"We will continue to be fooled by the politicians as long as they need to hide behind the ‘war on terror’ in order to stay in power. In this case, we have upcoming American elections coupled with Tony’s pressing problem of unpopular support for Israel’s massacre of Lebanese civilians. Therefore, everyone else gets to pay with increasing inconvenience at the airports. The joke is that the inconvenience stays at its highest levels until the airline executives manage to get their phone calls through to the politicians, when suddenly the terrorist threat is reduced a shade or two, just in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy."
* nyt op:
"The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”* olbermann does his politics and terror 'coincidences' again. Raw has the video.
There are several problems with trying to airbrush Bush v. Gore from the law. It undermines the courts’ legitimacy when they depart sharply from the rules of precedent, and it gives support to those who have said that Bush v. Gore was not a legal decision but a raw assertion of power."
"It is in pursuit of some theory about punishment of Hezbollah and its Lebanese supporters that the Israelis followed the wrong course. The Israelis -- specifically the Israeli Air Force -- undertook an intentionally punishing, destructive and ultimately counter-productive air campaign, wielding high technology to Neanderthal levels of precision. Israel bombed too much, bombed the wrong targets and conducted its campaign with inexcusable abandon. What is more, Israel satisfied itself with conventional measures of "success" in the campaign -- counting rockets hit, dead fighters, destroyed infrastructure -- with utter disregard for the day after.
I'm not suggesting that Israel, as part of its military campaign, didn't have the "right" to strike objects distant from the battlefield, only that it needs to account now for what targets it struck. Of course there were missile launchers and ammunition depots and Hezbollah barracks and depots and even Hezbollah "leadership" offices and residences far from southern Lebanon.
But no object in lawful targeting is sacrosanct. Take the Beirut civilian airport, for example. In the opening salvo of the war, Israel precisely bombed the intersections of the runways and aprons, making it impossible for aircraft to take off and land. No human rights or international organization particularly condemned the bombing as illegal, but it was: This was not bombing of Hezbollah's air force, it was not directed at Hezbollah fighters, it was not intended to disable the airport's radars and communications. It was pure punishment.
I'm asserting though now that had Israel limited its strategic bombing to purely military objects, it might have -- might have -- engendered more sympathy and support in some circles in Lebanon (or at least in the West) for its efforts. It might have achieved another objective, not creating even more fighters tomorrow."