Hurt/Angry: You’re angry and sad; you cry and you yell and cry some more because it hurts so bad and you feel so violated and you’re angry and just can’t stop until you pass out from exhaustion.

*Somewhere in between you start to remind yourself of something a friend once told you: “It’s OK when your heart breaks because…” but you can’t remember the rest so you just keep telling yourself, “It’s OK when your heart breaks. It’s OK.”

2. Shock: You go through your day-to-day life numbly; a hollow shell of your former self. You may even be able to talk about the break up without crying. The Hurt/Anger comes back sporadically during this time, the pain coming from your heart in small doses is released via tears.

3. Sadness: Deep, painful, unbearable sadness that renders you incapable of keeping your composure and the only thing running through your head is, “Why?” And you suddenly want everything to rewind and go back to normal and you want to start over but know you can’t and so you just keep crying until your eyes are puffy and your nose is raw and there’s a pile of crumpled tissues next to your bed and you tell yourself you’d rather be numb again or even bent over a toilet hungover; anything but what you feel now. Why? Why? Why?

This lasts for two days, but no more than three because you tell yourself you’re stronger than that and you remind yourself, “It’s OK when your heart breaks.”

4. Sadness Aftershocks: The sadness lingers, but is random. You feel the tears well-up when you have to talk about it, but you embrace and release, knowing that day-by-day it’s slowly fading and like a ship leaving the harbor, eventually it will be out of sight.

5. One Week: You hit the one-week-since-break-up mark without even realizing it and determine that starting now, there will be no more tears!

And there aren’t anymore. You experience quiet, quick moments of sadness but instead of dwelling on them, you move forward, past them. And for now, everything seems to be getting better…

6. Loss of Confidence: Self explanatory. You feel fat, ugly, dumb, etc. Generally unattractive as a whole. You wonder why guys don’t like you, why they cheat and then you feel worse that someone has robbed you of your confidence and you’re annoyed at yourself for letting them and that you’re feeling sorry for yourself and thinking this way in the first place! Annoyed! And fat!

*Somewhere in between these you actually miss him. But you loved him and you’re dealing with this break up and you’re lonely, so of course you would. Plus, you’re pms’ing and that’s what you chalk most (if not all) of these lonely feelings up to.

7. Man Hater Mode: You can’t stand them. You can’t stand the thought of being touched or kissed or holding hands. The thought of sex turns your stomach. You have to constantly pull yourself from a pessimistic place and remember the words of one of your oldest friends from the last time you went through a nasty break up: “You are not a man hater!” And this is what you constantly remind yourself, “I am not a man hater! I’m just going through a difficult time!” But you’re still having a hard time conversing (in a kind manner) with your male compatriots and you’re secretly hoping their romantic relationships crash and burn. And then you immediately feel absolutely terrible for thinking it (and actually writing it out!) and take it all back because, “I am not a man hater! I’m just going through a difficult time!”

Slowly all of this will fade and your confidence begins to reemerge and you stick with your current mantas, “It’s OK when your heart breaks” and “I am not a man hater! I’m just going through a difficult time!” and use the amazing, overwhelming, awe-inspiring love and support of your beautiful friends and family to help you heal. And you realize that while you may be jaded and pessimistic (and perhaps a bit self-deprecating), ultimately you haven’t given up on love. However, during this time you have also been contemplating the saying, “Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all” and think that maybe Alfred Lord Tennyson was full of shit (or drunk) when he said that. And then you laugh to yourself because you’re (mostly) kidding. Mostly.

And life goes on…

Writers and scientists are completely different breeds of people.

A great friend and fellow writer turned me onto this poet. Apparently said friend read this poem and immediately thought of me. Friend was correct, I dig it.

Enjoy!

“Why I Have A Crush On You, UPS Man”

Alice N. Persons

you bring me all the things I order
are never in a bad mood
always have a jaunty wave as you drive away
look good in your brown shorts
we have an ideal uncomplicated relationship
you’re like a cute boyfriend with great legs
who always brings the perfect present
(why, it’s just what I’ve always wanted!)
and then is considerate enough to go away
oh, UPS Man, let’s hop in your clean brown truck and elope !
ditch your job, I’ll ditch mine
let’s hit the road for Brownsville
and tempt each other
with all the luscious brown foods —
roast beef, dark chocolate,
brownies, Guinness, homemade pumpernickel, molasses cookies
I’ll make you my mama’s bourbon pecan pie
we’ll give all the packages to kind looking strangers
live in a cozy wood cabin
with a brown dog or two
and a black and brown tabby
I’m serious, UPS Man. Let’s do it.
Where do I sign?

Two weeks…

Reading is good for you.

There is Much More to Say

Noam Chomsky

ZNet, May 2011

After the assassination of bin Laden I received such a deluge of requests for comment that I was unable to respond individually, and on May 4 and later I sent an unedited form response instead, not intending for it to be posted, and expecting to write it up more fully and carefully later on. But it was posted, then circulated. It can now be found, reposted, at http://www.zcommunications.org/my-reaction-to-osama-bin-laden-s-death-by-noam-chomsky.

That was followed but a deluge of reactions from all over the world. It is far from a scientific sample of course, but nevertheless, the tendencies may be of some interest. Overwhelmingly, those from the “third world” were on the order of “thanks for saying what we think.” There were similar ones from the US, but many others were infuriated, often virtually hysterical, with almost no relation to the actual content of the posted form letter. That was true in particular of the posted or published responses brought to my attention. I have received a few requests to comment on several of these. Frankly, it seems to me superfluous. If there is any interest, I’ll nevertheless find some time to do so.

The original letter ends with the comment that “There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.” Here I will fill in some of the gaps, leaving the original otherwise unchanged in all essentials.

Noam Chomsky

May 2011

On May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in his virtually unprotected compound by a raiding mission of 79 Navy Seals, who entered Pakistan by helicopter. After many lurid stories were provided by the government and withdrawn, official reports made it increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 79 commandos facing no opposition – except, they report, from his wife, also unarmed, who they shot in self-defense when she “lunged” at them (according to the White House).

A plausible reconstruction of the events is provided by veteran Middle East correspondent Yochi Dreazen and colleagues in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/goal-was-never-to-capture-bin-laden/238330/). Dreazen, formerly the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is senior correspondent for the National Journal Group covering military affairs and national security. According to their investigation, White House planning appears not to have considered the option of capturing OBL alive: “The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.”

The authors add: “For many at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency who had spent nearly a decade hunting bin Laden, killing the militant was a necessary and justified act of vengeance.” Furthermore, “Capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges.” Better, then, to assassinate him, dumping his body into the sea without the autopsy considered essential after a killing, whether considered justified or not – an act that predictably provoked both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

As the Atlantic inquiry observes, “The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration’s counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.” That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama. The authors quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who “told German TV that the U.S. raid was ‘quite clearly a violation of international law’ and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial,” contrasting Schmidt with US Attorney General Eric Holder, who “defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn’t pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel on Tuesday that the assault had been ‘lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way’.”

The disposal of the body without autopsy was also criticized by allies. The highly regarded British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who supported the intervention and opposed the execution largely on pragmatic grounds, nevertheless described Obama’s claim that “justice was done” as an “absurdity” that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/osama-bin-laden-death-why-he-should-have-been-captured-not-killed/). Pakistan law “requires a colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists that the ‘right to life’ mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from government or police action. The U.S. is therefore under a duty to hold an inquiry that will satisfy the world as to the true circumstances of this killing.” Robertson adds that “The law permits criminals to be shot in self-defense if they (or their accomplices) resist arrest in ways that endanger those striving to apprehend them. They should, if possible, be given the opportunity to surrender, but even if they do not come out with their hands up, they must be taken alive if that can be achieved without risk. Exactly how bin Laden came to be ‘shot in the head’ (especially if it was the back of his head, execution-style) therefore requires explanation. Why a hasty ‘burial at sea’ without a post mortem, as the law requires?”

Robertson attributes the murder to “America’s obsessive belief in capital punishment—alone among advanced nations—[which] is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise.” For example, Nation columnist Eric Alterman writes that “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a just and necessary undertaking.”

Robertson usefully reminds us that “It was not always thus. When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden — namely the Nazi leadership — the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution ‘would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride…the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear’.”

The editors of the Daily Beast comment that “The joy is understandable, but to many outsiders, unattractive. It endorses what looks increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination as the White House is now forced to admit that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot twice in the head.”

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In June 2002, FBI head Robert Mueller, in what the Washington Post described as “among his most detailed public comments on the origins of the attacks,” could say only that “investigators believe the idea of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, the actual plotting was done in Germany, and the financing came through the United Arab Emirates from sources in Afghanistan…. We think the masterminds of it were in Afghanistan, high in the al Qaeda leadership.” What the FBI believed and thought in June 2002 they didn’t know eight months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence. Thus it is not true, as the President claimed in his White House statement, that “We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

There has never been any reason to doubt what the FBI believed in mid-2002, but that leaves us far from the proof of guilt required in civilized societies – and whatever the evidence might be, it does not warrant murdering a suspect who could, it seems, have been easily apprehended and brought to trial. Much the same is true of evidence provided since. Thus the 9/11 Commission provided extensive circumstantial evidence of bin Laden’s role in 9/11, based primarily on what it had been told about confessions by prisoners in Guantanamo. It is doubtful that much of that would hold up in an independent court, considering the ways confessions were elicited. But in any event, the conclusions of a congressionally authorized investigation, however convincing one finds them, plainly fall short of a sentence by a credible court, which is what shifts the category of the accused from suspect to convicted. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that was a boast, not a confession, with as much credibility as my “confession” that I won the Boston marathon. The boast tells us a lot about his character, but nothing about his responsibility for what he regarded as a great achievement, for which he wanted to take credit.

Again, all of this is, transparently, quite independent of one’s judgments about his responsibility, which seemed clear immediately, even before the FBI inquiry, and still does.

It is worth adding that bin Laden’s responsibility was recognized in much of the Muslim world, and condemned. One significant example is the distinguished Lebanese cleric Sheikh Fadlallah, greatly respected by Hizbollah and Shia groups generally, outside Lebanon as well. He too had been targeted for assassination: by a truck bomb outside a mosque, in a CIA-organized operation in 1985. He escaped, but 80 others were killed, mostly women and girls, as they left the mosque – one of those innumerable crimes that do not enter the annals of terror because of the fallacy of “wrong agency.” Sheikh Fadlallah sharply condemned the 9/11 attacks, as did many other leading figures in the Muslim world, within the Jihadi movement as well. Among others, the head of Hizbollah, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, sharply condemned bin Laden and Jihadi ideology.

One of the leading specialists on the Jihadi movement, Fawaz Gerges, suggests that the movement might have been split at that time had the US exploited the opportunity instead of mobilizing the movement, particularly by the attack on Iraq, a great boon to bin Laden, which led to a sharp increase in terror, as intelligence agencies had anticipated. That conclusion was confirmed by the former head of Britain’s domestic intelligence agency MI5 at the Chilcot hearings investigating the background for the war. Confirming other analyses, she testified that both British and US intelligence were aware that Saddam posed no serious threat and that the invasion was likely to increase terror; and that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had radicalized parts of a generation of Muslims who saw the military actions as an “attack on Islam.” As is often the case, security was not a high priority for state action.

It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he is not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to invade Iraq — that is, to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and the national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region. Equally uncontroversially, these crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.

To say that all of this is uncontroversial, as it is, is not to imply that it is not denied. The existence of flat earthers does not change the fact that, uncontroversially, the earth is not flat. Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Stalin and Hitler were responsible for horrendous crimes, though loyalists deny it. All of this should, again, be too obvious for comment, and would be, except in an atmosphere of hysteria so extreme that it blocks rational thought.

Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Bush and associates did commit the “supreme international crime,” the crime of aggression, at least if we take the Nuremberg Tribunal seriously. The crime of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg, reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State….” No one, even the most extreme supporter of the aggression, denies that Bush and associates did just that.

We might also do well to recall Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg on the principle of universality: “If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” And elsewhere: “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

It is also clear that alleged intentions are irrelevant. Japanese fascists apparently did believe that by ravaging China they were laboring to turn it into an “earthly paradise.” We don’t know whether Hitler believed that he was defending Germany from the “wild terror” of the Poles, or was taking over Czechoslovakia to protect its population from ethnic conflict and provide them with the benefits of a superior culture, or was saving the glories of the civilization of the Greeks from barbarians of East and West, as his acolytes claimed (Martin Heidegger). And it’s even conceivable that Bush and company believed that they were protecting the world from destruction by Saddam’s nuclear weapons. All irrelevant, though ardent loyalists on all sides may try to convince themselves otherwise.

We are left with two choices: either Bush and associates are guilty of the “supreme international crime” including all the evils that follow, crimes that go vastly beyond anything attributed to bin Laden; or else we declare that the Nuremberg proceedings were a farce and that the allies were guilty of judicial murder. Again, that is entirely independent of the question of the guilt of those charged: established by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the case of the Nazi criminals, plausibly surmised from the outset in the case of bin Laden.

A few days before the bin Laden assassination, Orlando Bosch died peacefully in Florida, where he resided along with his terrorist accomplice Luis Posada Carilles, and many others. After he was accused of dozens of terrorist crimes by the FBI, Bosch was granted a presidential pardon by Bush I over the objections of the Justice Department, which found the conclusion “inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch. ”The coincidence of deaths at once calls to mind the Bush II doctrine, which has “already become a de facto rule of international relations,” according to the noted Harvard international relations specialist Graham Allison. The doctrine revokes “the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists,” Allison writes, referring to the pronouncement of Bush II that “those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves,” directed to the Taliban. Such states, therefore, have lost their sovereignty and are fit targets for bombing and terror; for example, the state that harbored Bosch and his associate — not to mention some rather more significant candidates. When Bush issued this new “de facto rule of international relations,” no one seemed to notice that he was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal presidents.

None of this is problematic, of course, if we reject Justice Jackson’s principle of universality, and adopt instead the principle that the US is self-immunized against international law and conventions — as, in fact, the government has frequently made very clear, an important fact, much too little understood.

It is also worth thinking about the name given to the operation: Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound that few seem able to perceive that the White House is glorifying bin Laden by calling him “Geronimo” — the leader of courageous resistance to the invaders who sought to consign his people to the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement,” in the words of the great grand strategist John Quincy Adams, the intellectual architect of manifest destiny, long after his own contributions to these sins had passed. Some did comprehend, not surprisingly. The remnants of that hapless race protested vigorously. Choice of the name is reminiscent of the ease with which we name our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Blackhawk. Tomahawk,… We might react differently if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy”.

The examples mentioned would fall under the category “American exceptionalism,” were it not for the fact that easy suppression of one’s own crimes is virtually ubiquitous among powerful states, at least those that are not defeated and forced to acknowledge reality. Other current illustrations are too numerous to mention. To take just one, of great current significance, consider Obama’s terror weapons (drones) in Pakistan. Suppose that during the 1980s, when they were occupying Afghanistan, the Russians had carried out targeted assassinations in Pakistan aimed at those who were financing, arming and training the insurgents – quite proudly and openly. For example, targeting the CIA station chief in Islamabad, who explained that he “loved” the “noble goal” of his mission: to “kill Soviet Soldiers…not to liberate Afghanistan.” There is no need to imagine the reaction, but there is a crucial distinction: that was them, this is us.

What are the likely consequences of the killing of bin Laden? For the Arab world, it will probably mean little. He had long been a fading presence, and in the past few months was eclipsed by the Arab Spring. His significance in the Arab world is captured by the headline in the New York Times for an op-ed by Middle East/al Qaeda specialist Gilles Kepel; “Bin Laden was Dead Already.” Kepel writes that few in the Arab world are likely to care. That headline might have been dated far earlier, had the US not mobilized the Jihadi movement by the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, as suggested by the intelligence agencies and scholarship. As for the Jihadi movement, within it bin Laden was doubtless a venerated symbol, but apparently did not play much more of a role for this “network of networks,” as analysts call it, which undertake mostly independent operations.

The most immediate and significant consequences are likely to be in Pakistan. There is much discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden. Less is said about the fury in Pakistan that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor had already reached a very high peak in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it.

Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth, also the world’s fastest growing nuclear power, with a huge arsenal. It is held together by one stable institution, the military. One of the leading specialists on Pakistan and its military, Anatol Lieven, writes that “if the US ever put Pakistani soldiers in a position where they felt that honour and patriotism required them to fight America, many would be very glad to do so.” And if Pakistan collapsed, an “absolutely inevitable result would be the flow of large numbers of highly trained ex-soldiers, including explosive experts and engineers, to extremist groups.” That is the primary threat he sees of leakage of fissile materials to Jihadi hands, a horrendous eventuality.

The Pakistani military have already been pushed to the edge by US attacks on Pakistani sovereignty. One factor is the drone attacks in Pakistan that Obama escalated immediately after the killing of bin Laden, rubbing salt in the wounds. But there is much more, including the demand that the Pakistani military cooperate in the US war against the Afghan Taliban, whom the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, the military included, see as fighting a just war of resistance against an invading army, according to Lieven.

The bin Laden operation could have been the spark that set off a conflagration, with dire consequences, particularly if the invading force had been compelled to fight its way out, as was anticipated. Perhaps the assassination was perceived as an “act of vengeance,” as Robertson concludes. Whatever the motive was, it could hardly have been security. As in the case of the “supreme international crime” in Iraq, the bin Laden assassination illustrates that security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.