blog

June 20, 2006

One Nation Under Surveillance

We do not believe the Executive has, or should have, the inherent
constitutional authority to violate the law or infringe the legal rights
of Americans, whether it be a warrantless break-in into the home or
office of an American, warrantless electronic surveillance, or a
President’s authorization to the FBI to create a massive domestic
security program based upon secret oral directives.
-Final Report of the Church Committee, 1976

The revelation that President George W. Bush authorized the unlawful warrantless surveillance of Americans has resurrected the discussion of the proper balance to be struck between liberty and security.

This discourse is not new in the United States. Benjamin Franklin warned, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Franklin was prescient. Throughout our history, we have grappled with this apparent tension. Unfortunately, all too often, we have lost our liberties – without becoming more secure. It has been primarily the executive branch that has overreached across the lines that separate the three branches of our government. In this post-9/11 world, under the guise of his “Global War on Terror,” George W. Bush has arrogated to himself a level of presidential authority that rivals any such usurpation in the past.

Surveillance in this country has been aimed at slaves, immigrants, political radicals, suspected lawbreakers, the poor, workers, and anyone with a credit card or a computer. It has frequently been used by the government to suppress criticism of its policies.

In 1798, the Federalist-led Congress, capitalizing on the fear of war, passed the four Alien and Sedition Acts to stifle dissent against the Federalist Party’s political agenda. The Naturalization Act extended the time necessary for immigrants to reside in the U.S. because most immigrants sympathized with the Republicans. The Alien Enemies Act provided for the arrest, detention and deportation of male citizens of any foreign nation at war with the United States. Many of the 25,000 French citizens living in the U.S. could have been expelled had France and America gone to war, but this law was never used. The Alien Friends Act authorized the deportation of any non-citizen suspected of endangering the security of the U.S. government; the law lasted only two years and no one was deported under it.

The Sedition Act provided criminal penalties for any person who wrote, printed, published, or spoke anything “false, scandalous and malicious” with the intent to hold the government in “contempt or disrepute.” The Federalists argued it was necessary to suppress criticism of the government in time of war. The Republicans objected that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment, which had become part of the Constitution seven years earlier. Employed exclusively against Republicans, the Sedition Act was used to target congressmen and newspaper editors who criticized President John Adams.

Subsequent examples of repressive legislation passed and actions taken as a result of fear-mongering during periods of xenophobia are the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Red Scare following World War I, the forcible internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II, and the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (the Smith Act).
During the McCarthy period of the 1950s, in an effort to eradicate the perceived threat of communism, the government engaged in widespread illegal surveillance to threaten and silence anyone who had an unorthodox political viewpoint. Many people were jailed, blacklisted and lost their jobs. Thousands of lives were shattered as the FBI engaged in “red-baiting.”
COINTELPRO (counter-intelligence program) was designed to “disrupt, misdirect and otherwise neutralize” political and activist groups. In the 1960s, the FBI targeted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in a program called “Racial Matters.” King’s campaign to register African-American voters in the South raised the hackles of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who disingenuously claimed King’s organization was being infiltrated by communists. In fact, the FBI was really concerned that King’s civil rights and anti-Vietnam War campaigns “represented a clear threat to the established order of the U.S.” It went after King with a vengeance, wiretapping his telephones and securing personal information which it used to try to discredit him and drive him to divorce and suicide.

In response to the excesses of COINTELPRO, a congressional committee chaired by Senator Frank Church conducted an investigation of activities of the domestic intelligence agencies. The Church Committee concluded, “[I]ntelligence activities have undermined the constitutional rights of citizens and … they have done so primarily because checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure accountability have not been applied.” The committee added, “In an era where the technological capability of Government relentlessly increases, we must be wary about the drift toward ‘big brother government’ … Here, there is no sovereign who stands above the law. Each of us, from presidents to the most disadvantaged citizen, must obey the law.” The committee stressed that the “advocacy of political ideas is not to be the basis for governmental surveillance.”

Congress established guidelines to regulate intelligence-gathering by the FBI. Reacting against President Richard Nixon’s assertion of unchecked presidential power, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, to regulate electronic surveillance while protecting national security.

FISA established a secret court to consider applications by the government for wiretap orders. It specifically created only one exception for the President to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant. For that exception to apply, the Attorney General must certify under oath that the communications to be monitored will be exclusively between foreign powers, and that there is no substantial likelihood that a United States person will be overheard.

In 2002, in direct violation of FISA, Bush signed an executive order that authorizes the National Security Agency to wiretap people within the United States with no judicial review. It is estimated that the NSA has eavesdropped on thousands of private conversations in the last four years. Additionally, the NSA has combed through large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States. It has collected vast personal information that has nothing to do with national security.

Electronic surveillance was first used during the Holocaust when IBM worked for the Nazi government organizing and analyzing its census data. Death camp barcodes – linked to computerized records – were tattooed onto prisoners’ forearms.

The advent of digital technology raised surveillance to a new level. Social Security numbers, credit cards, gym memberships, library cards, health insurance records, bar codes, GSM chips in cell phones, toll booths, hidden cameras, workplace identification badges, and the Internet all provide the government with effective tools to keep track of our finances, our politics, our personal habits, and our whereabouts through data mining. The Privacy Foundation determined in a 2001 survey that one-third of all American workers who use the Internet or email on the job are under “constant surveillance” by employers.

One month after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft rushed the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a timid Congress. The Patriot Act lowered the standards for government surveillance of telephone and computer communications, and empowered the government to monitor books people read. It created a crime of domestic terrorism aimed at political activists who protest government policies, and set forth an ideological test for entry into the United States.

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Japanese internment in Korematsu v. United States. Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent that the ruling would “lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”

That day came with the recent decision of a New York federal judge, dismissing a case that challenged the detention of hundreds of Arab and Muslim foreign nationals shortly after 9/11. None has been convicted of any crime involving terrorism. U.S. District Judge John Gleason ruled in Turkmen v. Ashcroft that the round-up and indefinite detention of foreign nationals on immigration charges based only on their race, religion or national origin does not violate equal protection or due process. This is not surprising in light of the anti-immigrant hysteria sweeping our country today.

In his 1928 dissent in Olmstead v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” Seventy-three years later, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, speaking for a zealous President, warned Americans “they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.”

Milton Mayer described the escalation of surveillance that accompanied the rise of German fascism: “What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.” We should heed his words.

June 13, 2006

Spinning Suicide

They are smart, they are creative, they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.
Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., commander of Guantánamo prison camp

Three men being held in the United States military prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, killed themselves by hanging in their cells on Saturday. The Team Bush spin machine immediately swept into high gear.

Military officials characterized their deaths as a coordinated protest. The commander of the prison, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., called it “asymmetrical warfare.”

Colleen Graffy, the deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, said taking their lives “certainly is a good PR move.”

Meanwhile, George W. Bush expressed “serious concern” about the deaths. “He stressed the importance of treating the bodies in a humane and culturally sensitive manner,” said Christie Parell, a White House spokeswoman.

How nice that Bush wants their bodies treated humanely, after treating them like animals for four years while they were alive. Bush has defied the Geneva Conventions’ command that all prisoners be treated humanely. He decided that “unlawful combatants” are not entitled to humane treatment because they are not prisoners of war.

Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions requires that no prisoners, even “unlawful combatants,” may be subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment. Incidentally, the Pentagon has decided to omit the mandates of Article 3 Common from its new detainee policies.

Bush resisted the McCain anti-torture amendment to a spending bill at the end of last year, sending Dick Cheney to prevail upon John McCain to exempt the CIA from its prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. When McCain refused to alter his amendment, Bush signed the bill, quietly adding one of his “signing statements,” saying that he feels free to ignore the prohibition if he wants to.

Bush & Co. are fighting in the Supreme Court to deny the Guantánamo prisoners access to US courts to challenge their confinement. The Court will announce its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld by the end of this month.

This hardly sounds like a man who believes in humane treatment for live human beings.

The three men who committed suicide, Mani bin Shaman bin Turki al-Habradi,Yasser Talal Abdulah Yahya al-Zahrani, and Ali Abdullah Ahmed, were being held indefinitely at Guantánamo. None had been charged with any crime. All had participated in hunger strikes and been force-fed, a procedure the United Nations Human Rights Commission called
“torture.”

“A stench of despair hangs over Guantánamo. Everyone is shutting down and quitting,” said Mark Denbeaux, a lawyer for two of the prisoners there. His client, Mohammed Abdul Rahman, “is trying to kill himself” in a hunger strike. “He told us he would rather die than stay in Guantánamo,” Denbeaux added.

While the Bush administration is attempting to characterize the three suicides as political acts of martrydom, Shafiq Rasul, a former Guantánamo prisoner who himself participated in a hunger strike while there, disagrees. “Killing yourself is not something that is looked at lightly in Islam, but if you’re told day after day by the Americans that you’re never going to go home or you’re put into isolation, these acts are committed simply out of desperation and loss of hope,” he said. “This was not done as an act of martyrdom, warfare or anything else.”

“The total, intractable unwillingness of the Bush administration to provide any meaningful justice for these men is what is at the heart of these tragedies,” according to Bill Goodman, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many of the Guantánamo prisoners.

Last year, at least 131 Guantánamo inmates engaged in hunger strikes, and 89 have participated this year. US military guards, with assistance from physicians, are tying them into restraint chairs and forcing large plastic tubes down their noses and into their stomachs to keep them alive. Lawyers for the prisoners have reported the pain is excruciating.

The suicides came three weeks after two other prisoners tried to kill themselves by overdosing on antidepressant drugs.

Bush is well aware that more dead US prisoners would be embarrassing for his administration, especially in light of the documented torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the execution of civilians in Haditha.

More than a year ago, the National Lawyers Guild and the American Association of Jurists called for the US government to shut down its “concentration camp” at Guantánamo. The UN Human Rights Commission, the UN Committee against Torture, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the Council of Europe, have also advocated the closure of Guantánamo prison.

Bush says he would like to close the prison, but is awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. At the same time, however, his administration is spending $30 million to construct permanent cells at Guantánamo.

June 6, 2006

Stop the Beast

To date, the Iraq War represents the fullest and most relentless application of the Bush Agenda. The ‘freer and safer world’ envisioned by Bush and his administration is ultimately one of an ever-expanding American empire driven forward by the growing powers of the nation’s largest multinational corporations and unrivaled military.
-Antonia Juhasz, The Bu$h Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time

In an annual security conference on Saturday, Donald Rumsfeld assured the audience, “We don’t intend to occupy [Iraq] for any period of time. Our troops would like to go home and they will go home.”

Why, then, would the United States be building an enormous embassy in Baghdad and a base so large, it eclipses Kosovo’s Camp Bondsteel which had been the largest foreign US military base built since Vietnam?
The new embassy, which occupies a space two-thirds the area of the national mall in Washington DC, comprises 21 buildings which will house over 8,000 government officials. It has a huge pool, gym, theater, beauty salon, school, and six apartment buildings.

The gargantuan military base, Camp Anaconda, occupies 15 square-miles of Iraqi soil near Balad. The base is home to 20,000 soldiers and thousands of “contractors,” or mercenaries. The aircraft runway at Anaconda is the second busiest in the world, behind only Chicago’s O’Hare airport. And, depending on which report you read, between six and fourteen more U.S. military bases are under construction in Iraq. It doesn’t appear we’ll be leaving any time soon — or any time, really.

Bush’s trumped-up war on Iraq has claimed nearly 2,500 US military lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Thousands of US soldiers suffer in military hospitals, most with head injuries, many missing limbs. Thousands more have PTSD. Our economy is in shambles from the war and Bush’s tax-cuts-for-the-rich. And America’s moral standing in the world continues to plummet.

So, with all the construction activity in Iraq, and with an overextended military and an under funded budget, how could the Bush Administration possibly consider expanding the fight and attacking Iran? Logic and reason say it couldn’t happen and shouldn’t happen. But this administration has rarely paid much heed to logic and reason.

The plan to attack Iran has long been in the works. Bush gave us a preview in January 2002 when he inaugurated it into his “axis of evil.” His 2006 National Military Strategy says, “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” On Saturday, Donald Rumsfeld called Iran the world’s leading terrorist nation. Does any of this have a familiar ring to it?

To understand why the US may attack Iran, one must consider the underlying motive of US militarism. The recent US strategy is calculated to maintain economic, political and military hegemony over oil-rich areas of the world. A 1992 draft of the Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance on post Cold War Strategy that was leaked to the New York Times said, “Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in [the Middle East and Southwest Asia to] preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.”

Truthout writer Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist who spent eight months in occupied Iraq, told a gathering at Thomas Jefferson School of Law on Friday that the US has been conducting ongoing special operations inside Iran. He cited unmanned surveillance drones flying over Iran. Jamail predicts Bush will invade Iran before the November election.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern agrees with Jamail’s prediction, but thinks it will happen in June or July. “There is already one carrier task force there in the Gulf, two are steaming toward it at the last report I have at least – they will be there in another week or so,” McGovern said on The Alex Jones Show.

Team Bush is following the same game plan used in the run-up to Iraq – hyping a threat that doesn’t exist and going through the motions of diplomacy.

Bush & Co. are not motivated by rationality. They act in the interests of the huge corporations, at the expense of humanity. During the Bush years, oil companies have earned record profits. Dick Cheney’s Halliburton has landed many of the juiciest contracts in Iraq. New Iraqi laws that US ambassador Paul Bremer put in place lock in significant advantages for US corporations in Iraq, including corporate control of Iraq’s oil.

Neoconservative Thomas Friedman, in a March 1999 New York Times article illustrated by an American flag on a fist, accurately summed up US foreign policy:

For globalism to work, America can’t be afraid to act like the almighty
superpower that it is … The hidden hand of the market will never work without
a hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the
designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon
Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and
Marine Corps.

As long as we allow our government to pursue this strategy, Abu Ghraibs and Hadithas will continue to emerge, our soldiers and thousands of people in other countries will continue to die, and our economy will continue toward bankruptcy. It is up to us to stop the beast – now!

May 30, 2006

The Haditha Massacre

They ranged from little babies to adult males and females. I’ll never be able to get that out of my head. I can still smell the blood. This left something in my head and heart.
– Observations of Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones after the Haditha Massacre

On November 19, 2005, Marines from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division based at Camp Pendleton allegedly killed 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq, in a three to five hour rampage. One victim was a 76-year-old amputee in a wheelchair holding a Koran. A mother and child bent over as if in prayer were also among the fallen. “I pretended that I was dead when my brother’s body fell on me, and he was bleeding like a faucet,” said Safa Younis Salim, a 13-year-old girl who survived by faking her death.

Other victims included girls and boys ages 14, 10, 5, 4, 3 and 1. The Washington Post reported, “Most of the shots … were fired at such close range that they went through the bodies of the family members and plowed into walls or the floor, doctors at Haditha’s hospital said.”

The executions of 24 unarmed civilians were conducted in apparent retaliation for the death of Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas when a small Marine convoy hit a roadside bomb earlier that day.

A statement issued by a US Marine Corps spokesman the next day claimed: “A US Marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another.”

A subsequent Marine version of the events said the victims were killed inadvertently in a running gun battle with insurgents.

Both of these stories were false and the Marines knew it. They were blatant attempts to cover up the atrocity, disguised as “collateral damage.”

The Marine Corps paid $38,000 in compensation to relatives of the victims, according to a report in the Denver Post. These types of payments are made only to compensate for accidental deaths inflicted by US troops. This was a relatively large amount, indicating the Marines knew something was not right during that operation, according to Mike Coffman, the Colorado state treasurer who served in Iraq recently as a Marine reservist.

Congressman John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, was briefed on the Haditha investigation by Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee. Murtha said Sunday, “The reports I have from the highest level: No firing at all. No interaction. No military action at all in this particular incident. It was an explosive device, which killed a Marine. From then on, it was purely shooting people.”

The Haditha massacre did not become public until Time Magazine ran a story about it in March of this year. Time had turned over the results of its investigation, including a videotape, to the US military in January. Only then did the military launch an investigation.

These Marines “suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic results,” a US official told the Los Angeles Times.

“Marines over-reacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” Murtha said.

Murtha’s statement both indicts and exonerates the Marines of the crime of murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Premeditation and deliberation – cold-blooded planning – are required for first degree murder. Complete self-defense can be demonstrated by an honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend oneself against death or great bodily injury. The Marines might be able to show that, in the wake of the killing of their buddy Terrazas by an improvised explosive device, they acted in an honest belief that they might be killed in this hostile area. But the belief that unarmed civilians inside their homes posed a deadly threat to the Marines would be unreasonable. An honest but unreasonable belief in the need to defend constitutes imperfect self-defense, which negates the malice required for murder, and reduces murder to manslaughter.

An honest but unreasonable belief in the need to defend constitutes imperfect self-defense, which negates the malice required for murder, and reduces murder to manslaughter.

Many of our troops suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones, a Marine in Kilo Company, did not participate in the Haditha massacre. TJ Terrazas was his best friend. Briones, who was 20 years old at the time, saw Terrazas after he was killed. “He had a giant hole in his chin. His eyes were rolled back up in his skull,” Briones said of his buddy.

“A lot of people were mad,” Briones said. “Everyone had just a [terrible] feeling about what had happened to TJ.”

After the massacre, Briones was ordered to take photographs of the victims and help carry their bodies out of their homes. He is still haunted by what he had to do that day. Briones picked up a young girl who was shot in the head. “I held her out like this,” he said, extending his arms, “but her head was bobbing up and down and the insides fell on my legs.”

“I used to be one of those Marines who said that post-traumatic stress is a bunch of bull,” said Briones, who has gotten into serious trouble since he returned home. “But all this stuff that keeps going through my head is eating me up. I need immediate help.”

A key quote from a Marine officer could be used to show premeditation – and thus malice – in support of a possible murder charge against the shooters. An article in yesterday’s San Diego Union-Tribune which is reprinted from the New York Times News Service, cites a report by “one Marine officer” that “inspectors suspected at least part of the motive for the killings was to send a message to local residents that they would ‘pay a price’ for failing to warn the Marines about insurgent activity in the area.”

Curiously, that paragraph is missing from the same story in both the print and online editions of yesterday’s New York Times. For some reason, the Times had second thoughts about that paragraph, and removed it, after the copy had been sent to other papers over the wire.

Regardless of how those who may ultimately be charged with murder fare in court, a more significant question is whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld will be charged with war crimes on a theory of command responsibility.

Willful killing is considered a war crime under the US War Crimes Act. People who commit war crimes can be punished by life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or should have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he failed to stop or prevent it.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are knowingly prosecuting a war of aggression in Iraq. Under the United Nations Charter, a country cannot invade another country unless it is acting in self-defense or it has permission from the Security Council. Iraq had invaded no country for 11 years before “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and the council never authorized the invasion.

A war that violates the UN Charter is a war of aggression.

Under the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggressive war is the supreme international crime.

Hagee flew from Washington to Iraq last week to brief US forces on the Geneva Conventions, the international laws of armed conflict and the US military’s own rules of engagement. He is reportedly telling the troops they should use deadly force “only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful.” This creates a strong inference that our leaders had not adequately briefed our troops on how to behave in this war.

This, combined with the evidence that US forces are committing torture based on policies from the highest levels of government, as well as reports of war crimes committed in places such as Fallujah, served to put Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on notice that Marines would likely commit war crimes in places such as Haditha. Our highest leaders thus should have known this would happen, and they should be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act.

Murtha told ABC there was “no question” the US military tried to “cover up” the Haditha incident, which Murtha called “worse than Abu Ghraib.” Murtha’s high-level briefings indicated, “There was an investigation right afterward, but then it was stifled,” he said.

“Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?” Murtha asked on “This Week” on ABC. “We don’t know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command.”

Murtha said the decision to pay compensation to families of the victims is strong evidence that officers up the chain of command knew what had happened in Haditha. “That doesn’t happen at the lowest level. That happens at the highest level before they make a decision to make payments to the families.”

Haditha is likely the tip of the iceberg in Bush’s illegal war of aggression in Iraq.

“We have a Haditha every day,” declared Muhanned Jasim, an Iraqi merchant. “Were [those killed in Haditha] the first … Iraqis to be killed for no reason?” asked pharmacist Ghasan Jayih. “We’re used to being killed. It’s normal now to hear 25 Iraqis are killed in one day.”

“We have a Fallujah and Karbala every day,” Jasim added, referring to the 2004 slaughter by US forces in Fallujah and bombings by resistance fighters in the Shiite city of Karbala.

In Fallujah, US soldiers opened fire on houses, and US helicopters fired on and killed women, old men and young children, according to Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein.

“What we’re seeing more of now, and these incidents will increase monthly, is the end result of fuzzy, imprecise national direction combined with situational ethics at the highest levels of this government,” said retired Air Force Col. Mike Turner, a former planner at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Senator John Warner, R-Va., head of the Armed Services Committee, pledged to hold hearings on the Haditha killings at the conclusion of the military investigation. “I’ll do exactly what we did with Abu Ghraib,” he told ABC News.

Warner’s pledge provides little solace to those who seek justice. Congress has yet to hold our leaders to account for the torture by US forces at Abu Ghraib prison. Only a few low-ranking soldiers have been prosecuted. The Bush administration has swept the scandal under the rug.

During the Vietnam War, the US military spoke of winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. But in 1968, US soldiers massacred about 400 unarmed elderly men, women and children in the small village of My Lai. A cover-up ensued, and it wasn’t until Seymour Hersh broke the story that it became public.

“America in the view of many Iraqis has no credibility. We do not believe what they say is correct,” said Sheik Sattar al-Aasaaf, a tribal leader in Anbar province, which includes Haditha. “US troops are very well-trained and when they shoot, it isn’t random but due to an order to kill Iraqis. People say they are the killers.”

Graffiti on one of the Haditha victims’ houses reads, “Democracy assassinated the family that was here.”

So much for winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

We must pull our troops out of Iraq immediately, and insist that our leaders be held to account for the war crimes committed there.

May 22, 2006

The Hayden Charade

In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, General Michael Hayden promised to promote autonomy and objectivity in the CIA if confirmed as its new director. Hayden assured the senators he would provide “hard-edged assessments” and be tolerant of dissenting views on intelligence matters. “When it comes to speaking truth to power,” Hayden declared, “I will lead CIA analysts by example. I will … always give our nation’s leaders the best analytic judgment.”

The evidence, however, suggests precisely the opposite. As head of the National Security Agency, this 4-star general walked in lockstep with his commander in chief, George W. Bush. Hayden helped designed the illegal program of spying on our telephone calls and emails and then repeatedly defended it when interrogated by the senators at his hearing, citing “legal” opinions of Bush’s hired guns in the Justice Department.

Rather than providing the White House with a neutral assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, we can expect Hayden to give Bush the “intelligence” the president seeks to justify his war on Iran. Things did not run as smoothly as Bush would have wished under the last two CIA directors. He had to dispatch Dick Cheney to the CIA several times to furnish the “intelligence” he needed to rationalize his war on Iraq.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked Hayden if he was “comfortable” with under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith’s personal
intelligence-analysis cell, which hyped a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Hayden said he wasn’t comfortable with it and protested that he wasn’t aware of a lot of the activity going on leading up to the Iraq war.

But when questioned about Colin Powell’s use of false WMD information to support his infamous appearance before the United Nations in the run-up the war, Hayden made a telling admission.

In response to Levin’s question about the legal standard for declassifying information in the public interest, Hayden said, “We used that in Powell’s speech. George [Tenet] had to call me for three tapes.” Hayden was right in the middle of the preparation for Powell’s disingenuous presentation.

Hayden, who will be the third director of the CIA in two years, will salute and march to Bush’s agenda. The nation’s chief spook will shape the “intelligence” to fit Bush’s policy of regime change in Iran.

Hayden vowed to “reaffirm CIA’s proud culture of risk-taking and excellence.” Not one of the senators, from either party, interrogated Hayden about the CIA’s checkered past.

There was no mention of the CIA’s 1953 coup that ousted Iran’s democratically-elected president Mohammed Mosadeq and replaced him with the US-friendly tyrant, the Shah Reza Pahlavi. The 1979 Iranian revolution lead to the overthrow of the Shah’s regime and the rise of Islamic fascism under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini, providing a model of theocracy for much of the Muslim world.

Absent was any reference in the hearing to the CIA’s support for Osama bin Laden in his fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The defeat of the USSR there, and the rise of the Mujahedin, enabled the Taliban to come to power. Then, Bin Laden used his CIA training to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks.

Today we are reaping what the CIA sowed in Iran and Afghanistan.

None of the senators asked Hayden about the CIA’s torture manuals, which have been utilized by myriad Latin American dictators to repress their people.

Much of the CIA’s risk-taking is nothing to be proud of. There is no indication that Hayden will bring new integrity to the CIA.

Hayden’s defense of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program was incredible. When questioned about the Fourth Amendment’s standard for searches and seizures, Hayden assured the senators that he had consulted with his relatives who are in law school for legal advice.

The Fourth Amendment says the people shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has held that in order to be reasonable, a search or seizure must be supported by a search warrant based on probable cause and issued by a judge. Only when certain narrowly-defined exceptions apply can the government dispense with a warrant.

Hayden and his law student relatives have reversed that presumption. He told the senators that only reasonableness, not a warrant, is necessary to intercept our private communications. Hayden said the NSA uses a probable cause standard. But the Supreme Court has consistently declared that a judge must determine whether probable cause exists.

When confronted with USA Today’s report that the NSA is collecting data on tens of millions of Americans, monitoring the calls we make and receive, Hayden refused to confirm or deny it.

Two of the long-distance companies named in that article, Verizon Communications and BellSouth, both facing lawsuits for invasion of privacy, have denied giving the government these records. AT&T has refused comment.

Interestingly, Bush issued an executive order on May 5 that allows Director of Intelligence John Negroponte – Michael Hayden’s boss – to authorize a company to conceal activities related to “national security.” Thus, we cannot trust the denials by Verizon and BellSouth.

Like Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping on calls where one party is abroad, the NSA’s massive data collection is illegal.

Both of these programs violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which clearly requires a warrant issued by a FISA court judge.

It is illegal for the NSA to collect phone numbers from phone companies unless the FISA court authorizes it.

Telephone records that show what numbers have called a specific telephone are captured by a “trap and trace” device. A “pen register” shows what number a specific telephone has called.

The law on pen registers and trap and trace devices requires that a court order be obtained either under FISA or Title III, the criminal wiretap law.

In order to intercept communications, the NSA would have to demonstrate to the court that the person whose calls are being targeted is an agent of a foreign power or that the information is relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation.

The Patriot Act allows the FBI to use a national security letter – a kind of administrative subpoena – to obtain these records. But Congress specifically withheld this subpoena power from the NSA, which must convince the FISA court that the information is relevant.

There is no evidence that NSA has obtained court orders before obtaining the phone records of millions of Americans.

There is evidence, however, that the FBI is using national security letters to go after journalists critical of the administration. Brian Ross from ABC News told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! that the government’s methods are changing the way he operates. It makes his work “very, very difficult,” he said. “And, you know, you sort of have to start thinking, I guess, like some sort of Mafia capo,” Ross noted. “You make your phone calls with bags of quarters at pay phones, if you can find them anymore. It’s chilling to say the least.” So much for a free press.

Last year, the FBI issued a total of 9,254 national security letters, targeting 3,500 citizens and legal residents.

In October 2002, while serving as NSA director, Hayden misled Congress about the extent of the NSA’s warrantless domestic surveillance. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told Hayden at the hearing, “I now have a difficult time with your credibility.”

Earlier this year, Hayden made more misleading statements in an appearance before the National Press Club. He said, “The intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls.” In fact, the NSA is collecting data on millions of purely domestic calls.

Hayden ducked several questions, deferring his answers to the closed session that followed the public hearing on Thursday. Senators who hear his secret testimony are forbidden to publicize it. Hayden refused to publicly answer seven questions posed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about whether the NSA has sought FISA warrants for pen register and trap and trace devices; whether terror suspects in secret CIA prisons are likely to remain incommunicado until the war on terror ends; whether there is periodic review of what useful intelligence can be gathered by interrogations of terrorists held for years with no contact with Al Qaeda; whether “water boarding,” recently classified as torture by the UN, is acceptable; whether the CIA will obey laws and treaties in light of the Detainee Treatment Act; whether Hayden agreed with the CIA inspector general’s conclusion that certain interrogation techniques constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by the Convention Against Torture; whether Hayden agreed with estimates that Iran is some years away from nuclear weapons capability; and whether the CIA has received new guidance from the Justice Department about acceptable interrogation techniques since the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act.

Although Hayden pledged objectivity in his opening statement, he let slip his real intention under questioning by Levin. Hayden said the war on terror “is fundamentally a war of ideas. And we have to skew our intelligence to support the other elements of national power as well.” Hayden admitted he will skew the intelligence to fit Bush’s agenda.

During the hearing, Wyden nailed it. He asked Hayden, “Where is the independent check, General, the independent check that can be verified on these programs that the newspapers are reporting on?”

James Madison wrote in 1822: “A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

General Michael Hayden as CIA director will see to it that we continue to be kept in the dark about how our liberties are swiftly vanishing. The future of our democracy is at stake.

May 21, 2006

UN to US: Close Guantánamo

For the second time this year, a United Nations body has chastised the United States for its torture of prisoners and told it to close its prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In February, the UN Human Rights Commission criticized the US government for force-feeding hunger strikers there – calling it torture – and urged the United States to “close the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities without further delay.”

Yesterday, the Committee Against Torture said that the United States “should cease to detain any person at Guantánamo Bay and close this detention facility, permit access by the detainees to judicial process or release them as soon as possible, ensuring that they are not returned to any State where they could face a real risk of being tortured.”

When the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it became part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. All parties to the Convention are required to file reports documenting their progress in implementing their obligations under the Convention.

The Committee Against Torture is charged with evaluating those compliance reports. In an 11-page document released yesterday, the committee evaluated the United States’ report, which was filed three and one-half years late.

In its evaluation, the committee stated it was “concerned by reliable reports of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment committed by certain members of the [United States’] military or civilian personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq,” some of which resulted in death.

The committee called on the US to rescind any interrogation technique – including sexual humiliation, water boarding, short shackling and using dogs to induce fear – that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Detaining persons indefinitely without charge, as the United States has done with most of the 500 or so prisoners at Guantánamo, constitutes a per se violation of the Convention, the committee noted.

The committee was particularly concerned that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which Congress passed last December, aims to strip US federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by or on behalf of Guantánamo detainees. This issue is pending in the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which will be decided by the end of June.

Other concerns included forced disappearances, which are considered to be torture; the practice of rendition of prisoners to countries where they face a real risk of torture; and the establishment of secret detention facilities which are not accessible to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The United States “should promptly, thoroughly, and impartially investigate any responsibility of senior military and civilian officials authorizing, acquiescing or consenting, in any way, to acts of torture committed by their subordinates,” the committee declared.

It noted with disapproval that there have been no prosecutions initiated under the federal torture statute.

Last week, a district court judge in Virginia dismissed an “extraordinary rendition” lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a German citizen against former CIA director George Tenet and 10 other CIA employees. Khaled el-Masri alleged that he was beaten and injected with drugs after being seized near the Macedonian border with Albania, then taken to Afghanistan and held for five months.

In dismissing the suit, Judge T.S. Ellis said Mr. el-Masri’s “private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets.”

On Thursday, three or four Guantánamo prisoners attempted suicide. Early reports indicated that when the guard force tried to intervene and save the life of one prisoner, other prisoners attempted to prevent them from rescuing the suicidal prisoner.

By the end of the day, the story provided by the US military had changed. In the later report, the military claimed that a group of prisoners had lured guards into the compound by staging a suicide attempt and then attacked the guards.

May 17, 2006

What Will it Take?

Recent revelations indicate that the President of the United States continues to flout the law.

In December, we learned that Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by wiretapping without a warrant. Two weeks ago, the Boston Globe revealed that Bush has claimed authority to disobey more than 750 laws passed by Congress. And last week, USA Today reported that he has been secretly collecting the domestic telephone records of tens of millions of Americans.

This is nothing new.

In 2003, Bush invaded a sovereign country in violation of the United Nations Charter. His administration routinely tortures prisoners, rendering some to countries that have perfected the art of torture. The US laws prohibiting torture are absolute; torture is never permitted, even in time of war.

What will it take for Congress to exercise its Constitutional authority to stop the president when he has gone too far?

Every time another instance of Bush’s lawbreaking emerges, a handful of lawmakers express indignation. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) talked tough when the secret NSA program became public a few months ago. But when Bush mouthpiece Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter skillfully threw him softballs to dilute the thrust of the administration’s illegal spying.

“Maverick” John McCain (R-Ariz.) is busy defending Bush’s Iraqi disaster and pandering to Jerry Falwell at “Liberty University.”

The Republicans aren’t the only ones in Congress who are asleep at the wheel. When Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) made a motion to censure Bush for his illegal NSA spying, all Democratic senators, with a couple of exceptions, ran for cover.

Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) sat on their hands.

Clinton, the likely 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, is a major Bush ally when it comes to foreign policy. As our brave soldiers continue to die in his illegal, gratuitous war, Clinton opposes withdrawal any time soon. “Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately,” she said. Clinton advocates leaving behind “a small contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities” – in other words, the 14 “enduring bases” Bush is building in Iraq.

And as Bush ramps up his dangerous rhetoric against Iran, following the same game plan he used in the run-up to his Iraq war, Clinton eggs him on.

In January, Clinton challenged Bush to get tough with Iran. In a line from Bush’s playbook, she told an audience at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, “We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Never mind the absence of any evidence that Iran is actually acquiring nukes.

To grease the wheels for his impending attack on Iran, Bush has nominated yes-man General Michael Hayden to head the CIA. Hayden was in charge of the NSA while it was keeping track of our phone calls. A Senate confirmation of Hayden will ensure that Bush receives the intelligence he wants to fit his policy of regime change in Iran.

Where’s the accountability?

Since George W. Bush took the reins of government more than five years ago and began to systematically unravel the separation of powers and the rule of law, Congress has opened no investigations with subpoena power to hold the president accountable.

The Justice Department’s “inquiry” into Bush’s NSA spying program ended abruptly last week when the National Security Agency refused to grant DOJ lawyers necessary security clearances.

Bush justifies his warrantless surveillance programs as essential to keep America safe. Yet, as Frank Rich pointed out in Sunday’s New York Times, these programs “may have more to do with monitoring ‘traitors’ like reporters and leakers than with tracking terrorists.”

In an attempt to neuter the press, Team Bush has been tracking the phone numbers reporters at ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post call.

“What we have here is a clandestine surveillance program of enormous size, which is being operated by members of the administration who are subject to no limits or scrutiny beyond what they deem to impose on one another,” the Times wrote in an editorial last week.

In response to a suit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T for its alleged participation in the government’s electronic surveillance program, the Bush administration filed secret statements in a motion to dismiss. Bush contends that allowing the case to proceed would jeopardize national security.

With Bush’s popularity at an all-time low, the Democrats are in a prime position to take back both houses of Congress. But even if the gerrymandering by Delay & Co. doesn’t prevent a shift in Congressional power, there is no guarantee that the new power brokers in Congress would stand up to Bush. Indeed, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has ruled out impeachment of the president.

As we witness the deployment of 6,000 precious National Guard troops to the border in a photo-op designed to boost support for Republicans in the November election, we can take solace in a recent suggestion going around:

The members of Congress should resign and undocumented immigrants should take over because they will do jobs that Americans won’t do.

What will it take for Congress to do its job?

May 9, 2006

Bush Setting up Attack on Iran

Now that the mission – whatever it was – has not been accomplished in Iraq, Bush is setting up a potentially bigger disaster in Iran.

Last month, Seymour Hersh revealed that the US military is making preparations for an attack on Iran. Recent events confirm Hersh’s report.

The Bush administration is stepping up the pressure on the Security Council to pass a resolution that the US will use to justify an invasion. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, is pushing Council members to vote on a resolution this week.

Hersh wrote, “There is a growing concern among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.”

A former defense official who still advises the Bush administration told Hersh that the military planning is grounded in the belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”

This reasoning is counter-intuitive. Iranians who become the victims of US aggression are much more likely to rally around the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran and fight to expel the foreign infidels.

“Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups,” Hersh learned from current and former American military and intelligence officials.

One of the military proposals calls for the use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons against underground nuclear sites. That would mean “mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years,” a former senior intelligence official informed Hersh.

A Pentagon adviser said the Air Force would strike many hundreds of targets in Iran, 99 percent of which have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.

It would not just be Iranians who take the hits, the Pentagon adviser told Hersh. “If we go [into Iran],” he said, “the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle.” Our troops in Iraq would be at risk of retaliation from Iran and the Muslim world, according to the Washington Post.

Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, said Tuesday that in response to an invasion of Iran by the United States, Iran’s first target would be Israel.

Once again, Team Bush is whipping the media – and its consumers – into a frenzy of fear, this time against a nuclear Iran.

Two weeks ago, Condoleezza Rice said that Bush administration officials “have to be concerned when there are statements from Iran that Iran would not only like to have this technology but would share it, share technology and expertise.” Rice also said, “We can’t let this continue.”

Never mind that Western nuclear scientists said last month that Iran lacks the skill, material and equipment to fulfill its immediate nuclear ambitions, the New York Times reported.

Once again, a “preventive” war initiated by Bush would violate the United Nations Charter, which forbids the use of armed force against another country unless it poses an imminent threat, or when the Security Council authorizes an attack.

Bush is following the same route he took on the way to regime change in Iraq. He pressured members of the Security Council for a resolution threatening Iraq. The Council passed Resolution 1441. France, Russia and China issued a joint statement specifying, “Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force.” In other words, the US would have to return to the Council to secure authorization to invade Iraq.

Bush was unable to secure a second resolution from the Council that would authorize an attack on Iraq. So Bush rationalized his invasion by cobbling together Resolution 1441 and two prior Council resolutions from the Gulf War. None of these, separately or collectively, provided a legal basis for Bush’s war on Iraq.

A draft Security Council resolution on Iran, which is supported by Britain, France and the US, was circulated on Wednesday. The next day, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said, “My conviction is that military action is certainly no solution.” Russia and China, the other two permanent members of the Security Council, concur with de Villepin’s sentiments.

But, as it did in Iraq, the British government would likely support Bush if he decides to attack Iran.

Tony Blair has signaled his support of a US military strike, warning that ruling out military action would send a “message of weakness” to Iran.

Last month, Britain’s then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, branded the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran as “completely nuts.” He said military action against Iran was “inconceivable,” and warned his Cabinet colleagues that it would be illegal for Britain to support US military action against Iran.

On Friday, Straw was rewarded for his candor with removal from his position as foreign secretary. Both the Independent and the Guardian in London wrote that Straw’s “fate was sealed” after an angry call from the White House to Blair. The Independent reported that friends of Straw believe Bush was extremely upset at Straw’s comment that the use of nukes against Iran was “nuts.”

When asked a few days ago about the possibility of a nuclear strike on Iran, Bush stated unequivocally, “All options are on the table.”

The Bush administration is undoubtedly pushing the draft resolution as a step along the way to its unilateral use of armed force against Iran.

The draft states that the Council would be “acting under Chapter VII” of the UN Charter. This means that it would be based on a finding of a threat to international peace and security, would be legally binding, and could be the basis for the later imposition of sanctions or the authorization of force.

Yury Fedotov, the Russian ambassador in London, explained that Russia opposed the Chapter VII reference because it is reminiscent of past resolutions on Iraq and Yugoslavia that led to US-led military action which had not been authorized by the Security Council.

“We have serious doubts sanctions would work,” Fedotov said. “[They] could pave the way to a military action. The military option is a nonsense. It’s [an] adventure that could threaten international stability in this region and beyond.”

Indeed, there is no basis for a finding that Iran poses a threat to international peace and security, according to John Burroughs, Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy.

Although the International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran to be in non-compliance with some requirements of the non-proliferation and disarmament regime, the IAEA has clearly said there is no evidence that Iran has diverted its declared nuclear materials to weapons.

President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, who is not necessarily the controlling power in Iran, has engaged in belligerent rhetoric. “This is deplorable,” says Burroughs, “but it does not establish a threat to the peace. There has also been belligerent rhetoric coming from Israel and the United States.”

Given the stakes, it would seem logical that the Bush administration would pursue a diplomatic solution and avoid another disastrous conflagration in the Middle East.

Hugh Porter reported in Asia Times that even Ahmedinajad is amenable to negotiation. The Iranians, he writes, are willing to compromise on enrichment if they can achieve security guarantees against attack.

But Bush refuses to talk to Iran’s leadership. Richard Armitage,deputy secretary of state in Bush’s first term, warns that “diplomacy is not simply meant for our friends. It is meant for our enemies.”

When he inaugurated Iran into his “axis of evil,” Bush defined Iran as our enemy. Sanctions, or an attack, on Iran would hurt the Iranian moderates, whom the US should view as allies.

Moreover, invading Iran may well achieve precisely the opposite of what it portends to do. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace maintains it would strengthen Iran’s resolve to develop nukes. It “is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb program rather than destroy it.” Cirincione said, “It’s clear to me there’s no military solution to the Iran problem.”

Bush’s threatened aggression against Iran is no more about nuclear weapons than Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction. It is propelled by an agenda of the neo-conservatives and Washington’s pro-Israel lobby. The US seeks to control the entire Middle East and its valuable oil deposits by changing Iran’s regime, installing a US-friendly government, and building permanent US military bases.

It’s deja vu with the 1953 CIA coup that removed the democratically-elected Mossadeq and installed the tyrannical Shah of Iran. After 25 years of tyranny, the Iranian people rose up and removed the Shah from power, replacing him with Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocracy. The chickens came home to roost.

Bolton said Saturday, “We are still working to achieve unanimity [in the Security Council] … but we’re prepared to go to a vote without it.”

It is time to take the military option against Iran off the table.

May 5, 2006

Moussaoui Jurors Choose Life

The Bush administration’s four-year crusade to kill Zacarias Moussaoui for whatever role he played in the September 11 attacks ended Wednesday when the jury declared Moussaoui will live. Seekers of vengeance are furious that the jury did not opt for death. But the verdict reveals that justice has been done.

Moussaoui, a mentally ill wannabe terrorist, pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges in connection with the 9/11 attacks. At his sentencing hearing, the jury heard heart-wrenching testimony that brought the reality of September 11 into the courtroom. Prosecutors were confident the jury would say that Moussaoui must die to avenge the worst terrorist attack on US soil in our history.

The jury struggled for seven days before deciding Moussaoui would spend the rest of his life in prison. Jurors could not agree that Moussaoui caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. Nine of the 12 jurors considered the circumstances of Moussaoui’s early life to be mitigating factors. His father physically and emotionally abused his family, and Moussaoui spent much of his childhood in orphanages.

Perhaps most significant was the testimony of family members of the 9/11 victims. Twelve testified for the defense. Although the rules forbade them from telling the jury that they favored life over death for Moussaoui, their intent was clear. This is the first time victim family members who oppose capital punishment have ever testified in a federal death penalty trial.

These family members gave the jury permission to let Moussaoui live.

Although they did not speak out during the trial, they are now expressing relief at the jury’s verdict.

Robin Theurkauf, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, testified for the defense. A divinity student at Yale, Theurkauf said, “We may have given them [the jurors] permission to free themselves from an obligation to respond to the massive grief with vengeance. We allowed them to view the case dispassionately.”

“More than anyone, we understand why the jury chose the sentence they did,” said Terry Rockefeller, whose sister Laura Rockefeller was in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. “As a long-time opponent of the death penalty, a belief even this devastating personal tragedy has not altered, I am relieved by the jury’s decision not to sentence Zacarias Moussaoui to death.” Rockefeller is a member of the Board of Directors of Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation.

Antonio Aversano also testified for the defense. His father, Louis Aversano Jr., was a World Trade Center victim. Aversano believes “that our best personal defense against terrorism is to not let the fear and hatred of terror consume our lives but to take whatever steps are necessary to reclaim our hearts, to honor each other and to live life well.”

Other family members also spoke of the importance of modeling a compassionate society for our children.

“Beyond the verdict in this trial, I oppose using the death penalty to demonstrate to citizens that murder is so wrong that we will kill to prove it wrong,” said Patricia Perry. Her son John William Perry was a member of the New York Police Department who died at the World Trade Center. “State killing teaches our children that we do not mean what we say and inures us as a society to the horror of killing.”

Loretta Filipov’s husband Al was on the first plane to the hit the World Trade Center. She feels that “killing Zacarias Moussaoui will not bring my husband back. It will not change the life my family and I now have without my husband and their father. But what killing will do,” she said, “is to continue the cycle of violence, hate and revenge. This is not the face we want for our future, for our children and grandchildren.”

Both Andrea LeBlanc and her husband Robert, who was a passenger on the second plane that crashed into the World Trade Center, opposed the death penalty. “For me, now, this particular case is no exception,” she said. “Violence takes many forms and killing another human being will never undo the harm that has been done.” LeBlanc observed, “Killing Zacarias Moussaoui would not have helped us understand those things that lead to 9/11. Nor would it have helped create the kind of compassionate world I want to live in.”

After Judge Leonie Brinkema pronounced the official sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for Zacarias Moussaoui, she told him he would “die with a whimper” without ever speaking publicly again.

Moussaoui got the worst of the two possible punishments, in the opinion of Abraham J. Bonowitz, co-founder and director of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Now that Moussaoui has been sentenced, he “will be effectively silenced, and he’ll lose the soapbox that he would have gotten if he were sent to death row.” Bonowitz noted that Moussaoui “also loses the power to sustain the pain of victims’ families – a fact seemingly lost on the pro-deathies of the world.”

May 1, 2006

Scapegoats in Terror War

The Moussaoui jury today enters its fifth day of deliberations on whether to execute the self-avowed conspirator in the September 11 attacks. After hours of graphic testimony and videotapes of the horrors on 9/11, as well as Moussaoui’s confession, this should have been an open-and-shut case.

Yet the jury cannot ignore the fact that Zacarias Moussaoui is a paranoid schizophrenic. Moussaoui testified that he and would-be shoe-bomber Richard Reid were slated to fly a fifth airplane into the White House on September 11. But the FBI admitted there was no evidence that Reid had prior knowledge of 9/11, or that al-Qaeda had told him to work with Moussaoui.

Defense psychologist Xavier Amador testified that Moussaoui has firmly held delusional beliefs that George W. Bush will free him from prison and that his attorneys are conspiring to kill him.

In fact, Bush is surely delighted that it is Moussaoui, and not the real culprits responsible for the 9/11 attacks, who is on trial. If Bush’s hired gun Alberto Gonzales were to charge Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Mohammad al-Qahtani, both now in US custody, with crimes for their responsibility for those attacks, their statements would be inadmissible, because they were obtained by torture. Mohammed is the reputed mastermind of 9/11 and al-Qahtani is the alleged “20th hijacker.”

So the best the Bush administration can do to seek justice is to prosecute a mentally ill marginal bit player who was in a Minnesota jail on September 11, 2001.

This is not the first time Team Bush has hidden behind a scapegoat.

Even though the prosecution had no direct evidence tying the Lackawanna Six to terrorist crimes, all six defendants pleaded guilty to crimes that brought them 6 1/2 years to 9 years in prison. The attorney general had threatened to charge them with being “enemy combatants” and ship them to Guantánamo, to be held indefinitely, with no trials and no access to lawyers or courts.

Bush & Co. has suffered a string of defeats in the “terror” cases it has attempted to prosecute.

Last year, a Florida jury acquitted a former professor charged with supporting Palestinian groups. The year before, an Idaho jury refused to convict a college student accused of aiding terrorists in Chechnya and Israel.

An Oregon lawyer arrested by the FBI two years ago was released after being held in custody for nearly three weeks. The FBI had linked him to the Madrid train bombings with a faulty fingerprint identification.

And a judge reversed the convictions of two Detroit men arrested the week after September 11, 2001, for planning a terrorist incident. The prosecutor had covered up the fact that its key witness admitted lying to the FBI.

After Jose Padilla had languished in custody with no charges for nearly three years, Bush finally charged him with a conspiracy unrelated to 9/11 or the “dirty bombing” that former Attorney General John Ashcroft had ceremoniously proclaimed shortly after Padilla’s arrest. Afraid the Supreme Court would slap down the president for designating US citizens “enemy combatants,” the Department of Justice sought to pre-empt an unfavorable ruling by charging Padilla with a crime.

On Friday, a federal judge rejected requests by the Justice Department to further limit the defense’s use of the secret evidence the prosecution plans to employ against Padilla.

What about the so-called Bush “victory” in prosecuting Hamid Hayat of Lodi, California? The day after the jury’s guilty verdict last week, one of the jurors said she had never believed that Hayat was guilty, and that she was pressured by other jurors into changing her vote. The case against Hayat relied on a paid FBI informant whose credibility was undermined at trial and on statements made by Hayat without his lawyer present. The interrogations were conducted in English, which Hayat does not fully understand. Hayat’s lawyers said that detectives used leading questions and his statements were made under duress.

Hayat was prosecuted for providing material support to terrorists by attending a training camp in Pakistan. But the government presented no evidence that Hayat had planned or participated in any terrorist act, or that he had ever been in Pakistan.

Moreover, the material support statute under which Hayat was convicted has twice been declared unconstitutionally vague by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, because it does not require proof of any overt act.

The federal judge who presided over Hayat’s case declared a mistrial in the case of Hayat’s father, who had been charged with lying to investigators in order to conceal his son’s actions. After eight days of deliberations, jurors were unable to agree on his guilt.

Georgetown University law professor David Cole affirmed, “The government in the war on terrorism has generally swept broadly and put a high premium on convictions at any cost. That puts pressure on prosecutors – to overcharge, to coach witnesses, to fail to disclose exculpatory evidence.”

The judge in Moussaoui’s trial barred the government from seeking the death penalty after prosecutors refused to give the defense access to detained al Qaeda leaders to exonerate Moussaoui. Judge Leonie Brinkema’s decision was overturned by the appeals court. Judge Brinkema nearly dropped the death penalty again after prosecutors improperly coached several witnesses.

Bush frequently declares that his administration is bringing the terrorists to justice. Yet his systematic use of torture on prisoners, a series of botched prosecutions, and pathetic scapegoats hardly inspire confidence in our chief executive.

Indeed, on Friday, the Justice Department admitted for the first time that it issued 9,254 subpoenas to banks, telephone companies and Internet providers last year, seeking information on 3,501 US citizens and legal residents. This should give us all pause. You or I could be next.