blog

September 13, 2005

John Roberts: Umpire or Ideologue?

Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them …
I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform.
— John Roberts’ opening statement, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, September 12, 2005

The opening statements of the 18 senators who will first vote on John Roberts’ nomination for Chief Justice of the United States set the stage for the confirmation battle. The 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats previewed their expectations of the interrogation of Roberts, which begins today.

Whereas the Democrats favor widespread questioning to get to know the man who could shape the law of the land for the next generation, Republicans seek to limit the examination to only that necessary to achieve confirmation. Democrats are concerned about whether Roberts would strike down acts of Congress that protect civil rights and liberties, and whether he would give blind deference to executive power; Republicans are gunning for reversal of Roe v. Wade, and for destruction of the wall that separates church from state.

Roberts ended his opening statement by saying, “I look forward to your questions.” The way Roberts decides to answer – or not answer – questions probing his judicial philosophy will determine whether he would come to the Court as an impartial umpire, or a right-wing ideologue.

Republican senators on the committee repeatedly invoked “the Ginsburg precedent,” saying that during her confirmation hearing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refrained from answering questions about her judicial philosophy. But when asked a specific question about a constitutional right to privacy, Ginsburg answered:

There is a constitutional right to privacy composed of at least two distinguishable parts. One is the privacy expressed most vividly in the Fourth Amendment: The Government shall not break into my home or my office without a warrant, based on probable cause; the Government shall leave me alone. The other is the notion of personal autonomy. The Government shall not make my decisions for me. I shall make, as an individual, uncontrolled by my Government, basic decisions that affect my life’s course. Yes, I think that what has been placed under the label “privacy” is a constitutional right that has those two elements: the right to be let alone and the right to make basic decisions about one’s life’s course.

Ginsburg could not have more clearly stated that she believes the Constitution contains a right to privacy. But during his confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals, John Roberts refused to say whether he thinks there is a constitutional right to privacy. If he refuses once again to answer this hot-button question, it is safe to assume he subscribes to his earlier characterization of the “so-called ‘right to privacy'” and the statement in the brief he co-authored in Rust v. Sullivan: “The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

There are two striking differences between the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Ginsburg and Roberts. First, when Bill Clinton tapped her for the high court, Ginsburg had a much more extensive record of public writings than Roberts. Second, hers was a consensus nomination. Clinton had cleared it with Senate Republican leaders in advance. Bush did not consult Democrats before nominating Roberts.

Most of Roberts’ public writings date back to his tenure in the Reagan administration. The White House refuses to supply the committee with memos he wrote while serving as principal deputy solicitor general in the Bush I administration. The memos would provide the senators with more current information about his views. Decrying the Bush administration’s refusal to grant access to Roberts’ full record, Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) said, “We can only wonder what they don’t want us to know.” Russ Feingold (D-Wis) added, “I also must say candidly, the refusal gives rise to a reasonable inference that the administration has something to hide here.”

Extremist right-wing organizations such as Operation Rescue and the Family Research Council, which have anti-abortion and anti-gay agendas, celebrate Roberts’ nomination. Yet conservative Republican senators such as John Kyl (R-Ariz) say that ideology should not play a role in Roberts’ confirmation: “It would be a tragic development if ideology became an increasingly important consideration in the future. To make ideology an issue in the confirmation process is to suggest that the legal process is and should be a political one.”

Other Republicans are more forthcoming. For Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “the central issue before the Senate is whether or not the Senate will allow President Bush to fulfill his campaign promise to appoint a well-qualified, strict constructionist to the Supreme Court and, in this case, to appoint a chief justice to the Supreme Court in the mold of Justice Rehnquist.”

“This is a confirmation proceeding, however, not a coronation,” observed Feingold. Speaking of memos Roberts wrote during the Reagan administration, Feingold said, “In memo after memo, his writings were highly ideological and sometimes dismissive of the views of others.” This does not bode well for a chief justice who must consider the opinions of his colleagues and attempt to achieve consensus on the Court.

Several Democratic senators were concerned about Roberts’ evident willingness to strike down Congressional statutes. “When we discuss the Constitution’s commerce clause or spending power,” said Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), “we’re asking about congressional authority to pass laws to ensure clean air and water and children’s and seniors’ health, and safe, good drugs, safe workplaces, even wetland protection, levees that should protect our communities from natural disasters.”

Republicans frequently decry what they call “activist judges.” Richard Durbin (D-Ill) spoke about Frank Johnson, a federal district judge from Alabama and a life-long Republican. “Fifty years ago,” said Durbin, “following the arrest of Rosa Parks, Judge Johnson ruled that African-Americans of Montgomery, Alabama, were acting within their constitutional rights when they organized a boycott of the buses and that Martin Luther King Jr. and others could march from Selma to Montgomery.”

The Ku Klux Klan branded Johnson the most hated man in America; wooden crosses were burned on his lawn. “Judge Frank Johnson,” Durbin noted, “was denounced as a judicial activist and threatened with impeachment. He had the courage to expand freedom in America. Judge Roberts, I hope that you agree America must never return to those days of discrimination and limitations on our freedom.”

Durbin also warned of the dangers of government sponsorship of religion. He quoted Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion in the recent Ten Commandments case: “At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumptions of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate. Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

Diane Feinstein (D-Cal), the only woman on the committee, told Roberts, “It would be very difficult … for me to vote to confirm someone whom I knew would overturn Roe v. Wade, because I remember … what it was like when abortion was illegal in America … As a college student at Stanford, I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so a young woman could go to Tijuana for a back-alley abortion. I knew a woman who killed herself because she was pregnant.”

Several senators referred to Roberts’ stellar academic and professional qualifications. Yet, in the words of Russ Feingold: “We must evaluate not only his qualifications, but also his ability to keep an open mind, his sensitivity to the concerns of all Americans and their right to equal protection under the laws; not only his intellectual capacity, but his judgment and wisdom; not only his achievements, but his fairness and his courage to stand up to the other branches of government when they infringe on the rights and liberties of our citizens.”

Charles Schumer (D-NY) declared that the American people “need to know above all that, if you take the stewardship of the high court, you will not steer it so far out of the mainstream that it founders in the shallow waters of extremist ideology.”

Explaining why it is critical that Roberts fully answer questions about his judicial philosophy and legal ideology, Schumer said, “As far as your own views go, however, we only have scratched the surface. In a sense, we have seen maybe 10 percent of you – just the visible tip of the iceberg, not the 90 percent that is still submerged. And we all know that it is the ice beneath the surface that can sink the ship.”

Will John Roberts be forthcoming about his views on the issues of concern to Americans, such as civil rights, women’s rights, privacy, religious liberty, executive power, and environmental rights? Or will he play hide the ball and deprive us of critical information with which to judge the man who will judge the issues that affect us all?

Quoting Senator Paul Simon at the Ginsburg confirmation hearing, Durbin cautioned Roberts: “You face a much harsher judge than this committee. That’s the judgment of history. And that judgment is likely to revolve around one question: Did you restrict freedom or did you expand it?”

September 6, 2005

John Roberts: Uncompassionate Conservative

George W. Bush has nominated John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. Bush lauded Roberts for his “goodwill and decency toward others.” Yet Roberts’ record reveals a callous disregard for the rights of people very much like the tens of thousands who have died and been rendered homeless by Katrina.

The outpouring of compassion by people all over this country – and indeed, the world – in the wake of Hurricane Katrina stands in stark contrast to Bush’s actions both before and after the tragedy. In spite of warnings about the weak levees in New Orleans, Bush cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget for levee construction by 44 percent. By sending the National Guard to fight in his trumped-up war on Iraq, Bush deprived the people of New Orleans of critical assistance immediately after the hurricane struck. The day after what may be the worst disaster ever to hit the United States, Bush refused to interrupt his golf game to exercise badly needed leadership.

Most of the tragic images flashing across our television screens are of African Americans. They are suffering indescribable hardship as a result of an administration that failed to protect them from the predicted hurricane, and then failed to timely render aid that would have saved thousands of lives.

John Roberts’ career has established his credentials as an uncompassionate conservative. He has worked consistently to deny access to the courts to individuals who have suffered harm like those in New Orleans. He has long been an enemy of civil rights – for the poor, for minorities, for women, for the disabled, for workers, and for a clean and safe environment.

Roberts tried to cut back the federal law that allows people to sue the government when they have been deprived of their federal rights. When he worked at the Solicitor General’s office in the George Bush I administration, Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that the state of Virginia should not reimburse hospitals for Medicaid claims at reasonable rates. Roberts said the Medicaid Act did not create any enforceable rights. Roberts would likely deny relief to people in New Orleans who seek to recover medical costs from a government that failed to protect them.

Roberts viewed legislation to fortify the Fair Housing Act as “government intrusion.”

Roberts condemned a Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that allowed schools to deny admission to the children of undocumented workers.

Roberts fought for a narrow interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that would have made it much harder for minorities to get elected to public office. He mischaracterized the Act as requiring “a quota system for electoral politics.” Robert’s characterization of the Voting Rights Act borders on racism.

Roberts contended that Congress could pass a law to prevent all federal courts from ordering busing to achieve school desegregation, a position much more extreme than that adopted by the Reagan administration. Roberts would likely have agreed with his boss William Rehnquist, who argued to his boss Justice Robert Jackson that the racist Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate but equal doctrine should be maintained.

Roberts took the position that affirmative action programs are bound to fail because they require recruiting “inadequately prepared candidates,” another unfounded and racist stance.

Roberts has referred to the “so-called ‘right to privacy'” in the Constitution; he argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Roberts’ position would consign poor women who could not afford to travel to a state that does allow abortion to coat hangers in back alleys. Roberts would likely vote to uphold state laws that made the sale of contraceptives illegal, which the Court struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Roberts worked to keep women who have suffered gender discrimination out of court. He argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX that would effectively eviscerate its protections altogether. Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that a student who was sexually molested by her high school teacher was not entitled to compensatory damages under Title IX. Fortunately, the Supreme Court held otherwise, saying that the girl would have “no remedy at all” if it had adopted Roberts’ position.

Roberts ridiculed the gender pay equity theory of equal pay for comparable work as a “radical redistributive concept.” He mocked female Republican members of Congress who supported comparable worth, writing, “Their slogan might as well be ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'”

Roberts supported a dramatic weakening of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. He maintained that a deaf student who got by in school by lip-reading and using a hearing aid was not entitled under the Act to receive the services of a sign-language interpreter in the classroom.

Roberts defended Toyota for firing a woman with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Roberts argued on behalf of the National Mining Association that West Virginia citizens could not prevent mining companies from extracting coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams.

Throughout his career, John Roberts has acted without “goodwill and decency toward others.” His positions have demonstrated a mean spirit that flies in the face of what we like to think America stands for. The 50-year-old Roberts would have the opportunity to shape the nation’s highest court for the next two or three decades. A Roberts Court would threaten the rights of all but the rich and powerful. It is time for the Democrats to utter the “f” word: Filibuster.

September 3, 2005

The Two Americas

Last September, a Category 5 hurricane battered the small island of Cuba with 160-mile-per-hour winds. More than 1.5 million Cubans were evacuated to higher ground ahead of the storm. Although the hurricane destroyed 20,000 houses, no one died.

What is Cuban President Fidel Castro’s secret? According to Dr. Nelson Valdes, a sociology professor at the University of New Mexico, and specialist in Latin America, “the whole civil defense is embedded in the community to begin with. People know ahead of time where they are to go.”

“Cuba’s leaders go on TV and take charge,” said Valdes. Contrast this with George W. Bush’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina. The day after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Bush was playing golf. He waited three days to make a TV appearance and five days before visiting the disaster site. In a scathing editorial on Thursday, the New York Times said, “nothing about the president’s demeanor yesterday – which seemed casual to the point of carelessness – suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.”

“Merely sticking people in a stadium is unthinkable” in Cuba, Valdes said. “Shelters all have medical personnel, from the neighborhood. They have family doctors in Cuba, who evacuate together with the neighborhood, and already know, for example, who needs insulin.”

They also evacuate animals and veterinarians, TV sets and refrigerators, “so that people aren’t reluctant to leave because people might steal their stuff,” Valdes observed.

After Hurricane Ivan, the United Nations International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction cited Cuba as a model for hurricane preparation. ISDR director Salvano Briceno said, “The Cuban way could easily be applied to other countries with similar economic conditions and even in countries with greater resources that do not manage to protect their population as well as Cuba does.”

Our federal and local governments had more than ample warning that hurricanes, which are growing in intensity thanks to global warming, could destroy New Orleans. Yet, instead of heeding those warnings, Bush set about to prevent states from controlling global warming, weaken FEMA, and cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget for levee construction in New Orleans by $71.2 million, a 44 percent reduction.

Bush sent nearly half our National Guard troops and high-water Humvees to fight in an unnecessary war in Iraq. Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Paris in New Orleans, noted a year ago, “It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq.”

An Editor and Publisher article Wednesday said the Army Corps of Engineers “never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security – coming at the same time as federal tax cuts – was the reason for the strain,” which caused a slowdown of work on flood control and sinking levees.

“This storm was much greater than protection we were authorized to provide,” said Alfred C. Naomi, a senior project manager in the New Orleans district of the corps.

Unlike in Cuba, where homeland security means keeping the country secure from deadly natural disasters as well as foreign invasions, Bush has failed to keep our people safe. “On a fundamental level,” Paul Krugman wrote in yesterday’s New York Times, “our current leaders just aren’t serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don’t like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on prevention measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.”

During the 2004 election campaign, vice presidential candidate John Edwards spoke of “the two Americas.” It seems unfathomable how people can shoot at rescue workers. Yet, after the beating of Rodney King aired on televisions across the country, poor, desperate, hungry people in Watts took over their neighborhoods, burning and looting. Their anger, which had seethed below the surface for so long, erupted. That’s what’s happening now in New Orleans. And we, mostly white, people of privilege, rarely catch a glimpse of this other America.

“I think a lot of it has to do with race and class,” said Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. “The people affected were largely poor people. Poor, black people.”

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin reached a breaking point Thursday night. “You mean to tell me that a place where you probably have thousands of people that have died and thousands more that are dying every day, that we can’t figure out a way to authorize the resources we need? Come on, man!”

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had boasted earlier in the day that FEMA and other federal agencies have done a “magnificent job” under the circumstances.

But, said, Nagin, “They’re feeding the people a line of bull, and they are spinning and people are dying. Get off your asses and let’s do something!”

When asked about the looting, the mayor said that except for a few “knuckleheads,” it is the result of desperate people trying to find food and water to survive.

Nagin blamed the outbreak of violence and crime on drug addicts who have been cut off from their drug supplies, wandering the city, “looking to take the edge off their jones.”

When Hurricane Ivan hit Cuba, no curfew was imposed; yet, no looting or violence took place. Everyone was in the same boat.

Fidel Castro, who has compared his government’s preparations for Hurricane Ivan to the island’s long-standing preparations for an invasion by the United States, said, “We’ve been preparing for this for 45 years.”

On Thursday, Cuba’s National Assembly sent a message of solidarity to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It says the Cuban people have followed closely the news of the hurricane damage in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and the news has caused pain and sadness. The message notes that the hardest hit are African-Americans, Latino workers, and the poor, who still wait to be rescued and taken to secure places, and who have suffered the most fatalities and homelessness. The message concludes by saying that the entire world must feel this tragedy as its own.

August 24, 2005

Abu Ghraib General Lambastes Bush Administration

I had been hesitant to speak out before because this Administration is so vindictive. But now I will … Anybody who confronts this Administration or Rumsfeld or the Pentagon with a true assessment, they find themselves either out of a job, out of their positions, fired, relieved or chastised. Their career comes to an end.
— Janis Karpinski, interview with Marjorie Cohn, August 3, 2005

Army Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was in charge of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq when the now famous torture photographs were taken in fall of 2003. She was reprimanded and demoted to Colonel for her failure to properly supervise the prison guards. Karpinski is the highest ranking officer to be sanctioned for the mistreatment of prisoners. On August 3, 2005, I interviewed Janis Karpinski. In the most comprehensive public statement she has made to date, Karpinski deconstructs the entire United States military operation in Iraq with some astonishing revelations.

When Karpinski got to Abu Ghraib, “there was a completely different story than what we were being told in the United States. It was out of control. There weren’t enough soldiers. Nobody had the right equipment. They were driving around in unarmored vehicles, some of them without doors … So, knowing that they were ill-equipped and ill-prepared, they pushed them out anyway, because those two three-stars wanted their fifteen minutes of fame, I suppose.”

Karpinski said that General Shinseki briefed Rumsfeld that “he can’t win this war, if they insist on invading Iraq, he can’t win this war with less than 300,000 soldiers.” Rumsfeld reportedly ordered Shinseki to go back and find a way to do this with 125,000 to 130,000, but Shinseki came back and said they couldn’t do the job with that number. “What did Rumsfeld do?” Karpinski asked rhetorically. “If you can’t agree with me, I’m going to find somebody who can. He made Shinseki a lame duck, for all practical purposes, and brought in Schoomaker. And Schoomaker got it. He said, ‘Oh yes sir, we can do this with 125,000.'”

Karpinski says she did not know about the torture occurring in Cellblocks 1-A and 1-B at Abu Ghraib because it took place at night. She didn’t live at Abu Ghraib, and nobody was permitted to travel at night due to the dangerous road conditions. The first she heard about the torture was on January 12, 2004. She was never allowed to speak to the people who had worked on the night shift. She “was told by Colonel Warren, the JAG officer for General Sanchez, that they weren’t assigned to me, that they were not under my control, and I really had no right to see them.”

When Karpinski inquired, “What’s this about photographs?” the sergeant replied, “Ma’am, we’ve heard something about photographs, but I have no idea. Nobody has any details, and Ma’am, if anybody knows, nobody is talking.” When Karpinski asked to see the log books, the sergeant told her that the Criminal Investigation Division had taken everything except for something on a pole outside the little office they were using.

“It was a memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, those kinds of things,” Karpinski said. “And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be the same handwriting as the signature, and that signature was Secretary Rumsfeld’s. And it said, ‘Make sure this happens’ with two exclamation points. And that was the only thing they had. Everything else had been confiscated.”

Karpinski tried to get information, but “nobody knew anything, nobody – at least, that’s what they were claiming. The Company Commander, Captain Reese, was tearful in my office and repeatedly told me he knew nothing about it, knew nothing about it,” Karpinski said. But in a later plea bargain he entered into after the Taguba Report came out, “Captain Reese said that not only did he know about it, but he was told not to report it to his chain of command, and he was told that by Colonel Pappas. And he claimed that he saw General Sanchez out there on several occasions witnessing the torture of some of the security detainees.”

The first time Karpinski got any clarification about the photographs was January 23, 2004. The criminal investigator, Colonel Marcelo, came into Karpinski’s office and showed her the pictures. “When I saw the pictures I was floored,” Karpinski said. “Really, the world was spinning out of control when I saw those pictures, because it was so far beyond and outside of what I imagined. I thought that maybe some soldiers had taken some pictures of prisoners behind barbed wire or in their cell or something like that. I couldn’t imagine anything like what I saw in those photographs.”

Marcelo told her, “Ma’am, I’m supposed to tell you after you see the photographs that General Sanchez wants to see you in his office.” So Karpinski went over to see Sanchez. She said that “before I even saw the photographs, I was preparing words to say in a press conference – to be up front, to be honest about this, that an investigation is ongoing and there are some allegations of detainee abuse.”

But Sanchez told Karpinski, “‘No, absolutely not. You are not to discuss this with anyone.’ And I should have known then,” she said, “and I know that Sanchez was hopeful for a four-star promotion even then, in January of 2004. And I thought it had probably most to do with the election coming up in November 2004, and that this could really move the Administration out of the White House if it was exploited. So naively, I just thought, you know, they’re going to let this investigation go and they’re going to handle it the way it should be handled.”

Karpinski said, however, “The truth has been uncovered, but it’s been suffocated and it has not been released with the results of the investigation.” She added, “McClellan and Rumsfeld can get up on their high horse and say that there’ve been no fewer than 15 investigations that were conducted. But every one of those investigations is under the control of the Secretary of Defense. And every one of those investigations is run and led by a person who can lose their job under Rumsfeld’s fist.”

“We’re never going to know the truth until they do an independent commission or look into this independently,” Karpinski maintains. “This is about instructions delivered with full authority and knowledge of the Secretary of Defense and probably Cheney. I don’t know if the President was involved or not. I don’t care. All I know is, those instructions were communicated from the Secretary of Defense’s office, from the Pentagon, through Cambone, through Miller, to Abu Ghraib.”

Karpinski describes what happened when General Geoffrey Miller arrived at Abu Ghraib: “The most pronounced difference was when Miller came to visit. He came right after Rumsfeld’s visit … And he said that he was going to use a template from Guantánamo Bay to ‘Gitmo-ize’ the operations out at Abu Ghraib.”

“These torture techniques were being implemented and used down at Guantánamo Bay and, of course, now we have lots of statements that say they were used in Afghanistan as well,” Karpinski said. Although Miller has sworn he was just an “advisor,” Miller told Karpinski he wanted Abu Ghraib. Karpinski replied, “Abu Ghraib is not mine to give to you. It belongs to Ambassador Bremer. It is going to be turned over to the Iraqis.” Miller replied, “No it is not. I want that facility and Rick Sanchez said I can have any facility I want.” Karpinski said, “Miller obviously had the full authority of somebody, you know, likely Cambone or Rumsfeld in Washington, DC.”

Miller’s representative, General Fast, turned the prison over to the Military Intelligence brigade for complete command and control, Karpinski said. “There was no coordination with me or Colonel Pappas. There was no discussion about chain of command.”

Abu Ghraib housed primarily Iraqi criminals. Although many of the “security detainees” were kept at Abu Ghraib, most of the interrogations took place at a higher-value detention facility in Baghdad, according to Karpinski.

The Army discriminates against the reservists in general, and female officers in particular, Karpinski said. “It’s really a good old boys’ network,” she said. “Come hell or high water, they’re going to maintain the status quo.” While she was made the scapegoat for the torture at Abu Ghraib, Karpinski said, no one above her in the chain of command has been reprimanded.

Karpinski reveals that there was “no sustainment plan” because “there were a lot of contractors – US contractors exclusively – who realized they could make a lot of money in Iraq.” At the Coalition Provisional Authority, Karpinski “saw corruption like I’ve never seen before – millions of dollars just being pocketed by contractors. Everything was on a cash basis at that time,” she said. “You take a request down – literally, you take a request to the Finance Office. If the Pay Officer recognized your face and you were asking for $450,000 to pay a contractor for work, they would pay you in cash: $450,000. Out of control.”

Speaking about the war, Karpinski said, “Iraq was a huge country, and when you have people largely saying now, ‘He may have been a dictator, but we were better under Saddam,’ this Administration needs to take notice. And at some point you have to say, ‘Stop the train, because it’s completely derailed. How do we fix it?’ But in an effort to do that, you have to admit that you made a few mistakes, and this Administration is not willing to admit any mistakes whatsoever.”

Janis Karpinski is no longer in the military. She is writing a book that will be published by Miramax in November. In April, she received a form letter from the Chief of the Army Reserves, “warning me – warning me – about speaking about Abu Ghraib, and that everything was still under investigation.” She then got “a letter saying that he understands that I’m writing a book and I should submit the transcript for review.”

“And my lawyer responded simply by telling him that I was a private citizen and I don’t fall under the same requirements, which he had to acknowledge, because that’s true. I’m not ignorant, and I’m not going to reveal any classified information in anything I write,” Karpinski said, “but I don’t need to, because the truth is the truth, and it doesn’t have to be classified. It is definitely staggering, but the truth is the truth.”

Janis Karpinski: Exclusive Interview
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Interview

Wednesday 03 August 2005

Army Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was in charge of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq when the infamous torture photographs were taken. She was reprimanded and demoted to Colonel for her failure to properly supervise the prison guards. Karpinski is the highest ranking officer to be sanctioned for the mistreatment of prisoners. This exclusive interview by t r u t h o u t writer Marjorie Cohn is the most comprehensive public statement Karpinski has made to date.
MC: General Karpinski, thank you for agreeing to talk to me today.

JK: I had been hesitant to speak out before because this Administration is so vindictive. But now I will.

Despite years of this pronouncement that it’s an “army of one,” we reservists were absolutely discriminated against. The people at the senior levels of the reserve components, the Chief of the Army Reserve, for example, a three-star, never made so much as one phone call, never exchanged one word with me in all of this. Twice, my lawyer requested a meeting with him face-to-face in Washington, DC, and he declined. He denied both of those requests.

It’s really a good old boys’ network. Come hell or high water, they’re going to maintain the status quo. They all live by each other in Fort Myers, or near Fort Myers. I’m sure that they have these cigar-smoking sessions where they’re all patting each other on the back that they got another female out of the way, before I was able to get higher up in the senior levels. But I always expected that reservists would find support from their own component, and not be tagged as bad apples. For myself, there was not any support whatsoever.

I just find it incredible that the system – the Pentagon and the Judicial System – can continue to keep those soldiers in jail when there are simply volumes of documents and information that is emerging, and continues to emerge, that says exactly what one, in particular, Graner, was saying all along: that he was ordered to do these things by the Military Intelligence people and the interrogators, the contract interrogators. And there’s more and more information to support that. The recommendation was that General Miller from Gitmo be reprimanded and his four-star commander from SOUTHCOM said no, I don’t agree with that.

MC: And General Geoffrey Miller was the one who was supposed to transplant those interrogation and torture techniques from Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib?

JK: That’s correct. There are sworn statements, not only from the interrogators and the FBI personnel down at Guantánamo Bay prior to even a thought of using Abu Ghraib for a prison location. These torture techniques were being implemented and used down at Guantánamo Bay and, of course, now we have lots of statements that say they were used in Afghanistan as well.

In late August and September of 2003, Miller comes to visit, then everything starts to change, to include transferring the responsibility for Abu Ghraib over to the Military Intelligence people altogether. And it’s been substantiated through an investigation that these torture practices were developed and implemented down in Guantánamo Bay and then they were imported to Abu Ghraib.

They’re holding these soldiers responsible for one time on the night shift coming up with these pranks. Give me a break! It’s so unfair to continue to blame those soldiers. You know, I would be the first one to say to anybody that Graner and Fredericks, as noncommissioned officers – they crossed the line. Graner punched a prisoner in the chest so hard, to get him under control, the guy passed out. Fredericks stepped on feet and hands and everything else. And they didn’t report what they knew were violations of the Geneva Conventions. They didn’t report those things to the chain of command.

Now I’ve been held accountable for that, but never once, Marjorie, never once have I had an opportunity to speak to any of those soldiers, because before I was even aware that there was an investigation going on or that there were photographs or anything else, those soldiers were removed from their positions at Abu Ghraib and taken away to Sanchez’s headquarters. And I was never allowed to speak to them. Never once.

MC: Why do you think you’re the highest officer who’s been punished?

JK: Well, I don’t know how else to say it, but I think I check a lot of blocks. Before the war got underway, before 9/11, Rumsfeld’s plan was to downsize the military – fewer, faster, more trained in Special Operations, never have to fight on two fronts again. He wanted to downsize the overall military. He wanted to return control of the military to the civilian sector. And the division commanders, at least in the Army, were opposed to that. And there were very selfish reasons for their opposition. If you were a division commander, you could pay back favors that were done for you, perhaps, to get you promoted or to put you into positions. You repay other graduates of the military academy – those kinds of things – by appointing them to command positions in your own division. So the more toys you have to play with, the bigger your division and the more likely that you’re going to be at the front of the pack when your promotion comes up. So that’s history.

Rumsfeld wanted to downsize the military, and the component chiefs were opposed to it. He sent them all back to their offices, and said, “Find a way to do this.” The only component that came up with a solution was the Marine Corps. Then he sent the Air Force, the Navy and the Army back to the drawing board, and then 9/11 happened. So they got a reprieve. And it was up to them to prove how important it was that they still needed big divisions and lots of equipment and all that other stuff.

Here’s Shinseki briefing Rumsfeld that he can’t win this war, if they insist on invading Iraq, he can’t win this war with less than 300,000 soldiers. I wasn’t there to hear it, but allegedly Rumsfeld said to Shinseki: go back and find a way to do this with 125,000 to 150,000. Well, Shinseki came back again and said: Mr. Secretary we can’t do it with that number. You need 300,000.

What did Rumsfeld do? If you can’t agree with me, I’m going to find somebody who can. He made Shinseki a lame duck, for all practical purposes, and brought in Schoomaker. And Schoomaker got it. He said, “Oh yes sir, we can do this with 125,000.”

Well, none of them had to go fight the war. None of them had to deploy and manage this small number. And everybody was under the impression that this war was going to be over very quickly. So there was no sustainment plan. And I’m selected for Brigadier General. I had a choice: I could either wait for my unit to come back to the United States and join the men, or I could deploy. I wanted to be with my unit in the field. I thought it would be a great opportunity to see how they would operate under field conditions in a theater of war.

When I got there, there was a completely different story than what we were being told in the United States. It was out of control. There weren’t enough soldiers. Nobody had the right equipment. They were driving around in unarmored vehicles, some of them without doors. Some of the soldiers didn’t even have protective vests. And I kept hearing the same excuse for reservists, for National Guard units: the active component was taking the equipment as a priority. We can’t get it over here.

And then layer on top of that, there was no personnel replacement system for the Reserves and the National Guard. So if I lost a soldier to an illness, a nervous breakdown, a battle injury, whatever it might be, I operated one short, or ten short, or thirty short, or sixty short. I didn’t mobilize these units. I didn’t deploy these units. I joined them in theater. The responsibility for how those units were deployed and how they were ill-prepared rests with the senior level of leadership in the military.

MC: And when you say “senior level,” who do you mean?

JK: I mean the Chief of the Army Reserves, the Chief of the National Guard here, who is the only general officer in all of this who has admitted that they had no idea. I think it was General Bloom, he’s a three-star. I don’t even know if he still is Chief of the National Guard. But he admitted that they had no idea that the units were going to be deployed for anything, the length of time that it started to appear that they were going to be deployed. So they pushed them out of the mobilization stations, because they knew that the units would somehow manage once they got into Iraq. So, knowing that they were ill-equipped and ill-prepared, they pushed them out anyway, because those two three-stars wanted their fifteen minutes of fame, I suppose.

But Bloom, at least, stepped up to the plate and took responsibility. Helmsley, who allowed these units to deploy, who came up with this harebrained scheme about cross-welling soldiers and serving with complete strangers – he has never taken responsibility for anything. And neither has the Pentagon.

More than a year ago, that brave soldier stood up and said to Rumsfeld, “Why don’t we have the right equipment? Why are we still going out with unarmored vehicles?” Rumsfeld made that infamous comment that was: you go to war with the units that you have, not necessarily the ones you want. Well, how about a slap in the face? But he’s never been held accountable for that.

And the man, the officer who stopped requests for armored vehicles and stopped requests for protective vests to be prioritized is now the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Cody. He’s a four-star. He was a three-star. He was in charge of logistics, and he disapproved any additional requests for vehicles or protective equipment for our soldiers. He was promoted. He is a four-star, and he is the Chief of Staff of the Army today.

That’s how Rumsfeld and the Pentagon reward people who are in agreement with them. I don’t know how else to say it. Shinseki, who was telling Rumsfeld the truth – he was retired.

Anybody who confronts this Administration or Rumsfeld or the Pentagon with a true assessment, they find themselves either out of a job, out of their positions, fired, relieved or chastised. Their career comes to an end.

MC: What is your current status?

JK: I am retired from the military.

MC: You wrote in an e-mail: “The techniques are a clear departure from what soldiers are taught and understand, the techniques that were directed by the highest level of this Administration.” By that, you mean all the way up to the Oval Office?

JK: I mean all the way up to Cheney. I don’t know the workings of how it gets up there. But I would think that, very similar to any other big corporation or the military, that if you have a deputy – or a Vice President, in this case – and he is making decisions or approvals, then maybe by default you will say, “If I didn’t know, I should have known,” or “I did know.” Because he’s your Vice President. Or he is the Vice President. Or he is the Secretary of Defense. I don’t know what they are telling the President. And I don’t care. He’s the President, and he’s supposed to know what’s going on in this Administration, and honestly, sometimes it doesn’t seem like he does.

MC: How are the techniques a clear departure from what soldiers are taught and understand?

JK: Well, I can tell you that Military Police soldiers (I don’t care what component they’re from: National Guard, Reserve or active duty) – in fact, when it comes to the Geneva Conventions and fair and humane treatment of prisoners, Reserve and National Guard units are better, because it is a mission. A prisoner of war operation and internment resettlement and refugee operations – it was never a mission that the active component wanted to embrace. They wanted the National Guard and the Reserve Units to take those missions. They thought it was an insult to them to have to do those kinds of missions. So in my opinion, the reservists and the National Guard Units were better equipped, better trained, and fully aware of the Geneva Conventions and the requirements of how to treat prisoners of war fairly and humanely.

They changed the mission. They assigned a new detention mission to the 800th MP brigade and relocated most of the units from the prisoner of war camp, which was winding down from May onwards, and moved them, pushed them up into Iraq, to perform this new mission of detention operations. We were told – I was told – that it was going to be assisting Bremer’s headquarters, the Coalition Provisional Authority, with restoring prisons and jails and getting the Iraqi prisoners back under lock and key because they were disrupting operations, etc. etc.

So despite the fact that Iraqi criminals – detention operations – are different from prisoner of war operations (they have a different mind set of a criminal, if you will), the MPs were assigned this mission. There was absolutely no discussion whatsoever to see if the units were properly equipped, if they had appropriate training. Twice I approached the two-star, a guy by the name of Cruser [sp?], he’s a Major General Reservist. Twice I went to him and I said, “This is not our mission.” And he said to me, as almost to dismiss me out of his office, he said, “Yes, I know Janis, but you’re the closest we’ve got from detention MP, so you guys have the mission.” Not, you know, we don’t have the right equipment; not, we don’t have the right training, we don’t have the right background. He didn’t care.

MC: You said that Iraqi detention is different than POWs, that there’s a criminal mind set. Could you explain it a little bit more?

JK: Well, when you have prisoner of war operations or refugee resettlement operations, and there’s a war going on, prisoners of war know and understand, and they see it exhibited by the military police soldiers, that they are going to be treated fairly and humanely, and that the enemy – the people detaining them – are not going to be living in high-rise hotels while they’re in these prison camps. Everybody they see – the MPs and the soldiers who are guarding them – are living at the same level that they are. So if there’s a ration of water of two liters a day, the prisoners get the same ration that the soldiers get. If they’re living in outside tents, the soldiers are likewise living in outside tents and cow towns. There’s no air conditioning. There is no laundry service. There are no rental cars. And prisoners of war understand that. They know that they are only going to be held as combatants until the war is over, so their mind set is different. They are generally under control.

Nobody likes to be held against their will. But enemy combatants understand that, in the course of war, if they’re captured, then they’re held in a prisoner of war camp and will be treated humanely until the war is over and then they can go home. That’s how prisoner of war operations work, and that’s the mind set, I would say, of an average soldier, pretty much, and 75 percent of the free world.

Iraqi criminals, on the other hand, if they’re violent criminals – whether it was under Saddam or now under US forces control – they might remain in jail for the rest of their lives. So they have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to plot and to plan and to design ways to escape, ways to harass their keepers, ways to make life miserable for the MPs or the individuals who are detaining them.

The only reason we had any kind of control – I will tell you this flat out, up front – the only reason we had any kind of control in any of our prison facilities, Abu Ghraib aside, was because the MPs were taking the initiative and finding ways to accommodate the prisoners. It wasn’t because of the fine security of the prison facility. It was because the prisoners knew that the MPs were doing everything they could, everything in their power, to make life more acceptable for them while they were spending their days and nights incarcerated.

We had civilian so-called experts – contractors – under the Coalition Provisional Authority, who worked under the Ministry of Justice. Now these prison experts all had experience as wardens or as directors for prisons in the United States.

MC: Were some of them former US Special Forces?

JK: No, they were not. They were all civilians. There was only one of them who was retired from the military, and he was actually retired as a Military Police officer. But it’s just incredible that these three contractors that they brought over were hired by the Justice Department in Washington, and it was the same Justice Department – there aren’t two separate entities – it was the same Justice Department that, between 30 and 60 days before hiring these people to come to Baghdad, the same Justice Department had fired them from their positions in the Utah Corrections Facility for prisoner abuse.

And I didn’t know that when we were there. Nobody bothered to tell us that. But we were told that we were going to go up to Baghdad, we were going to relocate the headquarters up to Baghdad to assist the Prisons Department, under the Ministry of Justice, with this restoration of jails and prisons. Well, we got up there and there were three of them and one director. And they were looking at 121 different jails for us to run and operate. And I told them I don’t have that many MPs! I couldn’t put 3 MPs in each one of those facilities and run them. We have to find the biggest facilities, and that’s what they did. They eventually identified, I think they identified, 15 or 18 and we settled on 15 or 16.

MC: Why did they bring these civilian contractors? Why do you think they brought them over?

JK: Well, at that time, everybody was under the impression that the Coalition Provisional Authority was being run under the auspices of the State Department, and that the Iraqi Detention Operation was a function that would eventually be turned over to the Iraqis.

Well, that may have been true in some back room plan, that people had an idea that was going to be in place. But there was no plan. Because normally, prison operations and jail operations come with the restoration of peace and security. And that comes with a sustainment operation that follows combat operations. So on a backward timeline, when the war was declared over on the aircraft carrier, then sustainment operations – engineers, civilian contractors, military police, military police organizations – all those organizations kind of kick into high gear to get things moving down the same road. Well there was no sustainment plan. And I can tell you, Marjorie, my opinion is that there was no sustainment plan because, by that time, there were a lot of contractors – US contractors exclusively – who realized they could make a lot of money in Iraq.

MC: How did the enlisted soldiers feel about the contractors getting these fat paychecks?

JK: My soldiers were saying, I heard this often: “Ma’am, I want to get out of the Army and come back over here. I could be making five times the money that I’m making as a soldier. And these guys never go out and do anything. We’re doing all the work, and they’re drawing all the pay!” I heard it a dozen times a week from every level of soldier, every rank, in every one of my units. They could see it. They knew what was going on. Here’s these three contractors who are supposed to restore the prison system with the help of the military, and they never – I don’t want to say never – they hardly leave the confines of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

MC: Now did they play a role in the interrogations?

JK: No, they did not. The interrogations were separate and apart from Iraqi detention operations. The only role they played was, they were restoring Abu Ghraib. They were using funds from the Coalition Provisional Authority to restore the cells out at Abu Ghraib.

MC: So who was in charge of the interrogations at Abu Ghraib?

JK:The Military Intelligence.

MC: And you were reprimanded and demoted for failing to supervise the staff at Abu Ghraib, and you’ve said you were a scapegoat?

JK: Right.

MC: What do you mean by that?

JK: Well, I have to refer to a timeline. Miller comes, we have Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was a pile of rubble the first time I saw it. The only advantage of Abu Ghraib, the only advantage, was this 20-foot high retaining wall around the ground, acres and acres of the grounds of Abu Ghraib. So we had that as a security, first line of defense. But everything inside the prison at that time had been looted. Electrical systems, water systems, infrastructure, doors were gone. Blocks of concrete were removed from the interior section, the interior cells.

But I had a Company Commander who was commanding an MP unit out there, and he told me in July, “Ma’am, if you get us the resources we can at least hold prisoners here until the other facilities are restored.” So there was great opposition to that, because of the history of Abu Ghraib. But we proceeded with the encouragement and the support, to a limited extent, from Ambassador Bremer. Because we needed some place to put these Iraqi criminals that the divisions were policing in the course of their operations and attempted to get sustainment operations underway, throughout Iraq. So in August, the divisions were directed to undertake these – let me back up. At Abu Ghraib during July and the beginning of August 2003, we were holding several hundred prisoners.

MC: Were these prisoners of war?

JK: No, these were Iraqi criminals, because the war was over. So when the President declared the war over, there are no more prisoners of war. What we were policing then were Iraqi criminals.

MC: Had they all been arrested for crimes?

JK: Yes, they were. But some of them, most of them, the vast majority of them were minor crimes. They were missing curfew. They were subjected to a random inspection and a weapon was found in their trunks, they were looting, dealing gasoline, whatever. But they were minor crimes, nonviolent crimes, the majority of them.

In October and November, 2002, Saddam and his sons opened all of the jails and all of the prisons and released all of the prisoners to cause chaos as the Coalition advanced to Baghdad. And they did. These criminals, these criminal elements, did wreak havoc. So it was not unusual, when the divisions were out doing their operations or manning a checkpoint, that they would find a minor crime, minor criminals. And then, when they were turned over, sometimes the prisoners would even admit that they had been held under Saddam. In all the thousands of prisoners that were turned over to our control, we only had one who came in with a prison record folded neatly in his wallet. Because they’re smart enough to not say, “Oh, I was a prisoner, I was a murderer, and I was being held for life under Saddam, so you got me.” You know, they were all, every prisoner was innocent.

MC: So the prisoners who were being tortured or abused at Abu Ghraib – were they all convicted criminals?

JK: No, because up until the mid part of August or the third week of August, 2003, I would say 95 percent of our prisoner population were Iraqi criminals, and the majority of them were nonviolent criminals. Then, directed by the CJTF-7, the divisions undertook these aggressive raids and these operations targeting specific individuals who were either terrorists, suspected terrorists, or known associates of terrorists. And they were called “security detainees.” This is a new category of prisoner. So they were bringing them into Abu Ghraib, and again, no coordination with the commander (me) or my battalion commander out at Abu Ghraib. They were just flooding Abu Ghraib every night from the end of August onward with 15 prisoners, 30 prisoners, 8 prisoners, 60 prisoners, whatever it would be. So the population exploded from what it was, about 1200 at the end of August. In September and October we took in at least equal that number. So by the end of September, we had more than 3,000 prisoners. And by the end of October, we had over 6,000 prisoners. And the CJTF-7 headquarters did not care if we had food for the prisoners, if we had accommodations for the prisoners, if we had jumpsuits for the prisoners or anything.

But the most pronounced difference was when Miller came to visit. He came right after Rumsfeld’s visit. Miller was there the next day. And he stayed for about ten days to work with the Military Intelligence commander, the Military Intelligence staff officer, General Fast, and the commander of the Military Intelligence committee, Colonel Pappas.

And he said that he was going to use a template from Guantánamo Bay to “Gitmo-ize” the operations out at Abu Ghraib. He didn’t spend much time with me, but he wanted to see me before he went down to brief General Sanchez when he was getting ready to leave. And that was when he was using these strong-arm techniques with me. He said, “Look, we can do this my way or we can do this the hard way.” I mean, first of all, we’re on the same side! And he knew, and I said to him, “Sir, I don’t know who told you I was going to be difficult. What I’m doing is telling you Abu Ghraib is not mine to give to you. It belongs to Ambassador Bremer. It is going to be turned over to the Iraqis.” He said, “No, it is not. I want that facility and Rick Sanchez said I can have any facility I want.”

So, I mean, I was telling him the truth. Miller obviously had the full authority of somebody, you know, likely Cambone or Rumsfeld in Washington, DC. And right after, during Miller’s visit, Colonel Pappas, the MI Brigade Commander, asked me if he could have full control of Cellblock 1-A because all of the people being held in there were really these security detainees.

The prisons experts down at Coalition Provisional Authority objected because it had been the CPA money that had restored those jail cells. I explained that these were higher-value guys and that they needed to be segregated. So they said okay. And we turned the Cellblock 1-A over to Colonel Pappas. And then shortly after that, within a week, they asked for Cellblock 1-B. And Miller probably coached … I don’t know. I do know that Miller had this harebrained idea that he was going to bring in these milvans – you know what milvans are?

MC: No.

JK: Milvans are all metal and they’re picked up at a port. Usually, they’re either put on the back of a big tractor or trailer truck. Sometimes you’ll see these heavy trains at the port lifting up these metal boxes. Those are the equivalent of milvans. You can ship them and then they’re picked up with a moving device, wherever they’re going to.

So Miller had this idea that they could import hundreds, if not thousands, of these milvans, modify them with bars and such, and make them individual prison cells, similar to what they had done down at Guantánamo Bay, apparently.

So I said to General Miller – just on that point alone – I said, “Look sir, we can’t even get building materials up here, basically or efficiently. Where do you think they’re going to import all these milvans and get them down here to Abu Ghraib?” He said, “It’s no problem. We’ll use Turkey, we’ll use Jordan. We have the answer.” Okay. Well, there’s not one milvan that’s been shipped to Abu Ghraib even to this day.

Nonetheless, he wasn’t there, and he didn’t have, like so many of these people … General Cody can sit in Washington, DC now, as the Chief of Staff of the Army and can pontificate about how it should be. But he wasn’t there. He was not in the middle of this disaster and this chaos. And the efforts of the Military Police soldiers, they were just so incredible, because every one of our facilities was undermanned, ill-protected, and managed by the seat of their pants.

MC: Taguba suggested that you didn’t pay sufficient attention to what was going on under your command. But you said you were waved off by Military Intelligence and the CIA. Who waved you off?

JK: General Miller did first, and then General Fast, as his representative, even though General Miller has claimed repeatedly and under sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was simply an advisor in Iraq; he had no authority to direct anybody to make changes or to do anything differently.

However, when he left, Colonel Pappas, General Sanchez and the Provo Marshall for General Sanchez, I think – a guy by the name of, he was a Colonel, his name was Sanwalt [sp?] – they were copying, cc-ing, General Miller on all the reports of anything to do with interrogation or detention operations. So if he was just an advisor, why were they keeping him so much in the loop? And then when I went to General Fast, after I heard that the prison had been turned over to the Military Intelligence brigade for complete command and control —

MC: Who turned it over to the Military Intelligence?

JK: General Fast went to the Operations Section of the headquarters, CJTF-7, and told them to cut an order transferring control of the prisons from the Military Police to the Military Intelligence. There was no coordination with me or Colonel Pappas. There was no discussion about chain of command or anything else. General Fast, who was not a commander, ordered them to do it in the Operations Section at Sanchez’s headquarters, and they did it. And they cut an order and transferred the prison.

MC: And now, who waved you off? When were you waved off?

JK: When I found out, I wasn’t even in Iraq at the time. And when I came back they told me that the prison was transferred under the control of the Military Intelligence. So I went to Sanchez first, and his deputy went in to tell General Sanchez that I was there and I needed to see him, and the subject was the transfer of the prison. General Sanchez would not see me, but he told his deputy or his – I think it was his SGS or his executive officer – he was a full colonel – he told me to go see General Fast, that she had the details. So I went to General Fast, and General Fast pointed to the order. Pointed to the order! Held it up, pointed to the order and said it’s a done deal.

MC: So then you were not allowed to go to that cellblock?

JK: No, there was never a restriction on me going to that cellblock or anywhere else at Abu Ghraib, ever. I was not allowed to go to Abu Ghraib or anywhere else during the hours of darkness. Nobody was allowed to; the roads were too dangerous. We were just starting to see the beginnings of these roadside bombs and IEDs and everything. So the headquarters said unless it was life-threatening and they gave permission, there was no travel during the hours or darkness.

MC: And that’s when the torture went on?

JK: And that’s when the torture was taking place, right.

MC: So if you had wanted to go at night, you couldn’t have done it?

JK: Right. That’s correct.

MC: When did you find out that this torture was going on?

JK: Well, I really didn’t find out – I found out that there was an investigation, and I found out about that, not from General Sanchez, not from General Fast, not from anybody at the headquarters. I found out from the Commander of the Criminal Investigation Division – a guy by the name of Marcelo. He was a full Colonel. And he sent me an e-mail. We had another mission that was close to the Iranian border and I was up there. It was about an hour and forty-five minutes outside Baghdad, two hours outside of Baghdad. So I opened my e-mail when I came back from a meeting with the leadership element of this group up there, and it was close to midnight. I opened the e-mail and I said, “What is this all about?” And the e-mail said, “Ma’am, just want to let you know I’m about to go in and brief the CG on the progress of the investigation out at Abu Ghraib. This is the one involving allegations of abuse and the pictures.” That was it.

MC: That was the first you heard?

JK: That was the first I heard, and that was on the twelfth of January of 2004. That was the first I heard. I left the next morning, I didn’t know anything about it. I asked my aide, I asked my Operations Officer, and nobody knew anything about it, and everybody was equally shocked, stunned. So we left at daybreak the next morning and drove back into Baghdad and went right out to Abu Ghraib. And we tried to talk to some of the people out there who would have known.

Well, all of the people who worked the night shift were already removed from their positions out there and were taken over to the headquarters, the CJTF-7 headquarters. I was never allowed to speak to them. I never exchanged a word with them, because I was told by Colonel Warren, the JAG officer for General Sanchez, that they weren’t assigned to me, that they were not under my control, and I really had no right to see them.

The people who were working in Cellblock 1-A at the time that I went out to Abu Ghraib didn’t know anything about it. They were completely in the dark about anything. I said, “What’s this about photographs?” And the sergeant said to me, “Ma’am, we’ve heard something about photographs, but I have no idea. Nobody has any details, and Ma’am, if anybody knows, nobody is talking.” I said, “Okay, let me see the logs. Let me see the books.” He said, “They took everything. The Criminal Investigation division took everything.” I said, “Well, what do you have?” and he pointed to this pole right outside the little office that they were using, and he said, “Well, they left this.”

It was a memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, those kinds of things. And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be the same handwriting as the signature, and that signature was Secretary Rumsfeld’s. And it said, “Make sure this happens,” with two exclamation points. And that was the only thing that they had. Everything else had been confiscated.

So I tried to get information. I talked to Colonel Pappas. I talked to the Battalion Commander. I talked to the chain of command, the Military Police chain of command. Nobody knew anything, nobody – at least, that’s what they were claiming. The Company Commander, Captain Reese, was tearful in my office and repeatedly told me he knew nothing about it, knew nothing about it.

But in a plea bargain, later on, after Taguba, Captain Reese said that not only did he know about it, but he was told not to report it to his chain of command, and he was told that by Colonel Pappas. And he claimed that he saw General Sanchez out there on several occasions witnessing the torture of some of the security detainees.

So, the first time I even got any kind of clarification on what these photographs were was the 23rd of January. The criminal investigator, Colonel Marcelo, came into my office. It was about eight o’clock at night, nine o’clock at night. And he called me and he was asking if I was there, would I be there, and I said yes. He said, I have some photographs I want to show you.

So when I saw the pictures I was floored. Really, the world was spinning out of control when I saw those pictures, because it was so far beyond and outside of what I imagined. I thought that maybe some soldiers had taken some pictures of prisoners behind barbed wire or in their cell or something like that. I couldn’t imagine anything like what I saw in those photographs.

So then Colonel Marcelo said me, “Ma’am, I’m supposed to tell you after you see the photographs that General Sanchez wants to see you in his office.” So I went over to see him, and he, I told him, you know, before I even saw the photographs, I was preparing words to say in a press conference – to be up front, to be honest about this, that an investigation is ongoing and there are some allegations of detainee abuse.

Well, he said, “No, absolutely not. You are not to discuss this with anyone.” And I should have known then, and I know that Sanchez was hopeful for a four-star promotion even then, in January of 2004. And I thought that it had probably most to do with the election coming up in November of 2004, and that this could really move the Administration out of the White House if it was exploited. So naively, I just thought, you know, they’re going to let this investigation go and they’re going to handle it the way it should be handled.

MC: Do you think the investigations that have taken place so far have uncovered the truth about this torture and who is responsible?

JK: Absolutely not. The truth has been uncovered, but it’s been suffocated and it has not been released with the results of the investigation. You know, they can say that, McClellan and Rumsfeld can get up on their high horse and say that there’ve been no fewer than 15 investigations that were conducted. But every one of those investigations is under the control of the Secretary of Defense. And every one of those investigations is run and led by a person who can lose their job under Rumsfeld’s fist.

We’re never going to know the truth until they do an independent commission or look into this independently. I don’t know if this has to be a commission. I don’t know what the term is. But I do know that we never would have known the truth about 9/11 if they didn’t appoint an independent commission. And this thing, this thing is not about what happened in Cellblock 1-A on a night shift. And it is certainly not about seven reservists who went crazy one night. This is about instructions delivered with full authority and knowledge of the Secretary of Defense and probably Cheney. I don’t know if the President was involved or not. I don’t care. All I know is, those instructions were communicated from the Secretary of Defense’s office, from the Pentagon, through Cambone, through Miller, to Abu Ghraib.

And those civilian contractors who were imported were not subjected to the same Uniform Code of Military Justice discipline as the soldiers. They were cleared, removed from the face of the earth, and seven soldiers are being held responsible. It was grossly unfair.

MC: Now why do you think the Administration is resisting an independent investigation if it has nothing to hide?

JK: Well, for the same reason that when they started to make noise a couple of weeks ago – McCain, I think, recommended developing a bill or was recommending a bill that would define the limits of how to interview prisoners, would require an international database so family members would know where their loved ones or relatives were being held. And Cheney said he would recommend to the President that any bill that would limit his ability to extract information from terrorists, he would recommend disapproval. And the President has said that he would disapprove any such bill. And it’s consistent with this Administration’s reluctance to get to the truth, because it will reveal that they knew that this was designed at their level and started from the memo under Gonzales and Haynes, I think, is it Haynes?

MC: Yes, Haynes.

JK: And Cambone and all of these people have literally taken control of the inner workings of this Administration. It’s just insane that – does anybody think that Lynndie England came to Iraq with a dog collar and a dog leash, with the idea of putting one around the prisoner’s neck, and having a photograph taken? They were using these photographs to get – to cut to the chase, for lack of a better expression. The plan was to use these photographs to show newly-arriving prisoners: hey, start to talk or tomorrow you’re on the bottom of the pile.

This is wrong to say that this was torture and abuse going on in Cellblock 1-A. It was certainly humiliating to be photographed in such a manner; I don’t disagree with that at all. I’m not trying to justify it. But there were interrogation facilities outside of Cellblock 1-A and B – separate facilities, where the actual interrogations took place. And this Administration surely does not want the details of what went on in those interrogation facilities to be known by the rest of the world.

MC: Do you think the CIA is involved? Did you have any contact with the CIA at all, in terms of their involvement with the interrogations?

JK: Marjorie, I have to tell you that from July onward, even up until December, I wouldn’t say regularly, but it was often, that I encountered somebody from the Task Force, from the CIA, from Special Operations, and by and large, they were professionals. They were absolutely the consummate professionals.

Now I don’t know if they ran separate facilities, and I don’t know what techniques they use. I do know that when they determined that somebody they were holding in one of their facilities no longer had any value and they wanted to turn them over to us, at Abu Ghraib, most likely, they turned them over with full medical records. They turned them over with a whole file of interviews and interrogations, and they turned them over in relatively good health, particularly given the situation. So I think that – this is only my conclusion – but I think that techniques in the right and responsible hands are used appropriately. I mean, I never saw anybody under the control of the Task Force or under the control of the CIA who came in bruised, bloody, beaten, and, you know, stitched together. Occasionally we did see the aftermath of a gunshot wound, but these were higher-value detainees, if there was cross-fire or if there was a bullet, but they treated those kind of wounds. That would be my impression.

However, these same techniques or suggestions of aggressive techniques that were designed, in my opinion – again, I don’t know this first-hand – but all of these reports now would indicate that these techniques were designed and tested and implemented down at Guantánamo Bay and in Afghanistan. And when you take those same techniques and put them in the hands of irresponsible and non-accountable people, like these civilian contractors were, you are combining lethal ingredients. And what happens? You get civilian contractors who have a playground, and they get out of control. And unfortunately, at Abu Ghraib they suck the military into that same playground. There’s no doubt in my mind that they ordered these things to be done.

MC: Who is “they?”

JK: They being the civilian contractors – Titan, CACI. The majority of those contractors were either in Guantánamo Bay or Afghanistan prior to being sent to Abu Ghraib. There were a lot of translators who were working for Titan. Some of them were locally hired, some of them were brought in from the United States. And they were given an opportunity to upgrade their positions to be interrogators – without any kind of formal training whatsoever. So now you have a deadly mix. You have people who have been exposed and who have used these techniques first-hand in other locations. They know that there is no supervision or control. They have been directed, using whatever words, to get Saddam, get the information and get these prisoners to start talking, use more aggressive techniques. So you have allowed people who have no responsibility whatsoever to use techniques that were originally, perhaps originally designed and used by very experienced hands. And it got out of control. It clearly got out of control.

And the reason I didn’t know about it at all is because Sanchez and Fast and that whole operation under Miller – whether he was there or not, he was directing it from Guantánamo Bay and Cambone was directing it from Washington, DC – they didn’t want Janis Karpinski anywhere near those operations. Because they knew from people talking about me, from my record, from my past performances, that I would not have tolerated anything like what was going on in Cellblock 1-A or B. I would not have.

If I had known, if I had heard from a prisoner, if I had heard from an MP, if I had heard from a soldier, if anybody had suggested such a thing, I would have raised the issue. I would have screamed at the top of my lungs until I got somebody to pay attention that this was going on out there. Likely I would have still been held accountable, because they were looking for a scapegoat all along. And I think they found one in me because they could very easily say, “Well, this is a reservist who had Reserve soldiers, and they were just out of control.”

You know, let’s tell the truth here. I’m at least as capable a leader as anybody else in the Army. And I have worked harder and taken the toughest assignments and proved my capabilities in those assignments throughout my career. But Miller wanted to make it appear that I didn’t have the same qualifications because I was a reservist – that these seven soldiers were, you know, out of control on the night shift – because they were reservists.

No, despite the failures of the Administration and the Pentagon to deploy these soldiers with the right equipment and the right training and assign the right mission, these soldiers were doing a great job. In 17 facilities, more than 40,000 prisoners throughout the time, the only photographs and allegations of abuse were in two cellblocks under the control of the Military Intelligence command and designed and incorporated by General Miller during and following his visit to Iraq.

Now how did he cover all that up? Well, guess where he got assigned after he left Guantánamo Bay? He went back to Iraq to be in charge of not only the detention operations but in charge of the interrogation operations as well, at Abu Ghraib and at the high-value detention facility. As far as I know, they were the only two facilities where there higher-value detainees are being held.

MC: Where was that facility, that higher-value detention facility?

JK: It was in Baghdad.

MC: And is he still there?

JK: No, Miller left. He was there from July of 2004 until December, or January of 2005, and then he went to the Pentagon. I think he went in March, actually. Maybe it was March of 2004 through March of 2005. And then when he left Iraq, he was assigned to the Pentagon. And that’s where he is today. He’s the only one who hasn’t been promoted in all of this. But Colonel Warren was fully aware of all this, and in a sworn statement to one of the soldier’s defense counsel, he said that General Karpinski was not aware of any of this because there were measures put in place to prevent her from knowing about any of this.

MC: Who said that?

JK: That was Colonel Warren, the JAG Officer CJ Task Force. He has been recommended for promotion to one-star.

MC: And Sanchez is being recommended for promotion too, right?

JK: I’m not aware of that. But that doesn’t surprise me. I know Rumsfeld has said all along that he thinks that Sanchez is an exceptional officer and should be recommended.

MC: And even though this high-level military investigation recommended that Miller be reprimanded, the Army General rejected the recommendation, is that right?

JK: The Commander of SOUTHCOM rejected the recommendation. Miller has never been reprimanded, not for anything down in Guantánamo Bay.

There was a Captain who was in Afghanistan. She was a Lieutenant at the time, Carolyn Woods. And she was brought over specifically by Fast. Fast recommended her to Miller. Miller brought her over to Iraq specifically to run the interrogation operation. She was linked to those deaths in Afghanistan, where the interrogators were under her control, and she was promoted to Captain. Where is she? She is at the MI school, under General Fast.

I mean there’s a ton of information, and there’s extenuating, not circumstances, but these units were deployed – the Reserve and National Guard units were deployed – with the full understanding, they had orders for 179 days. They were briefed at the mobilization station and deployed with the full understanding that they would be home before the 179 days even expired.

So without any notification whatsoever, without any warning from the Chief of the Army Reserves or anybody else in the Reserve component, they were extended 365 days, just like everybody else in the theater.

However, when you extend an active-component soldier past six months – whether that was their expectation or not – when you extend them, their families are not at risk, because their ID cards are still current, their medical and dental benefits stay current, their housing remains with them, their pay continues.

Reserves and National Guard soldiers rely completely on the orders that they are carrying in their pocket. So they had orders for a 179-day deployment. And when they were extended … it’s not like it is now; the Internet was not available. They didn’t have opportunities to call home. Nobody had a cell phone, of course, that worked from over there or anything. So their first concern was for their families. You know, our orders are going to expire and okay, they’re telling us that we’re going to get an extension eventually but our families will not have ID cards, they will not have medical benefits, they will not have dental benefits. They’re going to be kicked out of their housing, for those who are living on base. They were concerned about the welfare of their families. And there was no way to get notification to them.

So it’s different. There is a different standard. Somebody waved the magic wand and said, “Let’s extend everybody for 365 days because this war is going to go on a lot longer than we thought.”

And in my little corner of the world and my exposure down at the Coalition Provisional Authority, I saw corruption like I’ve never seen before – millions of dollars just being pocketed by contractors. Everything was on a cash basis at the time. You take a request down – literally, you take a request to the Finance Office. If the Pay Officer recognized your face and you were asking for $450,000 to pay a contractor for work, they would pay you in cash: $450,000. Out of control.

And then, Marjorie, in March or May of this year, when Admiral Church presented his investigation findings, he concluded that the Taguba Report was sound. And McCain – Senator Levin said, “Did you interview these individuals? Did you interview Colonel Pappas? Did you interview General Karpinski?” And of course he said no. He took the Taguba Report and relied heavily on that. And McCain said that the Taguba Report has been proven to be flawed and to be incomplete. Did you interview Ambassador Bremer? And Admiral Church said well, no, because I was directed to do this investigation by the Secretary of Defense and it was limited to the Department of Defense units. And the Coalition Provisional Authority and Ambassador Bremer all work for the State Department. And Senator McCain said, “Excuse me, Admiral, but you’re wrong. The Coalition Provisional Authority and Ambassador Bremer worked for the Secretary of Defense.”

MC: He didn’t know that?

JK: He didn’t know that. And neither did we when we were there. Everybody believed that there was a balance between the military and the State Department, and that Ambassador Bremer was working for Colin Powell. And that is untrue.

So now today, 2005, I understand why Bremer fired the whole Iraqi army – because he was working for the Secretary of Defense. There was no State Department influence. There was no balance. It was exclusively under the control of Rumsfeld. And there were contractors who were coming in there, hired. It’s an excellent question, how the soldiers felt about these contractors. The security guys, the bodyguards, and the security firms that were hired to provide security for visiting dignitaries or Congressional delegations – they were all making a minimum of $300 a day. $300 a day. And never left the Green Zone. They escorted the convoys to the front gate, and then the Military Police or the military units would pick up the responsibility from the gate of the Green Zone out. And here you have soldiers who are now responsible for the lives of these delegations, and some of them are making $3,000 a month.

MC: Do you think that the media is really bringing the truth to the people?

JK: You have to search for the truth. And it shouldn’t be that way. It should be reported as truth and not exploited to the advantage of whatever the direction that that outlet is going.

I know those reporters John Barry and Isikoff from Newsweek, and I was shocked when they withdrew that report about the Koran at Guantánamo Bay. I was sure it was true, and I thought, “Who got to them?” They never would have been, you know, half-assed reporting, excuse my expression. You know, I thought, “My gosh, there is no truthful outlet any more.”

And why are the American people turning a deaf ear to this? We had 17 Marines killed over the course of the last three days, less than 72 hours. And there’s still people in Washington that get on, especially Sunday mornings, and they get on these news or these debate programs and they say, “Well it’s only 1800 lives so far” – Only! Only! You know, how dare you say that!

I don’t know what the solution is. I’m not an elected official, but I was there. And it was better when we were there than it is now, because they have, whether consciously or unconsciously or just out of ineptness, they have approached this insurgency with the wrong idea.

General Casey, you know, getting on the news and saying, “Well, if everything continues on track we’ll be able to start a troop draw-down next March.” What exactly are these people smoking?

MC: You don’t think that’s a public relations ploy to get the Republicans in the midterm elections? And how are they going to maintain their 14 permanent bases in Iraq if they pull troops out? They just can’t do that.

JK: Right. And how is that being proven? Well, the insurgents are now responding, as they did right after Cheney’s comment that the insurgency was in its last throes of effectiveness. Okay? And then they responded by killing a whole bunch of people.

So now they come back and Casey says, “Well, if everything continues on track, we should be able to start the troop draw-down by next Spring, early next Spring and into the Summer.” And how is the insurgency responding? It’s like setting up an explosive device and blowing 14 Marines off the face of the earth.

It’s just unbelievable, and was, unfortunately, predictable, on the very elementary level of planning sustainment operations. And I don’t know if it was just absolute ignorance or wishful thinking. And there is a vast difference between them, but either one of them, something was incorporated by the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense, of what they thought that, as soon as they got to Baghdad and pulled those statues down, that everybody was going to be coming out waving American flags and throwing flowers? What kind of ignorance is this?

Iraq was a huge country, and when you have people largely saying, now, “He may have been a dictator, but we were better under Saddam,” this Administration needs to take notice. And at some point you have to say, “Stop the train, because it’s completely derailed. How do we fix it?” But in an effort to do that, you have to admit that you made a few mistakes, and this Administration is not willing to admit any mistakes whatsoever.

MC: You’re writing a book. Do you have a publisher?

JK: Yeah, Miramax. It’s going to be published in November. I didn’t get any kind of correspondence except to chastise me. When I was going out to San Francisco to speak to the University of San Francisco, the law school out there, that was in April, I got a form letter from the Chief of the Army Reserves warning me – warning me – about speaking about Abu Ghraib, and that everything was still under investigation. Well, shortly after I got back, I get a letter saying that he understands that I’m writing a book and I should submit the transcript for review.

And my lawyer responded simply by telling him that I was a private citizen and I don’t fall under the same requirements, which he had to acknowledge, because that’s true. I’m not ignorant, and I’m not going to reveal any classified information in anything I write, but I don’t need to, because the truth is the truth, and it doesn’t have to be classified. It is definitely staggering, but the truth is the truth.

August 18, 2005

Why Bush Can’t Answer Cindy

Cindy Sheehan is still in Crawford, Texas, waiting for Bush to answer her question: What noble cause did my son die for? Her protest started as a small gathering 13 days ago. It has mushroomed into a demonstration of 100s in Crawford and tens of thousands more at 1,627 solidarity vigils throughout the country.

Why didn’t Bush simply invite Cindy in for tea when she arrived in Crawford? In a brief, personal meeting with Cindy, Bush could have defused a situation that has become a profound embarrassment for him, and could derail his political agenda.

Bush didn’t talk with Cindy because he can’t answer her question. There is no answer to Cindy’s question. There is no noble cause that Cindy’s son died fighting for. And Bush knows it.

The goals of this war are not hard to find. They were laid out in Paul Wolfowitz’s Defense Policy Guidance in 1992, and again in the neoconservative manifesto – The Project for a New American Century’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses – in September 2000.

Long before 9/11, the neocons proclaimed that the United States should exercise its role as the world’s only superpower by ensuring access to the massive Middle East petroleum reserves. To accomplish this goal, the US would need to invade Iraq and establish permanent military bases there.

If Bush were to give an honest answer to Cindy Sheehan’s question, it would be that her son died to help his country spread US hegemony throughout the Middle East.

But that answer, while true, does not sound very noble. It would not satisfy Cindy Sheehan, nor would it satisfy the vast majority of American people. So, for the past several years, Bush and his minions have concocted an ever-changing story line.

First, it was weapons-of-mass-destruction and the mushroom cloud. In spite of the weapons inspectors’ admonitions that Iraq had no such weapons, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and Bolton lied about chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush even included the smoking gun claim in his state of the union address: that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger. It was a lie, because people like Ambassador Joe Wilson, who traveled to Niger to investigate the allegation, had reported back to Cheney that it never happened.

The Security Council didn’t think Iraq was an imminent threat to international peace and security. In spite of Bush’s badgering and threats, the Council held firm and refused to sanction a war on Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors asked for more time to conduct their inspections. But Bush was impatient.

He thumbed his nose at the United Nations and invaded anyway. After the “coalition forces” took over Iraq, they combed the country for the prohibited weapons. But they were nowhere to be found.

Faced with the need to explain to the American people why our sons and daughters were dying in Iraq, Bush changed the subject to saving the Iraqis from Saddam’s torture chambers.

Then the grotesque photographs emerged from Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad. They contained images of US military personnel torturing Iraqis. Bush stopped talking about Saddam’s torture.

Most recently, Bush’s excuse has been “bringing democracy to the Iraqi people.” On June 28, 2004, he ceremoniously hailed the “transfer of sovereignty” back to the Iraqi people. Yet 138,000 US troops remained in Iraq to protect US “interests.”

And Iraq’s economy is still controlled by laws put in place before the “transfer of sovereignty.” The US maintains a stranglehold on foreign access to Iraqi oil, private ownership of Iraq’s resources, and control over the reconstruction of this decimated country.

The Bush administration, for months, hyped the August 15, 2005 deadline for Iraqis to agree on a new constitution. But as the deadline came and went, the contradictions between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds over federalism came into sharp focus. The Bush administration admitted that “we will have some form of Islamic republic,” according to Sunday’s Washington Post.

So much for Bush’s promise of a democratic Iraq.

The constitutional negotiations are far removed from their lives of most Iraqis. When journalist Robert Fisk asked an Iraqi friend about the constitution, he replied, “Sure, it’s important. But my family lives in fear of kidnapping, I’m too afraid to tell my father I work for journalists, and we only have one hour in six of electricity and we can’t even keep our food from going bad in the fridge. Federalism? You can’t eat federalism and you can’t use it to fuel your car and it doesn’t make my fridge work.”

Fisk reports that 1,100 civilian bodies were brought into the Baghdad morgue in July. The medical journal The Lancet concluded in October 2004 that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died in the first 18 months after Bush invaded Iraq.

Unfortunately, the picture in Iraq is not a pretty one.

Bush knows that if he talked to Cindy Sheehan, she would demand that he withdraw from Iraq now.

But Bush has no intention of ever pulling out of Iraq. The US is building the largest CIA station in the world in Baghdad. And Halliburton is busily constructing 14 permanent US military bases in Iraq.

George Bush knows that he cannot answer Cindy Sheehan’s question. There is no noble cause for the US war on Iraq.

August 12, 2005

The Murder of Casey Sheehan

For seven days, Cindy Sheehan has been camped down the road from George Bush’s Crawford ranch where the President is on a five-week vacation. Cindy says she will never enjoy a vacation again. Her heart is broken. Her precious son Casey was murdered in George Bush’s war on Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan is a patient woman. She will wait until Bush comes out and talks to her. She will wait until the man who ordered the invasion of a country that posed no threat to us explains why Casey did not die in vain.

Her skin parched by the blazing sun, her throat inflamed from the intermittent rains and the 200 interviews she has given, Cindy will wait.

I first met Cindy at a support rally in San Diego for Pablo Paredes, who was on trial for refusing to deploy with a ship that was loaded with 300 Marines and bound for Iraq. “I was told my son was killed in the war on terror,” Cindy told the crowd. “He was killed by George Bush’s war of terror on the world.” People wept quietly as they viewed Casey’s baby picture. Cindy always carries it with her.

Camilo Mejia also came to support Pablo at his court-martial. The son of the famed Sandinista troubadour Carlos Mejia Godoy, Camilo had lived in three countries in two years before coming to the United States. He joined the US Army because he was promised an education, a community, camaraderie, and friendship. But after five months in Iraq, where he witnessed the killing of innocent civilians as well as his own comrades, in a war he came to believe was illegal, Camilo refused to return to Iraq. He was court-martialed, convicted of desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty, and served nine months in prison.

Camilo accompanied Cindy and nine other veterans to Crawford on the Veterans fo Peace Impeachment Tour bus. The harassment started as soon as they arrived, Camilo told me. The sheriffs warned Cindy she would be arrested if she didn’t walk in the 3-foot ditch on the side of the road. “It was horrible,” Camilo said. “It was right next to a barbed wire fence; the terrain was uneven.” The cops and the reporters walked on the road, but Cindy and her supporters had to walk in the ditch.

Some of the vets gave speeches. They talked about conscientious objection and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). “It was very emotional because the war is still going on,” said Camilo. “We are still dealing with our demons.” One-quarter of American soldiers who return from Iraq will likely develop PTSD. Some experts believe 100,000 will suffer from mental problems.

Camilo was moved by Cindy’s courage. “She is an ordinary person who did something really extraordinary.”

Bill Mitchell’s son Mike was killed in Iraq in the same battle with Casey Sheehan. Bill is in Crawford with Cindy. “My life’s been devastated,” Bill told the editor of the Iconoclast. “It’s been turned upside down. Very few aspects of my life have a similarity to the past. It just kind of churns you up, shakes you out, and drops you off. I’m doing much better than I have been.”

“The death of any child is a devastating event for a parent,” Bill said. “A piece of your heart dies when your child dies. So I just want to stop this. I don’t want to hear about anybody else dying, American or Iraqi.”

It is coming together with other families of the slain that empowers Bill. “I met Cindy shortly after our sons’ deaths,” he said. “We did some military speak-out events together. I realized there was a power in her speaking and in her stories.”

Cindy Sheehan wants to ask Bush, “Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for? Last week, he said my son died for a ‘noble cause’ and I want to ask him what that noble cause is.”

Cindy’s grief is still raw. She visits the Defense Department web site each morning to see who else died in Bush’s war while she was sleeping. “And that rips my heart open, because I know there is another mother whose life is going to be ruined that day. So we can’t even begin to heal.”

Bush claims we must stay in Iraq to honor the sacrifices of those who have fallen. Cindy says, “Why should I want one more mother to go through what I’ve gone through, because my son is dead … the only way he can honor my son’s sacrifice is to bring the rest of the troops home – to make my son’s death count for peace and love, and not war and hatred like he stands for.”

Cindy challenges Bush to level with her: “You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don’t tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.”

When questioned about the war, Bush invokes his mantra of September 11. “Yeah, but were any of those people in Iraq?” Cindy asks. “And the people who flew those planes into the Trade Center, were they from Iraq?”

“I don’t believe [Bush’s] phony excuses for the war,” Cindy told a CBS reporter. “I want him to tell me why my son died.” She said, “If he gave the real answer, people in this country would be outraged – if he told people it was to make his buddies rich, that it was about oil.”

Many members of Gold Star Families for Peace, a group Cindy co-founded, Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), and Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) are in Crawford with Cindy. Both IVAW and MFSO are calling for the United States to immediately and unilaterally withdraw from Iraq.

Only 38 percent of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, according to a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll. That number could decrease as Cindy’s patient protest continues.

August 10, 2005

Bush and the Bomb

The 1945 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of more than 200,000 people, mostly civilians. Many tens of thousands more have been afflicted with radiation-induced cancers, immunologic disorders, birth defects, and lasting psychological trauma.

For years, the United States government engaged in a massive cover-up of the devastation wreaked by its use of the atom bomb in Japan. (See Hiroshima Cover-Up Exposed.) The claim has persisted that the use of the bomb ended the war and saved lives. Yet, historians have now put the lie to the assertion that the Japanese would not have surrendered but for the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (See Hiroshima after Sixty Years: The Debate Continues.)

The United States dropped the A-bomb to test it on live targets, and to demonstrate the overwhelming superiority of America. The Cold War had begun.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” General Curtis LeMay declared that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with Japan’s surrender. And Admiral William D. Leahy stated angrily that the “use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender … in being the first to use it, we … adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal defines ill-treatment of a civilian population as a war crime, and inhumane acts committed against a civilian population as crimes against humanity.

The US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and crimes against humanity. Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara admitted in the film Fog of War that if we had lost the war, he and LeMay would have been war criminals. Since only the vanquished Nazis and Japanese were tried and punished, the US officials who ordered these crimes were never brought to justice.

After World War II, the new enemy of the United States became the Soviet Union, and there ensued a nuclear arms race unprecedented in human history.

Concern about the possibility of another, more devastating Hiroshima led to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. When the United States ratified this treaty, it became part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The treaty commits the countries that possess nuclear weapons (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) to negotiate their elimination.

To gain the agreement of the non-nuclear-weapon parties to the treaty’s extension in 1995, the US made promises in connection with a UN Security Council resolution calling for what are known as negative security assurances, in which the US promised not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon parties unless they attack the US while in alliance with another nuclear-weapon country.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972. This treaty was supposed to maintain the credibility of retaliatory deterrence based on the threat of a successful second strike, known as the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It also put limits on future technological development in order to preserve the “strategic balance” between the US and the USSR.

In 1995, a commitment was made to complete negotiations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996. It bans all nuclear explosions, for any purpose, warlike or peaceful.

In 1996, in response to a request by the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice (the World Court) issued an advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

The World Court said that under humanitarian law, countries must “never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.” It held that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was “generally” contrary to international law. Although the divided Court was unable to reach a definitive conclusion regarding threat or use in extreme circumstances of self-defense where the survival of a nation was at stake, the overall thrust of the decision was toward categorical illegality. It strongly implied that the doctrine of deterrence is illegal. The Court said that the radioactive effects of nuclear explosions cannot be contained in space and time. Thus, the use of nuclear weapons can never conform to the requirements of the law.

The World Court also held, unanimously, that Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates all countries to “bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.”

So what has the United States done to fulfill its obligations under this treaty?

In 1999, the US Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The United States has tried to negotiate a more flexible nuclear doctrine that would include missile defenses far beyond the very limited defenses allowed by the ABM Treaty. But Bush didn’t like the treaty at all.

Thus, in December 2001, the United States notified Russia of its intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in 6 months, based on a treaty provision that permitted withdrawal if there existed extraordinary events jeopardizing the withdrawing country’s supreme interests.

The US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is the first formal unilateral withdrawal of a major power from a nuclear arms control treaty once it has taken effect. It also spurred Russia to announce its withdrawal from its commitments under the START II arms reduction treaty.

And the US withdrawal jeopardizes the most important treaty that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In 2002, the Department of Defense presented the Nuclear Posture Review to Congress, which actually expands the range of circumstances in which the US could use nuclear weapons. This document explicitly allows the option of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. It permits pre-emptive attacks against biological and chemical weapons capabilities, and in response to “surprising military developments.” It provides for the development of nuclear warheads, including earth penetrators.

Alarmingly, classified portions of the document obtained by the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times call for contingency planning for the use of nuclear weapons against Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.

The Nuclear Posture Review sets forth policies that explicitly violate the legal obligations the US undertook when it ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and subsequently in 1995 – the prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, and the obligation to negotiate the cessation of the arms race at an early date.

When the Nuclear Posture Review was presented in 2002, the New York Times said: “Where the Pentagon review goes very wrong is in lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons and in undermining the effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty … Nuclear weapons are not just another part of the military arsenal. They are different, and lowering the threshold for their use is reckless folly.”

Yet today the United States stands ready to rapidly launch 2,000 strategic warheads with land- and submarine-based missiles. Each warhead would inflict vast heat, blast and radiation 7 to 30 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.

Although less spectacular and obvious than a mushroom cloud, the United States has used nuclear weapons – depleted uranium warheads – in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Reporters from the Christian Science Monitor have measured radiation levels in downtown Baghdad that are 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal background radiation levels.

The US Nuclear Defense Agency condemned depleted uranium weapons as a “serious health threat.” Whipped up by sandstorms and carried by trade winds, they can cause cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure and extreme birth defects for 4,500,000,000 years (See Horror of USA’s Depleted Uranium in Iraq Threatens World.)

The United States is committing ongoing crimes against humanity by its use of depleted uranium.

The effects of the strategic warheads and depleted uranium “cannot be contained in space or time … would affect health, agriculture, natural resources and demography over a very wide area … and would be a serious danger to future generations.” Thus, under the definition set by the World Court, these weapons are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets, and are therefore prohibited.

By using nuclear weapons against Japan, the United States became a dangerous role model. The Bush administration persists in the use of depleted uranium, and it has announced its intention to enlarge the use of the extraordinary strategic warheads.

Bush targets countries like North Korea and Iran that may seek to develop their nuclear capabilities. Yet all the while, Bush and his administration continue to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq and threaten to commit even greater crimes in the future with their horrific new weapons.

August 1, 2005

Bush Defies Military, Congress on Torture

After the grotesque torture photographs emerged from Abu Ghraib prison in April 2004, Bush said, “I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated they way they were treated.” He vowed the incidents would be investigated and the perpetrators “will be taken care of.”

Bush seemed shocked to learn of torture committed by US forces. But then someone leaked an explosive Department of Justice memorandum that had been written in August 2002. The memo presented a blueprint explaining how interrogators could torture prisoners and everyone in the chain of command could escape criminal liability for war crimes. It said the President was above the law. That memo set the stage for the torture of prisoners in US custody.

Now we learn that, in early 2003, several senior uniformed military lawyers from each of the services voiced vigorous dissents to the policies outlined in the Justice Department’s 2002 memo.

Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, the Air Force deputy judge advocate general, wrote that several of the “more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law” as well as military law. In fact, Rives added, use of many of these techniques “puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad.” Rives was talking about the well-established concept of universal jurisdiction, where any nation has the authority to prosecute any person for the commission of war crimes.

The tactics proposed in the 2002 memorandum also troubled Rives because he felt the new interrogation policies threatened to undo progress the military had achieved since the Vietnam War. Accusations of war crimes committed by US forces during Vietnam damaged the military “culture and self-image,” Rives wrote. Post-Vietnam military programs that emphasize compliance with the laws of war have “greatly restored the culture and self-image of US armed forces,” according to Rives.

Moreover, Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, wrote that military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation system could have adverse consequences for American service members. These might include diminished “public support and respect of US armed forces, [as well as loss of] pride, discipline, and self-respect within the US armed forces.” The interrogation regime could also jeopardize military intelligence-gathering and efforts to obtain support from allied countries.

The Justice Department “does not represent the services; thus,” said Sandkuhler, “understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion.”

But allegations of torture have persisted, even after these concerns were expressed. The continuing allegations have led influential members of Congress to propose amendments to a $491 billion defense bill that would prevent the mistreatment of prisoners.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed an amendment to define who is an “enemy combatant” for purposes of detention and military trials of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. At present, Bush claims total discretion to make that determination.

Republican Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war for six years during the Vietnam War, proposes an amendment to set uniform standards for anyone detained by the Defense Department. It would limit interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army field manual, which is currently being revised.

McCain also proposes that all foreign nationals held by the US military be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross, as required by the Geneva Conventions. This would prevent the holding of “ghost detainees.”

The most si

July 25, 2005

The Roberts Court?

Consider this: John Roberts’s nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is confirmed by the Senate. Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down. Then, Bush elevates Roberts to Chief.

This scenario would avoid the nasty fight that would surely ensue if Bush elevated his model Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – or chose another rabid right-winger – to be Chief Justice. The Democrats lined up to pose with the smiling Roberts during his expertly choreographed visit to the Senate last week – not a word about a filibuster if Roberts refuses to explain his record as apologist for the Reagan and Bush I administrations and the big corporations he represented. And judging from the giddy reaction of Operation Rescue and the Family Research Council to Roberts’s nomination for Associate Justice, Bush’s conservative base would be thrilled.

Rehnquist was a radical, far out of the mainstream of the rest of the Court, when Ronald Reagan made him Chief. When he clerked for Justice Robert Jackson, Rehnquist had written a memo called, “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” in which he advised Justice Jackson to affirm Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal” doctrine in future segregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. The memo stated, “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by my ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” Rehnquist concluded that the Court should uphold segregation and refuse to protect “special claims” simply “because its members individually are ‘liberals’ and dislike segregation.” Plessy was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.

A former Rehnquist law clerk, Roberts is Rehnquist Lite – but less controversial than Rehnquist was when he became Chief. While not directly attacking Brown, Roberts, as Associate Counsel to President Reagan, argued in favor of right-wing legislation that would have prohibited judges from ordering busing to desegregate schools. Why? Because, said Roberts, busing “promotes segregation rather than remedying it, by precipitating white flight.”

Hale fellow, well met, Roberts is smooth. Since junior high, he has assiduously groomed himself to be on the Supreme Court. In a footnote in his 1994 law review article, Roberts wrote, “In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.” Roberts, who knew that someday he might have to explain those views to a Senate Judiciary Committee, set out to distance himself from them.

After Roberts’s nomination last week, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press identified Roberts as a member of the right-wing Federalist Society. But after the White House called the news organizations and informed them that Roberts said he “has no recollection” of ever being a member of the Federalist Society, they printed retractions. Lo and behold, the Washington Post reported today that John G. Roberts Jr. is listed as a member of the steering committee of the Federalist Society in its Lawyers’ Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998.

This could blow up in Bush’s face. With Watergate, it was the cover-up that became the blockbuster. The same thing could happen with “Federalistgate” (and “Plamegate,” for that matter).

But what if Roberts is confirmed? What would a Roberts Court look like? Roberts, who wrote a brief saying there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. But even more alarming, Roberts, who spent the lion’s share of his government service in the executive branch, would extend the scope of presidential authority in an unprecedented manner.

George W. Bush has pushed the envelope of executive power to a new level – by invading a sovereign country that posed no threat to America, based on his illegal “pre-emptive war” doctrine; by declaring that, as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to suspend the Geneva Conventions; by planning to covertly influence the “democratic” Iraqi elections; by threatening to veto any bill Congress passes that would encroach on his presidential power; by snooping through the sites we visit on the Internet and the books we read; and by shielding Karl Rove from criminal prosecution (don’t be surprised if something untoward happens to the independent prosecutor investigating Rove).

Four days before Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court, Roberts, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, granted the President unchecked authority to create kangaroo courts to try suspected terrorists, even though the Constitution gives only Congress the right to establish courts.

In the never-ending war on terrorism, Roberts would likely defer to the President to torture, assassinate, or imprison for life anyone the executive dubbed a “terrorist.” He would likely defer to the President by upholding the noxious provisions of the Patriot Act that threaten our civil liberties but make us no safer. And Roberts, always the company man, would likely defer to the President whenever the executive takes a position that favors corporations at the expense of workers and the environment.

The justice Roberts would replace, Sandra Day O’Connor, wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld last year, “A state of war is not a blank check for the President.” Judging from his decision in Hamdan, Roberts might well write the executive that blank check.

Our constitutional system is grounded in the symmetry of three co-equal branches of government, each with separate and distinct powers. The 50-year-old Roberts would have the opportunity to shape the Court for decades. By moving the judicial branch to bypass Congress and defer to the executive, Chief Justice John Roberts could preside over a Court that will destroy the separation of powers as we know it.

July 21, 2005

Mr. Roberts’ Neighborhood

Who leaked the name of John G. Roberts before Bush’s official prime time revelation Tuesday night? My guess: Karl Rove. He had the most to gain from an early announcement. Rove knows the mainstream media has a very short attention span. What better way to deflect our attention away from Rove’s crime in leaking the identity of a CIA operative than to leak a potentially contentious nomination for the High Court?

What we’ll never know is whether, absent Rove’s scandal, Bush would’ve nominated someone else. Other candidates would probably have drawn a virulent response from Democrats, who have taken a cautious but muted stance toward Roberts’s nomination. Many talk of his scant paper trail; they call him a “stealth candidate.” But Roberts’s record is clear.

As a lawyer for the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and later for his corporate clients, Roberts displayed a consistent commitment to conservative doctrine. In both abortion cases he handled, he maintained a legal attack on reproductive rights. In one case, Roberts argued that Operation Rescue’s routine – sometimes violent – blocking of clinics where abortions were performed constituted protected free speech.

In Rust v. Sullivan, Roberts co-authored a brief in support of regulations prohibiting family planning programs that received federal aid from providing any abortion counseling. In that brief, he wrote: “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled … The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

During his Senate confirmation hearing for appointment to the Court of Appeals in 2003, Roberts changed his tune – apparently. When asked about his views on abortion, Roberts assured the senators, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” But his personal views wouldn’t keep Roberts from unsettling Roe as the law of the land, consistent with his statement in Sullivan that there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Roberts would likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if presented with the opportunity as a Supreme Court justice.

Roberts has had other opportunities to demonstrate his partisanship. As a judge, he ruled against requiring Dick Cheney’s energy task force to release its records to the public. He opposed protections in the Endangered Species Act. Displaying a clear conflict of interest, Roberts ruled against environmentalists seeking increased government regulation over copper smelters that emit toxic lead and arsenic pollutants; many of those smelters were owned by members of the National Mining Association. Just four years before, Roberts had filed a brief against citizens opposed to the coal industry’s destructive mountaintop removal, on behalf of the same National Mining Association.

Last Friday, Roberts voted to support Bush’s military commissions to try suspected terrorists, finding that the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to anyone the administration believes is a member of al Qaeda. Bush established those commissions to deny the accused due process protections that are well-established in US and international law. Although he would probably recuse himself from this case if it reached the Supreme Court, Roberts is likely to walk in lockstep with the Bush administration in its “war on terror” and concomitant war on civil liberties in the years to come.

Roberts also showed his true colors when he argued for the expansion of religion in public schools, against a woman with carpal tunnel syndrome who was fired by Toyota, against federal affirmative action programs, and against a congressional effort to enable minorities to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

But Roberts is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He was a member of “Lawyers for Bush-Cheney” and served as a legal advisor to Jeb Bush during the recount in the 2000 presidential campaign. He has donated to the political campaigns of several Republican candidates, including one senator on the Judiciary Committee that will vote on Roberts’s nomination. He has spent most of his career as a corporate lawyer, and he comes to the Court with a partisan agenda.

At the end of the Supreme Court’s 2000 term, Roberts told a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, “The conventional wisdom is that this is a conservative court. We have to take that more skeptically. On the three issues the public was most interested in – school prayer, abortion and Miranda rights – the conservatives lost on all.” Sounds like wistful thinking.

It is incumbent upon the senators on the Judiciary Committee, and in the full Senate, to demand all pertinent records on Roberts from the Republican administrations in which he served. Senators must thoroughly interrogate Roberts about his views that could affect his lawmaking as a member of our highest court. They should ask him, for example, whether the Constitution has a right to privacy, and whether a woman’s reproductive freedom is entitled to constitutional protection.

Roberts is not brash and outspoken. But he may well be the iron fist in the velvet glove. Having spent his entire professional career as a hired gun for the right-wing, Roberts is unlikely to betray his social and political constituency.

Those who think Roberts is a moderate who will generate little controversy need only notice the reactions of Bush’s conservative religious backers. “The president is a man of his word,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a right-wing Christian organization. “He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done.” Operation Rescue President Troy Newman agrees. “We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed,” he announced.

It’s payback time, and Bush has delivered.

And by the way, Bush is a president who insists he is firmly committed to diversity. There have been 109 justices on the Supreme Court. Roberts will be the 105th white male. He will replace the first woman ever to sit on the High Court. That leaves only one.

blog

John Roberts: Umpire or Ideologue?

John Roberts: Uncompassionate Conservative

The Two Americas

Abu Ghraib General Lambastes Bush Administration

Why Bush Can’t Answer Cindy

The Murder of Casey Sheehan

Bush and the Bomb

Bush Defies Military, Congress on Torture

The Roberts Court?

Mr. Roberts’ Neighborhood

Research

recent posts

ICJ Set to Decide Whether Fueling Climate Change Violates International Law

Trump Is Using “Unitary Executive” Theory in His Bid to Amass Supreme Power

US Response to ICC Netanyahu Warrant Could Deal Death Blow to International Law

Post Categories