...the hell?

Does anybody here remember the first few days of the invasion of Iraq?

A group of US soldiers took a wrong turn and ran into a larger force of Iraqis. Some were killed in the ensuing fight, and several more were captured in various states of injury.

Saddam's government, which had not yet completely disintegrated, broadcast video of these captives on TV. They were fully clothed, they weren't being tortured (at least, not that could be told from the videos), but the hawks in the US were noisily appalled: the Geneva Convention forbids such an affront to the dignity of captured soldiers!

Let me repeat that: they were appalled that captured soldiers were being briefly videotaped, with their clothes on. We're not talking 'piled naked on top of one another' or 'savaged by guard dogs' or 'beaten to death in interrogation and then laid out cold while their captors pose smirking over the body'; a comparatively minor breach of Geneva Convention rules was enough to cause these folk outrage.

Three and a half years on, this is where we're at:

IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories... As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions...

While we're here, from the same bill (emphasis mine):

RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this subsection [which alters definitions of 'torture' et al.], except as specified in subsection (d)(2)(E) of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, shall take effect as of November 26, 1997...

That funny old document

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution, paragraphs 2 and 3:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed...

Any questions? (Note that although I didn't point it out yesterday, that bill also has quite a lot to say about restricting habeas corpus.)

Meanwhile, Democrats Abroad sent me this today:

"'Democrats frame the election as a referendum on President Bush and his failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, the environment, tax benefits for the rich, immigration, education, health care and all the rest.' Let’s vote no! And let’s vote no on torture, now that, as Wednesday Wire pundit John McQueen observes, 'Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and John Warner, all Republicans, caved' on opposing it."

I was already quite prepared to vote against W for those very reasons... but am I right in suspecting that on the Iraq and torture fronts, the Democrats are being much less vocal to the folks at home than they are to those of us living overseas?

Guarding Our Family Values, part n+1

Miami Herald, via malloc1024:

Rep. Mark Foley resigned from Congress on Friday, a day after publication of overly friendly e-mails sent to a former underage male page and the discovery by ABC News of a series of explicit instant messaging sessions with other boys. And as the Palm Beach Republican's personal and political life began to unravel, the resignation added to the burden of his party to maintain control of Congress in the pivotal November election.

Foley sent a terse resignation letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, and Foley's office issued a brief statement, thanking his district for 12 years of public service. Foley was chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus and was active in child protection issues, including pushing for legislation to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet and further restrictions of online child pornography. In 2003, he led a charge to criticize a Tampa-area nudist camp that permitted underage campers...

For the cyclists

Via risks_digest, this story offers the first halfway convincing reason I've heard for cycling without a helmet:

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath in the UK, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck. He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without... The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars. The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer. However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars. Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.

To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist. Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.

I can think of some obvious questions about methodology, in particular preventing the cyclist's own behaviour from influencing the findings, but assuming those have been dealt with satisfactorily it's an interesting finding.