Daniel W. Drezner notes that this is the ten-year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. As Nicholas Kristof writes, there’s more African slaughter in the making:

For decades, whenever the topic of genocide has come up, the refrain has been, “Never again.”
Yet right now, the government of Sudan is engaging in genocide against three large African tribes in its Darfur region here. Some 1,000 people are being killed a week, tribeswomen are being systematically raped, 700,000 people have been driven from their homes, and Sudan’s Army is even bombing the survivors.
And the world yawns.

Kristof points out an American trend on this front:

In her superb book on the history of genocide, “A Problem from Hell,” Samantha Power focuses on the astonishing fact that U.S. leaders always denounce massacres in the abstract or after they are over � but, until Kosovo, never intervened in the 20th century to stop genocide and “rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred.” The U.S. excuses now are the same ones we used when Armenians were killed in 1915 and Bosnians and Rwandans died in the 1990’s: the bloodshed is in a remote area; we have other priorities; standing up for the victims may compromise other foreign policy interests.

He adds that in instances such as this, it might not take very much American action to make a difference:

I’m not arguing that we should invade Sudan. But one of the lessons of history is that very modest efforts can save large numbers of lives. Nothing is so effective in curbing ethnic cleansing as calling attention to it.
President Bush could mention Darfur or meet a refugee. The deputy secretary of state could visit the border areas here in Chad. We could raise the issue before the U.N. And the onus is not just on the U.S.: it’s shameful that African and Muslim countries don’t offer at least a whisper of protest at the slaughter of fellow Africans and Muslims.

One would think that the self-described greatest human rights president in history would be all over this, but I’ve not heard anything from the bully pulpit, have you?
Why do I get the feeling that the Bush administration’s concern for foreign human rights is limited to those areas slated for U.S. military conquest?

Spain is sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda:

The incoming Socialist government, under pressure over its plans to withdraw Spain’s troops from Iraq, has agreed to double the country’s contingent in Afghanistan to 250 soldiers this summer, an aide to the future defense minister said Monday.
The Socialist party insisted its plans on Iraq remain firm, however.

Terrorists don’t seem to be very good drivers:

Spanish police were agonisingly close to foiling the Madrid train bombings, it was disclosed yesterday.
A car carrying the explosives used in the March 11 massacre was stopped by police but its Arab driver was fined only for a minor traffic offence, it was reported.
The boot of the Volkswagen was packed with 220 lb of industrial dynamite being transported to Madrid after it had been stolen from a coal mine at Aviles in northern Spain during the last week of February, the El Pais newspaper said.
The car, which had been stolen, was stopped by two Civil Guard patrolmen near Benavente, in the province of Leon, north of Madrid.
But their suspicions were not aroused when they checked the car’s registration as the owner had not yet reported it missing. They failed to recognise that the driver was not the registered owner.
The driver was fined for a minor infringement and allowed to drive on. Three of the four bombing suspects are thought to have been in the car.

I wonder how the exchange between the police and the driver. Either the latter is a cool player and eluded suspicion, or the police officer missed signals which could have prompted him (or her) to investigate the driver further. As I recall, the millennium terrorist plot was busted because a border agent detained a driver who was acting suspiciously.

There’s not many high value terrorist targets in East Tennessee. Looks like risks remain at one of them:

Despite efforts to beef up homeland security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, recent reports by federal investigators and a watchdog group suggest that the nation’s nuclear weapons sites are vulnerable.
The reports focus particularly on the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, an 811-acre site about 15 miles from Knoxville. The Oak Ridge facility is the country’s primary site for processing highly enriched uranium used to make nuclear bombs. Tons of weapons-grade uranium are stored at the 60-year-old complex, one of the nation’s 12 nuclear weapons facilities.

Local representative John Duncan Jr. seems very concerned:

Rep. John Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, suggested that the problems at the Oak Ridge site have been overblown and that there is no reason for increased alarm. Duncan said the government is spending way too much on anti-terrorism activities.
”The truth is we’re going ridiculously overboard in regards to terrorism,” said Duncan, who also sits on Shays’ House committee. ”Almost every department in the federal government has exaggerated the threat of terrorism to get more money.”

Can we get Duncan to serve as a spokesperson for the Bush campaign?

Salon has an article on Sibel Edmonds’ allegations of missed 9/11 warnings and the administration cover up (an earlier post on this here):

A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called “very credible” by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.
Referring to the Homeland Security Department’s color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, “We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available.” Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. “Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That’s an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it’s a lie.”
. . .
“President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that’s accurate,” says Edmonds. “But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should’ve alerted the people to the threat we’re facing.”
Edmonds testified before 9/11 commission staffers in February for more than three hours, providing detailed information about FBI investigations, documents and dates. This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. “I’m hoping the commission asks him real questions — like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who’d been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn’t say no,” she insists.

This is story is now going to be hard to ignore.