Why don't they cover the details on this side of the pond?

From the linked-to article (edited with regards to paragraph breaks):

Alex McIlveen, 45, kicked the man, whose body was in flames, so hard that he tore a tendon in his foot. ... "He didn't even flinch. I couldn't believe he didn't go down. A doctor told me later I'd damaged a tendon in my foot."

An article with more detail (with complete disregard to what the newspaper thinks counts as a paragraph):

"The guy in the passenger seat was wearing a white T-shirt. He got out carrying what looked like a petrol bomb and seconds later the Jeep was in flames. Then he kicked and punched a man to the ground before punching a policeman square in the face. That's when I saw red. That sort of thing just isn't on. ... I went for the man in the T-shirt and managed to skelp him in the face. I followed it up by booting him twice.

"By that time some other people had joined in and it seemed like the T-shirt guy was trying to get back into the Jeep. Then the driver got out of the car. He was already in flames. It was obvious he was the real psycho of the pair. ... I've heard people say since that he was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of c**p to me.

"I ran for the guy and punched him twice in the face with pretty good right hooks. Then I kicked him with full force right in the balls but he didn't go down. He just kept on babbling his rubbish. I couldn't believe that he was still standing. I know I would have been floored by that kind of kick. ... He was a big guy and I'm not really a fighter, but his punches were wild and I managed to dodge them and make some good strikes myself.

"Luckily, more people joined in and we managed to beat the guy down. The police apparently caught the other man. I don't think the policeman I saw at the scene drew his baton during the whole thing. He should have given it to me."

And (with my choice of paragraph breaks):

Alex McIlveen, 45, left his taxi and laid into two men after a Jeep Cherokee loaded with gas canisters crashed into Terminal One. But when the dad-of-two returned to his car the next morning, after hours of police questioning, he found he had been given a £30 penalty. At first, police insisted Alex would have to pay up. But, after a call from the Record, they agreed to drop the fine.

I wouldn't be a patriotic American if I didn't refer you to TJIC today.

By the way, I honestly believe that I will live to see a significant revolt against the US government. Something like a modern-day Boston Tea Party. To be honest, I don't expect it to be succesful, but I do expect it to happen.

And I when I think about it, I wonder what happens if the tea runs out early.

UPDATE To be clear, I should have used a better example. Timothy McVeigh probably thought that bombing the Murrah building was something like a modern-day Boston Tea Party, although it involved far fewer perpetrators. Ditto Ruby Ridge. And, of course, each year there are quite a few nonviolent demonstrations that the organizers think are along the lines of the Boston Tea Party. I'm not thinking about those. I'm honestly expecting something much more violent and prolonged (Waco Texas, for instance, but with a larger number of confrontations).

Burlington has its Independence Day celebration on July 3 each year (to avoid competing with bigger celebrations in nearby cities), so I was busy yesterday and wasn't able to comment on President Bush commuting Libby's jail sentence.

Governors and the President have the ability to issue pardons and commute jail sentences as part of the system of checks and balances. It is an important part. Unfortunately, the only check against this check is public criticism. It's perfectly fair to critisize the President's decision, otherwise we'd have to stop discussing Marc Rich, Clinton's midnight pardons, Carter's decision to commute Patty Hearst's jail sentence for terrorism, or Ford's decision to pardon Nixon.

While I believe that the President commuted the sentence out of loyalty, I don't think it was loyalty to Libby. This smells more like loyalty to Cheney. I think the President left a considerable punishment in place, but I wonder how Judith Miller feels about this.

Overall the Plame/Miller/Libby fiasco has restored my lack of confidence in mankind. It clearly shows that there is no limit to the depths of human stupidity. To recap the timeline:

• State of the Union address mentions British sources believe Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa.


• Joe Wilson says that the CIA doesn't believe that. Apparently he thinks that publishing an article in a nationwide newspaper about how he often does work for the CIA couldn't possibly lead back to his wife's job at the CIA.


• Richard Armitage accidentally tells Richard Novak that Wilson's wife works for the CIA (however, reports later surfaced that both Cuba and Russia had already figured it out).


• Libby tells Judith Miller that Wilson's story doesn't make sense because his wife works for the CIA. Somehow he thinks this proves Wilson is lying. Miller does not publish this information.


• Richard Novak tells the world that Plame works for the CIA. Somehow he thinks this proves Wilson is lying.


• The media demands an investigation into who leaked the story even though the media thrives on these kinds of leaks.


• US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald sets up shop, and soon finds out that Armitage is the leaker. But because Armitage didn't mean to blow Plame's cover, he can't be charged with a crime. For some reason, Fitzgerald decides to continue his investigation for two years, with an unlimited budget. He tells Armitage to keep quiet while he sniffs around.


• Even though Fitzgerald knows who leaked the information, he (1) gets a new Grand Jury, and (2) jails Judith Miller for contempt of court when she won't tell him where she got the information, even though she never published it.


• The same media that demanded this investigation demands that Miller not have to reveal her sources, because then leaks mught dry up. Apparently this didn't cross reporters' minds when they were demanding the investigation. The phrase "you made your bed, now you must sleep in it" must not be popular in Washington DC.


• Eventually Libby tells Miller to stop covering for him. Miller goes home, and the same media that demanded Miller not be required to name her source rejoices when she finally does. Libby, who apparently had the intent to blow Plame's cover, did not commit a crime because her cover had already been blown. Fitzgerald -- who already knew that Plame's cover had been blown -- (1) realizes that he's spent a lot of money and has little to show for it, and (2) decides he can still charge Libby with perjury.


• Libby is charged, and convicted, of lying to the Grand Jury. Most Americans still say that they don't know what Libby did, but they are sure he was guilty of it. Oh, and so was Karl Rove. And Cheney, and Bush. Just don't ask what the actual crime was -- there's no need to dwell on details.


• In the meantime, the British (remember, Bush cited British sources) investigate whether the Blair government "sexed up" intelligence in order to make the case for war. Part of that review (the Butler Report) includes a review of the sources mentioned in that State of the Union speech. Although the President had already "withdrawn" that sentence, the British intelligence services decide that (1) there were very good reasons to believe that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Africa, (2) there were still good reasons to believe that, and (3) the claim hadn't been inappropriately "sexed up."


• The US media never bothers to report on the Butler Report


• After losing his appeals, President Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence. The American public believes this proves that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Alberto Gonzalez are guilty. Of something. Don't ask what it is; just admit they're guilty.