surrounded by flags...

The Gaurdian has an excellent essay.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.

Antiwar has more:

America is headed for a military dictatorship – and recent legislation makes this all but inevitable. Last September, Congress passed the Defense Authorization Act, which empowered the president to declare martial law with very little provocation, namely in the aftermath of a "terrorist attack or incident." Having determined that "the execution of the laws" is hampered by the "incident," the president can unilaterally impose martial law – without the consent of Congress, which need only be informed of the event "as soon as practicable." The only condition attached instructs the president to report to Congress after 14 days, and every 14 days thereafter.

The next Darfur.

Time has the details.

The devastation of Darfur highlights the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on societies across Africa. The U.N. estimates that the lives of as many as 90 million Africans--most of them in and around the Sahara--could be "at risk" on account of global warming. Many of Africa's armed conflicts can be explained as tinderboxes of climate change lit by the spark of ancient rivalry. In Somalia, nearly two decades of anarchy have been exacerbated by eight years of drought. In Zimbabwe, relief agencies say President Robert Mugabe's disastrous rule is being overtaken by an even greater catastrophe, a three-month drought that wiped out the maize crop, fueling tensions between government-allied haves and opposition have-nots. Apart from drought, other environmental challenges can prove deadly. A growing number of experts believe the 1994 genocide in Rwanda is best understood as a contest between too many people on too little land.

Environmental skeptics, including the Bush Administration, dispute the more dire predictions about climate change. But others in the developed world are beginning to sound alarms about the weather's role in warmaking. On April 16, 11 former U.S. admirals and generals published a report for the think tank CNA Corporation that described climate change as a "threat multiplier" in volatile parts of the world. The next day, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett hosted the first-ever debate on climate change and armed conflict at the U.N. Security Council. "What makes wars start?" asked Beckett. "Fights over water. Changing patterns of rainfall. Fights over food production, land use. There are few greater potential threats to our economies too ... but also to peace and security itself."

Evidence

Recent Evidence:

• McClatchy reports the formation of the "Iranian directorate" at the Pentagon, adding ““It seems like Iran is becoming the new Iraq," said one U.S. counterterrorism official." http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/warren_p_strobel/15529884.htm
• In the cover story of the May/June Foreign Affairs issue, Bruce Riedel indicates that, [al Qaeda ] might try "to lure the United States into a war with Iran," and that Bin Laden might also be nurturing bolder plans, such as exploiting or even triggering an all-out war between the United States and Iran." http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304-p20/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html
• According to the Herald Sun of Australia, the US offered aggressive air patrols over Iranian bases during the hostage incident but the British declined, reportedly asking the US to keep out of the affair and to tone down on military forces activity. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21519759-663,00.html
• former CIA agent Robert Baer writes in Time that influential officials in Middle East are currently experiencing "resigned belief that a war with the U.S. is all but inevitable." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1604546,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
• according to Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska, the draft 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force draft sent by the administration to Congress wanted to include the entire Middle East in its authorization for war,

Interviewed by GQ, Hagel was asked: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?
"Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. I mean, is Central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere they wanted in the Middle East?"
Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up, and put our language in it. http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326&pageNum=3

• British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014
• the Wall Street Journal reports that the administration squandered in opportunity to negotiate with Iran at a recent meeting http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/03/10/us-iran-have-meet-and-greet-in-iraq/
• According to Foreign Policy, King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia convinced Ahmadinejad that if Bush opts for an air campaign, Iran would become the target for hundreds of bombing sorties against key installations across the entire country. Not only would Iran be set back several years, but the entire region would most probably explode against all the countries that have sided with the United States. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3928
• Retired General Wesley Clark and Iraq war veteran John Soltz of VoteVets have voiced there concern and are urging people to sign a petition to the president urging no military action with Iran http://www.stopiranwar.com/?page_id=5
• Pat Buchanan writes in the American conservative "If Americans sickened by the carnage of Iraq wish to stop an even more disastrous war on Iran, they had best get cracking." http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_26/buchanan.html
• Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.), a veteran of the Pentagon with firsthand experience of the administration’s cherry-picking of intelligence, reveals why Bush thinks he can win a war with Iran, and why few politicians are serious about withdrawal http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070227_pentagon_whistleblower_on_the_coming_war_with_iran/
• According to the New Yorker, Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council, says "The Administration is trying to make a case that
  Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, "This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
• Vice President Cheney has commented on numerous occasions that an Iran strike is a possibility http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21279082-5005961,00.html
• Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor with influential ties to the White House, believes Bush "could easily build political support for Iran attack at the beginning of 2008, " and that the proper response to the hostages would have been to strike militarily with http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/08/kristol-williams-iran-crisis/
• the BBC has learned of US contingency plans that involve airstrikes throughout the country, far past Iran's nuclear program http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm
• and the Guardian reports that despite denials attack plans are well advanced http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2010087,00.html
• In an address to the nation, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." "Networks" means Iran. http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-02/03pilger.cfm
• The Economist devotes the cover page article to the likelihood of a conflict with Iran, urging diplomatic solutions and illustrating the consequences of such military action. "Next stop Iran? - Next stop Iran? America and Iran." The Economist (US) 382.8515 (Feb 10, 2007): 11US. Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. University of Washington. 28 Apr. 2007
  < http://find.galegroup.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&docId=A159042275&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=wash_main&version=1.0 >.
• and Newsweek also publishes a cover story that indicates indicate the strong likelihood of a war with Iran, accidental or not http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/
• Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond write in the LA Times that " Congress must stop an attack on Iran" http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-weiss5feb05,0,4991100.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
• le Figaro warns against military action by the United States against Iran http://www.watchingamerica.com/lefigaro0000156.shtml
• Paul Starr writes in the American Prospect, an attack on Iran would be catastrophic and would likely set off a global economic crisis vis-à-vis oil, terrorist attacks, retaliation in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr, etc. Source Citation: Starr, Paul. "Next stop Iran?" The American Prospect 17.5 (May 2006): 3(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. University of Washington. 28 Apr. 2007
  < http://find.galegroup.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A145570874&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=wash_main&version=1.0 >.

Positive news?

McClatchy reports that the US is "quietly increasing back channel contacts" with Iran via Swiss negotiators. It reports that the US is using Swiss intermediaries to negotiate the whereabouts of the missing former FBI agent in Iran and discussed the fate of five the Iranian diplomats taken hostage in Iraq. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iran/17128684.htm

For the time being, there's a balance in the favor of those in the administration that favor diplomacy (Gates, Rice), versus those who favor military conflict (Cheney). Apparently, according to the Financial Times, the diplomats have the president’s ear for now. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fa345746-e223-11db-af9e-000b5df10621.html

That said, let's not forget the Israeli Lebanon incursion -- according to an Israeli newspaper, "Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked Olmert into a 48-hour cease-fire during the war with Hezbollah to allow humanitarian relief, but within hours Israeli planes were bombing again, to Rice's surprise and anger. Olmert had received a call, apparently from Cheney's office, telling him to ignore Rice."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20070408pelosisyriatrip.html

just how influential is Cheney?

Foreign-policy reports.

meanwhile in Baghdad...

Foreign Policy.

When I think of the grief that we Americans feel at the death of 33 innocent people in Blacksburg, I wonder what it must be like to live in Iraq and deal with such anguish literally every day ... and to have it ignored. And then, I wonder why we Americans, who are supposed to care so much about Iraqis, aren't more stricken by the daily carnage there.

Retired Admirals and Generals warn of global warming.

NYT.

“Unlike the problems that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable,” Richard J. Truly, a retired United States Navy vice admiral and former NASA administrator, said in the report.

“Just look at Somalia in the early 1990s,” Mr. Schwartz said. “You had disruption driven by drought, leading to the collapse of a society, humanitarian relief efforts, and then disastrous U.S. military intervention. That event is prototypical of the future.”

“Picture that in Central America or the Caribbean, which are just as likely,” he said. “This is not distant, this is now. And we need to be preparing.”

the BBC follows up...

Darfur's complexities

NYT.

The complex and shifting role of Arab tribes in both Sudan and Chad underscores how difficult it will be to secure a political solution to the four-year-old crisis that has sent 2.3 million people fleeing their homes, killed at least 200,000 — some say as many as 400,000 — and set off a broad conflict in one of the most unstable parts of the world.

The main perpetrators of some of the worst atrocities have been government-sponsored Arab militias that have come to be known by a local epithet for bandits, janjaweed.

The beginning of a Middle East Nuclear arms race?

NYT reports.

Two years ago, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told international atomic regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors.

US offered to scare Iran: report

Herald Sun.

THE US offered to mount aggressive air patrols over Iranian bases during the country's stand-off with Britain, UK media reported today.

Citing unnamed diplomatic sources, The Guardian newspaper said Pentagon officials offered a series of military options that Britain rejected.

Britain reportedly told the US to keep out of the affair and instead tone down armed forces activity in the Gulf region.

One of the options involved combat aircraft patrolling over Iranian bases to show how serious the incident was, the newspaper said in a front page story

.

Scientists weigh risks of climate 'techno-fixes'

CSM.

Faced with the specter of a warming planet and frustrated by the lack of progress on this time-sensitive issue, some scientists have begun researching backup plans. They seek a way to give humanity direct control over Earth's thermostat.

Proposals run the gamut from space mirrors deflecting a portion of the sun's energy to promoting vast marine algal blooms to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. The schemes have sparked a debate over the ethics of climate manipulation, especially when the uncertainties are vast and the stakes so high. For many scientists, the technology is less an issue than the decisionmaking process that may lead to its implementation.

The 90 Percent Solution

Newsweek.

April 16, 2007 issue - One of the criticisms of Al Gore’s message on climate change is that he exaggerates the imminence of the threat—implying, for instance, that sea levels may rise more quickly than scientists feel comfortable saying. But a few people think Gore is actually sugarcoating the catastrophe predictions.

If that’s the case, where are the mass demonstrations? Are we all in denial?
Beyond a certain level, we just stop our ears and shut our eyes in order not to hear the message that things have got to change. We want to believe we can carry on as usual.

how to stop a showdown with Iran

The Nation features Noam Chomsky,

British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting US government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites--nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the US government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the US that killed millions of people (just as the US supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?