[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

Bush is now claiming that questions about his justification for the invasion of Iraq are coming from “revisionist historians.” Saddam was a threat, and that’s that. Apparently he was the kind of threat who can be ousted in about two weeks flat — but maybe pointing that out is revisionist history. It’s probably also revisionist history to point out that Iraqis are killing more Americans per week now than they were in 2002.

Perhaps this would be a good time to refer once more to Robin Cook’s resignation speech. Again: “We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.”

Not surprisingly, Bush is getting called on it. But you know, I think there’s a little more to Bush’s speech than just the desire to strike out at the smart people who’re picking on him. (That’s irony. I don’t actually think Bush was pouting at all; I think his choice of words was carefully made. Onward.)

I just searched for “revisionist historians” on Google. Top result: Revisionists.com, a site dedicated to explaining why the Holocaust wasn’t so bad after all. Not all of the top ten results are about Holocaust revisionism, but it’s sure a constant theme. I kinda don’t think that’s an accident.

Bush is deliberately implying that those who claim the Holocaust never happened and those who claim Bush misrepresented the reasons for attacking Iraq are in some way similar. This implication goes nicely with the argument that we invaded Iraq in order to restore civil rights. It’s a good thing that Saddam’s out of power, but we didn’t invade Iraq because of the mass graves; we invaded because they were a threat.

However, linking the mass graves of Iraq to the mass graves of Germany is great spin. And linking anti-war activists to Holocaust revisionists? That’s icing on the cake.

[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

You don’t get to know who we arrested.

The Justice Department might be correct; revealing the names of those detained post-9/11 could be helpful to Al-Qaeda. Assuming, that is, that Al-Qaeda is incapable of figuring out whether or not cell members were arrested on its own. Which is actually less snarky an assumption than it appears; the answer depends on the nature of the cell structure. On the other hand, with a properly defined cell structure, Al-Qaeda leadership wouldn’t necessarily know that a given detainee was an Al-Qaeda member either.

But I digress. Let’s assume that there is some degree of risk associated with releasing those names.

That’s not a sufficient argument to keep ‘em secret.

The problem is this. If you don’t reveal the names, then you remove one of the checks and balances from the judicial system. You don’t need to assume that the Justice Department is acting in bad faith for that to be a bad idea. It’s possible for humans to make mistakes. There were US citizens in detention in Guantanamo Bay for a little while, for example. If we hadn’t known about that, we couldn’t have objected and they wouldn’t have been moved as quickly if at all.

These matters need to be public for the safety of the accused. Keeping them secret is a risk too. In order to make a strong case for secrecy, you need to show that the risk created by revealing the names is greater than the risk created by keeping them secret. Considering the recent report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General, it’s more than reasonable to expect the case to be made strongly.