The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as "outrages upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.

"People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope," said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.

The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross, the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their objections would be heeded.

The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key officials and will not change, two government sources said.

No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war, who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post, said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.

"This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' " the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.

The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of "Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.

U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.

Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars "violence to life and person," including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity" such as "humiliating and degrading treatment." And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide "all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan. As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress, which denied defendants many routine due process rights The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections. U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard. They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting "outrages" -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable. But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as "outrages" by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said. "It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3," said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The "entire family of techniques" that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib "is not addressed in any way, shape or form" in the new language authorizing prosecutions, he said. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad reach of the phrase "outrages upon personal dignity." He said that, "if left undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack." Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede operations. If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was concerned that "degrading" and "humiliating" are relative terms. "I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion," England said. "And since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly, different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant" to define the meaning in new legislation. This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can "elevate" the War Crimes Act "from an aspiration to an instrument" by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing "the ideals of the laws of war." Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said "it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions." Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should "not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States." But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, "left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects." Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including "dereliction of duty," "maltreatment" and "conduct unbecoming an officer." Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is "don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions."

A US Navy sailor, Ariel J. Weinmann, is suspected of spying for Israel and has been held in prison for four months, according to an article published Monday in the Saudi daily Al-Watan. It reported that Weinmann is being held at a military base in Virginia on suspicion of espionage and desertion.

According to the navy, Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 "after it was learned that he had been listed as a deserter by his command." Though initial information released by the navy makes no mention of it, Al-Watan reported that he was returning from an undisclosed "foreign country." American sources close to the Defense Department told Al-Watan that Israel was the country in question.

"The US Navy concluded Article 32 proceedings [a pretrial investigation] in the case of Fire Control Technician Third Class Ariel J. Weinmann on July 26, 2006," Ted Brown, a media relations officer at the US Fleet Forces Command, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. The US Fleet Forces Command is the "convening authority of the case... and will make the decision with respect to what charges, if any, will be referred to a general court-martial."

The veracity of Al-Watan's claim that Weinmann is suspected of spying for Israel remains in question, and military and Pentagon spokesmen are remaining tightlipped. A public affairs officer at the Office of Naval Intelligence told the Post that he was unaware of the allegations against Weinmann.

Al-Watan speculated that if Weinmann spied on behalf of the Mossad, it would be the biggest espionage case since Jonathan Pollard's arrest. Pollard, who worked as a civilian intelligence analyst for the US Navy, was caught in 1985 and convicted of spying for Israel. He is currently serving a life sentence in the US.

According to the navy, "Weinmann was assigned to the USS Albuquerque (SSN 706) and had deserted on or about July 3, 2005." The Albuquerque is a Los Angeles-class attack submarine.

Though the navy's initial press release contained no reference to Israel, Brown stated that more detailed information about the case would be released shortly.

Robertson added that he plans to express this support to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert when he meets with him on Wednesday. But in spite of the warm friendship he feels for Olmert, he will also tell him, diplomatically, that the Evangelical community is opposed to any plans to give up land and that it would be a mistake for Olmert to link his realignment plan to withdraw from areas of the West Bank with the fight against Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Was this a previously scheduled visit?

It was totally spur of the moment. I wanted to get over here before the war was over. I didn't know they [Hizbullah] were going to heat it up the way they they did in Haifa a couple of days ago.

Do you think the war is going to be over soon?

Those who would like to see Hizbullah eliminated would like to see the Israelis have the time that is necessary to finish the job.

Where do your sympathies lie?

Finishing the job.

How would you explain what is happening here within a religious framework?

It is self-defense [by Israel], which is cause for just war. Israel is the spear against what you would call the Islam-o-fascism that is threatening all of the free loving people of the western world. There is no question that Hizbullah is the proxy for the Iranians.

Is there a message from God that is being played out here? Do you put it in those terms?

The Jews are God's chosen people. Israel is a special nation that has a special place in God's heart. He will defend this nation. So Evangelical Christians stand with Israel. That is one of the reasons I am here.

Do you see the violence between Israel and Hizbullah as part of the US's struggle against Iran?

It is a struggle against Islamo-facism, which is a radical branch of Islam that is threatening democratic institutions everywhere. It is part of the struggle that we have in Iraq. The nexus of this one comes out Iran, which is ruled by a man who seems to be wild-eyed fanatic.

In the US, has evangelical support remained firmly behind Israel in the last few weeks, even with all the painful footage of the conflict from Lebanon being broadcast and even though there are many Christians who live in Lebanon?

The images that are being portrayed in the press and the United States are not deterring the Evangelicals from wholeheartedly supporting Israel.

I personally have had warm relations with the Christians in Lebanon for many years. They are our friends and brothers and sisters. It is tragic what is going on.

Lebanon was just a lovely, charming country, where they had peace between Christians and Muslims. When [Palestinian Authority head] Yasser Arafat came into the peace-loving country, he tore it all to pieces. There was a terrible civil war. It has continued to this day. The harmony that existed between the Christians and the Muslims has been tragically severed.

They (the Lebanese government) didn't deal with the PLO. They were too weak to do it. They haven't dealt with Hizbullah. They do not have an effective army. The Syrians came and abused the Lebanese terribly for a number of years.

Under the United Nations they (the Lebanese army) were suppose to come down and occupy that southern sector that Israel withdrew from. After Israel withdrew Hizbullah came into the gap. I think they persecuted the Christians. They made it difficult for them to exist. I am very familiar with the people and the situation. We ran a television station there for 18 years.

The only thing that dismays the Evangelicals is when Israel gives up territory that it should have and seems to cater to the whims of the world pressure.

What, then, of Prime Minister Olmert's convergence plan?

It's an absolute disaster. Can you imagine instead of Hamas in Gaza you would have Hamas all over the West Bank threatening Israel. Between the Kassam rockets and the Katyusha rockets and other more advanced rockets there would not be even one place in Israel that would be safe. I can not even conceive of anyone doing anything in light of what is happening today.

When you speak to the prime minister tomorrow are you going to tell him this?

I will do it in a diplomatic fashion. I just can't conceive of it, knowing the fragile nature of Israel, the lack of defensible borders... to give away that territory. I flew a helicopter along the wall and looked down. In one of the Arab villages on the West Bank you look right down to the main runway on Ben-Gurion airport, which means even a conventional mortar would interrupt any civilian air traffic from the major airport in Israel...

[Still,] Olmert has been elected as the leader of Israel. The Israelis have to be responsible for what their leaders do. It's up to them as a free society to determine the course of action of their nation. I would be surprised in light of the current military situation if the Israeli people favor convergence.

In the past you made comments that seemed to indicate that former prime minister Ariel Sharon's illness was divine retribution for his withdrawal from Gaza.

My comments frankly were distorted by the press. I was merely pointing to the Prophet Joel. In speaking for God, Joel calls this land God's land. There is a warning against those "who divide his land." I didn't say there was some judgment against Sharon. He was a friend of mine. I liked him very much. What angered people is not what I said but what was said that I said.

And if Olmert relinquishes land?

I don't think the holy God is going to be happy about someone giving up his land. But that would be between Mr. Olmert and his God. It isn't for me to say.

Ehud Olmert and I have been good friends. I got to know him when he was mayor of Jerusalem. I have been at a pro-Israel rally with him in Washington. He has been on my program on several occasions.

I made a speech to the Herzliya conference several years ago. I said, 'We stand with you but your evangelical friends make one request, please do not commit suicide.' I make the same request: I love you but please do not commit suicide...

We have been asking our audience on a daily basis to pray for Israel. We have been mobilizing support. People in at least 20 different nations around the world have been joining in prayer for Israel at this time.

Are there special prayers you are asking people to say?

Not specifically. Just, God stand with the people of Israel during this time of crisis. There are fervent prayers going up for Israel right now, all over the evangelical community all over the world.

Do you see this as the biggest crisis that Israel has faced?

Israel has had bigger crises than this one. But Israel is as vulnerable as it has ever been in its history.



This is the most dangerous time in the existence of the modern state of Israel. Just take for example the new Iranian rockets missiles that are now in the arsenal of Hizbullah.

What happens if they are tipped with chemical or biological weapons and dropped into Tel Aviv?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced his goal is to destroy Israel and to establish chaos in the world. When you have an absolute fanatic in charge of a major country that is wealthy from oil it is a very dangerous situation. Not to mention the fact that nations of the earth have not been exactly friendly to Israel. The United States is her greatest supporter. That is partly due to the fact that so many of the evangelical Christians are in the US and support this country.

You weren't scared to come here?

Because of the missiles? This is like home. We trust the Lord, my wife does and I do.

Do you trust the Lord to stand on the side of Israel?

I think he will but we can not guarantee that God is going to rescue us from our own foolishness. It would be presumptuous of me or of anyone else to say, 'God, I am going to make foolish mistakes. Please protect me from them.'

In the long run, God will look after Israel. The prophecies of the Bible will come to pass. We just need to pray that there will be wise leadership for this nation and that they will make the appropriate moves to keep this country strong.

Do you worry that we could be on the verge of some of the apocalyptic visions that are portrayed in the scriptures?

There was a prophet Ezekiel in the time of the Bible who wrote that in the last days there would be an invasion of Israel by a coalition that would include Iran, Russia, Turkey and the Sudan and Libya. God himself is going to defeat that great army that had come against his people. That is a prophecy of one of the Jewish prophets that has yet to be fulfilled. It said that it would be in the later days when Israel has been brought from the nations of the earth and are living in peace in their land.

Are we on the verge of this apocalyptic vision?

Could be.

Do you think that what is happening now speaks to the fact that Israel's withdrawal from the south Lebanon buffer zone in 2000 was a mistake?

It has made it more difficult for the country. There was a great deal of public sentiment against staying in southern Lebanon. There were continuous killings. Hizbullah would plant road-side bombs and then they would go up to the hills with binoculars and watch till an Israeli convoy would come past that site. Then they would detonate the bombs.

I was there on the day or two after a terrible explosion took place just down the street from our studio. It was a particularly gruesome example of young soldiers screaming in pain after they had been blown up by a Hizbullah bomb. Israel public opinion was very strongly against staying there. But it's always a mistake to give up territory that is needed for your defense.

When Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon, Hizbullah rode tanks to the border shouting, 'On to Jerusalem.' They proclaimed that they had defeated the IDF. The Muslim world hailed it as a great triumph. It enhanced the prestige of Hizbullah dramatically.

Do you think the US should go to war against Iran?

No. I think the Iranian people favor the US. What ought to happen is some movement to cause a popular uprising against [the rulers of the] country. The people hate them. It is a repressive regime that has taken away the freedoms of those people. If the United States went to war, then that hatred would be turned against us. The vast majority of Iranians are under 30 years old and they think that America is great. So why would we go to war with them?

But the US went to war with Iraq?

If had been running the country I would have engineered a coup in Iraq that would have disposed of its leader Saddam Hussein. I would have gone to war against Hussein and not the Iraqi people. I have strong reservations against going to war in another country. But once there are troops in the field you have to support them.



But you support Israeli action in Lebanon?

It's a little bit different. Hizbullah is stronger and the Lebanese government is weak. I do hate to see this fledgling [Lebanese] democracy go down in flames [because of Hizbullah] and it is it is mortally wounded right now.

McKinney, her state's first black congresswoman, has long been controversial. Her suggestion that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks helped galvanize opposition and she lost her seat in 2002, but won it again two years ago.

In her latest brouhaha in March, she struck a Capitol police officer who did not recognize her and tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

A grand jury in Washington declined to indict her, but she was forced to apologize before the House. She drew less than 50 percent of the vote in last month's primary.

"Tomorrow, we launch a new campaign to unite the people of Connecticut," he told cheering supporters at a downtown Hartford hotel. "If you're fed up with the nasty partisanship in Washington, then I ask your help."

Lamont's outsider bid to unseat the three-term senator in Democratic-leaning Connecticut offered a gauge of anti-war sentiment among voters before the election in November, when control of Congress will be up for grabs.

"Connecticut voters do not call for change lightly but today we called for change decisively. No more stay the course," Lamont told supporters at a victory celebration in Meriden, where he was flanked by black leaders
Jesse Jackson and
Al Sharpton.

"Stay the course is not a winning strategy in Iraq and it is not a winning strategy in America," said Lamont, who sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to contact Lieberman and urge him to reconsider his independent bid.

The Connecticut race attracted national attention as a referendum on the war and Democratic anger at Bush, with Lamont calling Lieberman a Bush "lapdog."

Lieberman fought back, emphasizing his experience and Democratic credentials and calling himself a reliable opponent of Bush's domestic agenda.

He argued a quick pullout of troops "would be a disaster for Iraqis and for us" but said the Bush administration had made mistakes in its conduct of the war.

LIEBERMAN TO RUN AS INDEPENDENT

Lieberman wrote a Wall Street Journal article last year headlined "Our Troops Must Stay" and warned Democrats about criticizing Bush on the war.

Lamont, whose last bid for public office was an unsuccessful 1990 state Senate race, will be the Democratic Senate nominee in November against Republican Alan Schlesinger, a former state legislator seen as little threat.

To run as an independent, Lieberman must file petitions with 7,500 valid signatures with the Connecticut Secretary of State by the end of the day on Wednesday.

Lieberman, who held a wide lead in polls over Lamont in May but trailed him by double digits in a poll last week, portrayed his loss by a spread of 52-48 percent as a sign of momentum and called it "a much closer race than all the pundits were predicting."

Polls show Lieberman, who draws support from independents and Republicans, leading in a three-way race with Lamont and Schlesinger but that could change after Lamont's primary win and months of heavy media coverage for the challenger.

His independent bid will also put pressure on congressional Democrats in Washington, who will have to choose between supporting Lamont, the choice of Democratic voters in Connecticut, or their colleague Lieberman.

Lamont's win offered vindication to the army of grass roots Internet activists who rallied around his campaign and provided volunteer muscle and energy for the cable television executive and political novice.

Lamont spent more than $3 million of his own money and a total of $5 million on the campaign, although he was still outspent by Lieberman's $7 million campaign.

More than 275,000 ballots were cast in the primary, in which about 27,000 newly registered Democrats were able to vote. Some towns in Connecticut were recording more than 50 percent turnout, officials said, high for a primary.

"Three years ago, President George Bush rushed our country to war in Iraq and Senator Lieberman has cheered him on every step of the way. No, there was no imminent threat to America, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we were not greeted as liberators," Lamont said on his website.

"Today, America is no safer, Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war. I believe that those leaders who got us into this mess should be held accountable."

He proposes withdrawing U.S. combat soldiers in Iraq, while continuing to provide the Iraqi government with logistical and training support.

Lieberman was only the fourth incumbent senator since 1980 to lose a primary election.

Even before the votes were counted, Lamont was characterizing the race in terms of a vote on U.S. policy.

"A lot of people around the country are looking to Connecticut to see what course they want for this country," he said early Tuesday at a campaign stop.

"Tonight we voted for a big change," he told supporters after his victory.

Lamont won 52 per cent of the votes, or 144,005, to 48 per cent for Lieberman, with 134,026. In the U.S. system, a primary vote is held within a party - the Democrats in this case - to chose a candidate to represent the party in an election. Only party backers can vote in primaries.

Senator narrowed lead over challenger

Lieberman had struggled to explain his stance on Iraq in the days preceding the vote, saying that pulling out would be a "disaster," and succeeded in narrowing Lamont's lead in pre-vote polls, but conceded when it became clear that he was going to lose.

He cancelled campaign appearances Tuesday to drum up support from Democratic stalwarts. He had been criticized for supporting the war and being too close to the Republicans and Bush.

The contest drew intense interest, as 28,000 Connecticut citizens registered as Democrats so they could vote Tuesday. Turnout for the primary was predicted to hit 50 per cent, double the usual level.

Lamont is a millionaire and owner of a cable television company.

Lieberman told supporters he would run as an independent in the November election, even though Democratic Party officials were discouraging him.

His backers blamed Lamont supporters for website problems this week, filing official complaints.

Lamont rejected the accusations.

1. The Muslim Lie Mode, or The Dead as Visual Aid

The variations are many, the form a recurrent theme. Stated differently:

When Arabs report what Israel has done

In most areas of the world, when buildings collapse or violence erupts in remote areas, the casualty count begins low, then climbs alarmingly for days and even weeks.

But in the Palestinian territories and in southern Lebanon, where thoroughly professional television and new media crews have given the expression Guerrilla Media an entirely new and oddly literal meaning, the death toll often as not begins alarmingly high, and only later - after the world has lost interest - is it adjusted to its true level.

So it was in April, 2002, when Saeb Erekat announced that more than 500 Palestinians had been killed in the IDF Operation Defensive Shield offensive in Jenin refugee camp. Another senior Palestinian official told reporters that the death toll could reach into the thousands. It was only the next month that a Palestinian Authority official, responding to witness accounts by international aid workers, quietly conceded that the actual number was 58, a large proportion of which were gunmen.

And so it was this week, when initial reports from an Israeli bombing in the south Lebanon border village of Houla placed the death toll at 60. An hour later, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, wiping tears from his eyes as he addressed an emergency meeting of Arab Foreign Ministers, announced "An hour ago, a horrific massacre took place in Houla village as a result of the intentional Israeli bombardment that resulted in more than 40 martyrs."

Still later in the day, Siniora told reporters that the "The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed."

The drumbeat use of the terms massacre, "worse than Nazis," and "intentional mass murder" actually forms the background for the lies Israelis like to tell themselves and others about the conflict:

2. The Israeli Lie Mode, or The Dead as Enemy Weapon

Stated differently:

When Israelis report what Israel has done

All too often, Israelis, as well as their supporters abroad, view the damage their military has wrought, though the prism of How Little The World Understands What We're Going Through, and How Muslims Everywhere Now Hate Our Guts And Want Us All Dead Even More Than They Did Before.

There is obsessive coverage in Israel of how Al Jazeera suspends its regular broadcasts to air marathon footage of such incidents as the Qana bombing and parallel civilian deaths in the Palestinian territories, hours and hours of faces blown half away, bodies blown half away, endless loops of the shredded corpses of infants, the elderly and the handicapped.

For Israelis, the psychology is complex, the consequence relatively straightforward. The reality of terrible incidents is transformed through the hyperbole and unashamed bias of the Arab media, into something considerably less terrible for Israelis, and thus, a Lie We Can Live With.

It is this psychology that allows our spokespeople to say, with a straight face, that Israel is not a nation which kidnaps people, that in no way do we target civilian populations [though we are greatly pained at the deaths of civilians, the terrorists who operate in their midst bear the responsibility for their deaths], and that our army is the most moral fighting force in the world.

Then, of course, there is the supreme example of lying in the Middle East, as practiced by the very people who lie to themselves better than anyone:

The American Lie Mode, or The Dead as Nonexistent

Stated differently:

How Americans report what Americans have done

Since Vietnam, the old saw goes, war has been brought into everyone's living room.

Not even close.

In fact, as time goes on, the public is shielded more and more successfully from the realities of an Iraq war that is horrifying in the extreme. Pennsylvania Avenue learned something from Madison Avenue, and from Vietnam as well: Don't show funerals of servicemen. Don't show funerals of Iraqis.

Chances are that large numbers of Americans know that nearly 1,000 Lebanese have been killed in the war in the north. How many Americans have any idea how many Iraqis have died? Or a close approximation of the number of U.S. men and women killed in Iraq? Does anyone anywhere know how many Iraqi civilians were killed in U.S. bombings in the Gulf War of 1991?

This is, in fact, the clue to the magic of the modern era, the fully insulated lie: the wizardry of denial.

Perhaps the most unexpected element of a blog-blanketed, cable news-saturated, news-pictures-on-cell-phone era of information overload, is the extent to which the glut of media input lends itself to fostering denial.

Inundated with images, the reality of war recedes in the distance, reprocessed, played over a sound track, manipulated, plastered over, blue-screened.

In a word, doctored.

What have we learned? It may be nothing that we can use, but here it is. This is the lesson of Overmedia:

Denial is the ultimate dishonesty. And it's now available at the touch of any remote.