This Week In Grace

Back in the good ol' US of A, where I have done my good deed for the week (low, i.e. realistic, standards) by translating for a Peruvian lady at immigration and waiting until the very end of the baggage stuff to find hers (but, seriously, how can you have NO IDEA what your suitcase looks like? She said it was black - it was dark blue) and by not shouting at the extraordinarily fat white US customs official who was extremely hostile to the spanish speaking passengers at two in the morning who maybe didn't understand everything he said...

This week in Grace's rage/humour buttons (and you have to read my rants before getting to the photos from Panamá - ha!):

This gawker piece taking apart The New Republic's defence of Ann Coulter (what's that about the indefensible...?) is fab.

Achtung! Bono and an article I couldn't agree with more. Seriously.

This NY Times editorial I'm just going to put in full because it's important, and a good way to see this for the gung ho people who say we need to see it from the perspective of the "boys" abroad (always the "boys" in Britain, at least in the US they say "troops") and the US shouldn't join the ICC...

Editorial
Rewriting the Geneva Conventions

Published: August 14, 2006
In January 2002, when the Bush administration created the camp at Guantánamo Bay for prisoners from the war in Afghanistan, President Bush said he would be “adhering to the spirit of the Geneva Convention” in handling the detainees.

Unfortunately, like many of the things the administration said about Guantánamo Bay, this was not true. The president did not intend to follow the Geneva Conventions, and in some vital respects, he still doesn’t, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the prisoners merit those protections.

To everyone’s relief, the White House is now working with Congress on one major violation of the conventions found by the court — the military tribunals Mr. Bush invented for Guantánamo Bay. But the president remains determined to have his way on the other big issue — how jailers treat prisoners.

He wants Congress to make the United States the first country to repudiate the language of the Geneva Conventions. The only discernible reason is to allow interrogators — intelligence agents and private contractors — to continue abusive practices plainly banned by the conventions and to make sure they cannot be held accountable.

The Bush administration objects to the clause in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”

This standard has been followed for more than a half-century by almost 190 countries, including the United States. The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. But the Bush administration authorized techniques to handle and interrogate prisoners that clearly break the rules — like prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, long periods in stress positions, strapping prisoners to metal contraptions and force-feeding them.

The rational response to the court’s decision would be to ban those practices and bring America in line with the rest of the civilized world. But that’s not how this administration works. It asked Congress to change the law — to amend the War Crimes Act to redefine the standards of Common Article 3.

The White House wants to apply an American legal principle, used to prohibit cruel and unusual punishment, that bars treatment that “shocks the conscience.” Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the language in Common Article 3 is too vague and makes fighting terrorism impossible.

In fact, the Geneva standard is more specific than the shocks-the-conscience standard. And a vast majority of Guantánamo inmates are not terrorists. In fact, many do not appear guilty of anything, not even fighting United States troops in Afghanistan.

The administration’s real aim is to keep on using abusive interrogation techniques at the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency. And it wants to make interrogators — and those who give their orders — immune from prosecution.

Finally, the administration wants Congress to ban the use of the Geneva Conventions as the direct or indirect basis for a legal case in American courts. This would seal off the route that a prisoner used in the case on which the Supreme Court ruled in June.

The Geneva Conventions protect Americans. If this country changes the rules, it’s changing the rules for Americans taken prisoner abroad. That is far too high a price to pay so this administration can hang on to its misbegotten policies.

I think John Regis is basically talking out of his arse in this beeb article. Darren Campbell did protest at the time of forming the team, did all he did in his power, but why should he have to give up his place running for GB - particularly as there have never been any positive drugs tests for him, as far as we know - for someone who is a known drugs cheat? I think this was a powerful way to express his contempt for the GB team and he was perfectly dignified in choosing this particular manner.

And finally, on a sweeter note, please meet My new judicial hero. We shouldn't make fun of mental illness but what I do love is that he defended it so thoroughly, very sweet. And three mystic dwarves - at least Pedro's are real.

I really, really loved Ciudad de Panamá - really thought it was amazing. I don't know why, but I took to it in a way that I just didn't with San José... will ponder on that and get back to you. Here, in the meantime, are some photoyograffs...

The Ciudad de Panamá skyline - slightly different from San José. One of those rascacielos was my hotel, one towards the left but dunno which one. Sorry!

The old town in CDP. I will be reflecting more seriously on this, because I went there twice - this was on sunny Thursday afternoon, but went back on Friday and have a slightly different perspective. However, what I can say is that it was beautiful.

An amazing building in the Plaza Simón Bolivar.

The Plaza de Independencia.

This is the lock we visited at the Panamá canal - which is an incredible construction, although I think it'd be even more impressive if you traversed the journey... Something for next time.