blog

March 24, 2006

Israel, al Qaeda and Iran

Since George W. Bush gave his “axis of evil” speech, he invaded Iraq, changed its regime, and created a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam. His administration is now sending clear signals that Iran is next in line for regime change. The raison d’être: Iran’s nuclear program, an al Qaeda connection, and protecting Israel.

First, for months, Bush has been pressuring the Security Council to sanction Iran for its nuclear development, but the council is moving slowly. According to Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Peace Prize winner, we must “stop thinking that it’s morally unacceptable for certain countries to want nuclear weapons and morally acceptable for others to lean on them for their defense.”

Second, Bush’s men are now floating an Iran-al Qaeda linkage, much the way they tried to connect Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. As journalist Jeremy Scahill testified at the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in January, “There is a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It’s called Washington.”

An article in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times quoted several administration officials, who laid out the case for the link between Iran and al Qaeda. Under Secretary R. Nicholas Burns, the third-ranking official in the State Department, said “some al Qaeda members and those from like-minded extremist groups continue to use Iran as a safe haven and as a hub to facilitate their operations.”

Problem is, Shiites run the Iranian government. Al Qaeda’s Sunni leadership has denounced the Shiites as infidels.

Finally, Israel’s “stranglehold” on US foreign policy is detailed by two of America’s leading scholars in a new article in the London Review of Books. Professor John Mearsheimer, of the University of Chicago, and Professor Stephen Walt, of Harvard’s Kennedy School, maintain that Washington’s pro-Israel lobby played a “decisive” role in fomenting the war in Iraq, and it is now being repeated with the threat of war on Iran. (See also http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011).

The article focuses largely on the role of the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, who were determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president.

“Saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards,” they write. “The US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.” The scholars add, “Support for Israel is not the only source of the anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.”

Bush himself corroborated the central role Israel plays in US policy. Speaking in Cleveland Monday, Bush linked Israel and Iran. “The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally of Israel,” he said. “I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”

On Tuesday, Bush revealed the lock the neocons have on him. Admitting that the Iraq war is a political liability, Bush nevertheless stated he would never leave Iraq. He left it to future administrations to decide when to pull out. That is consistent with the permanent military bases the US is building in Iraq.

Impervious to his low poll rankings due to his failed Iraq war, Bush is leading the charge into Iran. Such a course spells certain disaster – for the Iranians, for the American people, and for the entire world.

March 21, 2006

Bushies in Wonderland

Curiouser and Curiouser

On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush swaggered across an aircraft carrier deck and declared “Mission Accomplished.” Yesterday, his proclamation was a little more understated. He said it marked “the third anniversary of the beginning of the liberation of Iraq,” and claimed to be “implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq.” So far, that victory appears as elusive as a greased pig.

While Bush talks victory, the rest of us are debating whether civil war in Iraq is inevitable or whether it has already begun.

Iraq’s former interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, noted that 50 to 60 people, “if not more,” had been killed daily in Iraq since the attack on the Samarra shrine last month. “If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is,” Allawi told the BBC.

Dick Cheney, appearing yesterday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation,” disagreed. He said that “what we’ve seen is a serious effort by them to foment civil war, but I don’t think they’ve been successful.”

Meanwhile, the US military announced plans to continue paying Iraqi newspapers to publish pro-US articles – called “storyboards” – in order to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

First the Sentence, Then the Verdict

At the same time, Bush is preparing for war on Iran. He is following the same pattern that preceded his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In 2002, six months before he invaded Iraq, Bush released a National Security Strategy that purported to justify preemptive war: “The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

Last week, in his 2006 National Security Strategy, Bush reiterated his preemptive war doctrine: “If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack … The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same.”

Bush’s 2002 document previewed his impending attack on Iraq: “At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents … We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.”

In the new document, Bush lays out his case against Iran. “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,” the document reads. “The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom.”

The Pentagon created an Office of Special Plans to plan its attack on Iraq. Bush has recently created a new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department.

Before Bush attacked Iraq, his administration made several statements accusing Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction that threatened our security.

Now the Bushies are rattling their sabers toward Iran.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran is conducting intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He and Bush claim that improvised explosive device components manufactured in Iran are being used in Iraq. But Abizaid admitted there’s no evidence that the Iranian government is directly providing IED components to terrorists in Iraq.

“I can’t tell you whether or not that happened with the orders of the Iranian government,” Abizaid said. “But I can tell you that terrorists in northeastern Iraq used the Iranian northwestern border to move back and forth across the border.” If there is proof of an Iran-IED connection, he said, that would constitute “a very serious concern.”

Recall that we were fed a pack of lies about Saddam’s WMDs and a Saddam-al Qaeda connection. Don’t be surprised if an Iran-IED connection surfaces soon.

In January, Bush said that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would pose a “grave threat to the security of the world.”

Last week, Iran offered to open a dialogue with the United States. But Condoleezza Rice made clear that the talks would be limited. “This isn’t a negotiation of some kind,” she said.

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton told British MPs that military action could be used if all diplomatic efforts fail. Bolton also said, “I don’t think we have anything to say to the Iranians.”

When Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the US push for sanctions on Iran a déjà vu, Bolton retorted, “If that is déjà vu, then so be it, but that is the course we are on in an effort to get Iran to reverse its decision to acquire nuclear weapons.”

According to Nasser Hadian, professor of international law at Tehran University, however, the Iranians would like security guarantees and a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. That is what the Security Council resolution that ended the Gulf War mandates. But Israel would also have to give up its nukes, and that would never happen.

Feed Your Head

The majority of Americans oppose continued US involvement in Iraq. Thousands of people around the world protested the war on its third anniversary last weekend.

Bush administration defender-in-chief Donald Rumsfeld tried to head off the antiwar critics with a column in Sunday’s Washington Post. “Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today,” he wrote, “would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis.” A curious analogy.

In an unexpected development, the House of Representatives voted in favor of an amendment to an emergency war appropriations bill that will prohibit the use of funds to enter into basing agreements that would lead to a permanent military presence in Iraq. The amendment could disappear in committee, or be applied only to future agreements. The US has already built several huge military bases in Iraq. (See Dahr Jamail, Iraq: Permanent US Colony). But the measure shows that representatives from both parties are tiring of the war.

Besides the cost in human life and suffering, expenditures for the war continue to rise. Spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will increase from $6.9 billion a month to $9.8 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

If the midterm elections become a referendum on the war, the Democrats could recapture one or both houses of Congress. The only way to stop this war is for Congress to cut its funding. So far, there appears to be little appetite on either side of the aisle to do anything other than to give Bush everything he wants.

Don’t be surprised if Bush doesn’t bother to ask Congress for permission to invade Iran. Remember, he justifies his illegal warrantless spying on Americans by citing the authorization for the use of military force Congress passed shortly after September 11, 2001, a theory roundly rejected by all reputable legal scholars. His invasion will come after a concerted campaign of spinning Iran into New Public Enemy No. 1 in his “Global War on Terror.”

Fool us once, shame on Bush. Fool us twice, shame on us.

March 14, 2006

War Crimes: Goose and Gander

Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his jail cell at The Hague Saturday. Since 2001, he had been on trial for genocide in Bosnia, and war crimes and crimes against humanity in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. Although many have already adjudged him guilty, we will never hear the official verdict of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

We will also never see a trial in the ICTY for Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright or Wesley Clark for the 1999 US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Nor will George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld be prosecuted by an international tribunal for their war crimes in Iraq.

NATO’s invasion of Yugoslavia was a war of aggression that violated the United Nations Charter. It was not undertaken in self-defense nor did it carry the approval of the Security Council. Between 1500 and 2000 civilians were killed and many thousands injured. When I visited Belgrade a year after the NATO bombing, I saw schools, hospitals, bridges, libraries and homes reduced to rubble. The ICTY statute prohibits the targeting of civilians. And even though it also forbids the use of poisonous weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, NATO used depleted uranium and cluster bombs, whose devastating character is widely known. NATO also targeted a petrochemical complex, releasing carcinogens into the air that reached 10,600 times the acceptable safety level.

The American Association of Jurists and a group of Canadian lawyers and law professors filed a war crimes complaint against NATO leaders in the ICTY. Yet that tribunal conducted only a perfunctory investigation of the serious charges. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the ICTY for failing to thoroughly investigate.

By denouncing the International Criminal Court, Team Bush has ensured that US leaders will never be held to account for war crimes. Although virtually every Western democracy has ratified the statute under which the Court operates, the United States has thumbed its nose at this monumental international justice system.

Bush has reason to fear prosecution. He has used cluster bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and napalm. And the torture of prisoners in US custody also constitutes a war crime. His war on Iraq is a war of aggression.

After the Holocaust, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing … to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Tribunal, labeled the crime of aggression “the greatest menace of our times.”

For the first time, at Nuremberg, individuals were held criminally accountable for war crimes and waging a war of aggression. Japanese leaders were also tried for atrocities committed during World War II, in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

Yet US leaders who were responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes ever committed – the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombings of Dresden, Tokyo and 66 other Japanese cities – were never brought to justice.

Only the vanquished Germans and Japanese were put on trial. Justice Radhabinod Pal of India, dissenting at the Tokyo Tribunal, called this “victor’s justice.”

Indeed, Robert McNamara, who participated in the bombing of Japan during World War II, admitted in the film Fog of War that he and General Curtis LeMay would have been tried for war crimes if the US had lost the war. He said, “LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right. He … and I’d say I … were behaving as war criminals.”

It is no accident that the Iraqi Special Tribunal where Saddam Hussein is currently on trial only has jurisdiction over Iraqi citizens for acts committed prior to May 1, 2003, the day the US-UK occupation of Iraq began. The United States opposed sending Hussein to an international tribunal, and manipulated the Iraqi tribunal to prevent any US leaders from being tried for their war crimes in Iraq.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But the leaders of the world’s most powerful country continue to enjoy “victor’s justice.”

February 28, 2006

Human Rights Hypocrisy

Last week, the President of the United Nations General Assembly announced a new proposal to revamp the UN Human Rights Commission and rename it the UN Human Rights Council. The product of months of negotiations between the 53 member nations of the Commission, the proposal will be voted on by the General Assembly next month. The United States, however, immediately denounced the compromise. John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said it has too many “deficiencies” and should be renegotiated.

Bolton stated last month, “Membership on the Commission by some of the world’s most notorious human rights abusers mocks the legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself.” But Bolton was not referring to the United States, which invaded Iraq in violation of the UN Charter, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, and tortured and abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

The United States and Western European countries have criticized the Human Rights Commission because it has elected countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba, whom the Western nations have accused of human rights violations.

In a press release issued last week, the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations said, “If any government does not deserve to be part of the Council, it is the one who represents a State that benefited from the slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, that kept a ‘constructive commitment’ to extend the existence of the apartheid regime, that protects and bestows impunity to the human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other Arab territories, that supported the bloody military dictatorships of Latin America, that today tortures and murders in the name of liberty which the majority of its own citizens do not benefit from, that fails to meet its commitments and obligations of official development assistance to the Third World, and that threatens and attacks the Southern countries.”

The United States objects to the new proposal’s commitment to the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. The refusal to enshrine rights such as employment, education, food, housing, and health care in US law is the reason the United States has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a policy to define human rights in terms of civil and political rights, but to dismiss economic, social and cultural rights as akin to social welfare, or socialism.

Indeed, the United States’ inhumane policy toward Cuba exemplifies this dichotomy. The US government criticizes civil and political rights in Cuba while disregarding Cubans’ superior access to universal housing, health care, education and public accommodations and its guarantee of paid maternity leave and equal pay rates.

The US also opposes the new proposal’s affirmation that the right to development is on par with the rights to peace and security, and human rights, as the three pillars of the United Nations system. Last year, the United States and Australia were the only nations to vote against a General Assembly resolution on the Right to Development, which was passed by a vote of 48 to 2, with 2 abstentions. It reaffirmed the principle that the right to development is an “inalienable human right.”

A member of the Commission since it was formed in 1947, the US was furious when it was voted off the Commission in 2001. Many countries were angry with the United States for its policies in the Middle East, and its opposition to the International Criminal Court, the treaty to ban land mines, the Kyoto Protocol, and making AIDS drugs available to everyone.

It was only after behind the scenes negotiations among Western nations that the US was able to manipulate its way back onto the Commission one year later.

The new proposal provides that members of the Council will serve for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms. This is objectionable to the United States, which wants to guarantee a spot on the Council for the five permanent members of the Security Council – France, Britain, Russia, China and the US.

The United States also wants open voting on Council membership instead of the secret ballot elections that the proposal calls for. The US would like to make it easier to blackmail smaller nations for their votes.

In his statement last week, Bolton also said, “We consider the United States a champion of human rights. It is a fundamental and bedrock tenet upon which our country was founded. Thus, when the United States falls short of the high standards we set for ourselves, we move swiftly and decisively to vigorously prosecute offenders who are US citizens in our courts.” Yet only a few low-ranking soldiers and a chief warrant officer have been prosecuted for the widespread and systematic torture and abuse of prisoners in US custody.

Ironically, two weeks ago, the UN Human Rights Commission issued a report decrying the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners by United States forces at Guantánamo. It called on the US government to ensure that “all persons found to have perpetrated, ordered, tolerated or condoned such practices, up to the highest level of military and political command, are brought to justice.” The United States, which has refused to allow UN or other human rights experts to speak directly with the Guantánamo prisoners, rejected the Commission’s report.

The US has a history of scuttling Commission investigations when they focus on the United States as a human rights violator.

Last spring, the United States refused a request by Jean Ziegler, the UN Human Rights Commission’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, to meet with State Department officials to discuss the impact the US embargo on Cuba was having on the Cuban people’s right to food. Last fall, Ziegler reported that both Coalition Forces and the insurgents in Iraq “have adopted the cutting of food and water supplies to cities under attack.” Ziegler noted that “the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited in both international and non-international armed conflict,” citing the Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.

The United States likewise pressured the Commission to withdraw Professor Cherif Bassiouni, the Commission’s Independent Expert on Human Rights in Afghanistan, from his mission after he issued a report critical of the US. Professor Bassiouni accused United States troops of breaking into homes, arbitrarily arresting residents and torturing detainees. He also alleged that US-led forces had committed “sexual abuse, beatings, torture and use of force resulting in death.” He wrote, “When these forces directly engage in practices that violate … international human rights and international humanitarian law, they undermine the national project of establishing a legal basis for the use of force.”

“The United States and the coalition forces consider themselves above and beyond the reach of the law,” Professor Bassiouni told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! “They feel that human rights don’t apply to them, the international conventions don’t apply to them, nobody can ask them what they’re doing, and nobody can hold them accountable.”

Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh concurs. He wrote, “In the cathedral of human rights, the US is more like a flying buttress than a pillar – choosing to stand outside the international structure supporting the international human rights system but without being willing to subject its own conduct to the scrutiny of the system.”

The composition of the new Council will not likely differ significantly from the old Commission. “That reality,” according to Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, “reflects the failure of the John Bolton-led US effort to impose an entirely new human rights infrastructure on the United Nations, one that would privilege those countries given a seal of approval by Washington to serve on the Council, with others, especially those in bad graces in Washington, prohibited from serving.”

In the next few weeks, we can expect some strong arm-twisting by the United States to scuttle the new proposal.

February 20, 2006

US Force-feeding Prisoners in Torture Camp

Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Commission reported that the violent force-feeding of detainees by the US military at its Guantánamo prison camp amounts to torture.

More than a third of the prisoners held there have refused food to protest being held incommunicado for years with no hope of release. They have concluded that death could not be worse than the living hell they are enduring. Attorney Julia Tarver’s client Abdul-Rahman told her “of his determination to die and said that, ‘now, after four years in captivity, life and death are the same,'” Tarver wrote in a sworn declaration filed in federal district court.

Yousef Al Shehri, another of Tarver’s clients, was taken prisoner by the US military while he was still a juvenile. Both clients described being force-fed by the guards. Tarver wrote in her declaration: “Yousef was the second detainee to have an NG [nasal gastric] tube inserted into his nose and pushed all the way down his throat and into his stomach, a procedure which caused him great pain. Yousef was given no anesthesia or sedative for the procedure; instead, two soldiers restrained him – one holding his chin while the other held him back by his hair, and a medical staff member forcefully inserted the tube in his nose and down his throat. Much blood came out of his nose. Yousef said he could not speak for two days after the procedure; he said he felt like a piece of metal was inside of him. He said he could not sleep because of the severe pain.”

When Yousef and others “vomited up blood, the soldiers mocked and cursed at them, and taunted them with statements like ‘look what your religion has brought you,'” Tarver wrote.

After two weeks of this treatment, the forced feeding stopped for five days. Then, guards began to insert larger, thicker tubes into the detainees’ noses. “These large tubes,” Tarver wrote, “the thickness of a finger, [Yousef] estimated – were viewed by the detainees as objects of torture. They were forcibly shoved up the detainees’ noses and down into their stomachs. Again, no anesthesia or sedative was provided to alleviate the obvious trauma of the procedure. When the tube was removed, it was even more painful, and blood came gushing out of him. He fainted, and several of the other detainees also lost consciousness . They were told that this tube would be inserted and removed twice a day every day until the hunger strike ended. Yousef described the pain as ‘unbearable.'”

Both of Tarver’s clients independently identified physicians as participants in this procedure. “The guards took NG tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, re-inserted it into the nose of a different detainee. When these tubes were re-inserted, the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from other detainees remaining on the tubes,” Tarver wrote in her declaration.

The UN commission confirmed that “doctors and other health professionals are participating in force-feeding detainees.” It cites the Declarations of Tokyo and Malta, the World Medical Association, and the American Medical Association, which prohibit doctors from participating in force-feeding a detainee, provided the detainee is capable of understanding the consequences of refusing food.

International Committee of the Red Cross guidelines state: “Doctors should never be party to actual coercive feeding. Such actions can be considered a form of torture and under no circumstances should doctors participate in them on the pretext of saving the hunger striker’s life.”

The Bush administration is force-feeding the hunger strikers for political reasons. If any of the Guantánamo prisoners dies as a result of the hunger strike, it would be embarrassing to the Bush administration, which claims it treats the detainees “humanely.”

The Human Rights Commission called on the US government to ensure that the authorities at Guantánamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgement and is aware of the consequences of refusing food. “The United States Government should invite independent health professionals to monitor hunger strikers, in a manner consistent with international ethical standards, throughout the hunger strike,” the commission recommended.

In its report, the commission also recommended that the US government “close the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities without further delay. Until the closure, and possible transfer of detainees to pre-trial detention facilities on United States territory, the Government should refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .”

The commission further said that “the United States Government should ensure that all allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are thoroughly investigated by an independent authority, and that all persons found to have perpetrated, ordered, tolerated or condoned such practices, up to the highest level of military and political command, are brought to justice.”

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration rejected the commission’s report, saying that the rapporteurs who prepared it did not interview people at the prison camp. The commission relied on interviews with former detainees, public documents, media repots, lawyers and questions answered by the US government. The Bush administration invited the rapporteurs to visit the Guantánamo camp, but refused to allow them to speak with the prisoners.

The overwhelming majority of the prisoners our government is holding at Guantánamo are not terrorists or jihadists. Many were picked up in Afghanistan and other countries and sold to the US military by bounty hunters. Of the roughly 500 men there, only 9 have been designated for trial on criminal charges.

The US government’s treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo is an international travesty and a national disgrace.

February 14, 2006

Spinning Fear

The terror’s in the room.
– CBS Journalist Edward R. Murrow, 1954 (Good Night and Good Luck)

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
– Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1933

During the 1950’s, our government succumbed to the fear of Communism hyped by Senator Joseph McCarthy. People lost their jobs, lives were ruined, and many committed suicide in response to the “red scare.” Fear pervaded every facet of life, leading neighbors to inform on one another. CBS newscaster Edward R. Murrow was one of the few journalists who had the courage to stand up to the fear-mongering and bring the truth to the American people. Describing the omnipresent fear that the government was fostering, Murrow told his colleagues, “The terror’s in the room.”

It’s dejá vu with the Bush administration ensuring that terror is always in the room. Since Sept. 11, 2001, George W. Bush has successfully manipulated the memory of the terrorist attacks to maintain power and mute effective criticism of his dangerous and illegal policies.

Bush continues to exploit 9/11, and the media is complicit in the hype. Cable news stations keep us informed of an “elevated” terror alert level.

The month after the 9/11 attacks, former Attorney General John Ashcroft rammed The USA Patriot Act through a Congress terrified of looking soft on terror. That same Congress had rejected many of the act’s provisions months earlier because they threatened civil liberties.

Ashcroft warned that criticism of the government’s policies “only aids terrorists.” His successor, Alberto Gonzales, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, “We remain a nation at war.”

The war is in Iraq, created from whole cloth by George W. Bush. There were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded that country, changed its regime and occupied its land. Now it is a breeding ground for terrorism.

Hundreds of men are being held like animals, tortured and abused in the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay. Only a handful of them have been charged with crimes. The despicable conditions there have caused many to participate in a hunger strike. Rather than suffer the embarrassment of dying prisoners, jailers have been force-feeding them. They tie the prisoners down and insert large, unsterilized tubes down their noses with no anesthesia. Some call it a form of torture.

Reports from Guantánamo and pictures of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US forces at Abu Ghraib prison have also fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment.

Bush calls his illegal domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” Dick Cheney told PBS’ Jim Lehrer that “this program has saved thousands of American lives.” Yet there’s no way to prove – or disprove – Cheney’s claim.

The Washington Post reported that, of the thousands of calls Bush’s NSA program has intercepted, almost none relate to anything approximating terrorism.

The hallmark of the Bush administration is secrecy. CIA Director Porter Goss wrote in a recent op-ed in the New York Times, “Disclosure of classified intelligence inhibits our ability to carry out our mission and protect the nation.”

Yet, as whistleblower Sibel Edmonds pointed out recently, the 9/11 Commission concluded that only “publicity” could have prevented the attacks. Had Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed known the so-called 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested, they would have called off the attacks. The 9/11 Commission sharply criticized the government for classifying too much information.

In 2003, the Bush administration rescinded Clinton’s rule that information should not be classified “if there is significant doubt” that releasing it would harm national security.

The deputy undersecretary of defense for counterintelligence and security testified at a March 2005 congressional hearing that 50 percent of the Pentagon’s information was over-classified; the head of the Information Security Oversight Office said it was “even beyond 50 percent.”

When whistleblowers and leakers reveal information critical of Bush policies, the administration mounts an attack on the messenger. In response to the New York Times report on the NSA spying program, the government launched an investigation to determine who leaked the information to the Times. When Gonzales tried to turn criticism of the program into an assault on the leakers, Senator Patrick Leahy declared, “Thank god we have press that tell us what you’re doing because you’re not telling us.”

After the Times carried its report of the NSA program, some senators refused to vote to renew provisions of the Patriot Act that were due to expire on December 31, 2005. A last-minute compromise was cobbled together to extend those provisions for five weeks.

Just as the five week period was about to run out, Bush announced with great fanfare that an October 2001 al Qaeda plan to attack the tallest building on the West Coast had been thwarted by an unnamed Southeast Asian country. Once again, we have no corroboration of the accuracy of Bush’s claim. His past lies lead many to question the truthfulness of his report.

Bush gave no credit to the NSA spying program. He most certainly would have if it had foiled the plot. The day after Bush’s “revelation,” Congress announced it had reached an agreement to make the Patriot Act permanent. Once again, the manipulation of fear succeeded in neutering the Congress.

Another example of the Bush administration’s selective revelations of its own secret information is the leaking of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to journalists. The leak was strategically designed to punish Plame’s husband Joseph Wilson for blowing the whistle on Bush’s lies used to bolster support for his impending invasion of Iraq.

The most famous leaker in United States history is Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971. Those documents revealed the lies and hypocrisy of US policy in Southeast Asia. In 2003, Ellsberg told Salon.com writer Michelle Goldberg, “We’re now in an aggressive, costly war. The While House had to lie about those policies to make them viable, and when you lie you have to keep the lies secret, you have to intimidate people who might be inclined to tell the truth, all that goes together. Why do they do it?,” he asked rhetorically. “Wilson and I have no trouble knowing why they did it. They don’t want people to act the way we do.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the mantle of President at the height of the Great Depression. People were broke, out of work, and afraid there might not be a next meal. Roosevelt told them, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” The people jumped on board with his New Deal, and pulled themselves out of the depression. FDR didn’t exploit people’s real fears. He courageously challenged them to face their fears and overcome them.

The Bush administration continues to perfect the art of terrifying. Many in Congress live in fear of losing their seats if they appear soft on terrorism.

But most Americans oppose Bush’s illegal Iraq war and his secret spying program. The power to stop this war and the assault on our civil liberties rests in the hands of the people. Congress is reactive. It reacts to Bush’s tactics of manipulation. But it will not be able to avoid reacting to an overwhelming call by the people to check the imperial executive.

February 12, 2006

Bush Mouthpiece Defends Illegal Spying

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was called before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 06 to explain why George W. Bush’s program of warrantless spying on Americans is lawful.

Before Gonzales began his testimony, the committee voted along party lines to dispense with the oath. Thus, if Gonzales were to lie, he could not be convicted or even charged with perjury, which requires the lie be made under oath. Why would the Republican senators insist that Gonzales not be sworn to tell the truth unless they expected him to lie?

Gonzales testified that Bush authorized his “Terrorist Surveillance Program” in late 2001, and has renewed it every 45 days since then. The program allows the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on telephone and computer communications of Americans in the United States if the NSA decides there is probable cause to believe that one party is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization, provided one party to the conversation is overseas.

The program is so highly classified that Gonzales refused to tell the senators how many US citizens’ emails or phone calls had been intercepted, whether there have been abuses, and whether anyone had been disciplined for abuses.

Bush established this program to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Congress enacted FISA in 1978 in response to the Nixon administration’s abuses of national security wiretaps, which it used against its domestic opponents under the guise of conducting counterintelligence investigations. A senate committee chaired by Idaho Senator Frank Church documented the NSA’s abuses that led to the enactment of FISA.

FISA requires that the government convince a judge that there is probable cause to believe the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power. FISA specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance, but only for the first 15 days after Congress declares war.

By its express terms, FISA provides that FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which governs wiretaps for criminal investigation) are the “exclusive means by which electronic surveillance … may be conducted.”

FISA anticipates the need to act quickly by allowing a warrantless wiretap, provided the government applies for a FISA court order within 72 hours. However, Gonzales testified that the FISA procedure was “burdensome.” He cited the paperwork as an impediment to the “nimble” gathering of intelligence. Although both the Department of Justice and the NSA have batteries of lawyers, Gonzales said we “can’t afford to pose layers of lawyers” in the process.

Gonzales insisted that Bush’s program complies with FISA because FISA exempts from criminal liability those who conduct electronic surveillance without following FISA procedures where such surveillance is “authorized by statute.” Gonzales maintained that Congress’s authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) passed shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks was a statute that authorizes surveillance outside of FISA. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which said the AUMF allows for the detention of US citizen enemy combatants in spite of another statute governing detentions of US citizens.

However, the Hamdi Court determined that the AUMF permits the use of force only against people captured on the battlefield during the Afghanistan war. When the Bush administration asked former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle to include the words “inside the United States” in the AUMF, he refused, and those words do not appear in the resolution.

Gonzales also said that the president’s commander in chief powers allow warrantless wiretaps. But as Justice Jackson wrote in the seminal case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the president’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he acts in defiance of “the expressed or implied will of Congress.” Nowhere is Congress’s intent expressed more clearly than in FISA, which comprises the exclusive scheme for electronic surveillance to gather intelligence.

Congress’s October 2001 amendment of FISA in the USA Patriot Act underscores its intent that FISA remain the exclusive means for authorizing intelligence wiretapping. Gonzales was asked why the administration didn’t approach Congress to amend FISA again if it needed more flexibility to fight terrorism. Gonzales said he opposes amending FISA, ironically maintaining it would interfere with the NSA program.

So why is the Bush administration loathe to obtain warrants to authorize wiretaps?

“The most logical reason for not getting a warrant is that the president’s intelligence acolytes, who behave as though they graduated from the Laurel and Hardy school of data mining, have not been able to demonstrate that the people being spied upon are connected to Al Qaeda or any other terror organization,” Bob Herbert wrote in yesterday’s New York Times.

In other words, even the super-secret FISA court may be refusing to give Bush what he wants because he is overreaching.

A rare May 2002 opinion of the FISA court stated that in March of 2001, the government had reported misstatements in a series of FISA applications. The court modified then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s request for expanded intelligence-gathering procedures. In November 2002, the FISA appeals court reversed the lower court and granted Ashcroft’s request. Nonetheless, Bush continued his end-run around FISA with the NSA program.

Gonzales, who said the government still uses FISA in some cases, would not respond when Senator Arlen Specter asked him why he didn’t take the broad NSA program to the FISA court for approval. Gonzales wouldn’t say whether he tells the FISA court that information supporting a warrant request was gathered through the NSA program. And he refused to tell Specter whether the FISA court is declining to issue warrants because it is not satisfied with the NSA program.

In a February 2003 report on FISA implementation failures, the Senate Judiciary Committee uncovered several problems: “a misunderstanding of the rules governing the application procedure, varying interpretations of the law among key participants, and a break-down of communication among all those involved in the FISA application process. Most disturbing,” the committee found, “is the lack of accountability that has permeated the entire application procedure.”

The committee concluded that “key FBI agents and officials were inadequately trained in important aspects of not only FISA, but also fundamental aspects of criminal law.”

Notably, the report determined that “in the time leading up to the 9/11 attacks, the FBI and DoJ had not devoted sufficient resources to implementing the FISA, so that long delays both crippled enforcement efforts and demoralized line agents.”

At the end of the hearing, Gonzales let slip the real reason Bush set up a program to evade FISA. Gonzales said that if the government had to apply for a FISA warrant, it “can’t begin surveillance based on a whim of someone at NSA.”

Gonzales would not tell the senators whether Bush has authorized other secret programs besides the NSA spying. Gonzales refused to say whether the government could wiretap purely domestic calls without a warrant, or whether he has the authority to search the first class mail of American citizens or to examine people’s medical records. When Republican Senator John Cornyn asked him whether law enforcement could shoot down a plane with drugs, Gonzales said, “I’d have to think about that.”

Gonzales declined to rule out the president’s commander in chief power to torture, notwithstanding Congress’s passage of the McCain Amendment on December 30. When Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked him whether a Congressional statute that forbids abuse of prisoners could infringe on the president’s commander in chief powers, Gonzales said, “It depends.”

Graham was concerned that the “inherent authority of the president” theory that Gonzales set forth “could basically neuter the Congress and weaken the courts.” Graham said he had “never envisioned that the AUMF would give the president carte blanche to go around FISA.” Graham worried that it “would be harder for the next president to get a use of force resolution.” He said, “When a nation is at war, you need checks and balances more than ever.”

Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, predicted that Bush’s theory could be used to authorize internment camps for groups of US citizens the president deems suspicious.

Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “Our greatest fear is that this president will go far beyond” the NSA program and “comb through thousands of ordinary Americans’ email.”

Although Gonzales continually waved the 9/11 flag in his defense of the NSA program, the Washington Post reported Sunday that nearly all of the thousands of Americans’ calls that have been intercepted have revealed nothing pertinent to terrorism.

After the non-partisan Congressional Research Service issued a 44-page analysis that concluded the NSA program was unlawful, House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Pete Hoekstra insisted on assurances that CRS “truly provides ‘comprehensive and reliable’ legislative research that is ‘free of partisan or other bias.'”

Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart, a member of the Church Committee in the 1970s, said, “What we’re experiencing now, in my judgment, is a repeat of the Nixon years. Then it was justified by civil unrest and the Vietnam war. Now it’s terrorism and the Iraq war.”

When Senator Charles Grassley asked Gonzales if he thought it was incredible that they were having the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales replied, “I think we have a good story to tell.”

January 30, 2006

Military Hides Cause of Women Soldiers’ Deaths

In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior US military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.

Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women’s latrine after dark.

The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn’t located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. “There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night,” Karpinski told retired US Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview. It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn’t drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn’t have to urinate at night. They didn’t get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.

Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition’s joint task force said in a briefing that “women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep.”

“And rather than make everybody aware of that – because that’s shocking, and as a leader if that’s not shocking to you then you’re not much of a leader – what they told the surgeon to do is don’t brief those details anymore. And don’t say specifically that they’re women. You can provide that in a written report but don’t brief it in the open anymore.”

For example, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez’s top deputy in Iraq, saw “dehydration” listed as the cause of death on the death certificate of a female master sergeant in September 2003. Under orders from Sanchez, he directed that the cause of death no longer be listed, Karpinski stated. The official explanation for this was to protect the women’s privacy rights.

Sanchez’s attitude was: “The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory,” Karpinski quoted him as saying. Karpinski told me that Sanchez, who was her boss, was very sensitive to the political ramifications of everything he did. She thinks it likely that when the information about the cause of these women’s deaths was passed to the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld ordered that the details not be released. “That’s how Rumsfeld works,” she said.

“It was out of control,” Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October. There was an 800 number women could use to report sexual assaults. But no one had a phone, she added. And no one answered that number, which was based in the United States. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording. Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message.

“There were countless such situations all over the theater of operations – Iraq and Kuwait – because female soldiers didn’t have a voice, individually or collectively,” Karpinski told Hackworth. “Even as a general I didn’t have a voice with Sanchez, so I know what the soldiers were facing. Sanchez did not want to hear about female soldier requirements and/or issues.”

Karpinski was the highest officer reprimanded for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, although the details of interrogations were carefully hidden from her. Demoted from Brigadier General to Colonel, Karpinski feels she was chosen as a scapegoat because she was a female.

Sexual assault in the US military has become a hot topic in the last few years, “not just because of the high number of rapes and other assaults, but also because of the tendency to cover up assaults and to harass or retaliate against women who report assaults,” according to Kathy Gilberd, co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild’s Military Law Task Force.

This problem has become so acute that the Army has set up its own sexual assault web site.

In February 2004, Rumsfeld directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to undertake a 90-day review of sexual assault policies. “Sexual assault will not be tolerated in the Department of Defense,” Rumsfeld declared.

The 99-page report was issued in April 2004. It affirmed, “The chain of command is responsible for ensuring that policies and practices regarding crime prevention and security are in place for the safety of service members.” The rates of reported alleged sexual assault were 69.1 and 70.0 per 100,000 uniformed service members in 2002 and 2003. Yet those rates were not directly comparable to rates reported by the Department of Justice, due to substantial differences in the definition of sexual assault.

Notably, the report found that low sociocultural power (i.e., age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status) and low organizational power (i.e., pay grade and years of active duty service) were associated with an increased likelihood of both sexual assault and sexual harassment.

The Department of Defense announced a new policy on sexual assault prevention and response on January 3, 2005. It was a reaction to media reports and public outrage about sexual assaults against women in the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ongoing sexual assaults and cover-ups at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, Gilberd said. As a result, Congress demanded that the military review the problem, and the Defense Authorization Act of 2005 required a new policy be put in place by January 1.

The policy is a series of very brief “directive-type memoranda” for the Secretaries of the military services from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. “Overall, the policy emphasizes that sexual assault harms military readiness, that education about sexual assault policy needs to be increased and repeated, and that improvements in response to sexual assaults are necessary to make victims more willing to report assaults,” Gilberd notes. “Unfortunately,” she added “analysis of the issues is shallow, and the plans for addressing them are limited.”

Commands can reject the complaints if they decide they aren’t credible, and there is limited protection against retaliation against the women who come forward, according to Gilberd. “People who report assaults still face command disbelief, illegal efforts to protect the assaulters, informal harassment from assaulters, their friends or the command itself,” she said.

But most shameful is Sanchez’s cover-up of the dehydration deaths of women that occurred in Iraq. Sanchez is no stranger to outrageous military orders. He was heavily involved in the torture scandal that surfaced at Abu Ghraib. Sanchez approved the use of unmuzzled dogs and the insertion of prisoners head-first into sleeping bags after which they are tied with an electrical cord and their are mouths covered. At least one person died as the result of the sleeping bag technique. Karpinski charges that Sanchez attempted to hide the torture after the hideous photographs became public.

Sanchez reportedly plans to retire soon, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune earlier this month. But Rumsfeld recently considered elevating the 3-star general to a 4-star. The Tribune also reported that Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, the Army’s chief spokesman, said in an email message, “The Army leaders do have confidence in LTG Sanchez.”

January 25, 2006

Bush on Trial for Crimes against Humanity

The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration convened last weekend in New York City’s Riverside Church. Martin Luther King Jr.’s portrait hangs in the foyer. Dr. King delivered his historic 1967 speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Place to Break the Silence,” opposing the war and calling for the removal of all foreign troops from Vietnam, in that same church.

Center for Constitutional Rights President Michael Ratner, who delivered a keynote address to the commission of inquiry, invoked Dr. King’s words from 1967: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” The following year, the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal put the US government on trial for “crimes without precedent” it was committing in Vietnam. In the tradition of the Russell tribunal, the panel of judges at the commission of inquiry heard evidence of George W. Bush’s war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, and elsewhere.

Ratner said that Bush openly and notoriously “laid the plan for coup d’état in America” with a small paragraph in his “signing statement” attached to the McCain anti-torture amendment. Bush wrote that his commander in chief power allows him to do anything he thinks is necessary, including torture, notwithstanding the amendment passed by Congress. Ratner called that a “historic, unprecedented grab for power” that spells the end of checks and balances in our government. Bush, according to Ratner, has declared that George Bush is the law.

Harry Belafonte gave the other keynote address. “When a government fails to protect justice,” Belafonte declared, “it is the responsibility of the people to rise up and change the guard, change the regime.” In a hoarse voice, the legendary singer charged, “Those who fail to answer that call should be charged with patriotic treason.”

T r u t h o u t writer Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst from 1961 to 1990, took the testimony of Scott Ritter, a senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. The allegation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was the only justification on which George W. Bush’s war in Iraq was based, McGovern said. He cited statements by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice before September 11, 2001, that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and was unable to pose even a conventional threat to his neighbors. After September 11, however, Donald Rumsfeld expressed “no doubt” that Hussein had WMDs. “A trained ape knows that,” Rumsfeld said.

Ritter noted that Rumsfeld knew Iraq had disarmed and had no ongoing weapons program. By 1998, the weapons inspectors had accounted for 95 to 98 percent of Iraq’s WMDs, Ritter said. “No nation had hard factual data that Iraq retained or was reconstituting WMDs,” Ritter added. “No nation had those facts.”

The Bush administration willfully misled the American people about Iraq’s weapons programs, Ritter charged. When Dick Cheney said that Iraq was constituting its nuclear program, he “was lying,” Ritter said.

From 1991 to 2003, the United States policy in Iraq was regime change, according to Ritter. The US and the United Kingdom sought to maintain the public perception that Iraq was not complying with its obligations to disarm, in order to justify regime change. The US never intended to disarm Iraq; it would have had to lift the sanctions, which were aimed at undermining Iraq’s welfare, weakening the government, and facilitating regime change.

“Intelligence” in the George W. Bush administration “was being fixed around the policy of regime change,” Ritter maintained. “What passes for intelligence is nothing more than politically motivated propaganda.” He said, “There was no intelligence failure because the policy wasn’t disarmament; it was regime change.”

Another witness, David Swanson, from www.afterdowningstreet.org, detailed the Downing Street Minutes, which were prepared in March 2002 and July 2002, but were leaked to the public last spring. They disclosed that Bush was determined to go to war and was building a case to accomplish that goal. “Intelligence was being fixed around the policy,” the minutes reveal. “Going to the UN was an attempt to legalize a war that had already been decided upon,” Swanson testified.

Dahr Jamal, who spent 8 months in occupied Iraq as an independent journalist, also testified at the commission. He charged that the US military carried out collective punishment in Fallujah in violation of international law. Snipers engaged in targeted killings, and troops prevented ambulances from reaching the wounded and prevented the wounded from receiving medical attention, violations of the Geneva Conventions.

The United States decided that the entire city of Fallujah, with more than 350,000 civilians, was “a free-fire-zone,” Jamal said. In the attack on Fallujah in November 2004, between 4,000 and 6,000 civilians were killed. The US military employed illegal weapons, including cluster bombs, depleted uranium, and white phosphorous.

Jamal accused the media, including CNN, Fox, Judith Miller, Thomas Friedman, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh, of aiding and abetting the Bush administration’s war crimes and crimes against humanity in their coverage of the US assault on Fallujah.

Another eyewitness to the occupation, journalist Jeremy Scahill, testified about the targeted killing of independent journalists by the US military. He cited the killing of an Al Jazeera reporter and the bombing of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, both on April 8, 2004. More than 100 unembedded journalists were in that hotel, and the US knew it, Scahill contended. The attack killed two cameramen.

Scahill said the Pentagon warned unembedded journalists, “Baghdad is not a safe place. You should not be there.”

The Bush administration has consistently attempted to link Iraq with the September 11 attacks. Scahill observed, “There is a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. It’s called Washington,” he said.

Challenging the Democrats to end the war, Scahill alleged: “We can’t be vegetarians between meals. A loyal opposition is not going to end this war.”

Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, testified before the commission. Murray charged that Uzbekistan practices torture on an industrial scale. He cited a UN investigation that concluded torture was widespread and systemic in that country. Thousands of people are tortured every year, Murray said. This includes rape with objects like broken bottles, smashing of limbs, pulling out of fingernails, and immersing people into boiling liquid.

Uzbekistan, Murray said, is a US ally in the war on terror, a member of the coalition of the willing. Murray displayed a letter on the big screen. It was from Ken Lay, former chairman of Enron, to then Texas Governor George W. Bush in April 1997. It began, “Dear George” [“Look who’s boss,” Murray noted], and continued, “You will be meeting with” the Uzbek ambassador to the United States to discuss Enron’s $2 billion oil and gas contract.

The real reason underlying the war in Iraq, Murray testified, was oil and gas. So “they needed false intelligence from torture chambers,” he said, in order to justify the war on terror. Sir Michael Wood informed Murray that the official position was that it’s not illegal to get information from torture provided they do not themselves torture or direct that a specific individual be tortured.

“You can’t build security on evil,” Murray said. “I don’t believe torture works,” he concluded. “But even it if did work, I’d rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life.”

I presented the testimony of Janis Karpinski, a brigadier general who was assigned to Iraq in July 2003 to oversee 17 prison facilities, including Abu Ghraib. Karpinski described how General Geoffrey Miller transferred the interrogation techniques he had instituted at the US prison at Guantánamo Bay to Abu Ghraib.

Miller was specially selected by Rumsfeld and sent to Iraq to run the interrogations operation, to work with the military intelligence personnel and teach them new and improved interrogation techniques to obtain more actionable intelligence from their interrogations.

When Miller arrived at Abu Ghraib, he said, “It’s my opinion that you’re treating the prisoners too well. At Guantánamo, the prisoners know that we are in charge, and they know that from the very beginning.” He said, “You have to treat the prisoners like dogs, and if you think or feel differently, you’ve lost control.”

Miller declared, “We’re going to Gitmo-ize the operation” (referring to the techniques they used at Guantánamo Bay).

Karpinski thought Miller came with the authority of Rumsfeld because General Ricardo Sanchez, who was a 3-star, deferred to Miller, although he was only a 2-star. Even though Miller told Congress he was sent to Abu Ghraib merely in an assisting capacity, Colonel Thomas Pappas furnished Miller with a daily report detailing the results of interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

Sanchez himself signed an 8-page memorandum with a laundry list of harsher interrogation techniques, including the specific use of unmuzzled dogs, Karpinski said.

Control of cellblocks 1-A and 1-B, “the hard sites,” was transferred to military intelligence. Karpinski didn’t learn of the torture and abuse until January 12, 2004. In fact, she never attended any of the meetings in which the progress of interrogations was discussed. Sanchez said, “We scheduled them specifically when she would not be available to attend.”

When Karpinski was told about the photographs and the abuse, she prepared to hold a press conference and tell the Iraqis in Arabic that there would be a full investigation. But Sanchez warned her off. “He looked me dead in the eye and said, ‘absolutely not. You are not to discuss this with anyone. And that’s an order.'”

Karpinski discovered that all personnel and documents relating to the scandal had been removed from Abu Ghraib. The only thing that remained was a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld. It was called, “Approval of Harsher Interrogation Techniques,” and listed sleep deprivation, stress positions, playing loud music, insulting religious beliefs. In the margin, there was a note in Rumsfeld’s handwriting. It said, “Make sure this happens.”

Sanchez would not have implemented the techniques without the approval of Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld would not have authorized them without the approval of the vice president, Karpinski testified. “And so it filtered down, and it never filtered down to me because I wasn’t even responsible for interrogations.”

Ultimately, however, Karpinski and 7 low-ranking soldiers were made the scapegoats. Karpinski was demoted to colonel. “I believe the Pentagon wanted to put this into a nice little package, 7 so-called bad apples, out of control on the night shift, and a female officer. They wanted to put that in a package, tie it up in a bow, and sink it forever, to make people believe we got it under control, we solved the problem.”

Karpinski also testified that American female soldiers in Iraq were assaulted or raped by male soldiers in the women’s latrines, and an alarming number committed suicide. “Because the women were in fear of getting up in the darkness [to go to the latrine], they were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon,” Karpinski said. “In the 100 degree heat, they were dying of dehydration in their sleep. Rather than making everyone aware – it was shocking – they told the surgeon not to brief on the details, and don’t say specifically that they were women.” Karpinski identified the commander who ordered that the cause of death of the women not be listed on the death certificates. It was General Sanchez, she said.

The commission heard testimony about the Bush administration’s criminal responsibility for indefinite detention, rendition for torture, destruction of the global environment, attacks on global public health and reproductive rights, and actions and inactions leading up to and following Hurricane Katrina. The panel of judges will consider the testimony and release its findings.

January 23, 2006

Friendly Fire Ambush

Sergeant Patrick R. McCaffrey, Sr. and First Lieutenant Andre D. Tyson died on this day two years ago in Balad, Iraq. Back then, military officials reported that enemy insurgents ambushed them. The Army subsequently conducted an investigation and learned the men were targeted and killed by Iraqi troops they were training.

Although the Army completed its investigation on September 30, 2005, it failed to clarify the initial notification to the families for nine months. It took a May 22 letter from Senator Barbara Boxer’s office to force the Army to finally come clean.

A month before he died, Patrick told his father that Iraqi forces they were training had attacked his unit. When he filed a complaint with his chain of command, Patrick “was told to keep his mouth shut,” his mother said.

After Patrick died, his parents conducted their own investigations. The Army denied requests to see autopsy reports. The McCaffreys persisted. They talked to soldiers in their son’s unit and managed to learn what really happened.

Bob McCaffrey was informed by members of his son’s company that insurgents were offering Iraqi soldiers about $100 for each American they could kill. “Iraqi troops are turning on their American counterparts,” Bob said. “That puts a knock in the spin that the White House is trying to put on this story — how the Iraqis are being well trained and are getting ready to take over.”

Nadia McCaffrey learned that after her son was shot, a US truck arrived. It picked up Lt. Tyson, who was dead, but did not take her son who was still alive. The truck returned later and took him to the base, where he bled to death.

Yesterday, Brig. Gen. Oscar Hilman and three other officers visited Patrick’s mother to deliver the official report. “It was overwhelming,” Nadia told me. “I had to live through the whole thing again.”

The officers “tried to patronize me as a good Mom,” she added. “I said I won’t stand for that. I want the truth!”
When Nadia talked to Army officers yesterday she asked them, “How could you possibly let this happen”? They sat silent.

An Army official cited the “complexity” of the case as an excuse for the delay in telling the families how their sons really died, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“They never tell the family the truth,” said Ophelia Tyson, grandmother of Andre Tyson. “You know how politics is.”

“I really want this story to come out; I want people to know what happened to my son,” Nadia said. “There is no doubt to me that this is still happening to soldiers today, but our chain of command is awfully reckless; they don’t seem to give a damn about what’s happening to soldiers.”

The father of two children, Patrick joined the National Guard the day after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He was the first combat death in the 58 year history of California’s 579 Engineer Battalion, based in Petaluma, Ca. Patrick was listed as “Casualty number 848.” That was 1652 deaths ago.

“He was killed by the Iraqis that he was training,” Nadia said. “People in this country need to know that.”

“It’s god-awful,” said Bob, himself an Army veteran. “It underlies the lie of this whole situation in Iraq. It’s all to me a pack of lies.”

Boxer noted, “You have to ask yourself, ‘What are we doing there with a blank check and a blind eye, when our soldiers are risking their lives for the Iraqi people and the Iraqis are turning around and killing our soldiers? “We need an exit strategy.”

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: