No comments about Thinking Beyond the Unthinkable: Harnessing Doom from the Cold War to the Age of Terror.

2 comments about Blood That Cries Out From the Earth: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism.

1. Dr. James Jones book, "Blood That Cries Out From the Earth" is the most important reflection to date on the relationship between psychoanalytic theory and the psychology of religous motivated terrorism. His approach is based on extensive research not only from a political, cultural or mitliatry nature but with a specific focus on the role of the religious mind. The world needs a spiritual/religious response in this time of terrorism. Jones outlines the underlining journey into the shame/humiliation, rigidity and splitting of terroism and leads the reader back to a vision of hope. Future engagement with this area of study must begin with facing this dreadful reality and forge forward with wisdom and compassion. PaulaJHamm, LPC,Member of American Psychoanalytic Association



2. The arguments of James W. Jones's new book do not merely balance the psychological lens with the socio-political lens when studying terrorism, they produce a fine-grained mode of analysis that enables readers to see how both lenses are always essential to understanding the genesis and virulence of terrorism. Historical examples and conceptual rigor are woven together in a remarkably accessible prose. Jones' achievement is to offer a book that is unique, one that stands out above the myriad of works treating terrorism today.
   
   Mark Lewis Taylor
   Maxwell M. Upson Professor of Theology and Culture
   Princeton Theological Seminary

5 comments about Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (Inalienable Rights).

1. This is an intellectual approach towards whether or not we allow civilian rights to be infringed upon in times of crisis and what that allows, leading towards an almost totalitarian state by goverment. Agree or disagree, the arguments are presented well here.



2. Federal Appeals Court Judge Richard A. Posner is known for being both prolific and controversial. In addition to authoring one of the most important academic treatises in the field of law and economics, he is also known for writing on more controversial topics ranging from the 2000 Presidential election to sex. And it's when he writes on these topics, covering areas that are both controversial and likely to be the subject of high-profile Constitutional case law, that he's often at his most interesting, even when you don't agree with him.
   
   In Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution In A Time Of National Emergency, Posner examines the questions and conflicts that have arisen between national security and individual liberty in the wake of the War on Terror and asks the question of just how far Courts should go in either protecting liberty or granting leeway to the state to deal with a perceived emergency.
   
   Posner's entire thesis with respect to the roles that liberty and safety should play in Constitutional jurisprudence can be summed up in the paragraph that opens the conclusion to the book:
   
   "Constitutional rights are largely created by the Supreme Court, by loose interpretation of the constitutional text. Created as they are in response to the felt needs and conditions of the time, they can be and frequently are modified by the Court in response to changes in those needs and conditions. A constitutional right should be modified when changed circumstances indicate that the right no loner strikes a sensible balance between competing constitutional values, such as personal liberty and public safety. A national emergency, such as a war, creates a disequilibrium in the existing system of constitutional rights. Concerns for public safety now weigh more heavily than liberties in recognition that the relative weights of the competing interests have changed in favor of safety. That is the pragmatic response, and pragmatism is a dominant feature not only of American culture at large but also of the American judicial culture."
   
   If you're someone like myself who views individual liberty and the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as immutable, a paragraph like that is bound to make your blood boil. And, I will admit that there were several times when I found myself wanting to argue with Posner over one obscure point or another (which I imagine would be a fascinating intellectual experience in itself).
   
   Posner's approach, however, is entirely understandable for two reasons. First, it is entirely consistent with his broader adherence to law and economics, which is all about balancing, and pragmatism, and finding efficient outcomes, as a legal philosophy. Second, he's a Federal Judge and, with rare exceptions, the approach that he suggests in this book is entirely consistent with the way that most Federal Judges seem to view questions of the proper line to draw between individual liberty and public safety.
   
   That doesn't mean that Posner is correct, though.
   
   First, there's his view of individual/constitutional rights as something that are strictly judge made, rather than something that exist independent of the whim of the judiciary. Because of what Posner contends to be the inherent vaguenesss of the Constitutional text, it is up to Judges to determine the boundaries of constitutional liberty. The problems with this approach are replete and exist throughout the 200+ years that the Supreme Court has existed. All too frequently, judges have interpreted portions of the Constitution too narrowly, or too broadly, or just ignored it entirely and ruled based on how that though the case should be decided. Leaving the definition of civil liberties strictly and exclusively in the hands of an unelected judiciary is, in the end, a recipe for disaster.
   
   Given Posner's views on the malleability of constitutional rights, it isn't entirely surprising where he comes down on the debate over when and how much individual liberty should be sacrificed in the name of public safety at a time of supposed national emergency, such as that represented by the War on Terror. With very few, though very interesting exceptions, Posner would give more power to the state to fight the threat posed by terrorism -- notwithstanding the fact that, except for September 11th, there hasn't been evidence of a single foreign terrorist plot on American soil in over five years -- at the expense of individual liberty and privacy.
   
   Another area which Posner brushes over is the fact that national emergencies have, in the past, served as the justification for increases in the size, scope, and power of government. Posner briefly addresses this issue by citing examples from the Post-WW2 and Cold War eras of government regulation that has since abated. In reality, of course, the end of each of these supposed emergencies still resulted in a Federal Government that exerted more control than it did at the time the "crisis" started.
   
   Of course, much of that is explained by the fact that local incumbents in law enforcement find it in their interest to point out how bad things would be under a second term.
   
   There are some points one which I must admit that Judge Posner is right. There is a distinct difference between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. And there seem to be far fewer Constitutional limitations on intelligence gathering, which logically must be considered part of the Article II power of the Executive Branch, than on law enforcement, which finds itself limited by the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, just to name a few.
   
   And maybe that makes sense.
   
   The purpose of intelligence gathering is, or at least, should be, preventing attacks on the homeland, whether from terrorists or foreign nations, from happening. Law enforcement steps in only after an attack has occurred. In the case of terrorism, law enforcement is an admittedly ineffective tool.There's no point in filing criminal charges against the 19 men who hijacked planes on September 11th, but if we'd been able to break up that conspiracy on September 9th........well, that wouldn't have been a bad thing after all.
   
   In the end, as Posner points out, and as reluctant as I may be willing to admit, it may well be true that there is a trade-off between liberty and security that we all will have to make a decision on in the near future.
   
   On each side, there's an extreme that is entirely unpleasant. Too little government vigilance in the face of a real terrorist threat could lead to the deaths of millions. Too severe a restriction on individual liberty could lead to a free reign for destruction.



3. As a layman I found Posner's book to be a very interesting way to learn about the issues with constitutional law not only in a time of crisis, but in general. He starts out with a discussion on how constitutional rights are created. It clarified many of the questions I had in my mind on how the constitution could be interpreted the way it is. It even made sense. He then explained how national security shapes those rights. He argues for a balance between security and rights.
   
   The next four chapters discuss the rights against detention, the rights against brutal interrogation and searches and seizures, the rights of privacy, and finally the right of free speech. These chapters brought out the arguments based on security and also the arguments of civil libertarians. Posner tended to argue for a balance between those views that changes given the circumstances. In case of dire emergency, the president should be able to suspend some rights. I thought the discussion in the concluding chapter on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was a good way to illustrate his point. Should the constitution be amended to allow this action, or should it continue to be illegal? He brings up the pros and cons of each and his conclusion makes sense to me.
   
   Posner's writing style is very clear and I found that as a layman this complex issue was understandable. Do I agree with all of his conclusions? Probably not; but the general concept of balancing personal security and rights does ring as a principle worth considering. I recommend this book for anyone with an interest in constitutional law and the current war on terror.



4. In another, perhaps better world, Judge Posner would have been a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court. His age reputedly barred him in this one.
   
   Unfortunately, for this book, you could probably stop at the title, and that would give you the gist.
   
   Judge Posner's thesis is that at a time of war, noone can be allowed to second judge the nation's security establishment. Moreover, he argues that judges are particularly unsuitable for the task. He offers examples from history to buttress his thesis.
   
   Unfortunately, unless one starts out with the premise that his conclusion is intrinsically correct, his arguments read, at least to my eyes, as somewhat cyclical and self-serving.
   
   After all, judges balance competing consideration in a vast array of other types of cases all the time. Why not in matters of national security? He also ignores key problems, at least in my reading:
   
   1. Lincoln's actions WERE widely condemned, often fiercely resisted, and are considered by legal historians to be a blot on his legacy.
   
   2. Korematsu, the Japanese internment case, was based on submissions to the Supreme Court that the Justice Department KNEW to be untrue. So the most famous instance of the Constitution not being a suicide pact was based on a lie, a lie that many DOJ official vigorously protested at the time.
   
   As Judge Reinhardt said about Judge Posner, the problem is not in his writing. He is a fine writer, and his writing is enjoyable. The problem is with his thinking and conclusions.



5. To couch this review and Posner's argument, I paste a quote from Posner himself found the in The New Republic. "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used--and will be used--to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility." Who will argue with this? One person versus millions? Obviously everything needs to be considered rationally, weighing the issues, looking at expected costs and benefits. If on average we can stop more terrorist attacks with torture, it is probably worth it from a detached perspective.

5 comments about Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from The Sedition Act of 1798 to The War on Terrorism.

1. As recent history attests to, some people act irrationally when under conditions of stress, and frequently do not hesitate to deny others basic human rights or even react violently. This kind of behavior does not occur under normal conditions of life, so the trick is get back into mental equilibrium as soon as possible after the shocks have occurred. The time needed to do this varies considerably between individuals, and the individuals who are having trouble calming themselves put undue burdens on those who do not. Therefore there is usually a considerable amount of tension between these two types of people, and this in fact creates more stress on top of what was experienced by the original shocks.
   
   One can see this type of conflict throughout the history of the United States, as the author of this book shows in great detail in this book. Superbly written and full of helpful references and footnotes, the author narrows his discussion to the effects of war, or rumors of war, or invented threats of war, on free speech. When reading the book one is amazed to learn the low degree to which citizens of the United States have placed on the First Amendment, even as early as 1798. The First Amendment was not really thought of as sacrosanct as it is at the present time (outside of the government). This may explain why early on in U.S. history, the populace was quite willing to stifle speech they thought as treasonous or threatening in time of war (or false threats of war). And the stifling of speech was not unique to a particular political party, newspaper, magazine, or pamphlet. Both the left and the right, and in between, took their turns in the suppression of speech at various times in U.S. history.
   
   Everything in the book is fascinating, and those readers who are not aware of the events discussed may be shocked that they actually took place in a country that so prides itself on freedom, both in speech and association. The author though is not content to merely report facts. He analyzes the different attitudes about free speech, both in the minds of the citizens, the press, and in the courts. Legal issues in constitutional law are all discussed in great analytical detail, and the author does not hesitate to express his own opinions on how the different cases should have been decided. A book like this definitely stands out against the hype and yellow journalism that so frequently is labeled as objective analysis these days. It is a welcome part of the political and legal literature, and all readers willing to take the time to its study will walk away with a massive amount of information and insight, and be better equipped to grapple with the issues of free speech as even now they are being debated (and suppressed). Cooler heads did prevail throughout the U.S. constitutional history of free speech, as this book proves without question. One can only hope this will continue to be the case.



2. Perilous times is an in depth review of the repression of free speech and assembly and political affiliation from unmasking Lincolns assumed good intentions, the debauchery of the cold war and mccarthy era until the consolodation of views by the media today. dense read. good to smarten up and learn the truth.



3. Geoffrey Stone's Perilous Times is a great book for understanding how free speech is affected during times of war and other periods of unrest. Specifically, Stone looks at episodes in American history including the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Red Scare and the Cold War, the Vietnam-Watergate era, and very briefly on the war against terrorism. This is an excellent book in my opinion and written in an eminently readable and engaging style.
   
   These episodes I just outlined are the main areas where Stone gives us an idea of just how serious freedom of speech was threatened by our leaders in government as well as by our citizens. The Federalist period in the late 1790s saw a vagrant attempt to suppress political dissent expressed by the Republicans, i.e. those who followed Jefferson and Madison. Judge Chase is a key figure in this blatantly political attempt to suppress the opinions of those who politically dissented from the Adams Administration. The Civil War period also saw some controversial excesses, most notably in Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus ,as well as the enactment of martial law (in certain circumstances) by military officers, who did on occasion act contrary to Lincoln wishes. But Lincoln, overall, did prove to tolerate those who voiced opposition to his administration.
   
   President Wilson did use the tool, quite popular with many politicians even today, in branding (or at least inferring) those who voice dissent against a war as being disloyal and unpatriotic. The Espionage and Sedition Acts during his administration helped demonstrate the willingness of political leaders and the courts to undermine freedom of speech. In addition to all these events and the others which I will only touch on, Stone traces the evolution of the Court's handling and deciding of cases (during these historical periods in question) that involved or challenged the right of free speech in wartime. In addition to leaders like Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon and so forth and the courses of action they took in these crisis, he examines various justices of the Supreme Court like Holmes and Brandeis to lower court justices like Judge Hand, to noted scholars, lawyers, attorney generals and others who played major roles in cases involving freedom of speech. You see those who bravely did the right thing and those who succumbed to their own prejudices and fears.
   
   This book sheds light on terms used in regards to deciding what represented protected and unprotected speech, such terms as bad tendency, express advocacy, clear and present danger and so forth are all used to shed light on the decision making processes involved in the cases discussed in this book. This serves to illuminate and reveal the level to which the courts had to decide some of the more controversial cases involving freedom of speech. Sometimes the courts reflected the mood of the times and as a result could react in a negative way and sometimes it acted more wisely.
   
   Stone is fairly balanced in his treatment of those who faced these questions, though he does scold some while lauding others. He is sensitive to the times they lived in and how even those serving on the courts (who we all think of as being above the fray) succumb to the same feelings and emotions all people do, especially in times when fear runs rampant. The other periods in question include World War II , which saw the internment of Japanese Americans, the period known as the Red Scare often symbolized by Joseph McCarthy with his over-the-top accusations that helped fan the flames of fear and suspicion that threatened free speech, the Vietnam conflict and the period of government coverups, to the present day war against terrorism.
   
   There are many things I'm leaving out, but the point to this is that in all these important periods in American history, our leaders and institutions have often failed to live up to the ideals of the First Amendment right to free speech, though as Stone discusses, we have come a long way from years such as 1798 and 1918. The times do influence all of us, but we must hope that cooler and wiser heads prevail. A very good book.



4. ~Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism~ is an erudite constitutional analysis of First Amendment freedoms to speech and assembly. Throughout American history, free speech and freedom of assembly has been adversely affected by rationalized wartime suppressions in the name of security. Justice Robert Jackson in the mid-20th century declared, "It is easy, by giving way to passion, intolerance, and suspicions of wartime, to reduce our liberties to a shadow, often in answer to exaggerated claims of security." Sadly, overzealous wartime suppression of liberty has plagued the United States throughout much of its history.
   
   Geoffrey R. Stone has put together a well-written account of American constitutional history from the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the Patriot Act of 2001. His focus is First Amendment Freedoms. In 1798, ostensibly to guard against the threat of a counterpart "French Revolution" spearheaded by imagined American Jacobins from emerging on American soil, Federalist Party officials marshaled the Alien and Sedition Acts as an effective counterpoise. Its constitutionality was clearly suspect. In reality, it was a shameless partisan attempt to prosecute and suppress critics of the Federalist administration. Virginia and Kentucky responded by protest and state interposition through their Resolutions of 1798, which threatened state nullification of unconstitutional acts.
   
   With much of the major wars throughout American history from the Civil War of the 1860s to the Great War, World War II, Vietnam, and now the Iraq War, shameless attempts emerged to intimidate, stifle and suppress political dissent. Lincoln was the precedent setter for unconstitutionally suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and found a follower to his dubious doctrines in George W. Bush. During the Great War, resident aliens were deprived of the right to due process prior to deportation. The Cold War paranoia was so absurd that the FBI drew up reports citing the classic 1946 Frank Capra movie like It's A Wonderful Life as being evidence of subversive communist propaganda. And thus began the McCarthy era. The 1970s felt the tragedy of the Kent State Massacre in Ohio as National Guard troops shot and killed students protesting the war in Vietnam. In the 1970s, ostensibly the FBI and CIA were reigned in on by Congress for running astray in anti-war activities, but those restrictions came loose following 9/11 when somehow unbridled federal power became more trustworthy.
   
   James Madison judiciously reminds us: "The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences of the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." It was to secure against suppression of freedom of conscience that the First Amendment was framed. It was flatly a negative against Congress to legislate on such matters, hence the interpretative keystone, "Congress shall make no law..."



5. the book is, of course, on the topic of article 1 free speech during perilous times. the author provides the reader with an exhaustive review of the literature, extensive end notes, detailed history of six conflicts that resulted in legal conflicts surrounding free speech. the author details executive orders, congressional legislation or mandates, and reviews by the courts and supreme court in efforts to execute the functioning of the government while imposing limitations on free speech. i found no flaws in logic, no errors of grammar. i found two instances in which factual details were not consistent when represented. i was disappointed that the author had not written more on the founding father's beliefs regarding the 1st article. i was disappointed that he hadn't provided historical background regarding the formation of the first article. a history of how other democracies with free speech have dealt with such challenges might have been interesting. a history of how our own democracy has dealt with free speech in non-war time crises might have been interesting. not all wars (e.g., Mexican and free speech by Lincoln, Spanish-American and free speech by Randolf Hearst ...) were covered. i wish that the author had spent more than a dozen pages discussing the current wars in afghanistan and iraq and the challenges they have imposed on free speech AS WELL AS differences in how the usa has handled those challenges versus other countries. given the importance of context in each conflict, i might have been interested in seeing how great britain and the confederate states dealt with free speech during the civil war and how germany dealt with free speech in ww1 and ww2 ... this is an outstanding book, well worth the read and purchase, new or maybe even more. great work!

2 comments about When You Ride Alone You Still Ride with Bin Laden: What the Government Should Be Telling Us to Help Fight the War on Terrorism - And Still Isn't.

1. When You Ride Alone You Still Ride with Bin Laden: What the Government Should Be Telling Us to Help Fight the War on Terrorism - And Still Isn't is a parody of a World War II propaganda poster that read "When you ride ALONE you ride with Hitler !", which suggested that automobile owners carpool to conserve gasoline for the war effort. This isn't just ironic today - it is a complete epiphany for those of us who understand History really repeats itself.
   
   I must applaud HBO's host of Real Time with Bill Maher because he has the courage to speak his mind on topics most Americans staunchly are ignorant of. Like Maher points out - the United States is full of people who are wasteful when it comes to everything from oil, food, and the things we should be conserving and happy to have ready access to. FREEDOM!
   
   Maher critiques of the war in Iraq are right on. He pulls no punches and he shouldn't. Bill Maher is intelligent, funny, and has written another fine book for anyone interested in discovering real truth in real time that may change the way they view our government's practices.
   
   I am a father, a veteran, an author, and a concerned citizen. We need more people like Bill Maher, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Ron Paul in this world who know what they are talking about when they choose to be serious.



2. While I remain a fan of Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Still Ride with Bin Laden" disappointed me. It was hard, if not impossible at times, to distinguish Bill from a Bush-supporter vs a Bush-basher. His arguments and allegiances seemed to be all over the place in this...very easy to read...book. Definitely not his best piece of work.

No comments about Less Safe, Less Free: Why America Is Losing the War on Terror.

5 comments about 9-11 Descent into Tyranny: The New World Order's Dark Plans to Turn Earth into a Prison Planet.

1. This may not be the total truth and there is no book that can explain the total truth about 9/11. But i'll bet you Alex Jones comes closer to exposing the government involvement in 9/11 than the corporate media. What iam trying to say is Jones is more credible than the media which is twisted to what your supposed to believe. And what your supposed to believe is not true. The US government was involved in 9/11 and used it to create a never ending war, justify taking away our liberties so they can become more powerful and make us scared so we let them take our liberties away. If you cant see that by now you never will. Spread the word, we must be heard.



2. It is a sad sign of the times that so many people have apparently swallowed Alex Jones's ramblings and disconnected assertions hook, line and sinker.



3. 
   I agree with those that suggest that the author goes over the top sometimes, but I will also be quite explicit in saying that I think Alex Jones is a very important part of the patriotic truth movement, and all that he does is in my view at least 80% vital to improving public intelligence in the public interest.
   
   This book plays out a theme that relates the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma with 9-11, and I read through it at the same time that I was watching the DVD "Painful Questions" which actually had news clips about additional unexploded bombs being found in the Federal Building after the fact.
   
   I am increasingly frustrated as I read so many of these books, each with vital tid-bits, many of which I can see correlating with one another, but yet no one anywhere has cut the spines off all these great books, digitized them, and created a visual diagram that makes sense of all this.
   
   One thing I am certain of: the White House and Larry Silverstein are both hiding information from the public, and one day we will have proof of the degree to which elements of our own government allowed 9-11 to happen and went the extra step of helping to murder thousands of Americans solely and exclusively to manipulate a mandate for combining a police state at home with a unilateral ;militarism-terrorism abroad.



4. Unless your a "true believer" (aka insane), don't bother reading any of Jones' books. But for sheer freak entertainment value, check out his dvd called "Path to 9/11," or something like that. Obviously the only people who will appreciate his brand of "documentary" filmmaking are delusional true believers of everything conspiratorial, but if you can stomach over two hours of his growling, used car salesman voice, the movie has its entertaining moments. For example, he "disrupts" a lone news reporter's coverage of a staged chemical spill with a bull horn, screaming "Fake staged event! Fake staged event!" The bewildered reporter finishes her report, then gives a classic "What the %&*@! was that?" look into the camera. Then the camera pans over to reveal a very proud looking Jones, who obviously thinks he's just exposed a major truth. It's classic!
   But don't waste your money (or help line Jones' pockets) by actually purchasing any of his drivel. Just call up your friendly, neighborhood "9/11 Truther" and he or she will be more than happy to give you a copy (along with at least an hour long speech on how Bush is Satan, skull and bones, Bohemian Grove, blah, blah, blah...)



5. "9/11 the Descent into Tyranny" is an exceptional book that is vital to the inside job argument. The inquiry raised in this book begs to differ from the mainstream media's opposition to the obvious fact, and that fact is terrorist acts were inflicted upon the American people in the last two decades, and rogue elements in our government sponsored these sanguineous acts? Of course, after reading this book you'll start to speculate that this is indeed the case.
   
   After all, all of the question (Radio talk show host/documentary filmmaker) Alex Jones raises are legitimate and need to be answered, but I won't list them all, you'll have to read the book and gather the details. But, here is a taste of what you'll encroach upon.
   
   1:Was Timothy McVeigh set up, and were there Arab agents working for the FBI when the Murrah building came crashing down? The answer is probably yes based on the overwhelming evidence!
   
   2: Did George W. Bush sign executive order W199I, which halted the FBI's investigation of Al'Qaeda? The document (W199I) that BBC reporter Greg Palast uncovered supports that Bush committed treason, while having foreknowledge about the upcoming 9/11 attack and Bush managed to block the investigation before and after the crime of the century transpired.
   
   3:Will the globalists plan to implant microchips to track our every move? More evidence particularly from mainstream news source supports this thesis/fact.
   
   4:Will we lose our sovereignty, and end up forced to adhere to a one-world government in the auspices of the North American Union, and have to live in a cashless society controlled by the Bilderberg Group, and the Money Trust?
   
   5: Will the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be activated, and will we be under permanent marshal law? It's obvious that this out come is most likely when you consider House Resolution H.R 4079.
   
   Overall, Alex Jones gathers credible documentation and eyewitnesses to support his thesis. Everyone must read Alex's book it is imperative that this information reaches the masses.
   
   At this point in my review, I'll have to ask you to be mindful that Alex's book falls in lines with his documentary film "9/11 the Road to Tyranny" and much of this book is just a reprinted transcript of the film. However, this book is chalked full of extras. Alex interviews Greg Palast about the 2002 stock market fraud, which the mainstream media acquiesced to covered up.
   Alex also exposes that the environmental movement is really a United Nations cover to confiscate land from the American people, placing much of the United States under UN jurisdiction, and, last, but certainly not least; an exposé of the Bohemian Grove and the Cremation of Care ceremony, which is an eye-opener.
   However, not all of what's in this book is melancholic. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Alex ends his diatribe from a quixotic angle by reprinting the "Bill of Rights" and the "Declaration of Independence," which every household should possess a copy of.
   "9/11 Descent into Tyranny" is a must read that will give you a lot to ponder upon.
   
   9/11 was an inside job and the New World Orders plans must not be realized!
   "Power to the People!"

5 comments about Belfast Diary: War as a Way of Life.

1. This book was recommended to me as excellent reading about the Troubles, particularly for Americans. I whole-heartedly agree; it is all that and more. Conroy does describe the daily workings of life in Northern Ireland but he also tackles the prejudices and ignorance of Americans (and the U.S. government) when it comes to the political climate in Northern Ireland. He pulls no punches and sugar-coats no issues. He explicates the situation as he sees it and is not afraid to indict those who turn blind eyes. The version I read was older so I have not yet seen the updated book that includes information on semi-recent IRA ceasefires. But I do think many of Conroy's observations are still applicable, changes in administration notwithstanding. He describes the intolerant view towards Sinn Fein taken by the American government in the 80s and the biased, oversimplified treatment of the Troubles by the American media. Indeed as Conroy notes it has not been hard to sell the British point-of-view to American audiences but what of the counterpoint? When do proponents of the other side get a chance? Conroy also concludes that for as long as Northern Ireland remains a British enclave, continued violence is guaranteed. For that reason alone, Americans owe it to themselves to read _Belfast Diary_.



2. of what it is like to live, work and experience the turmoil of "The Troubles." Conroy covered the Troubles the right way...he went in and lived among the people in Belfast instead of swooping in for drive-by interviews like too many journalists have done in the past. He also manages to convey what he experienced while maintaining objectivity...this skill when dealing with terrorist and paramilitary violence is something writers covering the "War on Terror" these days could learn from. Required reading for anybody interested in Northern Ireland, its history and how to possibly make a better future in that wartorn nation...



3. I really enjoyed this book. I thought that Conroy did a great job putting the 'Troubles' in Belfast into perspective from an American living in the midst of it all. Having visted the area that he writes of brought back memories. I referred to his map at least 50 times during my reading of the book to recall the streets that I walked in relation to where he wrote the book and spent his time in Belfast. I highly recommend this book.



4. Not only do I admire John Conroy's writing, but I admire his courage to put himself right in the middle of 'the troubles' just to get the story right. It would one thing if Conroy was a Belfast resident and was just reporting on his day to day life, but he is not. He is an American who more or less stumbled upon this assignment and saw it through.
   
   It struck me a few times in the book just how close Conroy was coming to being killed in a place where death is a way of life. He is to be commended for this and we owe a debt of gratitude for making this sacrifice just so we could get a look right from the belly of the beast.



5. John Conroy performed a courageous feat of journalism with this book. As an American writer he put himself in the midst of the conflict and in incredible danger at times to capture the true picture of Belfast in the 80's. The stories of the people he encountered and the tough environment he experienced and witnessed is indispensible reading for anyone who wants to understand what the conflict was all about at the street level.
   While Belfast seems to be enjoying more peaceful times at the moment this book is a reminder of just how volatile a political climate there is and provides the reader with a much fuller understanding of the how , the why and major developments in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

5 comments about Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

1. An academic asked to review a ponderous tome of literary criticism penned one of the the best short reviews ever, when he said, "This book weighs 17 pounds." The problem with Cobra II is not that it is inaccurate in its tale of how the easy military conquest of Iraq turned into a complicated and sticky insurgency. It is not wrong in its judgement that those in the field increasingly "got it" while their superiors in Washington did not. It is that the tale is told in such overwhelming detail and in such a boring way that slogging through it becomes a chore instead of a pleasure. A look at Fiasco, which is nearly equally detailed, shows how a similar narrative, fair but impassioned, keeps the reader turning pages.



2. Amazing book full of very detailed accounts of the planning of the Iraq war and actual battles during the invasion. Stories in this book that i have not heard anywhere else. Being an Iraq war vet myself, I really enjoyed this book.



3. "Having failed to prepare for post-combat burdens, undertaken the war with the minimal acceptable forces, and canceled the deployment of badly needed reinforcements, the Bush Administration compounded the problem by disbanding the Iraqi army, putting more than 300,000 armed men on the streets, and denying local elections that would have allowed the Iraqis a measure of control over their own affairs."
   
   Not to mention the oversold and flat wrong reasons we went to war in the first place.
   
   The men who wrote these words are Lt. General Bernard E. Trainor (Marine Corps, ret.) and Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times. No knee-jerk Bush-bashers, the authors also wrote what is considered to be the definitive history of the first Persian Gulf War, a book Dick Cheney recommends to his friends. I'm surprised to report that a definitive history of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, is here in our hands. Already. And the war is still going on.
   
   Written with military precision but with little jargon, Cobra II swoops and dives between the blinding dust of desert warfare and faraway, high-level, secure conference rooms in Washington DC and coalition headquarters in Kuwait. It's the difference between flying at a strategic 50,000 feet and rolling with the grunts in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team that surprised everyone by showing up in downtown Baghdad before they were supposed to. Reading Cobra II, you've got to love the American soldier. These are the men and women who arrived in Nasiriyah, short on sleep, having been told to prepare for parades with the city fathers, but are instead confronted with the Fedayeen and their rocket propelled grenades and AK-47s, the "insurgents" of today. US soldiers and field commanders adapted and did their job. The top brass, primarily Donald Rumsfeld, General Tommy Franks and George W. Bush, did not.
   
   Stronger at the 50,000 foot level, as when telling the tale of the immense and impressive planning effort that began in late 2001 or when describing the battles between field commanders and Franks, the authors present, in well documented and annotated detail the invasion's story and the increasingly evident five major strategic blunders on the part of the war's planners and managers. "Rumsfeld and his generals misread their foe by viewing the invasion of Iraq largely as a continuation of the Persian Gulf War....the CIA was not only wrong on WMD, but failed to identify the importance of the Fedayeen." Or "the troops' training and the leadership in the field and at the allied land command paid off. But the American war plan was never adjusted on high. Tommy Franks never acknowledged the enemy he faced, nor did he comprehend the nature of the war he was directing." It's evident, that despite Franks' later claim of credit for the winning war strategy, he got us to Baghdad but that's about it. Now what?
   
   Marine Lieutenant Therral "Shane" Childers, veteran of the first Gulf War, was leading a platoon in the early hours of the invasion in southern Iraq. Across the desert, a single, tan Toyota pickup truck sped towards them. The Marines held their fire since they were told to engage Iraqi armor, not civilians in pickups. The Iraqis raised their AK-47s and sprayed the Marines with bullets, one of which killed Childers. He was the first American soldier killed in enemy action. Prophetically, he was killed by insurgents, not by Saddam's Republican Guard. Too bad we didn't pick up on that.
   
   Read this book. It's your duty to be well-informed.



4. The authors have done an exhaustive resource that provides the reader with most of the background for the preparation of the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent developments.
   
   A very interesting book.



5. Although some may say this book is "too detailed" or "too boring to read", I would say that that is what you'd want from a hot topic that is at the top of the news every day.
   
   Aside from enjoying the book because I was there in 2003 during the invasion, I enjoy how the authors paint a picture of what was happening at different levels. We read about the strategic planning done by the President and the Secretary of Defense, down to the operational level with the war planners at USCENTCOM, and down further to the tactical level with the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the trenches. We get to be the "fly on the wall" as we learn what was discussed in the war room and feel the gutsy calls by the commanders in the field taking Baghdad, block by block.
   
   I recommend this book for anyone involved in the conflict or those who wish to get an account of how the planning to invade Iraq went down. Whether you're for or against the war, this is a good read to expand your knowledge base of what's going on right now in the Middle East.
   
   -GM
   Gregory M. Kuzma
   Author, On the field from Denver, Colorado...The Blue Knights!: One member's experience of the 1994 summer national tour (N)

5 comments about Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror.

1. Read the book after seeing the author on TV talking about women suicide bombers. Some of the people who have read the book completely misunderstood what she was saying (I read the reviews and wondered whether we had read the same book?). She is not blaming victims but analyzing what kinds of counter terrorism tactics work best. She also has an interesting counter point to this book by Robert A. Pape that suicide bombing is a response to foreign occupation. Oh by the way, who is occupying Bangladesh which has been in the news this week with attacks? So I found Dying to Kill more nuanced and based on real world information including interviews with real life terrorists to be heads and tails above some of the so called experts. She is also on point about Iraq, even rightly predicting that there is no way to impose democracy from above and identified that most of the bombers are foreigners like Saudis. This book will definitely not disappoint.



2. I had to read this book for a class and really enjoyed it. Unlike so many other books on the subject or in political science generally, this was an easy read with tons of additional information at the back for additional research. The main points were that suicide bombing happens under specific conditions and, if you can "shift the preferences of the people" they say they represent, you can make terrorism less "alluring" than more peaceful methods. I thought it made good sense. Bloom shows how targeted assassination may open up a Pandora's box and differentiates between long term and short term strategies. The chapter on women was my favorite by far. So before all these women started participating in attacks she has predicted this in the book by showing how several of the muslim fundamentalist leaders had started to allow women to be bombers and that Al Qaeda would eventually follow suit. She also explained how more than one group can use bombings to influence an audience, something no one else discusses to show how groups compete using violence as a "litmus test"... The book is sooo interesting, written well, presented clearly and if you want to understand how complicated suicide bombing and terrorism is, this is definitely the book for you. No simple answers, but simply put. It was my favorite book last semester.



3. This was the best book on the subject I have read in a very long time. The books presents interviews with failed bombers and the group leaders that send them. Amazing... the book gives you a glimpse inside the groups and also the mentality of the people who are drawn into this cult of martyrdom. I had no idea that there were more bombings in Sri Lanka than anywhere else but certainly, the recent growth of Islamic bombers seems to show that secular groups are not the most dangerous post 9/11. My instinct is to agree. The terrorists in Sri Lanka are not ramming planes into buildings here in this country and many people do not even consider them terrorists.
   Methodologically the book appears to be a most dissimilar case comparison in which the author shows the linkages among groups and individual motivations. Instead of presenting the groups that suicide bomb as either religious or secular, the author presents a spectum along which most groups fall.
   Super interesting especially the author's discussion of women bombers and how they are motivated.
   I enjoyed this book immensely. I am sure you will too.



4. This is one of the major studies of suicide terrorism. Anyone interested in the subject should read this book, as well as other major sources (such as Robert Pape's work and Ami Pedahzur's edited volume). She begins by providing a brief history of suicide terrorism--which has roots going back quite a distance historically (the Zealots of Judea to the Kamikaze during World War II).
   
   She emphasizes that, contrary to what some people say about terrorism being irrational, this is a political tactic that can make sense under certain circumstances. Early on, she notes that (page 1):
   
   Terrorist groups appear to use suicide bombings under two
   conditions: when other terrorist or military tactics fail,
   and when they are in competition with other terrorist
   groups for popular or financial support.
   
   In addition, she contends that suicide bombings can only be effective when a population is supportive of this tactic. Also, she observes that history shows that harsh punitive counterterrorist tactics actually exacerbate the situation. Ham-fisted antiterrorist actions leads to more people who are "dying to kill." A kind of contagion effect has been manifest over time. Bloom says that (page 126) "As suicide terror has proven relatively successful in the Middle East or places like Sri Lanka, there has been an upsurge in the number of regions, countries, and non-state actors that utilize it as a tactic in their nationalist struggles against (real or perceived) foreign occupations."
   
   She concludes by noting that the United States has a potential "lose-lose" in Iraq. On the one hand, if the United States stays in Iraq over time, it will be perceived as an occupying power and be subject to greater suicide terrorist tactics against it. On the other hand, if the United States pulls out prematurely, that would embolden terrorist strikes, as the U. S. appears to be a "paper tiger." This becomes another side effect of the United States' invasion of Iraq. If she is correct, another legacy of the war may be implications for future terrorist actions against the United States.



5. The writing is unfocused, the author's definitions are problematically loose (she often refers to suicide terror, non-suicide terror, insurgency, and guerrilla warfare interchangeably - they are not the same), her logic is often flawed, many of her assertions are unsupported by data, and she mercilessly desecrates the English language with her poor punctuation and grammar and innumerable sentence fragments. The editor responsible for this at Columbia University Press should resign in shame.