Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat

15

The Age 

A SENIOR Israeli diplomat has warned that Israel is ready to launch a military offensive against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

In an interview with The Age, Dan Gillerman, who was Israel’s permanent representative at the United Nations from 2003 until last September, said time for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear capability might have already expired.

“The world cannot afford to live with a nuclear Iran,” Mr Gillerman said. “I hope diplomacy will work, but I’m not sure we have the time for diplomacy to work.

“Israel has made it very clear that it will not live with a nuclear Iran and I believe that Israel has the ability and the capacity to make sure it will not happen.”

Mr Gillerman, who will visit Australia later this month, said two clocks were running with respect to Iran: “There is the technological clock of Iran and there is the diplomatic clock, and I think the Iranian clock is running much faster.”

Detailed military plans to bomb Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant have long been on the table of Israeli military commanders. Outgoing Defence Minister Ehud Barak is believed to have requested US support for a military strike last May, but the plans were aborted after then-president George Bush declined to endorse them.

Last June, Israel carried out military exercises over the Mediterranean involving more than 100 F-16 and F-15 fighters in what was interpreted as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran’s nuclear plants. At the time, The New York Times reported that as well as sending a warning to Tehran, the exercise was intended as a message to the US that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium faltered.

On Tuesday, the man likely to lead Israel’s next government, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, made a reference to Iran in his victory speech. He said: “Israel is facing an Iranian threat, from afar and from near. The nuclear threat and the terror threat … it will be up to us to deal with this, and we will be able to deal with these two challenges successfully.”

Israel has carried out two strikes on suspected nuclear sites over the past 30 years. In 1981, its jets bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, and in September 2007, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that was alleged to have housed a nuclear reactor.

Any new attack against Iran would be much more complicated, with the country’s uranium enrichment plants spread across many sites. Iran’s comparatively sophisticated military and its distance from Israel would present further complications for military planners and risk setting off a full-scale war.

Mr Gillerman said the world could not afford to underestimate the seriousness of the Iranian threat. “We have a very extreme, radical fundamentalist regime there with a president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) who denies the Holocaust while preparing the next one, and has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map. My advice to the rest of the world is to listen to him very carefully and take him at face value.”

The Banality of Corporate Evil

2

By Phil Mattera

Our culture worships spunky small businesses and entrepreneurship. Stewart Parnell epitomized that ideal and was living the good life in Lynchburg, Virginia until last month, when his Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) was linked to one of the biggest salmonella outbreaks–at least eight deaths and more than 500 illnesses–ever to occur in the United States.

According to federal officials, PCA knowingly shipped contaminated peanuts as well as peanut butter and paste on numerous occasions, including 32 truckloads meant for the school lunch program. PCA also provided tainted raw materials for many large food processors, which have issued a cascade of product recalls. PCA is now the subject of a criminal investigation, and this week Parnell (photo) was compelled to appear at a Congressional hearing, where he grim-facedly invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions.

He had reason to look grim. The House Energy and Commerce Committee released several e-mail messages sent by Parnell, including one in which he told his plant manager to make shipments (his exact words were “let’s turn them loose”) despite some test results showing evidence of salmonella. In another he complained that those problematic results were “costing us huge $$$$$.”

This was also a week when the chief executives of the country’s largest financial institutions were called before Congress and pelted with questions about bonuses paid out amid the massive federal bailout of the industry. But these days everyone expects executives of large corporations to be reprobates.

The Parnell situation is more chilling. He is the head of a privately held company with annual revenues of only about $25 million, which makes it a small business by contemporary standards. PCA had almost no public profile until last month, and Parnell’s only previous time in the national spotlight (though a much dimmer one) was in 2005, when Bush Administration Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns appointed him to the Peanut Standards Board. (Parnell was just ousted from the panel by the USDA, which also announced that it is seeking to debar PCA from doing business with the federal government.)

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, PCA was built by Parnell’s father, Hugh Parnell, as an outgrowth of his ice cream sandwich business. The company later got caught up in the takeover wave that swept through the small world of peanut processing. The Journal-Constitution reports that PCA was sold in 1995 to Morven Partners, the vehicle set up by billionaire investor John Kluge to take over various nut companies such as Jimbo’s Jumbos.

Jimbo’s, by the way, was mentioned in one of the e-mails released this week by the House. In it Parnell said: “We need to find out somehow what our competition (JIMBOS) is doing [about salmonella] and at the very least mimic their policy.”

Stewart Parnell and his brother Hugh Brian Parnell, the Journal-Constitution goes on to report, became management consultants for Morven until the late 1990s, when Stewart repurchased PCA.

Hugh Brian Parnell told reporters that work and family occupy his brother Stewart’s time. “He doesn’t drink, smoke or socialize,” Huge was quoted as saying. “He’s a family man. You never see him without a grandchild around.” The Associated Press quotes a neighbor of Stewart’s as saying: “He’s always been an upstanding, generous person and a pillar of the community.” Parnell and PCA didn’t have a much of a presence in the business community in Lynchburg, where the company has its modest headquarters. “This episode is the first time I’ve heard of them,” the president of the city’s chamber of commerce was quoted as saying.

Even less is known about Parnell’s associate David Royster III, who reportedly financed the acquisitions that allowed PCA to reach its current size. Royster is one of the younger members of a family that operates a variety of apparently respectable businesses in Shelby, North Carolina.

The apparent fact that supposed pillars of the community can engage in outrageously reckless business practices shows that there is sometimes a fine line between the aggressive pursuit of profit and behavior that can legitimately be called evil. Those who would venerate entrepreneurship should keep in mind that it can also have a dark side.

US intelligence chief: World capitalist crisis poses greatest threat

0

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Intelligence Thursday, Washington’s new director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, warned that the deepening world capitalist crisis posed the paramount threat to US national security and warned that its continuation could trigger a return to the “violent extremism” of the 1920s and 1930s.

This frank assessment, contained in the unclassified version of the “annual threat assessment” presented by Blair on behalf of 16 separate US intelligence agencies, represented a striking departure from earlier years, in which a supposedly ubiquitous threat from Al Qaeda terrorism and the two wars launched under the Bush administration topped the list of concerns.

Clearly underlying his remarks are fears within the massive US intelligence apparatus as well as among more conscious layers of the American ruling elite that a protracted economic crisis accompanied by rising unemployment and reduced social spending will trigger a global eruption of the class struggle and the threat of social revolution.

The presentation was not only the first for Blair, a former Navy admiral who took over as director of national intelligence only two weeks ago, but also marked the first detailed elaboration of the perspective of the US intelligence apparatus since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

“The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications,” Blair declared in his opening remarks. He continued: “The crisis has been ongoing for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression. Of course, all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, the instability, and high levels of violent extremism.”

Blair described the ongoing financial and economic meltdown as “the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries.”

“Time is probably our greatest threat,” he said. “The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to US strategic interests.”

The intelligence chief noted that “roughly a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instability such as government changes because of the current slowdown.” He added that the “bulk of anti-state demonstrations” internationally have been seen in Europe and the former Soviet Union.

But Blair stressed that the threat that the crisis will produce revolutionary upheavals is global. The financial meltdown, he said, is “likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging market nations over the next year.” He added that “much of Latin America, former Soviet Union states and sub-Saharan Africa lack sufficient cash reserves, access to international aid or credit, or other coping mechanism.”

Noting that economic growth in these regions of the globe had fallen dramatically in recent months, Blair stated, “When those growth rates go down, my gut tells me that there are going to be problems coming out of that, and we’re looking for that.” He cited “statistical modeling” showing that “economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they persist over a one to two year period.”

In another parallel to the 1930s, the US intelligence director pointed to the implications of the crisis for world trade and relations between national capitalist economies. “The globally synchronized nature of this slowdown means that countries will not be able to export their way out of this recession,” he said. “Indeed, policies designed to promote domestic export industries–so-called beggar-thy-neighbor policies such as competitive currency devaluations, import tariffs, and/or export subsidies–risk unleashing a wave of destructive protectionism.”

It was precisely such policies pursued in the 1930s that set the stage for the eruption of the Second World War.

Blair also raised the damage that the crisis has done to the global credibility of American capitalism, declaring that the “widely held perception that excesses in US financial markets and inadequate regulation were responsible has increased criticism about free market policies, which may make it difficult to achieve long-time US objectives.” The collapse of Wall Street, he added, “has increased questioning of US stewardship of the global economy and the international financial structure.”

The threat assessment also included evaluations of potential terrorist threats, the “arc of instability” stretching from the Middle East to South Asia, conditions in Latin America and Africa and strategic challenges from both China and Russia, centering in Eurasia. It likewise dealt with the war in Afghanistan, which the Obama administration is preparing to escalate, providing a scathing assessment of the Karzai regime in Kabul and the familiar demand for an escalation of the intervention in Pakistan. Nonetheless, the report’s undeniable focus was on the danger that economic turmoil will ignite revolutionary challenges on a world scale.

Blair’s emphasis on the global capitalist crisis as the overriding national security concern for American imperialism seemed to leave some of the Senate intelligence panel’s members taken aback. They have been accustomed over the last seven years to having all US national security issues subsumed in the “global war on terrorism,” a propaganda catch-all used to justify US aggression abroad while papering over the immense contradictions underlying Washington’s global position.

The committee’s Republican vice chairman, Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri, expressed his concern that Blair was making the “conditions in the country” and the global economic crisis “the primary focus of the intelligence community.”

Blair responded that he was “trying to act as your intelligence officer today, telling you what I thought the Senate ought to be caring about.” It sounded like a rebuke and a warning to the senators that it is high time to ditch the ideological baggage of the past several years and confront the real and growing threat to capitalist rule posed by the crisis and the resulting radicalization of the masses in country after country.

It may have been lost on some of those sitting at the dais in the Senate hearing room, but when Blair referred to a return to the conditions of “violent extremism” of the 1920s and 1930s, he was warning that American and world capitalism once again faces the specter of a revolutionary challenge by the working class.

There is no doubt that behind the façade of Obama, the US national security apparatus is making its counter-revolutionary preparations accordingly.

Including Blair, Obama has named three recently retired four-star military officers to serve in his cabinet. The other two are former Marine Gen. James Jones, his national security adviser, and former Army chief of staff Gen. Erik Shinseki, his secretary of veterans affairs. This unprecedented representation of the senior officer corps within the new Democratic administration is indicative of a growth in the political power of the US military that poses a serious threat to basic democratic rights.

A report that appeared in a magazine published by the US Army War College last November, just weeks after the election, indicates that the Pentagon and the US intelligence establishment are preparing for what they see as a historic crisis of the existing order that could require the use of armed force to quell social struggles at home.

Entitled “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,” the monograph insists that one of the key contingencies for which the US military must prepare is a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.”

The report states: “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order… An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home.”

In other words, a sharp intensification of the unfolding capitalist crisis accompanied by an eruption of class struggle and the threat of social revolution in the US itself could force the Pentagon to call back its expeditionary armies from Iraq and Afghanistan for use against American workers.

The document continues: “Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD [the Department of Defense] would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.” The phrase–”an essential enabling hub for continuity of authority”–is a euphemism for military dictatorship.

The working class must draw its own urgent conclusions from the rapid deepening of the present crisis, above all the necessity of building a mass independent political party based on a socialist and internationalist program and fighting to put an end to the capitalist profit system. This means, above all, joining and building the Socialist Equality Party.

Bill Van Auken

Menezes killers won’t be prosecuted

1

By PAUL HASTE 

THE family of Jean Charles de Menezes slammed the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision on Friday to let the Brazilian migrant worker’s police killers go free as “shocking and morally reprehensible.”

After reviewing the evidence given to the December inquest into Mr de Menezes’s death, the service declared that none of the police officers will be prosecuted.

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head at Stockwell Tube station in 2005.

The inquest jury returned an open verdict – the most damning judgement possible – on the Metropolitan Police officers responsible for the killing, after a judge denied them the option of returning an unlawful killing verdict.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) senior lawyer Stephen O’Doherty admitted that the jury did not believe the two officers identified as firing the shots that killed Mr de Menezes when they claimed that they were sure the Brazilian electrician was an Islamic terrorist about to explode a suicide bomb.

But Mr Doherty argued that “inconsistencies” in accounts given by other witnesses created enough doubt about the officers’ actions that there was “insufficient evidence that they had committed any offence.

“I concluded that, in the confusion of what occurred on the day, a jury could not be sure that any officer had deliberately given a false account of events,” he said.

“I also considered whether there was sufficient evidence to charge any of them with gross negligence manslaughter, but there was no fresh evidence from the inquest which caused me to change my original decision,” he insisted.

But the de Menezes family said they were appalled at this latest refusal by legal authorities to recognise the killing as a crime.

Mr de Menezes’s cousin Vivian Figuierdo said that the decision was deeply upsetting to the family.

“The CPS have not met with us or our lawyers about this – we have been totally shut out of the process again. We are all in shock and simply cannot understand how the deliberate killing of an innocent man and an attempt by the Metropolitan Police to cover it up does not result in a criminal offence.

“We condemn the CPS decision and reject the logic of their argument,” she said.

The de Menezes family solicitor Harriet Wistrich said: “We are disappointed that the CPS have communicated their decision to the media before providing the family with any warning that a decision was about to be made.”

Blackwater tries to rebrand itself

0

Blackwater Sheds Name, Shifts Focus

By Dana Hedgpeth

Blackwater Worldwide, a private security company whose work in Iraq was plagued by trouble, said yesterday that it is changing its name to Xe as it shifts its business focus.

The company, based in Moyock, N.C., has more than a dozen business units that are owned by Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and heir to an industrial fortune. Prince grew the company over the past decade from a small firm that offered training for law enforcement and small military units to landing part of a lucrative State Department contract to provide security in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Its work in those countries was plagued with problems. In 2004, four of Blackwater’s guards were ambushed by insurgents in Fallujah. The company made headlines again on Sept. 16, 2007, during a chaotic confrontation in downtown Baghdad, when Blackwater contractors allegedly shot and killed 17 Iraqis in a crowded square. That incident led to congressional inquiries and protests that it be removed from the country. Last month, the Iraqi government refused to issue a new operating license to Blackwater, and the firm is winding down its work there.

In a memo to employees, the company said its main focus will be on operating training facilities.

Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for the company, said it was changing its name because “the idea is to define the company as what it is today and not what it used to be.”

“We’ve taken the company to a place where it is no longer accurately described as Blackwater,” she said.

Tyrrell said there is no meaning to the new name, which is pronounced “zee.” “It was just a choice of a name,” she said. “We thought of it internally.” Xe is also the chemical symbol for the element xenon.

The company got its start in July 1996, when Prince used about $900,000 of his share from selling off his father’s auto parts business to begin buying up land for a training facility in North Carolina, not far from Norfolk. The company’s name — Blackwater — was inspired by the dark, brackish water on the land, near the Great Dismal Swamp.

Tyrrell said the company spent over a year searching for a new name before choosing Xe. She said the Blackwater name is being shed from all business units. Blackwater Airships, which offers surveillance services for intelligence gathering, becomes Guardian Flight Systems. Blackwater Target Systems, the unit that develops and builds targets, is now known as GSD Manufacturing. The most well-known part of the business — Blackwater Lodge and Training Center — will now be called U.S. Training Center.

Company executives have also taken on new positions. Gary Jackson, longtime president of Blackwater Lodge and Training, is now president of Xe.

RJ Hillhouse, a national security expert and author of the blog called The Spy Who Billed Me, said the company is “obviously trying to distance itself from their image as reckless cowboys that’s etched into the world’s mind from the September shooting. With a new name, “there are a lot of people who probably won’t connect the dots,” she said. “In a year or two, people won’t remember that’s Blackwater.”

UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on drugs

10
On Monday, Jacqui Smith, the UK Home secretary severely criticised a report by the Government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs which recommended downgrading the controlled drug Ecstasy from a Class A drug to Class B. She was particularly incensed by the statement of Professor David Nutt, who wrote: “Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy.”
His point, of course, was that the numbers of casualties per year from the two activities were of a similar order. Had he compared the number of Ecstasy related deaths with say, deaths from prescription drugs, then it would be seen to be nearly ten times as many, even in 2001.
Professor Nutt went on to say: “This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates – indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use.”

How dare that Nutt compare such things! the Home Secretary may have thought, before reflecting that if number of deaths led to greater regulation, then approximately 3000 deaths a year because of cars might mean some huge social changes in the works. Imagine if Mobile Phone masts, Pesticides in Food, Heavy Metals in the Water Supply and Booze and Tobacco were all added to that regulated mix!

But no, Ms. Smith would prefer to listen to, and was probably coached by the same person who informed another non-scientist, Home Office Minister Alan Campbell who claimed “Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably” and “there is no such thing as a ‘safe dose’” and that the government had a “duty” to protect the public.
No duty to back up outrageous claims with hard scientific data, then? Or even tell the truth for a change?

But we shouldn’t be at all surprised. It was only in May 2008 that the Home Secretary decided to upgrade Cannabis from Class C to Class B, once again against the advice of scientists, or as they are called in the trade, ‘people who actually have a clue what they’re talking about.’
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report, in which they recommended against the upgrading of Cannabis to Class B, was completely ignored, and Ms. Smith told the House of Commons: “Reclassification reflects the fact that skunk, a much stronger type of the drug, now dominates the cannabis market.”
Her information comes, it appears from the non-scientist Gordon Brown, who made claims of skunk’s “more lethal quality”, that it was a “gateway drug” and that it should be upgraded to “send a message to young people that it was unacceptable”. No scientific data about the number of deaths due to its “more lethal quality” were forthcoming.

An Independent group, The UK Drug Policy Commission in a separate white paper of January 2008 (pdf file) said:

“Our overall conclusion is that we find no compelling new evidence which would require the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) to alter its recommendation in 2006 to keep cannabis classified as Class C.”

and:

“Cannabis can undoubtedly cause harms and we appreciate the concerns expressed by politicians and members of the public. However, the current C classification remains an appropriate and proportionate response and there appears to be little to gain from reclassification. Evidence does not support the view that it would further help to “protect society and individuals from the harmful effect of illicit drugs”, which would be the main objective as outlined in the Home Secretary’s July 2007 letter.”

The report also categorically denied that there was any evidence to support Gordon Brown’s “gateway drug” hypothesis.

So could Home Secretary Jacqui Smith really be avoiding the intelligent pronouncements of distinguished scientists in order to “protect society and individuals from the harmful effect of illicit drugs”?
As much as it would be wonderful to believe that Ms. Smith stands on such moral high ground that we could fool ourselves into believing that she’s out there to protect us, it seems morality is not one of her biggest virtues.

For this is the Home Secretary who said that Police should harass young thugs, who lied blatantly about improved knife-crime figures, who covered up the fact that illegal immigrants were working in sensitive security jobs in Whitehall, something that has still not been addressed and who was met with laughter and uproar when she suggested that the public would be as happy to have a PCSO (a community support officer or trumped up traffic warden) as a proper bobby on the beat.

This is the same Home Secretary who wishes to spend valuable taxpayers money on ID cards that have been almost universally condemned by others because: “I believe there is a demand, now, for cards – and as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don’t want to wait that long.”
One has to wonder whether those people who didn’t want to wait were her special supporters, like Mr.Richard Timney who wrote such nice letters defending her in the Redditch Advertiser, a local newspaper in Smith’s constituency and who turned out to be Jacqui Smith’s husband or Patricia Hill who praised her in a national newspaper, saying “I recently lost my mum and Jacqui wrote a personal letter to me. She cares about us in Redditch” but who neglected to mention that she was Jacqui’s long time friend and a Labour Councillor for four years.
The NO2ID campaign’s National Coordinator, Phil Booth, refuted her claims of people asking her for ID cards, stating: “She must be ignoring twice the number of people who are coming up to her and saying I don’t want my details on any database whatsoever.”

And now, to top it all, it is clear that she has been morally bankrupt by claiming expenses to pay for her £300,000 home in the West Midlands by staying at her sister’s as a lodger. The £116,000 she siphoned off from the taxpayer paid for over a third of her property. That’s what we call barely legal government perks.

So…if it is not the moral implications of drugs that are at the heart of Jacqui Smith’s anti-drug policies, then what could it be?

Perhaps it is because she has a history of ignoring reports from specialists and scientists?
Back in 2003, while MP for Redditch, Jacqui Smith obviously ignored the warnings of the non-existence of Iraqi WMDs by the late Doctor David Kelly as she voted very strongly for the Iraq war , andunsurprisingly enough, strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war, which the world is in no doubt now was totally based on lies. Would it be too much to believe that she also voted strongly against a transparent Parliament? Got to keep those lies hidden somehow, right?

But perhaps the reason for her anti-drug policies is something different.
A recent Horizon program from British Government Propaganda mouthpiece The BBC attempted to explore the realities of cannabis-induced schizophrenia in “Cannabis: The Evil Weed?” (available here on BBC iPlayer). The best they could come up with was a man who sits doing nothing all day long and blames cannabis for his apathy, and a woman who claims that her son, who smoked cannabis and later went schizophrenic while his brothers who allegedly didn’t smoke it and didn’t show symptoms, is proof that it must be the cannabis that is responsible.
Didn’t she even know that studies have shown that people with addictive behaviours and yes, even schizophrenia, are attracted to drugs by their very nature? The mother herself was obviously crazy even though the program wasn’t about her.

Perhaps we can help back up their meagre claims by adding a third possible ‘victim’ of cannabis psychosis.

You guessed it, UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith admitted that yes, she smoked cannabis while at Oxford University. She claims that over the past 25 years the dangers of cannabis have become clearer, including the mental health dangers of cannabis and the increasing strength of the drug.

Not that we don’t believe her after all those half and non-truths she’s been telling the public for some time, but it really could be the case that she is the third person ever to have developed severe psychosis from smoking cannabis. After all, it’s been around for thousands of years with no proven evidence of medical or psychological harm, and any old hippie will tell you that ‘dope’ was always stronger in the old days, for instance, Thai sticks and Sinsemilla which were both equal in strength to anything around today, so the whole concept of newer dope being stronger and creating psychosis is just a red herring.

Why she denies wholesome scientific reports to further her agenda in her Big Fat Drug War is still a mystery.
As for Professor David Nutt, I hope he learns how to make reports that please the government, as I’d hate to hear that he was “found in the woods” like a certain Doctor Kelly.

© 2009 The Initiatrix.

Revealed: Pentagon’s secret prisons, legal loopholes and CIA ‘ghost’ detainees

0

By Stephen C. Webster

Three major human rights organizations have declared the Department of Defense was running secret prisons at Bagram and in Iraq, actively sought ways around the terms of the Geneva conventions and cooperated with the CIA’s “ghost detention” program which saw prisoners hidden from Red Cross oversight.

The arrival of the documents comes on the same day the ACLU published two unredacted pages of a government report which reveals detainees in US custody were tortured to death

“These newly released documents confirm our suspicion that the tentacles of the CIA’s abusive program reached across agency lines,” said Margaret Satterthwaite, Director of the NYU International Human Rights Clinic, in a Thursday advisory. “In fact, it is increasingly obvious that defense officials engaged in legal gymnastics to find ways to cooperate with the CIA’s activities. A full accounting of all agencies must now take place to ensure that future abuses don’t continue under a different guise.”

The papers, part of a volley of responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, were released by Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.

The entire package, which encompasses hundreds of pages, was boiled down to several key points by the CCR in a report by Mother Jones writer Steve Aquino.

“One heavily redacted page mentions (PDF, page 34) an ‘undisclosed detention facility’ at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan,” he noted.

“Another, dated May 2004, highlights (PDF, page 17) how the Geneva Conventions can be interpreted to allow the CIA and the DoD to ghost detainees’ identities so they can be denied a visit from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

“This was done, according to a memo from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to ‘maximize intelligence collection efforts.’ In other words, give them more time to interrogate inmates.”

And perhaps most outrageous, a Feb. 2006 e-mail disclosed by the groups highlights an effort to limit bad press by delaying the release of a detainee “for 45 days or so until things cool down.”

“It is astonishing that the government may have delayed releasing men from Guantánamo in order to avoid bad press,” said CCR attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez, who represents many of the men held in Guantánamo, in an Amnesty International release. “Proposing to hold men for a month and a half after they were deemed releasable is inexcusable. The Obama Administration should avoid repeating this injustice and release the innocent individuals with all due haste.”

“Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Thursday that he had not seen the documents and wasn’t aware of the story,” reported CNN.

After Washington Post reporter Dana Priest revealed the existence of the CIA’s secret prisons in a November 2005 report, RAW STORY was the first publication to uncover the exact location of one such “black site” in Eastern Europe.

President Obama has signed an order mandating the closure of the CIA’s secret prisons and the US military prison Guantanamo Bay within a year of Jan. 22, 2009.

A Short History of US Government Handouts

0

By Stephen Lendman

Global economies are withering while Washington conceives “Financial Recovery Plan(s) from Hell,” according to economist Michael Hudson in his latest February 11 article. Bankers demand more trillions, “or (they’ll) plunge the economy into financial crisis.” What they want they’ll get, and here’s where things now stand.

On February 10, Bloomberg.com reported that Treasury Secretary Geithner “pledged government financing for as much as $2 trillion….to spur new lending and address banks’ toxic assets, seeking to end the credit crunch hobbling the economy.” Hudson calls it “Stage One of a two-stage plan,” so far unannounced, to transfer trillions more to corrupt bankers who caused the problem in the first place, yet taxpayers will get little more back than the bill.

On February 11, The New York Times reported that “House and Senate leaders….struck a deal on a $789 billion economic stimulus bill after little more than 24 hours of rapid-fire negotiations….clearing the way for final Congressional action later this week (so) Obama (can) sign the bill on” February 16 in a prime time TV spectacular.

In America today, they’re called bailouts, but throughout history they were handouts. Some quite generous (though nothing like today’s) and always for the privileged. Never for the public interest or greater good.

Last October, Howard Zinn wrote about them in his Nation magazine article titled “Bailout – A Great Opportunity:”

“Let’s face a historical truth: we have never had a ‘free market,’ we have always had government intervention in the economy, and indeed that intervention has been welcomed by the captains of finance and industry. These titans of wealth hypocritically warned against ‘big government’ but only when (it) threatened to regulate their activities, or when it contemplated passing some of the nation’s wealth on to the neediest people.”

“They had no quarrel with ‘big government’ when it served their needs, (and it) started way back” in 1787 when the Constitution was drafted. The year before farmers from Western Massachusetts and elsewhere rebelled to protect their properties from being seized for nonpayment of taxes. The Founders took note and “created ‘big government’ powerful enough” to deter them in future incidents. To return runaway slaves to their owners, and to massacre Indians to make way for new settlers.

They established the idea of handouts as well. The first one to pay full value for near-worthless bonds held by speculators – an earlier version of buying today’s toxic assets.

It was bad enough, then compounded by taxing the public to pay for them each time, and having a standing army ready in case of resistance. What precisely happened in 1794 when Pennsylvania farmers stood up against unfair tax laws.

“In the first sessions of the first Congress,” markets were manipulated with tariffs “to subsidize manufacturers.” Government also partnered with private banks to establish a national one. These practices were commonplace from that time to now. Only the amounts get bigger. The more concentrated business gets, the greater its appetite and more power it has to satisfy it. It’s now insatiable enough to demand trillions more in handouts before the current crisis ends, looted from the Treasury with taxpayers getting the bill.

Zinn notes how in the 19th century government subsidized canals, the merchant marine, and before and during the Civil War gave about 100 million free acres of land to the railroad barons “along with considerable loans to keep” them in business. It was the largest ever giveaway until Paulson’s-engineered Wall Street one, and as stated above, lots more is coming, and much of it still ahead.

Democrats back it more than Republicans. Another long-standing tradition from the republic’s beginning, as Zinn again noted. He cited Democrat Grover Cleveland vetoing “a bill to give (a mere) $100,000 to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought, saying (dismissively): ‘Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.’ ” However, in the same year he gave wealthy bondholders $5 million by pricing them $28 above market value. “Rugged individualism” he called it to make it on our own with a little government intervention for assistance. Only for business. Never the public.

After WW II, military Keynesianism became dogma. Aircraft and other defense industries had to be saved and another Depression avoided. The oil industry got its depletion allowance. Chrysler was resurrected from the dead. Continental Illinois Bank was taken over until sold to Bank of America. Business was shored up overall by the 1971 Emergency Loan Guarantee Act. Post-9/11, the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act was for the airlines. Today it’s rescuing Wall Street and major banks, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, the auto giants, and any other “too big to fail” company. Generous government handouts to revive America’s business, or at least that’s the hope behind them.

Historian Charles Beard’s Documented History of Handouts

In December 1931, noted historian Charles Beard wrote about them for Harper’s Monthly in an article titled: “The Myth of Rugged American Individualism.” He documented 15 examples of government handouts/subsidies to business when the country was sinking into Depression.

(1) Government Regulation of Railways from 1887

Beard asked: “How did the Government get into this business?” At the “insistence of business men, shippers, who were harassed and sometimes ruined by railway tactics.” Through rebates, pools, stock watering, bankruptcy-juggling, savage rate slashing, merciless competition, and much more by some of the most cutthroad of all robber barons. They caused disastrous railway bankruptcies involving bloodshed and arson during the Panic of 1873, the result of financier Jim Fisk and railroad baron Jay Gould trying to corner the gold market. Ulysses S. Grant deterred them. A panic ensued and depression followed – two years after the great Chicago fire destroyed four square miles of the city, including close to where this writer lives.

(2) Waterways

Since the nation’s founding, the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding the development of rivers, harbors, canals, and other infrastructure, and continues to do it for business. “Who (was) back of all this,” Beard asked? “Business men and farmers who want lower freight rates. There is not a chamber of commerce on any Buck Creek in America that will not cheer until tonsils are cracked for any proposal to make the said creek navigable.” Dredging companies also backed it and companies making their machinery.

Beyond Beard’s timeline, the Eisenhower administration began building the Interstate Highway System at the behest of the auto industry, but its origin way pre-dated him with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1938. Then another Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. Still another in 1952 and under Eisenhower one more plus the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 that created the Highway Trust Fund to pay for the proposed 41,000 miles of roads (up to almost 47,000 by 2004).

(3) The United States Barge Corporation

Again Beard asked: “Who got the Government into the job of running barges on some of its improved waterways?” Not socialists. Good Republicans and Democrats representing the country’s business interests.

(4) The Shipping Business

WW I was the proximate cause. For over half a century government stayed out of subsidizing ship builders and allied industries. “Under the cover of war necessities,” it went into the business with much joy from the industry. It backed huge merchant marine expenditures in the form of cheap or subsidized funding, and did it by spending money “like water educating politicians.” What today we call lobbying.

Beard asked: “Who wants navy officers on half pay to serve on privately owned ships? Business men. Who wants the Government to keep on operating ships on ‘pioneer’ lines that do not pay? Business men. And when the United States Senate gets around to investigating this branch of business, it will find more entertainment than the Trade Commission has found in the utility inquest.” In other words, if Congress ever has second thoughts, it’ll be too late. Business will have pocketed their money and used it.

(5) Aviation

Government was already in this business by providing costly airway services free of charge and by subsidizing air mail. Once again, private enterprise was behind the whole scheme, or as Beard put it: “Gentlemen engaged in aviation and the manufacture of planes and dirigibles.” Government merely helped out by buying planes “for national defense” or whatever other reason it chose.

(6) Canals

Consider the Panama Canal, for example. East and West coast shippers backed it because of costly railroad rates. Others with a financial interest in the Cape Cod Canal found that one unprofitable. “They rejoiced to see (that) burden placed on the broad back of our dear Uncle Sam” to bail them out.

(7) Highway Building

Even in Beard’s day, “business men engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobiles and trucks” wanted the government to spend hundreds of millions on roads and tax railroads to help pay for them. With a touch of humor, Beard asked: “Who proposes to cut off every cent of that outlay? Echoes do not answer.”

(8) The Department of Commerce

Its very name defines its purpose. To promote what Calvin Coolidge called “the business of America.” A process Beard described going on in its “magnificent mansion near the Treasury Department, and its army of hustlers scouting for business at the uttermost ends of the earth. Who is responsible for loading on the Government the job of big drummer at large for business? Why shouldn’t these rugged individualists do their own drumming instead of asking taxpayers to do it for them?” Herbert Hoover headed the department at the time and outdid all his predecessors in dispensing public money. The same president Herbert Hoover we blame for his public stinginess after the country headed into Depression on his watch.

(9) The Big Pork Barrel

It’s been around for ages and entered into the vocabulary after the Civil War. It was named after a container to store pig meat in brine, and in 1801 a farmer’s almanac urged readers to “mind our pork and cider barrels.” Its need went out with refrigeration but got new life in reference to political bills bringing home the bacon for constituents. For all sorts of things like post offices, rivers, harbors, buildings, and a whole array of boondoggle projects and giveaways. Beard cited public buildings, navy yards and army posts with business interests every time the beneficiaries.

(10) The Bureau of Standards (NBS)

It’s now called the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and was originally established in 1901 as a measurement standards lab under the Department of Commerce to promote US innovation and industrial competitiveness. Given its purpose was to help business, Beard asked: “Why shouldn’t they do their own (promoting) at their own expense, instead of turning to the Government?”

(11) The Federal Trade Commission

In 1914, it was established as an independent US government agency. While claiming its principle mission is to promote “consumer protection,” it exists solely for business and in Beard’s day for “business men who do not like to be outwitted or cheated by their competitors.” Why so for “rugged individualists,” he asked? Why not let them all do as they please “without invoking government intervention at public expense” and no public benefit.

(12) The Anti-trust Acts

Beard refers to the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act and 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act – trustbusting legislation of their day to defuse anti-competititive practices. Today they’re mere artifacts at a time business oligopolies and de facto monopolies dominate all major industry groups and are practically omnipotent. It’s why Chomsky calls them “private tryannies.”

Earlier, businesses complained that these laws constrained them and their ability to do large-scale planning without risking prosecution. Yet farmers and small business wanted them. The former for lower prices. The latter so as not to be undersold, “beaten by clever tricks, or crushed to the wall by competitors with immense capital.”

Individualism inspired both acts, what Woodrow Wilson called “The New Freedom. Break up the trusts,” he said, “and let each tub stand on its own bottom.” That’s how small businessmen felt. Lawyers representing them put it differently: “The natural person’s personal liberty should not be destroyed by artificial persons known as corporations created under the auspices of the State.”

(13) The Tariff

They go back to the 18th century and were the government’s largest source of revenue from the 1790s until WW I. Once income taxes became law in 1913, that changed although taxing income was used during the Civil War and again in the 1890s.

Beard referred to tariffs as the kind of “interference” business men demanded to protect their interests while at the same time wanting “the right of capital to find its most lucrative course, industry and intelligence their natural reward, and commodities their fair price.” The idea of “free trade” then was about the way it is now. One way with government protecting business against foreign competition, heavily by tariffs back then. More today by the WTO, NAFTA and the like. Beard’s response: “If competition is good, why not stand up and take it?”

(14) The Federal Farm Board

It was created in 1929 so was quite new when Beard wrote about it. He called it a “collectivist institution” and a product of “agrarian agitation on the part of our most stalwart individualists, the free and independent farmers.” Hoover sponsored it and signed it into law, but under him its measures were modest at best. It primarily and fundamentally stabilized prices and production through cooperative methods. It financed associations to limit production. The alternative was to let farmers produce what they wish, as much as they could, and sell it at whatever the market would bear. It’s slogan was “Grow Less – Get More,” cooperate under government leadership or hang separately.

(15) The Moratorium and Frozen Assets

It was a Herbert Hoover plan for a one-year moratorium on payments due the US from foreign powers at a time of growing economic duress as well as a “proposal to give public support to ‘frozen assets.’ ” Its “inspiration” was the jam American investment bankers were in. They made easy money in the 1920s, were now in trouble, and wanted government bailout help.

In 1927, a distinguished German economist told Beard that “the great game in his country, as in other parts of Europe, was to borrow billions from private bankers in the US, so that it would ultimately be impossible to pay reparations, the debts due the Federal Government, and then the debts owed to private parties.” As a result, they believed bankers would force their government to forego its claims for the benefit of private operators. It worked, and according to Beard: “American taxpayers (were) to be soaked and American bankers (were) to collect – perhaps.”

What then is a “frozen asset?” A piece of paper representing a transaction expecting to yield a larger return than possible on a prudent investment. For example, a 7% Western farm mortgage at the time was frozen tight and its holder with it. But why should government have to intervene to save them from “their folly and greed? No reason, except that (investors) want the Government to bring home their cake so they can eat it.”

Beard stressed that “the Federal government does not operate in a vacuum, but under impulsion from without.” From “rugged individualists – business men or farmers or both….The Government operates continually in the midst of the most powerful assembly of lobbyists the world has ever seen.” Representing every business interest “above the level of a corner grocery. For forty years or more there has not been a President, Republican or Democrat, who has not talked against government interference and then supported measures adding more interference to the huge collection already accumulated.”

Woodrow Wilson, for example. He based his 1912 campaign on individualism. A new freedom against corporate wealth controlling government. As a Jeffersonianism heir, “he decried paternalism of every kind.” But look at the laws enacted under him:

  • the Federal Reserve Act subverting the Constitution by giving a private banking cartel the right to print money, control its supply and price, and charge government interest on what it would not have to pay if it printed its own;
  • the Federal income tax to service the federal debt owed to bankers;
  • the trainmen’s law virtually fixing wages on interstate railways for certain classes of employees;
  • the shipping board law that put the government in the shipping business and let it regulate rates;
  • the Farm Loan Act that established 12 regional Farm Loan Banks to serve members of Farm Loan Associations;
  • federal aid for highway construction;
  • the Alaskan railway;
  • the Water Power Act that created a Federal Power Commission with extensive authority over waterways and the construction and use of water power projects; and
  • various other acts belying the notion of “the less government the better” so increasingly more of it for business became the law of the land.

Republicans regained power in the early 1920s on a slogan of returning to normalcy and getting government out of business. In fact, they repealed none of Wilson’s laws. They and their ideological forebears “came honestly by subsidies, bounties, internal improvements, tariffs, and other aids to business.” It was their kind of normalcy. Individualism, with no interference, lots of handouts, and nothing changed under Republican and Democrat administrations through today.

Handouts to Business: the American Way of Life

American business is defined by Socialized costs and privatized profits – more than ever today with trillions in handouts plus all sorts of other generous benefits:

  • subsidies and other direct grants;
  • tax breaks, reductions, deductions, exclusions, write-offs, exemptions, credits, loopholes, shelters, and rebates even for profitable companies; the bigger they are, the more they get;
  • letting corporations be headquartered off-shore and pay no federal income taxes; allowed to repatriate foreign earnings on the same basis; export jobs and erode the nation’s industrial base; financialize the economy; make it a casino, and loot the Treasury to cover their bad bets;
  • large government contracts of every imaginable kind; some on a cost-plus basis with every incentive to cheat and get more;
  • discounted user fees or subsidized use of public resources;
  • free government-funded R & D;
  • various other government direct payments; every cabinet department as a conduit for government funding to private business; every program from the Department of Commerce, Agriculture and others underwrites it; the FDA for Big Pharma; the FCC for media and telecommunications firms; the FAA for the airlines, the Treasury and Fed for Wall Street, and so forth; the most active “peoples” agency is the IRS;
  • other subsidies like accelerated depreciation; the cost of advertising; direct aid for companies that advertise abroad; and much more with Democrats as pro-business as Republicans while at the same time curtailing essential social benefits;
  • individual tax breaks for the rich; winking and nodding about billions offshored to tax havens; letting corporate fraud and abuse become the national pastime;
  • privatizing more of what government should do and/or does best – schools, highways, bridges, airports, prisons, public lands, utilities, the running of elections, foreign policy, parts of the military, war through the use of mercenaries, outer space, and thus far a failed attempt to take away the most important poverty reduction program for seniors and the disabled – Social Security;
  • privatizing wealth and socializing debt;
  • abolishing welfare and other social benefits; rendering organized labor impotent in a “Walmartized” society; ruling by the doctrine of rewarding the privileged at the expense of beneficial social change; the greater good; government for the people; human need; and the democratic ideal that government should serve all its people, not just its preferential few.

Beard’s “rugged individualism” is pure myth for them. But, rugged or otherwise, it’s the consigned fate for the rest of us – sink or swim at a time a lot of us are submerging.

Poll: Most want inquiry into anti-terror tactics

0
WASHINGTON – Even as Americans struggle with two wars and an economy in tatters, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds majorities in favor of investigating some of the thorniest unfinished business from the Bush administration: Whether its tactics in the “war on terror” broke the law.

Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.

 

Even more people want action on alleged attempts by the Bush team to use the Justice Department for political purposes. Four in 10 favored a criminal probe, three in 10 an independent panel, and 25% neither.

The ACLU and other groups are pressing for inquiries into whether the Bush administration violated U.S. and international bans on torture and the constitutional right to privacy. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and his Senate counterpart, Patrick Leahy, have proposed commissions to investigate.

Asked Monday about Leahy’s plan, President Obama said he would look at it. He added, “my general orientation is to say, let’s get it right moving forward.” Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have declined to rule out prosecutions. Leon Panetta, named to head the CIA, said this month that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for harsh interrogations authorized by the Bush White House.

Leahy, D-Vt., this week proposed a “truth commission” to assemble facts. He said the panel could offer immunity from prosecution for everything but perjury. “We need to get to the bottom of what happened and why,” he said.

Conyers, D-Mich., has called for a panel that would gather facts and make recommendations, and could possibly lead to prosecutions. “This isn’t payback,” he said. “We are getting things straightened out for the future.”

The Republican viewpoint was summed up recently by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. “If every administration started to re-examine what every prior administration did, there would be no end to it,” he said. “This is not Latin America.”

The politics of any investigation would be delicate. “You’d need people who haven’t made up their minds,” says Tom Kean, a Republican who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission.

Student occupations for Gaza spread

0

By JAMES TWEEDIE

STUDENT occupations spread across the country on Thursday in the latest wave of protests against Israel’s siege of Gaza.

Angry undergraduates are demanding that their universities cut all ties with Israel over its 22-day onslaught on the besieged Gaza Strip, which killed over 1,300 Palestinians, 400 children among them.

A meeting of over 1,000 students at Manchester University’s student union on Wednesday night passed a resolution comparing Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.

It called on the union to divest from Israel, boycott all companies which support or benefit from the Israeli occupation and lobby the university to adopt a similar policy.

Protesters at Glasgow University celebrated victory on Thursday after ending their marathon 55-hour occupation on Wednesday night.

University principal Sir Muir Russell agreed to organise collections for the Disasters Emergency Committee fund for Gaza, publicise its scholarships for the territory and find ways to help the bombed Islamic University of Gaza.

Students at Goldsmith’s University in south-east London continued their occupation of nearby Deptford town hall on Thursday, which began on Wednesday night, to secure two masters degree scholarships for Palestinian students.

A lecture theatre sit-in at Edinburgh University entered its second day without incident.

Students demanded that the university divest from Israel and from arms companies QinetiQ and BAE systems, send material to war-damaged schools and hospitals and provide five scholarships for Gazan students.

Occupations also continued at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

At Sheffield Hallam University, students protested against the student union president’s decision to suspend equal opportunities officer Matt Vicary for taking part in a solidarity demonstration at a recent National Union of Students conference and the union’s failure to condemn university threats to suspend students involved in a recent occupation.

Beginning with a 24-hour occupation at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London on January 13, the sit-ins have spread to the London School of Economics, King’s College London, Queen Mary University of London, Kingston and Goldsmiths in the capital and across the country to universities in Birmingham, Sussex, Warwick, Manchester, Manchester, Oxford, Leeds, Cambridge, Sheffield, Bradford, Nottingham, Strathclyde, Newcastle and Glasgow.

Bosses to union: You are to blame for dead workers

1

By PAUL HASTE

WORKERS reacted with fury on Thursday after bosses made the incredible claim that unions were to blame for workplace deaths.

After the government revealed the failure of a voluntary code intended to reduce accidents at work, bosses’ club the Institute of Directors (IoD) bizarrely accused unions of “not being as committed as they could have” to helping executives prevent injuries to their workers.

IoD parliamentary and regulatory spokesman Alexander Ehmannit claimed that it was the fault of the unions that the code, brought in by new Labour ministers anxious to avoid imposing a compulsory corporate manslaughter law on the bosses, had failed.

Responding to the Health and Safety Executive’s findings that barely 33 per cent of employers in the construction industry – and an even lower number of bosses in the hospitality, manufacturing and transport sectors – were even aware of the code, Mr Ehmannit defended their negligence and tried to divert the blame onto their workers’ union reps instead.

Arrogantly asserting that “the unions have not been as committed to disseminating the guidance as they could have been,” he suggested that managers were helpless to improve health and safety in their workplaces unless pushed to do so by the unions.

Construction workers’ union UCATT leader Alan Ritchie lost no time in tearing the bosses’ feeble excuses to shreds.

“Either the IoD is too stupid to understand the purpose of unions or they are deliberately spreading misinformation,” he stormed.

Pointing out that construction is the most dangerous industry in Britain, with 72 workers killed last year and 79 the year before that, Mr Ritchie stressed: “We know that the failed voluntary code will not save the life of a single construction worker, but, while UCATT does everything possible to ensure workers’ safety, it is a undeniable fact that many bosses cannot say the same.”

Construction Safety Campaign organiser Tony O’Brien agreed, adding a blistering denunciation of “cynical and arrogant bosses who have been allowed to get away with a complacent attitude towards workers’ safety for too long.

“The law is a soft touch,” he explained. “When workers are killed on the job and companies eventually get hauled before the courts, the judges can’t send bosses to jail because the law doesn’t let them.

“As a result, executives have to pay small fines for taking workers’ lives that don’t make them think twice about what they’ve done,” he insisted.

Relatives of workers killed or maimed in the workplace insisted that asking bosses to do anything “voluntarily” was always bound to end in failure.

“Even the HSE recognises that at least 70 per cent of major and fatal injuries at work are down to management,” Families Against Corporate Killers spokeswoman Louise Adamson related.

“In most cases, the catalogue of ignorance of health and safety laws, deliberate non-compliance and complete lack of fear of the enforcement system and the enforcement authorities by employers, managers and directors is overwhelming.

“What is needed is a legal duty on all directors to hammer home to them their responsibility,” she demanded.

Australia bushfires: the tragic outcome of government neglect

0

By Richard Phillips

As each day brings new details of the terrible human cost of the bush fires which hit Victoria last weekend, evidence mounts that government neglect, the run-down of emergency services and the lack of any comprehensive plan were direct contributors to the tragic loss of life.

 

The official death toll is currently 181, but the final casualty figure is expected to be well over 300 as police, soldiers and military personnel continue their search for bodies in the burnt-out ruins of more than 1,000 homes.

 

So far more than 5,000 people have been left homeless by the inferno, which has burnt out more than 450,000 kilometres and hundreds of schools, small businesses and local facilities. Many homeowners face financial ruin, with property losses conservatively estimated at over $2 billion. According to Australia’s Insurance Council, up to one in five of those affected may not have had insurance coverage.

Milder weather conditions and rain on Wednesday and Thursday brought relief in some parts of the state but there are more than a dozen fires still burning, with several towns in danger. The Department of Sustainability and Environment warned today that the town of Healesville with a population of 6,700 is under serious threat from nearby fires. Hot weather forecast for this weekend is expected to produce new outbreaks in the state.

After the initial shock, public anger over the tragedy is growing. Letters to the newspapers have denounced the government and questioned its failure to act on the lessons of previous bushfires.

A letter to the Age from Paul Gleeson in Coburg declared: “We wake each morning to hear that the number of confirmed deaths from the bushfires has risen. Now is the time to demand that defence spending be directed to purchasing dozens of fire-fighting helicopters. Cancel the order for fighter planes, don’t build submarines–build bushfire shelters.”

In another letter, Alex and Marcia Leonard from Kinglake pointed out that every house in their street was destroyed by fire: “Our community was left exposed and unprotected by inadequate fire management before the fires occurred. The surrounding forests have had a fuel build-up of nearly a hundred years that, combined with 10 years of drought, left the whole, under-resourced community at risk of death by fire.”

Public debate has broken out over the government’s “stay and fight or evacuate” policy, which imposes all responsibility on residents in high-risk areas to decide individually on how to respond to bushfires. The policy, implemented in the aftermath of the Ash Wednesday fires in February 1983, was used to justify the lack of government spending on what is an ever-present danger during Australian summers.

Journalists and scores of first-hand survivor and emergency workers’ reports point to the impossibility of saving houses in the conditions prevailing last weekend. Many people died trying to defend their homes or were caught in cars trying flee from an inferno fueled by a 12-year drought and more than 46 degree centigrade temperatures.

According to Australia’s fire danger rating index, which takes into account temperature and humidity, an over 50 rating is extreme. Last Saturday, the index is reported to have been five to six times higher.

Government cover up

In the face of mounting public criticism, governments, state and federal, have been desperately seeking to obscure their own responsibility for the lack of planning or a proper warning system and the inadequacy of the firefighting resources.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has proclaimed the bushfires as Australia’s worst natural disaster and announced a “day of mourning” to honour those killed. Victorian Premier John Brumby has announced a Royal Commission investigation.

It is already clear, however, that no fundamental changes will be made. Even before the Royal Commission has convened, Premier Brumby told the media on Wednesday that a centralised evacuation policy is impossible.

“If you were to evacuate everybody every time there was a medium or high fire risk, you are literally talking about half a million people. To be honest, you can’t evacuate half a million people, it’s just not practical,” he said.

Far from being impossible, a clear evacuation plan along with modern warning systems and emergency services boils down to time and money–investments that the state and federal government are not prepared to make.

According to numerous eye-witness accounts, the situation last Saturday was utterly chaotic. Householders in many fire risk areas were compelled to contact the local ABC Radio service for blaze updates and emergency warnings.

Others were totally isolated–before and after the fires. Narbethong, for example, was cut off from the outside world for two days despite the fact that its local pub was providing accommodation and shelter to 150 people from nearby Marysville whose homes had been burnt to the ground. The first contact made was from a media team on Tuesday.

Victoria’s emergency phone line was deluged by more than 4,000 calls at the height of Saturday’s bushfires. The service, which had only 14 operators–all its available staff–working that day, simply could not cope as operators answered frantic calls from victims trapped in their homes or cars.

A report by Victoria’s auditor general in 2003 criticised the state government’s “consistent failure” to properly carry out controlled burning in bushfire zones; noted that only some of the municipalities covered by the Country Fire Authority were implementing voluntary planning controls in bushfire areas; and that fire education programs were “inadequate”.

According to the report, nearly half the residents surveyed in the Dandenongs, a heavily-wooded mountain range southeast of Melbourne, believed they would be alerted by a fire siren. In previous years fire-prone towns and hamlets maintained fire sirens and warning bells to warn residents. These no longer exist.

Fire experts have also pointed out that fire-protection building codes covering homes in Victorian bushfire areas were inadequate to current conditions.

Brumby and Rudd have declared that a national emergency notifications service will be established in the next 12 months but similar proposals have been rejected in recent years on cost grounds by state and federal governments.

The Victorian State Emergency Services successfully tested a telephone and text based emergency notification system in fire-prone areas in Victoria in 2005. Federal governments–Labor and Liberal–and the states, however, are still bickering over who would pay the estimated $20 million costs.

Arson witch-hunt

In an effort to deflect public criticism of governments, the media is deliberately whipping up an atmosphere of hysteria to pin blame for the fires on “arsonists”.

 

A provocative editorial in Murdoch’s Australian newspaper on Tuesday, entitled “The pain of fire, the evil of arson,” bluntly declared: “Now is not the time to ask why so many lives were lost, whether warnings were inadequate or resources poorly deployed”. The real issue, it insisted, was whether the fire was deliberately lit and the necessity for “far harsher punishments.”

 

Others have taken up the theme. Prime Minister Rudd denounced arsonists as “mass murderers”. Not to be outdone Brumby and South Australian Premier Mike Rann branded them as “terrorists”. Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland announced that any arsonist would face multiple murder charges and if found guilty would spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

Victorian police commissioner Christine Nixon appeared on ABC television’s “Lateline” program on Wednesday claiming that the Churchill and Marysville fires could have been deliberately lit but provided no serious evidence. The Victorian police have established a special squad to determine whether any of the fires were deliberately lit and released an identikit picture of a so-called serial arsonist. No arrests have been made.

Earlier on Wednesday, however, Assistant Police Commissioner Dannye Moloney, who heads the task force, expressed concern at the lynch mob mentality being created and appealed for calm. “There’s a lot of finger-pointing at people down the road who may be absolutely innocent. And what a crime to be accused of, if you are innocent. Let us identify if there is a crime and who may be responsible,” he warned.

 

The cynical diversions of the media and politicians and the limited amounts of government aid provided stands in stark contrast to the generosity of ordinary working people. More than $75 million has been raised already in public donations, with over $53 million pledged in the first two days. Thousands of people have volunteered their services to provide food, shelter, clothing, children’s toys, medical care and other provisions for the bushfire victims.

 

Such was the response in public donations that Red Cross officials issued a statement calling on people not to phone their offices but to donate on-line because their telephone service was overloaded. Scores of flood victims from Ingham in north Queensland where roads and homes have been under water for a fortnight even donated their $1,000 government relief grants to the appeal.

The elementary social solidarity displayed by this deluge of donations only underscores the inhumanity of a social order and its political defenders who place private profit before all else.

Congress on bended knee before Wall Street executives

0

By Jerry White 

Chief executive officers from the eight largest banks in the US, which have collectively received $125 billion in bailout money, appeared before the House Financial Services Committee Tuesday. The hearing was a demonstration of the utter prostration of both the Democratic and Republican politicians before America’s financial elite.

Appearing before the congressional committee were Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs); James Dimon (JPMorgan Chase); Robert Kelly (Bank of New York Mellon);

Ken Lewis (Bank of America); Ronald Logue (State Street Corporation); John Mack (Morgan Stanley); Vikram Pandit (Citigroup) and John Stumpf (Wells Fargo). Collectively they have received hundreds of millions in individual compensation over the last few years, while their institutions precipitated the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

Far from conducting a serious investigation into these activities, the congressmen treated the executives with deference. They stressed that there would be no recriminations, but Congress would work with the bankers to restore confidence in the financial system. The witnesses were not put under oath or compelled to reveal any damaging or incriminating evidence. Instead, for the most part they were asked politely if they had learned their lessons and were ready to act more prudently.

This obeisance to the financial aristocracy was summed up in the opening remarks of committee chairman Barney Frank. The Massachusetts Democrat, himself a recipient of millions in campaign funds from Wall Street, acknowledged that there was widespread public anger against the banks and acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the people wanted to “junk” the present financial system and build a new one. However, the “time and effort” made such a proposal “impractical,” Frank insisted.

In order to get the financial system working again, he said, “we are going to have to work within the ‘existing institutions.'” He made it clear that there would be no substantive change in the operations or leading personnel of the tattered financial institutions, let alone any challenge to the wealth and prerogatives of those responsible for the worst crisis in 70 years.

Frank then hit at the political “dilemma” that he said the government faced. By funneling more public money into the banking system, he said, the same banking executives responsible for the crisis would be seen as the beneficiaries. This would only generate more public opposition, not only to Wall Street but to the government itself.

Indeed, the insistence of the financial elite in looting the public treasury, even if it means the bankruptcy of the country, has put the government in an extremely difficult position. However, given the complete subservience of the government to the financial aristocracy, and its unquestionable defense of the capitalist system, the politicians were reduced to begging the bankers to clean up their acts and do the public relations work necessary to get through the next installment of public money.

“I urge you going forward to be ungrudgingly cooperative,” Frank pleaded. “There has to be a sense of the American people that you understand their anger…and that you’re willing to make some sacrifices to get this working.”

What followed was political theater in which the executives explained that they weren’t really withholding credit but had issued billions in new loans to consumers, students and small businesses. They made these claims even as report after report has documented the virtual drying up of credit. The banks have used public assets to pay out dividends to wealthy bondholders and finance multi-billion dollar mergers that have resulted in the destruction of thousands of jobs.

The executives issued obligatory apologies for past “mistakes” and “errors,” pledged greater “accountability” and “transparency” and even said they would institute a three-week moratorium on foreclosures until the Treasury Department’s new bailout kicked in. Announcing that he would work without bonuses, John Mack, the CEO of Morgan Stanley, declared, “I know that American people are outraged about compensation packages,” although he did not offer to give back any of the $56 million he pocketed over the last five years.

A few Democrats on the finance committee joined the act, railing against excess bonuses, taxpayer-funded travel junkets, private jets and the millions of dollars in fees charged by the banks to process their own bailout money. The posturing was aimed at deflecting criticism from the Democrats who, like the Republicans, are widely perceived as shills for the Wall Street banks. As one Democratic congressman complained to the bankers, “your industry and ours are suffering from a credibility gap with the American people.”

In the course of the hearing it was revealed that Merrill Lynch, with the complicity of its new owner, Bank of America, had used accounting tricks to issue $3.6 billion in executive bonuses even as the bank was receiving taxpayer money. Bank of America’s executive quickly dodged any responsibility and the matter was dropped.

Another Democratic congressman complained that the American people had been “screwed out of $78 billion,” citing a report issued last Friday by the congressional panel set up to oversee the first $700 billion bailout. The report revealed that Bush administration officials overpaid for banks’ “troubled assets.” The congressman lamely asked, “Will you recommend to your boards that additional shares be given to the government?” The bankers met the question with silence.

Constantly in the background of the hearing was a fear that the banks and government were inciting a potential explosion as millions of working people were losing their jobs and homes, taking pay cuts and facing the prospect of destitution, while the financial elite on Wall Street is looting the US Treasury.

Several congressmen read letters from their constituents. One expressed what millions think of the banking executives: “Put them all in jail, which is where I would be if I robbed a financial institution.”

Despite their vocal contrition, the Wall Street executives were intransigent on their demands for more bailout money. On the most important issue–the sale of the trillions of dollars in virtually worthless mortgage-backed assets held by these insituttions–the banking executives made it absolutely clear they would not sell them at the current market prices and were waiting for the Obama administration’s new bailout to make any sale far more lucrative.

Abandoning their supposed commitment to the “free market,” the executives insisted the value of their assets should be pegged, not at the market value, but at some supposedly “fair value” that was far above their present price. In an attempt to justify this position, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit declared, “We have a duty to our shareholders; if [the assets] are marked so far below the lifetime value we can’t do it.” However, if you get the funding flowing, he said, “then you will get a real bid.”

Wall Street reacted with disappointment to US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s unveiling of the Obama administration’s new bailout proposals on Tuesday. Behind this reaction was disquiet that the proposals–though entirely geared to the interests of Wall Street–did not include a more explicit plan for the purchasing of these “toxic” assets. The details of this new transfer of wealth to the Wall Street banks are currently being worked out behind the scenes.

America’s financial elite is holding the entire country for ransom in order to extract every penny from the national treasury. The only way to solve the crisis in a rational and socially beneficial manner is to break the grip of the financial aristocracy by transforming the banks into public utilities under the democratic control of working people.

US torture victim offered new hope

0

By LOUISE NOUSRATPOUR 

US authorities agreed for British officials to visit torture victim Binyam Mohamed in Guantanamo Bay on Wednesday to help make preparations for his return to Britain.

They made the announcement hours after his lawyers launched a new High Court bid to have evidence of his ill-treatment made public.

Two judges refused to order the disclosure last week of secret CIA documents on British resident Mr Mohamed, who remains in Guantanamo Bay despite having all terror charges dropped against him last year.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones ruled in London that the dossier should remain secret because the US had threatened to withdraw co-operation in terror cases.

But Mr Mohamed’s solicitors Leigh Day and Co and human rights group Reprieve launched a bid to persuade the judges to reconsider their decision.

They argued that the court had relied on misleading evidence provided by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who, during last week’s hearing, backtracked on his claim of a US threat to withdraw intelligence co-operation.

Leigh Day partner Richard Stein pointed out that Mr Miliband now claims that the decision was based on “a mutual understanding” about how to treat intelligence material.

Mr Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in 2002. He claims that he was secretly flown to Morocco and tortured before being sent to Guantanamo in 2004.

The Ethiopian national says the evidence against him was based on confessions extracted by torture and ill-treatment by US and British secret services.

Yvonne Bradley, the US military counsel representing Mr Mohamed, arrived in London on Tuesday to press ministers to disclose the evidence and ensure a speedy release for her client.

And in a statement released after a meeting with Ms Bradley, Mr Miliband stressed that Mr Mohamed’s return would depend on the outcome of a review of Guantanamo cases initiated by President Barack Obama.

But he said the US administration had agreed to treat Mr Mohamed’s case as “a priority,” adding that Britain was working with Washington for “a swift resolution.”

Ms Bradley told a press conference in central London that Mr Mohamed was “nothing but skin and bones” when she visited him a fortnight ago.

Amy Goodman: Obama’s Afghan Trap

1

President Barack Obama on Monday night held his first prime-time news conference. When questioned on Afghanistan, he replied, “This is going to be a big challenge.” He also was asked whether he would change the Pentagon policy banning the filming and photographing of the flag-draped coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he was reviewing it. The journalist who asked the question pointed out that it was Joe Biden several years ago who accused the Bush administration of suppressing the images to avoid public furor over the deaths of U.S. service members. Now Vice President Joe Biden predicts that a surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan will mean more U.S. casualties: “I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick.”

Meanwhile, the Associated Press recently cited a classified report drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommending a shift in strategy from democracy-building in Afghanistan to attacking alleged Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

And the campaign has clearly begun. Days after his inauguration, Obama’s first (known) military actions were two missile strikes inside Pakistan’s frontier province, reportedly killing 22 people, including women and children.

Cherif Bassiouni has spent years going back and forth to Afghanistan. He is a professor of law at DePaul University and the former United Nations human rights investigator in Afghanistan. In 2005, he was forced out of the United Nations under pressure from the Bush administration, days after he released a report accusing the U.S. military and private contractors of committing human rights abuses. I asked Bassiouni about Obama’s approach to Afghanistan. He told me: “There is no military solution in Afghanistan. There is an economic-development solution, but I don’t see that coming. … Right now, the population has nothing to gain by supporting the U.S. and NATO. It has everything to gain by being supportive of the Taliban.”

Bassiouni’s scathing 2005 U.N. report accused the U.S. military and private military contractors of “forced entry into homes, arrest and detention of nationals and foreigners without legal authority or judicial review, sometimes for extended periods of time, forced nudity, hooding and sensory deprivation, sleep and food deprivation, forced squatting and standing for long periods of time in stress positions, sexual abuse, beatings, torture, and use of force resulting in death.”

I also put the question of the military surge to former President Jimmy Carter. He responded: “I would disagree with Obama as far as a surge that would lead to a more intense bombing of Afghan villages and centers and a heavy dependence on military. I would like to see us reach out more, to be accommodating, and negotiate with all of the factions in Afghanistan.”

Carter should know. He helped create what his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called “the Afghan trap,” set for the Soviets. This was done by supporting Islamic mujahedeen in the late 1970s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, thereby creating what evolved into the Taliban. Brzezinski told the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” More than 14,000 Soviet troops were killed, and the Afghan toll exceeded 1 million. Osama bin Laden got his start with the help of the CIA-funded Afghan operation.

Bassiouni suggests that a military solution is doomed to failure, noting that the Taliban “realized they could not defeat the American forces, so they went underground. They put their Kalashnikovs under the mattresses, and they waited. A year ago, they resurfaced again. They can do the same thing. They can go back in the mountains, push the Kalashnikovs under the mattress, wait out five years. They have been doing that since the 1800s with any foreign and every foreign invader.”

As Carter told me, “To offer a hand of friendship or accommodation, not only to the warlords but even to those radicals in the Taliban who are willing to negotiate, would be the best approach, than to rely exclusively on major military force.”

Have we learned nothing from Iraq? “When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the president on another tried-and-failed policy.” That was Sen. Barack Obama in January 2007. With his Joint Chiefs now apparently gunning for more fighting and less talk in Afghanistan, President Obama needs to be reminded of his own words.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
 
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.

© 2009 Amy Goodman

Top MI6 spy: Terrorism less serious than bird flu

3

Secret global databases ‘unlikely’, threaten freedoms

By Lewis Page

Counter Terror Expo A former Assistant Chief of the UK’s shadowy Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, aka MI6) has played down the threat of jihadi terrorism, saying that other dangers are more serious. The ex-spy also said that global counterterrorism database plans were “unlikely ever to succeed”.

Nigel Inkster, who was an SIS officer from 1975 to 2006 and rose to be Assistant Chief and Director of Operations and Intelligence, was speaking this morning at a counterterrorism conference in London.

On the subject of international counterterrorist databases, always a hot-button issue among those concerned with privacy and individual rights, Inkster had reassuring words.

“There are limits to what we can sensibly aspire to,” he said.

“Efforts to establish a global repository of counterterrorist information are unlikely ever to succeed. We need to be wary of rebuilding our world to deal with just one problem, one which might not be by any means the most serious we face.”

Asked what dangers were more serious than terrorism, Mr Inkster suggested that British government planners were more concerned regarding the possible results of global pandemics, or perhaps the worst-case outcomes of climate change.

“We need to keep terrorism in some kind of context,” he said. “For example, every year in the UK, more people die in road accidents than have been killed by terrorists in all of recorded history.”

The secret-service mandarin suggested that the Global War On Terror initiated by the Bush administration could never be won.

“We can’t kill or arrest our way out of this problem… we will never solve this issue and live in a terrorism-free world. It has to be managed.”

Inkster said that there was definitely a need for police and sometimes military action in fighting terrorism, but suggested that it was now widely acknowledged in the spook community that the Iraq invasion – and now the Israeli assault on Gaza – were definite factors in radicalisation of British domestic terrorists.

“A move away from the rhetoric of GWOT will help,” he said, saying that the “more nuanced message” of the Obama administration was already showing results.

As for recommendations, Inkster said that it was important to promote good government and economic opportunity around the world.

“If I hear one more speaker suggest that the root of terrorism is poverty I’ll probably become a terrorist myself,” he joked. “But we have to acknowledge that it’s a factor.”

As for the West, he said: “We should keep our nerve and our faith in our own values. Our own behaviour – especially with respect to the rule of law – is very important.”

Inkster also offered an insight into life in Her Majesty’s secret service, saying “I come from an organisation that doesn’t do Powerpoint culture”.

NSA’s meta-data email surveillance program exposed

1

WMR has learned details of one of the most important components of the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program code named “STELLAR WIND.” The highly-classified STELLAR WIND program was initiated by the George W. Bush administration with the cooperation of major U.S. telecommunications carriers, including AT&T and Verizon.

The interception of text communications by STELLAR WIND was a major priority of the NSA program.

The major NSA system for intercepting text communications is called PINWALE. On September 15, 2008, WMR first reported on how PINWALE was used to target Russian e-mails: “Code-named PINWALE, the NSA e-mail surveillance system targets Russian government, military, diplomatic, and commercial email traffic and burrows into the text portions of the email to search for particular words and phrases of interest to NSA eavesdroppers.”

WMR has learned additional details of PINWALE. The system is linked to a number of meta-databases that contain e-mail, faxes, and text messages of hundreds of millions of people around the world and in the United States.

Informed sources have revealed to WMR that PINWALE can search these meta-databases using various parameters like date-time, group, natural language, IP address, sender and receipients, operating system, and other information embedded in the header. When an NSA analyst is looking for Persian or Arabic e-mails, the sender and recipients are normally foreign nationals, who are not covered by restrictions on eavesdropping on U.S. “persons” once imposed on NSA by United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18). However, STELLAR WIND and PINWALE negated both USSID 18 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 by permitting NSA analysts to read the e-mails, faxes, and text messages of U.S. persons when PINWALE search parameters included searches of e-mails in English. When English language text communications are retrieved, analysts read the text message content to determine whether it contains anything to do with terrorism. However, rather than being deleted, the messages are returned to the meta-databases.

Text message records in PINWALE, a system developed by NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, are contained in three major meta-databases code-named LION HEART, LION ROAR, and LION FUSION.

Not only are text communications between U.S. persons in the United States and recipients abroad contained in the PINWALE meta-databases but text messages between U.S. persons within the United States are also held in the databases.

WMR reported on May 10, 2005, that Booz Allen is also the major contractor for an NSA database code named “FIRSTFRUITS” that tracked not only the articles of journalists but contained intercepts of their communications, “ . . . part of the upkeep of the [FIRSTFRUITS] system has been outsourced to outside contractors such as Booz Allen.”

The involvement of the telecommunications companies in STELLAR WIND and PINWALE was revealed when former AT&T technician Mark Klein leaked AT&T documents on the program in 2006. AT&T’s interception entailed NSA snooping equipment being placed within AT&T centers in San Francisco; Bridgeton, Missouri; San Diego; San Jose; Atlanta; Seattle; and Los Angeles. 

The Obama administration recently appealed a decision by U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California who ruled that a lawsuit brought by the Al Haramain Islamic charity (Al Haramain v. Bush), in which the charity charges that it was the subject of illegal warrantless wiretapping under STELLAR WIND, could proceed. 

WMR has previously reported that STELLAR WIND may have been used to prosecute Democratic governors and other Democratic officials around the country. WMR has received confirmation that when NSA analysts monitoring e-mails and other text messages, encountered information from PINWALE meta-databases that did not involve terrorism or foreign counterintelligence issues but did involve other possible criminal matters, NSA lawyers would determine whether such information should be turned over to Department of Justice criminal prosecutors. However, with information passed to WMR that NSA directors Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander were in total lockstep with the Bush-Cheney political agenda, with Alexander once boasting to a group of NSA employees that “I am a Rumsfeld man,” there is the real possibility that PINWALE data ended up in the hands of U.S. attorneys like Patrick Fitzgerald in his vendetta against deposed Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and Alice Martin and Leura Canary in their Bush White House-directed political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

If Fitzgerald’s legal brief against Blagojevich contains PINWALE-derived wiretap information it would explain why he has been unsuccessful in finding a grand jury in Chicago to indict Blagojevich. WMR was specifically told that e-mails between Washington and Chicago would be contained in PINWALE and that is something that could pose a problem for Fitzgerald in explaining where all his intercepts of Blagojevich originated. It may also explain why the Obama administration does not want details of STELLAR WIND to be exposed in Al Haramain v. Bush.

Copyright © 2008 WayneMadenReport.com

Lendman: Obama’s ‘War on Terror’

1

By Stephen Lendman 

The language is softened and deceptive. The strategy and tactics are not. The “war on terror” continues. Promised change is talk, not policy. Just look at Obama’s “war cabinet,” discussed in an earlier article. It assures:

— the “strongest military on the planet” by outspending all other countries combined;

— continued foreign wars;

— possible new ones in prospect; on February 7, vice-president Joe Biden outlined continuity of the Bush administration’s policy toward Iran, including “preventive” wars under the National Security Strategy; demands also that Iran abandon its legal nuclear program meaning nothing going forward will change;

— permanent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is planned;

— a reinvented “Cold War” with Russia; perhaps also with China; “draw(ing) a new ‘iron curtain’ (between these) formidable Eurasian powers” to prevent their alliance from challenging America, according to F. William Engdahl;

— an “absolute” commitment “to eliminating the threat of terrorism (with) the full force of our power;”

— inciting instability for imperial gain, especially in resource-rich parts of the world;

— militarizing America; keeping Bush administration police state laws in force; dealing with a deepening economic crisis by preparing for hard line crackdowns should popular unrest arise; and

— readying for another major false flag attack?

Three times in his final week in office, George Bush warned: “Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. There’s still an enemy out there that would like to inflict damage on America – Americans. And that’ll be the major threat. The most important job (for) the next president is….to protect the American people from another attack.”

Late last year, similar talk came from figures like then Senator Joe Biden. In October, he told a Seattle audience that “We’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test” Obama’s mettle. He called it a “guarantee (and a) promise” and assured “tough (and) unpopular” decisions would follow.

Others like Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Joe Lieberman gave similar warnings. The UK Defence Ministry said Britain is teeming with extremists who’ll attempt another London “spectacular,” perhaps at airports, Parliament, Whitehall or Buckingham palace. Press reports circulated with London’s Al-Quds Al-Arabi suggesting a forthcoming attack that will “change the face of world politics and economics.” The London Times said Obama got “ominous advice from leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to brace himself for an early assault from terrorists.”

Other media reports and from officials believe a new attack will rally popular support behind the president, but Ron Paul warned earlier that America “is determined to have martial law (to get people) fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse.” It’s an old tactic as far back as Plato. Reflecting on terrorism, false flag or real, he said: “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears (as) a protector.”

James Madison believed “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy,” and according to Hitler: “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.” Stalin added: “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. (People) will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.”

American history is replete with them:

— criminalizing dissent under the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts;

— suspending habeas and civil liberties during the Civil War;

— the Espionage (and) Sedition Acts during WW I;

— numerous Red scares, before and after WW I; and

— a history of repression against dissent, political opposition, subversion, people of color, the poor and disadvantaged, and anything called “un-American.”

Pre-WW II repression was the most sustained legislative assault on civil liberties in the nation’s history:

— the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act imprisoning anyone so-designated who was unregistered with the Secretary of State;

— enforcement of the 1917 Espionage Act;

— the 1934 – 1937 and 1938 House Un-American Activities Committees; the former against fascist subversion; the latter targeting suspected communists; then a standing or permanent committee from 1945 – 1975, again against communists;

— the 1939 Hatch Act excluding suspected communists from government jobs and restricting government employee freedoms;

— the 1940 Smith Act against suspected communists; prohibiting the advocacy of sedition; and requiring non-citizen adults to register with the government within four months or be prosecuted; and

— the 1940 Nationality Act that stripped naturalized immigrants of their citizenship for espousing “radical” views.

Post-Pearl Harbor, tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans (between 110,000 – 120,000) were interned plus smaller numbers of Germans and Italians suspected of having Axis sympathies. Conscientious objectors were also targeted and imprisoned. An Office of Censorship was established. Dissent was stifled. Sedition trials were held. So were others for spying, suspected treason, anyone accused of un-American sympathies, and many convictions, denaturalizations, and/or deportations resulted.

Post-WW II brought McCarthyism; civil liberties struggles; internal spying; COINTELPRO against the American Indian Movement, Black Panthers, and other targeted organizations. Then Ronald Reagan’s war on international terrorism to George Bush’s police state version – now continued under Barack Obama.

Also, “Remember the Maine,” Pearl Harbor I, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor II, and the wars in each case that followed.

Prospective Economic and Military Dangers

In his latest article, “The Looming Crisis at the Pentagon,” Chalmers Johnson explains “How Taxpayers Finance Fantasy Wars.” He cites daily headlines about US industries (like autos) losing out to emerging economies that have outpaced us “in innovative design, price, quality, service, and fuel economy, among other things.”

Less known is a crisis within “the military-industrial complex (with) roots in (long-standing) corrupt and deceitful practices (within the Pentagon, defense establishment, and) Congressional opportunists and criminals” looking to cash in on business for their districts and further their own self-interest. No promised change is forthcoming. Obama assures business as usual, perhaps more so than ever.

He wants to “invest in a 21st century military,” raise spending to higher levels, increase the army by 65,000 and marines by 27,000, double the US occupation force in Afghanistan, project greater naval strength, expand the offensive national missile defense by spending tens of billions more for it, maintain absolute supremacy in space, and militarize America for greater control at home.

“Given our economic crisis, the estimated trillion (or more) dollars we spend each year on the military and its weaponry is simply unsustainable….We face a double crisis at the Pentagon: we can no longer afford the pretense of being the Earth’s sole superpower (nor) a system (being enriched) off inferior, poorly designed (and unneeded) weapons.” Yet this “ludicrously wasteful spending….has gone on for decades….for fantasy wars that will only be fought in the battlescapes and war-gaming imaginations of Defense Department planners.”

Given today’s global economic crisis, this spending is vitally needed domestically, but don’t expect reform from the Pentagon or its related interests. All actors in this game are part of a “criminal intent to turn on the spigot of taxpayer money (just like Wall Street, then) jam it so it cannot be turned off.”

Johnson is blunt as he always is saying:

“Until we decide (or are forced) to dismantle our empire, sell off most of our (hundreds of) military bases (globally), and bring our military expenditures into line with those of the rest of the world, we are destined to go bankrupt in the name of national defense (if Wall Street doesn’t do it sooner). As of this moment, we are well on our way,” and no one in the Obama administration will to stop it.

Ending Torture As Official Administration Policy

Under George Bush, torture became policy through numerous “findings,” Military and Executive Orders, memoranda, and memos like the infamous March 14, 2003 “Torture Memo,” written by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee and David Addington. It bypassed existing domestic and international laws to let interrogators use harsh measures amounting to torture. It said legal prohibitions don’t apply when dealing with Al Queda because of presidential authorization during wartime. It “legalized” everything in the “war on terror” and sanctioned supreme presidential power.

John Yoo put it this way: Inflicting “intense pain or suffering” is permissible, short of what would cause “serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, (loss of significant body functions), or permanent damage” may result. As we know, even those standards were violated, including use of psychological measures harsh enough to turn human beings into mush.

On January 22, Obama signed a series of Executive Orders (nominally) ordering Guantanamo’s prison closed, ignoring all the others, reviewing military trials of terror suspects, and banning the use of torture. The same day, the Center for Constitutional Rights said the following:

“We welcome” this important decision. “President Obama (took a first) step in restoring the rule of law.” Much more, however, must be done, and vague language must be clarified.

“The order to close Guantanamo….provides little detail. The government has to charge the rest of the detainees in federal criminal court (not military tribunals). There can be no third way, no new schemes.”

Secret CIA black sites must be closed. If not, Obama’s order “is more symbolic than a true reversal.” Enforcing Army Field Manual No. 27-10’s provisions is crucial. We “caution that (Obama’s) order may leave an escape hatch if the CIA” intends to continue certain practices. Only domestic and international laws must apply.

“Today’s orders are filled with promise” but follow-through accountability is crucial, and individual violators must be prosecuted as “the only way to deter future lawbreakers.” Domestic and international laws unequivocally ban torture of all kinds, for any purpose, with no exceptions under any conditions. By that standard, Obama’s EOs fall way short. As such, they’re woefully inadequate and may be little more than lip service deception to hide business as usual plans going forward.

The language refers to….”individual(s) in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in an armed conflict….”

It suggests that torture is permissible in non-conflict areas and everywhere by US proxies under CIA, Pentagon, or other US supervision.

On February 1, the Los Angeles Times headlined: “Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool.”
Whatever’s planned, Obama’s EOs still authorize the CIA “to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.” Even worse, “Current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition program might….play an expanded role” because it’s “the main remaining mechanism….for taking suspected terrorists off the street….the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one (tool) it could not afford to discard.”

Another provision lets the CIA detain and interrogate suspects so long as they’re not held long-term. But no definition of short or long-term is given, just the imprecise designation “transitory.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW) carries water for America by failing in its mandate “to protect the human rights of people around the world (by) standing with victims and activists….upholding political freedom (and) bring(ing) offenders to justice.” Its Washington advocacy director, Tom Malinowski, supports Obama by saying: “Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions even though activists globally denounce it and persons subjected to it are tortured.

CIA’s Long History of Torture

For over half a century, the CIA conducted experiments on various types of torture, including very harsh mind control measures. In his book, “A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror,” Alfred McCoy explained how techniques were developed, codified in manuals, used extensively in Southeast Asia, Central America, and now virtually anywhere, including in Iraq, Afghanistan and at secret US black sites globally.

McCoy refers to an offshore mini-gulag of information extraction in pursuit of the “war on terror.” CIA and Pentagon sites exist globally with no oversight or legal compliance. Out of sight, they’re a malignant cancer – on US bases, torture ships, and in prisons of torture-friendly allies. Nothing there is banned, including physical viciousness and psychologically crippling mind control methods that turn human beings into mush.

On February 5, The New York Times reported that head of CIA-designee Leon Panetta told a Senate confirmation hearing panel that in cases where interrogators can’t extract vital information, he’d recommend methods excluded by the new rules. “If we had a ticking bomb situation (the old ploy that could apply to anyone for any reason), and obviously, whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president….and request whatever additional authority I would need.”

Panetta also told senators that CIA employees won’t face prosecution and that he’ll continue practicing rendition, but not to countries “that violate our human values” – more weasel words meaning nothing beyond rhetoric to affirm the same Bush administration practices going forward.

On January 11, ABC This Week’s host George Stephanopolos asked Obama:

“Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor….to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?”

Obama responded:

“….I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backward.” By that standard, no prosecutions will occur, and all lawless acts are permissible. Obama added:

“….part of my job is to make sure that (at CIA), you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up….when it comes to national security, we have to focus on getting things right in the future (not) looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

In his 2006 book “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic,” Chalmers Johnson called the CIA “The President’s Private Army,” much like Rome’s praetorian guard. Its budget is black, its activities extrajudicial, and in all respects it’s “the personal, secret, unaccountable army of the president” through which the most mischievous, illegal operations are conducted, including ousting democratically elected governments, assassinating foreign leaders, propping up friendly tyrants, and renditioning and torturing state enemies in global black sites. Its power is unchecked and a threat to the nation.

Yet, Obama wants it strengthened, not curbed, given the possibility of martial law in the event of a national emergency. As Peter Dale Scott explained in his January 8 Global Research.ca article titled “Martial Law, the Financial Bailout, and War:”

“The US military has been training troops and police in ‘civil disturbance planning’ for the last three decades. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or ‘Operation Garden Plot,’ was developed in 1968 in response to the major protests and disturbances of the 1960s.”

Much more now is in place under Army Regulation 500-3 and other hard line provisions to assure “the execution of mission-essential functions without unacceptable interruption during a national security or domestic emergency.” The Pentagon, CIA, and other intelligence branches along with state and local authorities are networked to implement policies nationally.

Obama is doing more as well. His Justice Department is defending Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, John Yoo, and others in a case brought by torture victim Jose Padilla for his grievous treatment and violations of his constitutional rights. Defense attorney requests for dismissing all charges are clear evidence of where Obama stands on the law, his willingness to let Bush administration officials go unpunished, and likelihood he’ll continue the same practices going forward.

More indications emerged as well. After Britain’s High Court ruled that evidence of a UK resident’s Guantanamo rendition and torture stay secret (because the Bush administration threatened to halt intelligence sharing), the Obama administration told the BBC:

“The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens.”

In response, the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony Romero, told the press:

“Hope is flickering. The Obama administration’s position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new administration shouldn’t be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors.” The ACLU asked Hillary Clinton to “reject the Bush administration’s policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs” amounting to high crimes and misdemeanors.

On February 9, ABC News reported that “the Obama administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.” DOJ attorney Douglas Letter argued before the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals that charges should be dismissed because state secrets and national security are involved.

Five extraordinary rendition victims are involved – Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel, Ahmed Agiza, Bisher Al-Rawi, and Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah. They sued Boing’s Jeppesen Dataplan subsidiary for flying them to offshore secret CIA black sites where they were tortured.

ACLU attorney Ben Wizner responded in shock and disappointment “that the (Obama) Justice Department (chose) to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture.” Instead of change, it intends “to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court. Our clients did not ask to be abducted, chained to the floor of planes, dressed in diapers and taken to a foreign country. If you affirm (the District Court’s dismissal), plaintiffs will forever be” denied justice.

Witch-Hunt Prosecutions Continuing under Obama

On June 23, 2006 in Miami, Florida, the FBI arrested and charged seven men (called the Liberty City Seven for the impoverished Miami neighborhood where they lived) with four counts of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, in a plot to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower, Miami’s FBI federal building, and possible other government sites in the city.

In US v. Batiste, et al, charges were made against:

— Narseal Batiste, the claimed ringleader;

— Patrick Abraham;

— Stanley Grant Phanor;

— Naaudimar Herrera;

— Burson Augustin;

— Lyglenson Lemorin; and

— Rotschild Augustine.

No crime was committed, and no firearms, explosives, or other incriminating evidence was found. Yet Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed “these men were prepared to wage a full ground war against the US….as dangerous as Al Queda,” and when the indictments came down he hailed them as “yet another important victory in the war on terrorism.”

The men belonged to Miami’s Moorish Science Temple that combines Christian, Jewish, and Islamic teachings given their common roots. Its leader is Narseal Batiste who apparently drew attention by expressing opposition to Bush administration practices no different from civil libertarians and those in the anti-war movement.

As usual in these cases, two paid informants were DOJ’s key witnesses. Both had shady pasts and got $130,000 for their services. The charges were entirely bogus, no more than a case of entrapment to put a ghetto face on terrorism as some in the neighborhood believed. FBI Deputy Director John Pistole even acknowledged that the alleged plot was “more aspirational than operational,” or, in other words, manufactured by the Bush administration for political advantage. Usually they target Muslims. This time, poor black men were arrested. Five are American citizens, one a Haitian resident, and the other a Haitian immigrant.

Twice the case went to trial, each time ending in mistrials with one defendant, Lyglenson Lemorin, acquitted, tried only once, then threatened with deportation to Haiti.

Nonetheless, Obama’s DOJ is picking up where Bush’s left off, and on January 26, The New York Times reported that “prosecutors (will) try for a third time (this week) to win convictions” after two failed efforts, but not without challenges according to legal analysts.

“The fear card was what they were playing,” said Miami University law professor Bruce Winick. “If it didn’t work (before), I think it’s less likely (now) because the fear of terrorism is a little more distant in our minds.”

Yet one week after the second mistrial, prosecutor Richard Gregorie said another trial was necessary to “safeguard the community,” meaning DOJ was embarrassed enough to try again. Law professor Jonathan Turley calls it “not a matter of the law of terrorism but the law of averages” hoping a new jury will buy what two previous ones rejected.

Winick said no new evidence is expected, and this time will likely fail like the others. “It’s a case where government informant(s) got a bunch of guys together” to concoct a plot for prosecutors. “It’s a B movie really, more than a criminal case,” yet Obama’s DOJ will pursue it – a disturbing sign that business as usual is planned, more witch-hunt cases will follow, and “war on terror” efforts will persist for another four years. It’s not change to believe in, in fact, none at all at a time the need is greater than ever.

A Call to End All Renditions

0

By Marjorie Cohn, Jurist 

Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian residing in Britain, said he was tortured after being sent to Morocco and Afghanistan in 2002 by the U.S. government. Mohamed was transferred to Guantánamo in 2004 and all terrorism charges against him were dismissed last year. Mohamed was a victim of extraordinary rendition, in which a person is abducted without any legal proceedings and transferred to a foreign country for detention and interrogation, often tortured.

Mohamed and four other plaintiffs are accusing Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. of flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured. In Mohamed’s case, two British justices accused the Bush administration of pressuring the British government to block the release of evidence that was “relevant to allegations of torture” of Mohamed.

Twenty-five lines edited out of the court documents included details about how Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel as well as other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding “is very far down the list of things they did,” according to a British official quoted by the Telegraph (UK).

The plaintiffs’ complaint quotes a former Jeppesen employee as saying, “We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights — you know, the torture flights.” A senior company official also apparently admitted the company transported people to countries where they would be tortured.

Obama’s Justice Department appeared before a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday in the Jeppesen lawsuit. But instead of making a clean break with the dark policies of the Bush years, the Obama administration claimed the same “state secrets” privilege that Bush used to block inquiry into his policies of torture and illegal surveillance. Claiming that the extraordinary rendition program is a state secret is disingenuous since it is has been extensively documented in the media.

“This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course,” said the ACLU’s Ben Wizner, counsel for the five men.

If the judges accept Obama’s state secrets claim, these men will be denied their day in court and precluded from any recovery for the damages they suffered as a result of extraordinary rendition.

Two and a half weeks before Obama’s representative appeared in the Jeppesen case, the new President had signed Executive Order 13491. It established a special task force “to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.”

This order prohibits extraordinary rendition. It also ensures humane treatment of persons in U.S. custody or control. But it doesn’t specifically guarantee that prisoners the United States renders to other countries will be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that doesn’t amount to torture. It does, however, aim to ensure that our government’s practices of transferring people to other countries complies with U.S. laws and policies, including our obligations under international law.

One of those laws is the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty the United States ratified in 1992. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits the States Parties from subjecting persons “to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Human Rights Committee, which is the body that monitors the ICCPR, has interpreted that prohibition to forbid States Parties from exposing “individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”

Order 13491 also mandates, “The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.” The order does not define “expeditiously” and the definitional section of the order says that the terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.” Once again, “short term” and “transitory” are not defined.

In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder categorically stated that the United States should not turn over an individual to a country where we have reason to believe he will be tortured. Leon Panetta, nominee for CIA director, went further and interpreted Order 13491 as forbidding “that kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values.”

But alarmingly, Panetta appeared to champion the same standard used by the Bush administration, which reportedly engaged in extraordinary rendition 100 to 150 times as of March 2005. After September 11, 2001, President Bush issued a classified directive that expanded the CIA’s authority to render terrorist suspects to other States. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the CIA and the State Department received assurances that prisoners will be treated humanely. “I will seek the same kinds of assurances that they will not be treated inhumanely,” Panetta told the senators.

Gonzales had admitted, however, “We can’t fully control what that country might do. We obviously expect a country to whom we have rendered a detainee to comply with their representations to us . . . If you’re asking me, ‘Does a country always comply?’ I don’t have an answer to that.”

The answer is no. Binyam Mohamed’s case is apparently the tip of the iceberg. Maher Arar, a Canadian born in Syria, was apprehended by U.S. authorities in New York on September 26, 2002, and transported to Syria, where he was brutally tortured for months. Arar used an Arabic expression to describe the pain he experienced: “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.” The Canadian government later exonerated Arar of any terrorist ties. Thirteen CIA operatives were arrested in Italy for kidnapping an Egyptian, Abu Omar, in Milan and transporting him to Cairo where he was tortured.

Panetta made clear that the CIA will continue to engage in rendition to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects and transfer them to other countries. “If we capture a high-value prisoner,” he said, “I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily to be able to debrief that individual and make sure that individual is properly incarcerated.” No clarification of how long is “temporarily” or what “debrief” would mean.

When Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) asked about the Clinton administration’s use of the CIA to transfer prisoners to countries where they were later executed, Panetta replied, “I think that is an appropriate use of rendition.” Jane Mayer, columnist for the New Yorker, has documented numerous instances of extraordinary rendition during the Clinton administration, including cases in which suspects were executed in the country to which the United States had rendered them. Once when Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council, “proposed a snatch,” Vice-President Al Gore said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”

There is a slippery slope between ordinary rendition and extraordinary rendition. “Rendition has to end,” Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! “Rendition is a violation of sovereignty. It’s a kidnapping. It’s force and violence.” Ratner queried whether Cuba could enter the United States and take Luis Posada, the man responsible for blowing up a commercial Cuban airline in 1976 and killing 73 people. Or whether the United States could go down to Cuba and kidnap Assata Shakur, who escaped a murder charge in New Jersey.

Moreover, “renditions for the most part weren’t very productive,” a former CIA official told the Los Angeles Times. After a prisoner was turned over to authorities in Egypt, Jordan or another country, the CIA had very little influence over how prisoners were treated and whether they were ultimately released.

The U.S. government should disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001. Those who ordered renditions should be prosecuted. And the special task force should recommend, and Obama should agree to, an end to all renditions.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her new book, Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd), will be published in April 2009. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

More accuse Britain in torture of Guantanamo detainee

0

By Julie Sell

LONDON – Despite years of denials, new questions are being raised about Britain’s possible involvement in the torture of a detainee now on a prolonged hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

Both an American military lawyer who’s seen classified documents on the case and the head of a special parliamentary committee said Tuesday that the British government might have been complicit in the alleged mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed. The former British resident was seized in 2002 and held in several countries – including Morocco, where he claims he was tortured – before being transferred to Guantanamo in 2004.

Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, a U.S. military lawyer assigned to defend Mohamed, said that British intelligence agency “MI5 was involved a long time ago” in the interrogation of her client.

“They were feeding certain information to his interrogators when he was in Morocco,” said Bradley, who’s in London this week to lobby members of Parliament to press for her client’s release and his return to Britain.

Meanwhile, Andrew Tyrie, a Conservative member of Parliament and the head of a committee investigating extraordinary renditions – the international transfer of suspected terrorists by the U.S. – said he’s also convinced that Mohamed was “severely tortured” during interrogations and that British officials had a role in his mistreatment.

Tyrie said the official line on British involvement in torture “has gone from flat denials to a succession of admissions that there was involvement.” The latter have come in the form of court documents, the most recent being last week’s ruling by a British high court.

Tyrie also said Parliament’s intelligence and security committee, which has broader authority than his own, “appears to have been misled” about Britain’s role in interrogations and torture of American detainees when it was preparing an official report on the subject in 2007. That report cleared Britain of any wrongdoing, saying the CIA never told British officials where detainees were being held or how they were being treated.

It emerged last week that 42 classified documents seen by the British court and Mohamed’s lawyers had never been passed on to the intelligence and security committee when it was researching Britain’s role in the case the case.

A possible probe of British intelligence agencies is “under consideration” by the United Kingdom’s attorney general’s office, a spokeswoman said Tuesday. She couldn’t provide a timetable on the conclusion of its work. Another member of Mohamed’s legal team, Clive Stafford Smith, said that last fall he offered to provide the attorney general with documents to advance the inquiry if they were needed, but they have never requested them.

Under Britain’s Criminal Justice Act it is against the law for British officials to commit or be complicit in acts of torture anywhere in the world. Violation of the act can lead to life imprisonment.

Bradley, who’ll speak before several parliamentary committees and meet Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Wednesday, has suggested that there could be a “conspiracy” to keep her client in Guantanamo Bay in hopes that he might die there and never tell his story publicly. Mohamed is among a group of prisoners on a long-term hunger strike, and Bradley said there’d been a “drastic” deterioration in his health when she saw him two weeks ago on a regular monthly visit.

Bradley said she “applauds” the Obama administration’s plans to close Guantanamo Bay and send the remaining detainees home as soon as possible, as well as Britain’s willingness to let him settle here.

But Mohamed’s continued detention and stories about other abused prisoners suggest to her that not all officials have yet adopted the new policy. “Somewhere in the middle people need their mind changed to get along with the program,” she said. “But Mr. Mohamed doesn’t have months or years to give up his life for this to trickle down.”

UN moves to charge Israel with war crimes

0

The United Nations moves to set up a commission to look into Israeli war crimes and respond to its human rights violations in Gaza.

After the United Nations Works and Relief Agency (UNRWA) compound became the target of GPS-guided Israeli mortars on January 15, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned “in the strongest terms this outrageous attack” and called for an inquiry into suspected Israeli war crimes.

“I strongly demand a thorough investigation and punishment for those responsible,” he told reporters in Beirut after the attack.

Japanese Ambassador Yukio Takasu, who currently holds the presidency of the Security Council, said late on Monday that Ban had told a closed-door briefing in the council that the UN had set up a commission as a preliminary step to look into Israeli damage to UN premises.

Several diplomats have reported that the commission would be led by the former British secretary-general of human rights group Amnesty International, Ian Martin.

Takasu said the commission would later report back to the Security Council, which would then decide how to respond.

Diplomats have expressed skepticism as to whether a Security Council inquiry would take place, saying they thought it unlikely that Israel’s ally the United States, which has a veto in the council, would allow the 15-nation body to adopt the report as its own.

The January 15 incident, which has prompted the UN inquiry, was the third shelling of UN shelters by Israeli fire in its war on the Palestinian territory.

UN spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna said the shelling of the school happened while Israel had been given the coordinates of the building and the compound was also clearly marked with UN flags and logos.

“The UN compound in Gaza had only that morning become a makeshift shelter for hundreds of Gaza City residents seeking sanctuary from relentless Israeli shelling,” said an unnamed UN official in Gaza.

The UN move to launch a probe into suspected Israeli war crimes comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor in The Hague announced earlier last week that a “preliminary analysis” was launched to review the military conduct of Israeli forces participating in the offensive against the Gaza Strip.

The ICC prosecutor’s office said it had received 210 communications from individuals and non-governmental organizations regarding the recent events in Gaza.

The criminal case is expected to focus on the Israeli atrocities, including charges of using disproportionate force, white phosphorous bombs and depleted uranium in the densely-populated area.

Israel’s three-week offensive against Gaza — aimed at toppling the democratically-elected government of Hamas in the Palestinian territory — left nearly 1,300 Palestinians dead, more than half of them civilians, according to medical sources.

The Israeli assault led to the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Earlier during the war, members of a Norwegian triage medical team in Gaza which worked at the Shifa Hospital in the war-torn Palestinian territory said Israel had turned Gaza into a research laboratory to test out its new “extremely nasty” weapons on Palestinians.

“There’s a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,” Dr. Mads Gilbert told reporters at Oslo’s Gardermoen airport upon his return home after the war.

“We are not soft-skinned when it comes to war injuries, but these amputations are really extremely nasty and for many of the patients not survivable,” Gilbert’s colleague Erik Fosse added.

While Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, as well as Israel’s most prominent human rights organization, B’Tselem have raised questions about the ethical and moral guidelines of Israel’s warfare, the Israeli lobby is working hard to counter efforts to protect the civil rights of Gazans.

A Monday report by Press TV revealed that Egypt had refused to allow members of an investigation committee set up by the ICC into the Gaza Strip, arguing that at present only displaced Palestinians could enter the territory through the Rafah crossing.

The committee — comprised of four French and Norwegian lawyers — intended to collect evidence and testimonials on Operation Cast Lead to present to the International Court.

Amid reports of profound human sufferings, Israel continues to reject the fact that it has imposed a humanitarian crisis among the battle-hardened 1.5 million population of Gaza and denies committing war crimes in the embattled Strip.

CS/AA

Lives Have Been Destroyed by the Federal Government

0

Lew Rockwell — – One of the hardest things to deal with in the current economic depression is the disgusting hypocrisy of the U.S. congress, the new president, and the members of the Federal Reserve System. It is one thing to be told, as we all are, that we must hand over fat wads of our hard-earned money to these warmongering and thieving snakes or face jail terms, but one feels a whole new level of revulsion when these people make statements to the effect that they, and they alone, are in a position to “save the economy” by “creating jobs.” These statements are made by people who have done virtually everything in their power to destroy the American economy over the last few decades, but who have now proclaimed themselves to be our saviors. Only the most naïve and unlearned among us could possibly be falling for the idea that a bunch of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and bankers are going to “save” us from problems they have caused.

On its face, the idea that politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers could “save” the economy is laughable. These are people, after all, who live exclusively at our expense. That is, these are people whose entire livelihoods are dependent upon taking money away from productive people and spending it on themselves and their favorite wasteful projects. It’s true that they do not all share the same ideas about how to spend the money they take from us. Some prefer to use it to blow up innocent people in foreign lands, while others simply want to take our hard-earned money without our consent and hand it over to other people. The bankers, on the other hand, merely content themselves with printing vast amounts of new money out of thin air that they either hand over to the Treasury Department, or gift to their other banker-buddies to lend out at a profit at our expense. Nevertheless, it should be crystal clear that these people do not actually produce anything themselves (except the bankers, who are very skilled counterfeiters of money). They take money from us through taxation and inflation, (and threaten us with severe punishments if we refuse to obey), and then spend every last penny of it — and more — on war, socialized boondoggles, and welfare. These are the people who would have us believe that they can “save” the economy? How exactly would they accomplish such a thing? More taxes, more idiotic socialized projects, more war, and more newly-printed green paper? Do these actions really seem likely to produce a vibrant and healthy economy, or do they seem more like the actions undertaken by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.?

They would also very much like for us to believe that they are the only people in the world capable of “creating jobs” in the United States. A more ridiculous idea would be hard to find. Again, these people are only in the business of taking money from productive people, and either wasting it entirely (e.g., war), keeping it themselves, or giving it to other people (e.g., entitlement programs, foreign aid, and paychecks for bureaucrats). As such, any actions undertaken by these people will necessarily depend for funding upon those who are forced to pay taxes; namely, the increasingly-dwindling group of productive people who have not yet lost their jobs in the private sector. Does it really seem possible that this sort of parasitism on the productive people of the United States really can create jobs that produce the things that people actually want? If socialized job creation is the only way out of this economic quagmire, as the politicians would have us believe, then why don’t they socialize the entire economy? If it were indeed the case that the federal government can “create” productive jobs better than the private sector, then why don’t they take over all aspects of the American economy, and we can all live happily ever-after in a brave, new, socialized America where everyone is enslaved, I mean employed, by the State.

And don’t think for a moment that the politicians and bureaucrats are themselves going to help the productive people shoulder this onerous tax burden. On the contrary, politicians and bureaucrats do not actually pay taxes. As Murray Rothbard has noted in this regard:

“If a bureaucrat receives a salary of $5,000 a year and pays $1,000 in ‘taxes’ to the government, it is quite obvious that he is simply receiving a salary of $4,000 and pays no taxes at all. The heads of the government have simply chosen a complex and misleading accounting device to make it appear that he pays taxes in the same way as any other men making the same income. The UN’s arrangement, whereby all its employees are exempt from any income taxation, is far more candid.”

Hence, while Mr. Obama is fond of telling us that “we” are going to have to get out of this recession together, what he really means is that those of us who are employed in productive private lines of work in this country are going to have to hand over more and more of our hard-earned money to those people in this country who pay no taxes at all; namely, men like Mr. Obama himself and the rest of the fat, parasitic political and bureaucratic class that infests this country.

Some of the more shameless of the political class in this country, or their academic lackeys, have even tried to convince us that the trillions of dollars they are wasting in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to help us get out of this depression. They have been taking our money and blowing it up in these two dreadfully poor countries year after year, and they would like for us to believe that this senseless destruction of wealth is going to make us richer. Often known as “Military Keynesians,” this group is perhaps more aptly described as the “kill ourselves rich” crowd. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that neither you nor I are made better off when the federal government steals our money, hands it over to Lockheed Martin to purchase bombs, and then uses those bombs to blow up Pakistani civilians. The only people who benefit from this forceful expropriation of our money and indifferent murder are the merchants of death occupying lucrative posts at Lockheed, Blackwater and the Pentagon.

What the political and bureaucratic classes are actually accomplishing very well, however, is creating a veritable army of angry men whose lives have been destroyed by the federal government. Many have lost their jobs, thanks to the collapse of the largest artificial economic boom in American history — a boom that was directly caused by the actions of the federal government and the Fed. In addition, thanks to years of merciless and ceaseless money creation by the Fed, this army of men has found that their savings purchase fewer and fewer goods over time. This depreciation of the dollar will inexorably increase astronomically over the next few years as the massive amount of new money the Fed and treasury have already jointly printed, and are planning to print over the coming months and years, floods the system.

This army of angry men has very little to be optimistic about in the near future. At best, they might be able to keep their present jobs in the private sector — shouldering a heavier and heavier portion of the tax burden that funds the congress and president’s wars and socialization schemes, while the value of their savings continues to erode into dust. Those who have lost their jobs might be permitted to work on Mr. Obama’s “public works” projects, and thereby become virtual slaves to the whims of the political and bureaucratic classes. Many others will simply find it easier to start sucking at the state’s teat in the form of unemployment insurance or food stamps, et cetera, and thereby lose all respect for themselves. One thing is certain for every member of this army of angry men, though; every single one of them will now find it very difficult, if not impossible, to carve out a living for himself, on his own terms, and without being at the complete mercy of politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers he has never even met. The age of the independent, responsible, and free American citizen is now dead.

The hour is fast approaching when each and every one of us will have to decide for ourselves whether we will try to fight this devastating government machine, or join it.

Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.

Copyright © 2009 LewRockwell.com

Military Takeover of Federal Weapons Research Labs

0

By Phil Leggiereon

Physicist Robert Oppenheimer fought successfully to keep nuclear weapons research under civilian control and oversight, where it currently resides with the Department of Energy. Ronald Reagan fought, and failed, to bring weapons research into the Pentagon in the 80s. Now, apparently the Obama administration may be preparing the way for a transfer of authority to the military, a curious decision for an administration pledged to expanding public accountability. 

The Marine Corps Times reports

The Obama administration is considering moving the nation’s federal weapons complex, including New Mexico’s Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories, under military control, ending decades of civilian oversight.

The Albuquerque Journal, in a copyright story Wednesday, said an internal memo it obtained shows the administration is looking into turning over control of the labs to the Department of Defense. They currently are controlled by the Department of Energy.

The Office of Management and Budget memo, which carried no date, said such a change would not occur until at least 2011.

The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said Tuesday he told OMB chief Peter Orszag he had concerns about such a plan, which he called shortsighted.

“I will fight it tooth and nail if they intend to proceed with it,” he said he told Orszag.

More than 20,000 New Mexicans work for Sandia and Los Alamos labs.

Civilian management stems from a World War II decision by J. Robert Oppenheimer, the top scientist on the secret Manhattan Project that built the world’s first atomic bomb and led to the founding of Los Alamos lab. Oppenheimer had the weapons designed by civilian scientists rather than military officers.

After the war, government officials concluded the “ultimate weapon” should be left in civilian control.

A shift to military oversight “would be very dramatic,” said nuclear weapons historian Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Norris said the Reagan administration tried unsuccessfully to move the weapons program to Pentagon control in the 1980s.

The OMB memo outlines plans for a study to be done by the end of September on costs and benefits of the proposal. The plan would move the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the DOE that oversees the labs, to the defense agency. Congress created the NNSA in 2000 as a quasi-independent body but under DOE jurisdiction.

Former Sandia lab president C. Paul Robinson, in written responses last year to questions from members of the House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces subcommittee, said he thought Pentagon management should be considered.

Robinson, a senior government adviser on nuclear weapons issues, said he’s long supported civilian control. But in recent years, long-term management has become a problem because of “short-term upheavals” as different administrations come and go, repeatedly changing the direction of the nation’s weapons program.

“The presence of a uniformed military could provide a continuity that has been lacking,” he told the subcommittee.

He said Tuesday the NNSA hasn’t worked.

The team that will study the possibility of a shift will include members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and “other major NNSA stakeholders,” the memo said.

Condi Rice Could’ve Written Biden’s Speech

0

By Jim Lobe

I hate to agree with Bill Kristol, but he’s right about Vice President Joe Biden’s speech at the ongoing Munich security conference when he writes that “the administration chose not to use the occasion to say something interesting. One hopes the Obama administration is actually thinking more seriously than the Biden speech indicates.” I’m sure Kristol and I were looking for different things in the speech, but, at least from my point of view, it was hopelessly uninspired and offered no hints of any creative and new thinking that might actually lead to breakthroughs, particularly in the Middle East. Indeed, it sounded like a speech that Condoleezza Rice might have submitted in draft for White House approval before the vice president’s office and Elliott Abrams got their hands on it. Remember, this was the Obama administration’s first major foreign-policy address and thus a huge opportunity to begin charting its own path.

A few things were especially disappointing, beginning with the emphasis placed by Biden on the change of “tone” the new administration would bring to foreign policy. (This was exactly what Rice meant when she announced in her Senate confirmation hearings in 2005 that “the time for diplomacy is now.”) It’s nice to have a new “tone”, but what about some new content beyond the nominal gestures, like closing Guantanamo and forbidding torture, and the cliches about greater consultation and adherence to international law? In that respect, Biden offered little or nothing substantive.

I especially had problems with the way he spoke about Iran, mainly in the language of carrots and sticks that is so deeply resented in Tehran; to wit:

“We’ll be willing to talk to Iran and to offer a very clear choice: Continue down the current course and there will be continued pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there will be meaningful incentives.”

Note that we’re willing to talk “to” not “with” Iran “to offer them a very clear choice.” This is the language of ultimatum; it is not the language of “respect” that Obama promised in his Inaugural address and his interview with al-Arabiya’s Hisham Melham. The only thing that indicated “respect” was the condescending passage: “The Iranian people are a great people; the Persian civilization is a great civilization.” The Bush administration always made the same observation when its senior officials, including Bush himself, spoke about Iran.

All in all, I would guess hardliners in Tehran are very happy with Biden’s performance; it makes it much easier for them to argue that Obama represents no real change at all, at least change that Iranians can believe in.

Apart from the reiteration of the urgency of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there was nothing new on that front as well; indeed, I think it was retrograde, actually taking us back to Bush positions. No mention of Israeli settlements, no mention of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, no mention of the need for Israel to open the crossings to commercial as well as humanitarian traffic.

“In the near term, we must consolidate the cease-fire in Gaza by working with Egypt and others to stop smuggling, and developing an international relief and reconstruction effort that strengthens the Palestinian Authority, and not Hamas,” he said in another line that must have cheered both the increasingly discredited and unpopular Mahmoud Abbas (if we are to judge by the latest poll of Palestinian opinion) and Hamas hardliners. Does he really believe, as he implies later in this speech, that Hamas represents “a small – and I believe a very small – number of violent extremists (who) are beyond the call of reason” and can be isolated from the Palestinian population, particularly in Gaza? Is this what Mitchell recommended on the basis of his “listening tour” through the region last week? Hard to believe. If this is any indication of where the administration is headed, it seems that Dennis Ross and the Washington Institute may prevail after all.

In any event, precisely because it was the administration’s first major foreign policy address, Biden’s remarks are worth reading, and if you can find passages that offer hope for real, substantive change in U.S. policy that goes beyond what was promised in the campaign and the cliches about multilateralism and other rhetorical flourishes, I’d be interested in hearing from you.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Vice President

______________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release February 7, 2009

REMARKS BY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN

AT 45TH MUNICH CONFERENCE ON SECURITY POLICY

Hotel Bayerischer Hof

Munich, Germany

12:49 P.M. (Local)

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much. Ladies and gentleman, it’s an honor to be back in Munich. I’ve attended this conference many times as a United States senator, and three of my congressional colleagues are here with me today. But I am honored to be back here, as well, as the Vice President of the United States, representing a new administration and, hopefully, a new day.

Today I am especially honored to represent this administration. And we’ve gone through the oldest of our traditions: that is the peaceful transfer of power. And now, I bring the regrets of two friends who are usually here. But because we are still grappling with legislation relating to our so-called stimulus package to deal with our economic issues – both Senators John McCain and John Kerry were hoping to join my three House colleagues here today, they are usually here, but they send their regrets.

I come to Europe on behalf of a new administration, and an administration that’s determined to set a new tone not only in Washington, but in America’s relations around the world. That new tone is rooted in a strong bipartisanship to meet these common challenges. And we recognize that these challenges, the need to meet them, is not an opportunity – not a luxury, but it’s an absolute necessity. While every new beginning is a moment of hope, this moment – for America and the countries represented in this room – it is fraught with some considerable concern and peril.

In this moment, our obligation to our fellow citizens is to – in our view – put aside the petty and political notion that – to reject the zero sum mentalities and rigid ideologies, and to listen to and learn from one another, and to work together for a common prosperity and security of all of us assembled in this room. That’s what, in our view, this moment demands. And that’s what this new administration is determined to do.

For 45 years, this conference has brought together Americans and Europeans – and, in recent years, leaders from beyond the Transatlantic community – to think through matters of our physical security. But this year, more than ever before, we know that our physical security and our economic security are indivisible. We are all confronting a serious threat to our economic security that could further spread instability and erode the progress we’ve made in improving the lives of all our citizens.

In the United States – like many of you – we’re taking aggressive action to stabilize our financial systems, to jumpstart our economy, and, hopefully, lay a new foundation for growth in the 21st century. Working with the Congress, we’ll make strategic investments that create and save we believe 3 to 4 million jobs, and in the process, boost our competitiveness in the long run.

Our plan includes doubling the production of alternative energy over the next three years; computerizing our citizens’ medical records to drive down cost; equipping tens of thousands of our schools and colleges with 21st century classrooms, laboratories and libraries; expanding the broadband across America; and investing once again in science, research, technology – all the things that spur innovation. We’re looking – we’re also working to stabilize our financial institutions by injecting considerable amounts of capital, purchasing some assets and guaranteeing others. These remedies are going to have an impact, as you all know, far beyond our shores, just as the measures all of you are taking will be felt beyond your borders, as well.

And because of that, to the greatest extent possible, we’re going to have to cooperate to make sure that our actions are complementary, and to do our utmost to combat this global crisis. The United States is trying to do its part. And President Obama looks forward to taking our message to the G20 meeting in London in April.

And even as we grapple with an economic crisis, we’re also – have to contend with a war in Afghanistan now in its eighth year, and a war in Iraq well into its sixth year. And we have to recognize, as mentioned by both the Chancellor and President Sarkozy earlier today, that there are other forces that are shaping this new century: The spread of weapons of mass destruction and dangerous diseases, endemic disease; a growing gap between the rich and poor; ethnic animosity in failed states; and a rapidly warming planet and uncertain supplies of energy, food, water. The challenges to freedom and security from radical fundamentalism must be added to that list, as well.

In meeting these challenges, the United States will be guided by this principle —- and the principle is: There is no conflict between our security and our ideals. We believe they are mutually reinforcing.

The force of arms won our independence, and throughout our history the force of arms has protected our freedom. That will not change. But the very moment we declared our war of independence, at that moment we laid out to the world the values behind our revolution and the conviction that our policies must be informed, as we said at the time, by a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”

Our Founders understood then, and the United States believes now, that the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example. And that is why our administration rejects a false choice between our safety and our ideals. America will vigorously defend our security and our values, and in doing so we believe we’ll all be more secure.

As hard as we try, I know – I know – that we’re likely to fall short of our ideals in the future, just as we have in the past. But I commit to you, this administration will strive every day – every day – to honor the values that animate American democracy and, I might add, that bind us to all of you in this room.

America will not torture. We will uphold the rights of those who we bring to justice. And we will close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

But tough choices lie ahead. As we seek a lasting framework for our common struggle against extremism, we’ll have to work cooperatively with nations around the world – and we’ll need your help. We’ll need your help. For example, we will ask others to take responsibility for some of those now in Guantanamo, as we determine to close it. Our security is shared. And so, too, I respectfully suggest, is our responsibility to defend it.

That’s the basis upon which we want to build a new approach to the challenges of this century. America will do more, but America will – that’s the good news. The bad news is America will ask for more from our partners, as well.

Here’s what we’ll do, and what we hope our partners will consider. First, we’ll work in a partnership whenever we can, and alone only when we must. The threats we face have no respect for borders. No single country, no matter how powerful, can best meet these threats alone. We believe international alliances and organizations do not diminish America’s power – we believe they help advance our collective security, economic interests and our values.

So we’ll engage. We’ll listen. We’ll consult. America needs the world, just as I believe the world needs America. But we say to our friends that the alliances, treaties and international organizations we build must be credible and they must be effective. That requires a common commitment not only to listen and live by the rules, but to enforce the rules when they are, in fact, clearly violated.

Such a bargain is the bargain we seek. Such a bargain can be at the heart of our collective efforts to convince Iran, for example, to forego the development of nuclear weapons. The Iranian people are a great people; the Persian civilization is a great civilization. But Iran has acted in ways that are not conducive to peace in the region or to the prosperity of its own people. Its illicit nuclear program is but one of those manifestations.

Our administration is reviewing our policy toward Iran, but this much is clear: We will be willing to talk. We’ll be willing to talk to Iran and to offer a very clear choice: Continue down the current course and there will be continued pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there will be meaningful incentives.

Second, we’ll strive to act preventively, not preemptively, to avoid whenever possible, or wherever possible the choice of last resort between the risks of war and the dangers of inaction. We’ll draw upon all the elements of our power – military and diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement, economic and cultural – to stop crises from occurring before they are in front of us. In short, we’re going to attempt to recapture the totality of America’s strength, starting with diplomacy.

On his second full day in office, President Obama, went to our State Department, where he stressed the centrality of diplomacy in our national security. The commitment can be seen in his appointments, starting with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. It can be seen in the President’s decision to name two of America’s most tenacious diplomats – Senator George Mitchell and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke – to contend with two of the world’s most urgent and vexing and complex challenges: the need for a secure, just, and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and the imperative of stopping the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan from providing a haven for terrorists.

In both these efforts, America seeks your partnership.

Senator Mitchell just completed his first trip to the Middle East. Above all, he went to listen. In the near term, we must consolidate the cease-fire in Gaza by working with Egypt and others to stop smuggling, and developing an international relief and reconstruction effort that strengthens the Palestinian Authority, and not Hamas. Neither of these goals can be accomplished without close collaboration among the United States, Europe, and our Arab partners.

Then, we must lay the foundation for a broader peacemaking effort. In the past – well, look at it this way – it’s long time passed for us to secure a just, two-state solution. We will work to achieve it. And we’ll work to defeat extremists who perpetuate the conflict. And in building on positive elements of the Arab Peace Initiative put forward by Saudi Arabia, we’ll work toward a broader regional peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and we’ll responsibly draw down our forces that are in Iraq in the process.

The United States will continue to work for a stable Afghanistan that’s not a haven for terrorists. We look forward – we look forward to sharing that commitment with the government and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and with all of our allies and partners, because a deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat not just to the United States, but I would suggest somewhat presumptuously, to every one of you assembled in this room.

President Obama has ordered a strategic review of our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan to make sure that our goals are clear, and that they are achievable. As we undertake that review, we seek ideas and input from you and all of our partners. And we genuinely seek those ideas. I’ve already had bilateral meetings. I’ll have the opportunity to meet with the President of France and others this afternoon. I had an opportunity to meet with the Chancellor this morning. We are sincere in seeking your counsel.

As we undertake this review, there’s a lot at stake. The result must be a comprehensive strategy for which we all take responsibility – that brings together our civilian and military resources, that prevents terrorists a safe haven, that helps the Afghan people develop the capacity to secure their own future. But no strategy for Afghanistan, in my humble opinion, can succeed without Pakistan. We must all strengthen our cooperation with the people and government of Pakistan, help them stabilize their Tribal Areas, promote economic development and opportunity throughout their country. In the case of my government, we feel it’s urgent to move from a relationship that was transactional to one that is based upon a long-term relationship.

Thirdly, America will extend a hand to those who, as the President said, will unclench their fist. The United States of America does not believe, our administration does not believe, in a clash of civilizations; there is nothing inevitable about that. We do see a shared struggle against extremism – and we’ll do everything in our collective power to help the forces of tolerance prevail.

In the Muslim world, a small – and I believe a very small – number of violent extremists are beyond the call of reason. We will, and we must, defeat them. But hundreds of millions of hearts and minds in the Muslim world share the values we hold dearly. We must reach them. President Obama has made clear that he will seek a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect. It was not an accident that he gave his very first interview as President of the United States to Al Arabiya. That was not an accident.

To meet the challenges of this new century, defense and diplomacy are necessary. But quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, they are not sufficient. We also need to wield development and democracy, two of the most powerful weapons in our collective arsenals. Poor societies and dysfunctional states, as you know as well as I do, can become breeding grounds for extremism, conflict and disease. Non-democratic nations frustrate the rightful aspirations of their citizens and fuel resentment.

Our administration has set an ambitious goal to increase foreign assistance, to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, to help eliminate the global educational deficit, and to cancel the debt of the world’s poorest countries; to launch a new Green Revolution that produces sustainable supplies of food, and to advance democracy not through the imposition of force from the outside, but by working with moderates in government and civil society to build those institutions that will protect that freedom -— quite frankly, the only thing that will guarantee that freedom.

We also are determined to build a sustainable future for our planet. We are prepared to once again begin to lead by example. America will act aggressively against climate change and in pursuit of energy security with like-minded nations.

Our administration’s economic stimulus package, for example, includes long-term investments in renewable energy. And we believe that’s merely a down payment. The President has directed our Environmental Protection Agency to review how we regulate emissions, start a process to raise fuel efficiency, appoint a climate envoy – and all in his first week in office, to demonstrate his commitment.

As America renews our emphasis on diplomacy, development and democracy, and preserving our planet, we will ask our allies to rethink some of their own approaches – including their willingness to use force when all else fails.

When it comes to radical groups that use terror as a tool, radical states who harbor extremists, undermine peace and seek or spread weapons of mass destruction, and regimes that systematically kill or ethnically cleanse their own people, we must stand united and use every means at our disposal to end the threat that they pose.

None of us can deny or escape the new threats of the 21st century. Nor can we escape the responsibility to meet them.

And we are not unmindful in the United States how difficult it is to communicate these notions to our public who don’t want to hear much of what needs to be said.

Two months from now, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will gather to celebrate the 60th year of this Alliance. This Alliance has been the cornerstone of our common security since the end of World War II. It has anchored the United States in Europe and helped forge a Europe whole and free. Together we made a pact, a pact to safeguard the freedom of our people founded on the principles and the documents referring to democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. We made a commitment to cooperate, to consult, to act with resolve when the principles we defended are challenged.

There is much to celebrate. But we there’s much more to be done. We must recommit our shared security and renew NATO, so that its success in the 20th century is matched in the 21st century.

NATO’s core purpose remains the collective defense of its members. But faced with new threats, new realities, we need a new resolve to meet them and new capabilities to succeed. Our Alliance must be better equipped to help stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons, to tackle terrorism and cyber-security, to expand the writ of energy security, and to act in and out of area more effectively. We continue to develop – we will continue to develop missile defense to counter the growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven and it is cost-effective. We’ll do so in consultation with you, our NATO allies, and with Russia.

As we embark on this renewal project – as we like to think of it – the United States, like other allies, would warmly welcome, and we do warmly welcome, the decision by France to fully cooperate in NATO structures. That’s the main reason the President got our speech. (Laughter.) You were supposed to say nicer things about me when you got the speech, Mr. President. (Laugher.) That’s a joke. (Laughter.)

In a recent discussion with President Sarkozy, President Obama underscored his strong support for France’s full participation in NATO, should France wish it. France is a founding member of NATO and a major contributor to its operation. We would expect France’s new responsibilities to reflect the significance of its contributions throughout NATO’s history, and to strengthen the European role within the Alliance.

We also support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, a fundamentally stronger NATO-EU partnership, and a deeper cooperation with countries outside the Alliance who share our common goals and principles.

The United States rejects the notion that NATO’s gain is Russia’s loss, or that Russia’s strength is NATO’s weakness. The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance. It is time – to paraphrase President Obama – it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.

Our Russian colleagues long ago warned about the rising threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Today, NATO and Russia can, and should, cooperate to defeat this common enemy. We can and should cooperate to secure loose nuclear weapons and materials to prevent their spread, to renew the verification procedures in the START Treaty, and then go beyond existing treaties to negotiate deeper cuts in both our arsenals. The United States and Russia have a special obligation to lead the international effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

We will not agree with Russia on everything. For example, the United States will not – will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances. But the United States and Russia can disagree and still work together where our interests coincide. And they coincide in many places.

This conference started in the shadow of the Cold War. Now it takes place in a new century with new threats. As one great poet, an Irish poet, once wrote about another circumstance, he said: “All is changed, changed utterly: a terrible beauty has been born.” Well, all changed, changed utterly. And we must change, too, while remaining true to the principles upon which this Alliance was founded. And we must have the common courage and commitment of those who came before us to work together, to build together, to stand together. In sharing ideals and searching for partners in a more complex world, America and Europeans still look to one another before they look to anyone else. Our partnership has benefitted us all. It’s time – it’s time to renew it. And President Obama and I look forward to doing just that.

Thank you for your indulgence. (Applause.)

‘Serial abuser’ in charge of bail-out cash

1

By PAUL HASTE

TAX justice campaigners accused the Treasury on Sunday of handing a “dodgy” former trustee of the Liechtenstein royal family’s secretive bank control over taxpayers’ money.

US citizen Glen Moreno, the chairman of the Pearson corporation, which owns the Financial Times, was appointed as acting chairman of the government’s UK Financial Investments (UKFI) company last month.

UKFI was set up to manage the billions of pounds of public money that is helping to keep troubled British banks afloat.

It oversees more than £37 billion that has been pumped into the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, which now includes the Halifax Bank of Scotland. It is expected to soon take over the government’s management of both Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley.

But Mr Moreno has been exposed as a former trustee for the Liechtenstein Global Trust Bank (LGT), which has been accused of facilitating massive tax evasion.

Some 100 British citizens are believed to be facing investigation by HM Revenue and Customs on the basis of leaked information from the bank.

LGT has also been attacked by the United States Senate’s subcommittee on tax havens, which charged that the bank’s executives, including members of Liechtenstein’s royal family, “aided and abetted clients trying to evade taxes, dodge creditors or defy court orders.”

Liechtenstein, an immensely rich but tiny principality situated between Austria and Switzerland, is controlled by the self-styled “His Serene Highness” Prince Alois, who oversees a country that has just 15 banks but whose vaults contain a staggering £135 billion.

The Treasury’s decision to hand control of taxpayers’ billions to a former trustee of Prince Alois’s bank was greeted incredulously by anti-tax-haven campaigners.

TUC financial and tax affairs analyst Richard Murphy pointed out that ministers “think they can put capitalism back together again, just like Humpty Dumpty.

“It isn’t possible, but this explains why they appoint serial abusers like Glen Moreno to appointments of this sort,” he said.

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable added: “It is absolutely extraordinary that the government is entrusting the safeguarding of public money to somebody who has been intimately involved with one of the dodgier tax havens.

“The only possible justification for appointing him is if he’s willing to be a poacher turned gamekeeper and help to close the tax avoidance schemes that British banks have been heavily engaged in,” he said.

Pentagon warns of US military intervention in Mexico’s “war on drugs”

1

By Kevin Kearney

The United States Joint Forces Command (USJFC), charged with anticipating global threats to US imperialism, issued a report last November entitled “Joint Operating Environment 2008 naming Pakistan and Mexico as the nations whose governments are most likely to undergo what it termed “rapid collapse.” This term goes largely undefined, beyond the assertion that it “usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems.”

While Pakistan has been a key focus of US imperialism, subjected to an on-going military intervention for several years, Mexico’s mention seems unusual at first glance. The report concedes that while the possibility of a sudden collapse of the Mexican government is less likely than in Pakistan, “….the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state.”

Ominously, the study concludes: “Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.” The immense implications of this statement become clear when one considers that the USJFC–one of the nine branches of the Department of Defense–controls nearly all conventional military forces based in the continental United States–a force of 1.6 million.

By identifying possible “chaos” in Mexico as a threat to US homeland security, the study implies that direct military intervention is a distinct possibility. The report goes so far as to assert that every branch of the Mexican state is under threat of succumbing to the all-consuming influence of drug traffickers and may therefore require the direct oversight of the US military, giving some clue as to the scope of such an intervention.

Closer examination reveals that the conclusions of the USJFC study are of a piece with US involvement in President Felipe Calderon’s two-year effort to brace for a mass political radicalization in Mexico by militarizing the country under the guise of a “war on drugs.”

Calderon’s “war” on the long-standing and complex socio-economic problem of drug trafficking was launched on December 8, 2006. Far from a plan to curtail the drug trade or protect the people from violence, the operation consisted of little more than a mass deployment of military units across the country. To date, nearly 50,000 troops–including federal police–have been deployed with an official mandate to “use all necessary force.”

The policy has led to an increase in bloodshed throughout the country. The number of violent deaths attributed to the war has actually doubled every year since the policy was initiated, reaching a bloody crescendo at the close of 2008 with an estimated 5,700 deaths in a one-year period.

 

Although the international media is fixated on the scale of the violence and on particularly sensational instances–like the beheading of several soldiers in Guerrero state in December–little effort has been made to understand how and why things have gotten so out of hand. The result is a much distorted picture which portrays Mexico as a “wild west” environment where vicious drug dealers indiscriminately terrorize a helpless population that cries out for military assistance.

 

There is, to be sure, a public outcry, but it is frequently a general outcry against the increased level of violence that the militarization project has brought into being.

Emilio Alvarez Icaza, president of the Commission for Human Rights centered in Mexico City, said last December that the government “must revise its strategy against the cartels and pull the military out of the action because the military is trained for the extreme use of force and for national defense.”

Last year alone, the government received well over 500 complaints of human rights abuses against the military forces prosecuting the war on drugs, according to the Mexican daily La Jornada. Moreover, the secretary of defense, reports that complaints against the military for wrongful death and injury have more than doubled during the drug war. Significantly, not a single soldier has been punished since Calderon assumed the office of the presidency.

 

Complaints, like the case of Sayra Guadalupe Arzáte, who, according to La Jornada, was shot to death at a military checkpoint, are eerily similar to the atrocities suffered by civilians under the US occupation of Iraq. Stratfor–a web site with intimate connections to the CIA–concedes: “As it pursues the cartels, the Mexican military is more like an occupying power chasing local insurgents than an agency of the central government enforcing the rule of law.” Revisiting its comparison to on-going imperialist wars, it continues: “Organized criminal assailants in Mexico, like insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, are difficult to distinguish from innocent civilians and can mount attacks then quickly blend into the population.”

 

The drug trade is not a new phenomenon. It flourishes under conditions of great poverty and desperation. It is a public health problem that will never be eradicated under capitalism and certainly not by means of “war.”

 

The war on drugs was launched in the midst of a political crisis. Winning the presidency by the smallest margin in Mexican history–and in an election marred by accusations of fraud–Calderon, the candidate backed by US imperialism, took office amid popular distrust and hostility. His opponent, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), challenged the election results by means of a mass anti-Calderon mobilization in which millions repeatedly converged on Mexico City’s center, converting it into a semi-permanent encampment and repeatedly shutting it down over a period of months.

Simultaneously, a teachers’ strike in the state of Oaxaca threatened to grow into a full-scale insurrection, drawing in large sections of student youth, workers and peasants. The protesters eventually formed an umbrella group called the APPO, which took control of the city center and held it for months.

At the time, Mexico had the world’s fourth largest population of millionaires, while 30 million scraped by on 22 pesos (barely $2) or less a day. Even these dire economic conditions are increasingly overshadowed by the gathering impact of the world economic crisis.

Mexico is the world’s 13th largest economy. As a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement and one of the largest US trading partners, Mexico is particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of the US economy–the epicenter of the world financial crisis–and will likely suffer more than any other Latin American country this year.

The United States is the largest single source of foreign direct investment in Mexico. Even more importantly, the United States is the destination of more than 80 percent of Mexico’s exports. Moreover, nearly all of Mexico’s remittance income (about $23 billion annually) comes from the criminalized Mexican immigrant population struggling in the US. The Mexican Central Bank anticipates a 2.5 percent decrease in remittances this year, according the Associated Press.

Some 80 percent of Mexico’s banks are owned by foreign companies, leaving the country exposed before the collapse of the international credit market. Since the onset of the credit crisis, foreign capital has fled Mexican investments and banks seeking safety in wealthier countries.

Oil exports provide Mexico with nearly 40 percent of its annual revenues and the price of this commodity has plummeted over the last several months due to global economic slowdown.

Without question, the financial crisis will translate into a steep drop in employment and income in a country where the majority of the population already lives in poverty. The Mexican government estimates that the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) will slow from 1.8 percent in 2008 to 0.9 percent in 2009. According to El Universal, the unemployment rate increased from 4 percent to 4.8 percent in November 2008, the largest increase in unemployment of all the nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). According to the Center for Economic Research and Teaching, Mexico’s unemployment rate is forecast to be between 5.15 and 5.3 percent in 2009 and, of course, it could be much higher.

Moreover, the peso has been devalued by about 22.6 percent since early 2008, forcing the Mexican Central Bank to inject about $14.8 billion into currency markets in an effort at stabilization. As a consequence, inflation is rising, affecting already high food prices. The government reported a 12-month inflation rate of 6.2 percent through mid-November, which, according to El Universal, is the highest inflation rate in Mexico since 2001. The Economist put inflation higher still at around 6.5 percent in 2008, nearly double the 3.8 percent rate for 2007.

Under such conditions, many millions will likely lose access to the most basic necessities, including food. This is a frightening prospect for the ruling elite of Mexico and its allies in Washington, considering that political opposition in Mexico has recently been expressed in the form of paralyzing mass protests. With presidential elections set for 2012, it is widely acknowledged in Washington that the combination of the economic crisis and the disastrous “war on drugs” could eventually topple the Calderon administration.

In this context, the real essence of the “war on drugs” as a preemptive strike against a mass radicalization of working and poor Mexicans becomes clear.

Within the first year of the “war on drugs,” the national media worked in tandem with the executive branch to generate a virtual hysteria over drug-related killings. Calderon seized upon these incidents to push through a raft of reactionary legislation and executive decrees aimed at strengthening the executive and criminalizing any and all mass social movements opposed to growing economic inequality and political corruption.

This was complimented by a record increase in extraditions to the US, the expansion of the US Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) presence in Mexico, increased intelligence sharing and Calderon’s continued calls for more US support.

These calls were answered in short order via the Merida Initiative–proposed by George Bush and passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress as part of a bill to increase war spending in Iraq–which lavishes nearly $2 billion on the military and federal police agencies of Mexico and Central America over a period of three years.

Although the bill contains a few ritual statements affirming respect for the “rule of law,” its primary purpose is the extension of US military influence over Mexico and Central America under the guise of training programs, data collection and sharing, and the provision by the US of various forms of military technology and domestic spying equipment.

The real purpose of the Merida Initiative can be seen in its striking similarities to Plan Colombia, through which the US has heavily funded and deeply integrated itself into the Colombian military over the last decade, even as cocaine production in that country continually expands, hitting a nearly 30 percent increase by 2007, according to the Guardian.

In this context, The Joint Forces Command’s statement implying a direct military intervention represents a qualitative shift in line with US foreign policy in Mexico over the last two years.

 

The new circumstances not only raise the danger of political instability in Mexico, but also raise other major issues for US imperialism, including a change in the relative positions of the US and its rivals in Latin America. The Joint Forces Command study cites Cuba and Venezuela as “potential challenges to the status quo” in the region, noting their ability to promote anti-American coalitions with countries like Russia and China.

President Barack Obama met with Felipe Calderon on January 12, a week before his inauguration, to declare his continued support for the “war on drugs.” Although media coverage revealed very little about the meeting, Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, recently summed up the foreign policy trajectory of the new administration in Foreign Affairs: Continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; maintenance of conventional US military dominance over potential adversaries, including China and Russia; and preparation for further occupations and “counter-insurgency operations,” with Mexico, it now appears, as a prime target.

How Bush Threatened Britain

0

The Atlantic — – In order to prevent any details of its torture record being publicly disseminated, the Bush administration threatened the British government with withdrawal of intelligence sharing if they allowed a court to publish the redacted evidence. Foreign secretary David Miliband denied this on Wednesday, but the letters from the US have been released by Channel 4 News. And their message is unmistakable. The first letter:

“I write with respect to proceedings … regarding Mr Binyam Mohamed,” the letter said. “We note the classified documents identified in your letters of June 16 and August 1, 2008, to the acting general counsel of the Department of Defence … the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm … intelligence information sharing arrangements between our two governments.”

The second:

“Ordering the disclosure of the US intelligence information now would have only the marginal effects of serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence sharing relationship, and thus the national security of the UK …”

That is a threat to hurt the security of a very close ally unless the British government intervenes into a court process to suppress evidence of US torture. In a critical test of the Obama administration, the demand that such evidence be suppressed was reiterated. (I don’t know by whom. Panetta isn’t in place yet. Brennan? Clinton?) And that’s how illegal torture spreads throughout a legal and military system to undermine alliances as well as the rule of law. The poison of Cheney is still in the system. And it will be for a long time. That was the point: the crimes and blunders they committed were such that their successors find themselves, willy nilly, implicated in them.

Dozens of civilians killed as Sri Lankan army continues its onslaught

0

By Sarath Kumara

Despite growing international outrage, Sri Lankan security forces have continued military operations in the northern district of Mullaithivu against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Indiscriminate artillery barrages and aerial bombing have resulted in the deaths of dozens more civilians over the past five days. Around quarter of a million people are trapped in the area without adequate food, shelter or medicine.

 

UN spokesman Gordon Weiss told the Associated Press that 52 civilians had been killed and 80 wounded on Tuesday alone. Some had been killed inside a government-designated safe zone in the remaining LTTE-held area. The actual figure is likely to be far higher but reports are scanty as the Sri Lankan government bars journalists from the war zone.

 

Puthukkudiyiruppu hospital, the last remaining medical facility inside LTTE-held territory, was closed after repeatedly coming under artillery fire since Sunday. According to Weiss, 15 UN staff and 81 family members fled on Wednesday after the area was pounded for more than 16 hours of artillery fire.

 

Weiss said he had received a report that a cluster bomb had hit just outside the hospital. The use of cluster bombs is illegal under international law. Sri Lankan military spokesman Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara was quick to deny having or using cluster bombs. At this stage the report has not been unconfirmed.

 

Sarasi Wijeratne, a spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that efforts were being made to evacuate around 500 injured civilians. The Puthukkudiyiruppu hospital had been relocated to Puthumalan, closer to the coast. Obtaining water was a major main problem, Wijeratne said.

 

The government and the military blame the LTTE for keeping civilians against their will as “human shields.” At the same time, however, the government issued a statement earlier this week that it was not responsible for the safety of civilians in LTTE-controlled areas. As has taken place in other areas, the military’s objective is clear: to stampede civilians and transform the entire area into a free-fire zone.

 

While criticising the LTTE for preventing civilians from leaving, Human Rights Watch spokesman Brad Adams condemned the government’s attitude, saying: “The Sri Lankan government knows full well that the civilians caught up in the current fighting are dangerously trapped. The government shows callous indifference by saying civilians should not expect the government to consider their safety and security.”

 

Amnesty International called this week for a temporary humanitarian truce and the creation of humanitarian corridors to allow trapped civilians to leave and relief supplies to enter. Hundreds of thousands of people are completely dependent on outside aid. The last shipment of food went into the area on January 29.

 

Amnesty International spokeswoman Yolanda Foster said: “The situation for civilians in the Wanni is unacceptable. People cannot move safely, even to collect the bodies of dead relatives, and the injured have no hospitals. A quarter of a million people are suffering without adequate food and shelter while shells rain down upon them. Most of those who have managed to escape the conflict have not received adequate hospital treatment.”

 

The UN’s World Food Program (WPF) yesterday warned of an impending food crisis in the Wanni. A WPF convoy was due to enter the area on Thursday but government officials failed to give it the necessary clearance. WPF spokeswoman Emilla Casella said it would be a week before another attempt could be made. “We don’t have any more stocks to be distributed [inside the area], and our staff is essentially hiding at the moment,” she said.

 

Sinhala extremists have responded hysterically to the limited news of the humanitarian disaster filtering out from aid groups inside the Wanni. Wimal Weerawansa, head of the National Freedom Front (NFF), which is allied to the government, yesterday demanded the expulsion of the head of the ICRC in Colombo, alleging he was an LTTE sympathiser. Yesterday evening, a group of protestors making the same demand pelted the ICRC head office with stones.

 

The government has flatly rejected all calls for a ceasefire–even from its international backers like the US. On Tuesday, the US, UK, Japan and Norway–the co-chairs of the so-called international peace process in Sri Lanka–called on the LTTE to surrender and on the government to agree to a ceasefire to discuss procedures for a surrender.

 

Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse ruled out any halt to the fighting. He told the Island on Thursday: “Nothing could be as ridiculous as this … nothing short of unconditional surrender of arms and cadres [of the LTTE] could bring an end to the offensive on the Wanni front.”

 

Completely indifferent to the plight of civilians, Rajapakse added: “The so-called ‘no-fire’ period proposed by Co-Chairs to evacuate sick and wounded now trapped in the LTTE-held area would be detrimental to Sri Lanka’s efforts to wipe out terrorism.”

 

Over the past few days, the military has announced the capture of the LTTE strongholds of Vishvamadu and Chalai. Chalai, near Mullaithivu, was a major base for the LTTE’s Sea Tigers involved in naval operations and ferrying supplies. The army also claimed to have captured the LTTE’s remaining airstrip for light aircraft. Fighting has reportedly been heavy, but the army has not released any casualty figures.

 

It is clear from the defence secretary’s statements that the military intends to crush the LTTE as a military force regardless of the terrible consequences for trapped civilians. Such reckless indifference for innocent civilians constitutes a war crime under international law.

Peers condemn huge rise in state spying

0

By LOUISE NOUSRATPOUR

CIVIL rights campaigners demanded an end to Britain’s “surveillance society” on Friday after the Lords issued a damning attack on the “incessant creep” of CCTV snooping and a mounting DNA database.

Members of the House of Lords constitution committee warned that Britain has more CCTV cameras and a bigger DNA database per person than anywhere else in the world.

In a highly critical report, the peers called on ministers and Parliament to exercise much greater restraint in authorising more surveillance and data collection.

Ministers were urged to “act quickly” to comply with the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the DNA database, which said that police should destroy the DNA data of innocent people. Anyone who voluntarily gives their DNA to police during an investigation but is not a suspect should have it removed automatically, peers said.

Committee chairman Lord Goodlad called for “much more openness” about what data is collected and how it is used.

“The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the long-standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy,” the Tory peer added.

A spokesman for the Home Office and Ministry of Justice defended the surveillance measures, insisting that CCTV and DNA collection are “essential crime-fighting tools” and help protect the public from terrorism.

But anti-surveillance group NO2ID co-ordinator Phil Booth rejected government justification as “a fallacy,” accusing ministers of “treating everyone as suspects – guilty before proven innocent.”

He insisted that ministers “stop now before things get even worse. The reality is that, the more data they gather, the higher is the risk of losing or misusing the information.

“What they should be doing is focus resources on serious criminals and terrorist activities and get out of the private lives of law-abiding citizens.”

Civil rights group Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said that the report suggested that the Lords are more in touch with public concerns than our elected government.

“Over the past seven years, we’ve been told: ‘Nothing to hide, nothing to fear,’ but a stream of data bungles and abuses of power suggest that even the innocent have a lot to fear,” she added.

The New Thought Police

3

The NSA Wants to Know How You Think – Maybe Even What You Think

By James Bamford 

The National Security Agency (NSA) is developing a tool that George Orwell’s Thought Police might have found useful: an artificial intelligence system designed to gain insight into what people are thinking.

With the entire Internet and thousands of databases for a brain, the device will be able to respond almost instantaneously to complex questions posed by intelligence analysts. As more and more data is collected–through phone calls, credit card receipts, social networks like Facebook and MySpace, GPS tracks, cell phone geolocation, Internet searches, Amazon book purchases, even E-Z Pass toll records–it may one day be possible to know not just where people are and what they are doing, but what and how they think.

The system is so potentially intrusive that at least one researcher has quit, citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability.

Getting Aquaint

Known as Aquaint, which stands for “Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence,” the project was run for many years by John Prange, an NSA scientist at the Advanced Research and Development Activity. Headquartered in Room 12A69 in the NSA’s Research and Engineering Building at 1 National Business Park, ARDA was set up by the agency to serve as a sort of intelligence community DARPA, the place where former Reagan national security advisor John Poindexter’s infamous Total Information Awareness project was born. [Editor’s note: TIA was a short-lived project founded in 2002 to apply information technology to counter terrorist and other threats to national security.] Later named the Disruptive Technology Office, ARDA has now morphed into the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA).

A sort of national laboratory for eavesdropping and other spycraft, IARPA will move into its new 120,000-square-foot home in 2009. The building will be part of the new M Square Research Park in College Park, Maryland. A mammoth two million-square-foot, 128-acre complex, it is operated in collaboration with the University of Maryland. “Their budget is classified, but I understand it’s very well funded,” said Brian Darmody, the University of Maryland’s assistant vice president of research and economic development, referring to IARPA. “They’ll be in their own building here, and they’re going to grow. Their mission is expanding.”

If IARPA is the spy world’s DARPA, Aquaint may be the reincarnation of Poindexter’s TIA. After a briefing by NSA Director Michael Hayden, Vice President Dick Cheney, and CIA Director George Tenet of some of the NSA’s data mining programs in July 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller IV, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a concerned letter to Cheney. “As I reflected on the meeting today,” he said, “John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.”

Building “Hal”

The original goal of Aquaint, which dates back to the 1990s, was simply to develop a sophisticated method of picking the right needles out of a vast haystack of information and coming up with the answer to a question. As with TIA, many universities were invited to contribute brainpower to the project. But in the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, with the creation of the NSA’s secret warrantless eavesdropping program and the buildup of massive databases, the project began taking on a more urgent tone.

“Think of 2001: A Space Odyssey and the most memorable character, HAL 9000. We are building HAL.”

In a 2004 pilot project, a mass of data was gathered from news stories taken from the New York Times, the AP news wire, and the English portion of the Chinese Xinhua news wire covering 1998 to 2000. Then, 13 U.S. military intelligence analysts searched the data and came up with a number of scenarios based on the material. Finally, using those scenarios, an NSA analyst developed 50 topics, and in each of those topics created a series of questions for Aquaint’s computerized brain to answer. “Will the Japanese use force to defend the Senkakus?” was one. “What types of disputes or conflict between the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] and Hong Kong residents have been reported?” was another. And “Who were the participants in this spy ring, and how are they related to each other?” was a third. Since then, the NSA has attempted to build both on the complexity of the system–more essay-like answers rather than yes or no–and on attacking greater volumes of data.

“The technology behaves like a robot, understanding and answering complex questions,” said a former Aquaint researcher. “Think of 2001: A Space Odyssey and the most memorable character, HAL 9000, having a conversation with David. We are essentially building this system. We are building HAL.” A naturalized U.S. citizen who received her Ph.D. from Columbia, the researcher worked on the program for several years but eventually left due to moral concerns. “The system can answer the question, ‘What does X think about Y?'” she said. “Working for the government is great, but I don’t like looking into other people’s secrets. I am interested in helping people and helping physicians and patients for the quality of people’s lives.” The researcher now focuses on developing similar search techniques for the medical community.

Thought policeman

A supersmart search engine, capable of answering complex questions such as “What were the major issues in the last 10 presidential elections?” would be very useful for the public. But that same capability in the hands of an agency like the NSA–absolutely secret, often above the law, resistant to oversight, and with access to petabytes of private information about Americans–could be a privacy and civil liberties nightmare. “We must not forget that the ultimate goal is to transfer research results into operational use,” said Aquaint project leader John Prange, in charge of information exploitation for IARPA.

Once up and running, the database of old newspapers could quickly be expanded to include an inland sea of personal information scooped up by the agency’s warrantless data suction hoses. Unregulated, they could ask it to determine which Americans might likely pose a security risk–or have sympathies toward a particular cause, such as the antiwar movement, as was done during the 1960s and 1970s. The Aquaint robospy might then base its decision on the type of books a person purchased online, or chat room talk, or websites visited–or a similar combination of data. Such a system would have an enormous chilling effect on everyone’s everyday activities–what will the Aquaint computer think if I buy this book, or go to that website, or make this comment? Will I be suspected of being a terrorist or a spy or a subversive?

Controlling brain waves

Collecting information, however, has always been far less of a problem for the NSA than understanding it, and that means knowing the language. To expand its linguistic capabilities, the agency established another new organization, the Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL), and housed it in a building near IARPA at the M Square Research Park. But far from simply learning the meaning of foreign words, CASL, like Aquaint, attempts to find ways to get into someone’s mind and understand what he or she is thinking.

One area of study is to attempt to determine if people are lying simply by watching their behavior and listening to them speak. According to one CASL document, “Many deception cues are difficult to identify, particularly when they are subtle, such as changes in verb tense or extremely brief facial expressions. CASL researchers are studying these cues in detail with advanced measurement and statistical analysis techniques in order to recommend ways to identify deceptive cue combinations.”

Like something out of a B-grade sci-fi movie, CASL is even training employees to control their own brain waves.

Another area of focus explores the “growing need to work with foreign text that is incomplete,” such as partly deciphered messages or a corrupted hard drive or the intercept of only one side of a conversation. The center is thus attempting to find ways to prod the agency’s cipher-brains to fill in the missing blanks. “In response,” says the report, “CASL’s cognitive neuroscience team has been studying the cognitive basis of working memory’s capacity for filling in incomplete areas of text. They have made significant headway in this research by using a powerful high-density electroencephalogram (EEG) machine acquired in 2006.” The effort is apparently directed at discovering what parts of the brain are used when very good cryptanalysts are able to guess correctly the missing words and phrases in a message.

Like something out of a B-grade sci-fi movie, CASL is even trying to turn dull minds into creative geniuses by training employees to control their own brain waves: “The cognitive neuroscience team has also been researching divergent thinking: creative, innovative and flexible thinking valuable for language work. They are exploring ways to improve divergent thinking using the EEG and neurobiological feedback. A change in brain-wave activity is believed to be critical for generating creative ideas, so the team trains its subjects to change their brain-wave activity.”

THE STORY THE MEDIA WON’T TOUCH

1

By Sam Smith

Based on media coverage at least, name the largest industry in America that never contributes to political campaigns, never tries to influence politicians, never is involved in political corruption and has no lobbyists in Washington? In other words, name the cleanest business in America – that is, if you believe the media

The answer: the illegal drug trade.

For example, the Review has been among the lonely voices raising the possibility that drug and mob money may have played a much larger role in the current fiscal crash than has been noted.

It is clear the media doesn’t want to touch this matter. But they’ve had a setback with the testimony of financial investigator and Madoff whistleblower Harry Markopolos. Talking Points Memo notes: “Markopolos elaborated while being questioned by lawmakers, alleging Madoff ‘had a lot of dirty money‘ from the Russian mafia and Latin American drug cartels.“

In the end, Markopolos realized he had done the mobs a favor. Here’s part of a Q&A with Rep. Gary Ackerman:

ACKERMAN: I’m talking about, when you talk about the Russian mob and organized crime, these are people who invested through European investors or European feeder funds?

MARKOPOLOS: Correct. And I didn’t fear of them, and I didn’t think they were going to come after me, I want to make this perfectly clear to all those Russian mobsters and Latin American drug cartels out there. . .

ACKERMAN: You’re talking directly to them.

MARKOPOLOS: I was acting on your behalf trying to stop him from zeroing out your accounts. I’m the good guy here. Just like to make that clear.

And the Independent in Britain reports that “Amid persistent rumors that Russian mob money found its way into the Madoff Ponzi scheme, a panic button has been installed in the [Madoff] apartment, along with 24-hour surveillance, as much to protect him as to check he is not planning to flee. He wears a bullet-proof vest for trips to court.”

It seems obvious that the parallel rise of the illegal drug trade and the use of hedge funds and other devices to hide the origin and movement of money deserves, at the very least, deep looking into. There seems a reasonable possibility that our current crisis was driven in some part by a need to launder large sums belonging to criminal groups.

Why is the media so reluctant to consider this? Partly because it sounds too movie-like. But, as we have recently learned, Bernie Madoffs actually exist outside of Hollywood.

Part is because the media traditionally takes its cue on covering crime from law enforcement, which may itself – as with other government bodies – be involved, incompetent or indifferent.

Finally we have the little noted problem that in a hyper-corporatized media, a good scoop can ruin a career as fast as it can make one if the wrong people in power are angered by it.

I have been alternately frustrated and fascinated by the money laundering story and the refusal of major media for the most part to even mention it. To the media, the drug trade is largely the result of minorities and undisciplined young white dudes. It makes the story so much easier.

But when I started covering the Clinton story, I found myself repeatedly stumbling into other aspects of the tale. Here are a few examples from the Review archives:

 

1994 – Writing in the London Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote that Arkansas was a “major point for the transshipment of drugs” during the 1980s and “perilously close to becoming a ‘narco republic’ — a sort of mini-Columbia within the borders of the United States.”


1995 – While portions of the Mena, Arkansas affair have been reported elsewhere (including here), the Denton/Morris piece is significant . . . First, it is based on more than 2000 documents from the files of ex-drug smuggler — and sometime intelligence asset — the late Barry Seal. . . The Denton/Morris story tells of “literally hundreds of millions of dollars in drug profits” being developed by the Mena operation, of CIA involvement, and of nine different official investigations being stifled under two presidents (Reagan and Bush) and one governor (Clinton).

1996 – Jim Leach of the House Banking Committee is reported running into stonewalling on the grounds of “national security” as he investigates drug smuggling and money laundering out of Mena, Arkansas. As Insight magazine points out in its January 29 issue, there have been nine separate federal and state probes over the last decade that “have managed to establish that Mena was indeed the center of a brazen narcotics-trafficking operation.”

1996 – The White House hosted a major drug dealer at its Christmas party last year. . . Cabrera was indicted in 1983 by a federal grand jury — on racketing and drug charges — and again in 1988, when he was accused of managing a continuing narcotics operation. He pleaded guilty to lesser charges and served 54 months on prison. Since his visit to the White House he has been sentenced to 19 years on prison for transporting 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the US.

1997 – In his book, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard quotes an ex-drug pilot as saying that he once brought a Cessna 210 full of cocaine into eastern Arkansas where he was met by a state trooper in a marked police car. “Arkansas,” he said, “was a very good place to load and unload.” Later Evans-Pritchard wrote:

“On my first visits to Arkansas, I could smell that something was wrong. The place reminded me of Central America, a sort of anglophone Guatemala, where a corrupt and violent political machine operated behind the scenes. People dissembled in interviews, instinctively. The deeper I looked, the clearer it became that the Dixie Mafia had a foothold in official Arkansas, and that intimidation was part of the culture.

“Dissident members of the Arkansas State Police provided me with stacks of confidential reports showing that one of Mr. Clinton’s biggest financial backers during his assent to power . . .had been under investigation for international drug-trafficking. . . .

1998: Arkansas Highway Police have seized $3.1 million in cash from four suitcases in a tractor-trailer rig’s sleeper section. The driver was charged with money laundering among other things. The seizure was the fourth largest in American history and nearly fifty times more than all the illegal money seized by Arkansas highway police in a typical year.

Arkansas has long functioned as a center of narcotics activity. The airport at Mena has been used for major drug trafficking, and sparsely populated areas have proved attractive for “kick drops” in which drug shipments are released from a plane to confederates on the ground who are given the geographical coordinates of the shipment. It has also been alleged that drug money was laundered through the Arkansas Development and Finance Administration.

1997 – Progressive Review editor Sam Smith interviews Billy Bear Bottoms, pilot for Barry Seal, who, until he was murdered, was considered by some the biggest illegal drug importer. Bottom thinks this is inflated but says that Seal “testified in a trial in Las Vegas that he had made about 50 trips of 300 kilos each. His transportation fee was $5,000 per kilo. We actually only made about 25 trips.” The transportation fee alone works out to $1.5 million a trip or $75 million for 50 trips; half that for 25. [That would be about $2.7 million a trip in today’s dollars].

1999 – From “Partners in Power” by Roger Morris:

“[Key investigators] Duncan and Welch watched the Mena inquiry systematically quashed and their own careers destroyed as the IRS and state police effectively dissolved their investigations and turned on them. ‘Somebody outside ordered it shut down,’ one would say, ‘and the walls went up.’ Welch [a state trooper] recorded his fear and disillusion in his diary on November 17, 1987: ‘Should a cop cross over the line and dare to investigate the rich and powerful, he might well prepared himself to become the victim of his own government. The cops are all afraid to tell what they know for fear that they will lose their jobs.'”

1999 – Bill Duncan: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: “Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one.” The cases were suppressed, many in the name of “national security.” Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, “Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up.”

1999 – Rusell Welch: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official let one of the targets of the probe look through the investigative file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the CDC as anthrax. He would write in his diary, “I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal.” Welch is no longer with the state police.

1999 – Jean Duffey was head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: “Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official.” Duffey’s work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine. The local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including “the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused.” Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to a secret address in Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was convicted in June 1997 of five counts of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

2000 – Insight Magazine: Canadian police have identified Clinton donor and Macao gambling tycoon Stanley Ho as the leader of a triad gang of organized criminals with strong ties to Communist China. President Clinton personally accepted $250,000 from a Macao gambling tycoon whom Canadian police identify as a “leader” of a Chinese triad, or organized-crime syndicate. . . According to a separate Canadian Security Intelligence Service report, the triads are involved in “drug trafficking; money laundering; corruption; computer-software piracy; credit-card forgery and fraud; counterfeit currency and identification operations; and migrant smuggling.”

2001 – Stewart Tendler, Times, London: Customs officers have seized nearly $2 million in cash after it was flown into Britain on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire pardoned by Bill Clinton. Mr Rich, whose presidential pardon is under investigation by the FBI, now has to prove that the cash was honestly acquired, or he could lose it. Investigators are holding the cash under powers aimed at preventing drug traffickers moving their profits from country to country. . .

2001 – In 1984, a Clinton bodyguard, state trooper L.D. Brown, applied for a CIA opening. Clinton gave him help on his application essay including making it more Reaganesque on the topic of Nicaragua. According to Brown, he met a CIA recruiter in Dallas whom he later identified as former member of Vice President Bush’s staff. On the recruiter’s instruction, he also met with notorious drug dealer Barry Seal in a Little Rock restaurant, later joining Seal in flight to Honduras with a purported shipment of M16s and a return load of duffel bags. Brown got $2,500 in small bills for the flight. Concerned about the mission, Brown consulted with Clinton who said, “Oh, you can handle it, don’t sweat it.” On second flight, Brown found cocaine in a duffel bag and again he sought Clinton’s counsel. Clinton allegedly said to the politically conservative Brown, “Your buddy Bush knows about it” and of the cocaine, “that’s Lasater’s deal.”

2001 – In 1985, Clinton established the Arkansas Development Finance Authority that would become, in the words of one well-connected Arkansan “his own political piggy bank.” Though millions of dollars were funneled to Clinton allies, records of repayments would be hazy or non-existent. . . Later, an investigator found evidence of an electronic transfer of $50 million from the Arkansas Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands.

2001 – In 1989 Terry Reed filed a civil action against Buddy Young, chief of the Clinton security detail and later a top FEMA official. Reed argued that he had been framed after trying to pull away from his involvement in the Iran-Contra machinations. . . One estimate was that ten million dollars were passing through Mena every week. Patterson said the matter was repeatedly discussed in front of Clinton by his bodyguards. Patterson said the governor had “very little comment to make; he was just listening to what was being said.” Reed’s case unraveled when the state judge ruled that no evidence regarding Mena, the CIA, Dan Lasater, the Arkansas Development Finance Agency, or the Clintons would be permitted.

As one examined the story, it was clear even back then that there were major ties to other major scandals such as BCCI and the savings & loan crisis, forerunners of current mass fiscal manipulation gone awry. The state of Arkansas was laundering money in Grand Cayman, which had a population of 18,000, 570 commercial banks, one bank regulator and a bank secrecy law. Foreign investors helped to set up a bank in a small town near the major drug center at Mena. One secretary told told an IRS investigator that she was ordered to obtain numerous cashier’s checks, each in an amount just under $10,000, at various banks in Mena and surrounding communities, to avoid filing the federal currency transaction reports required for all bank transactions that exceed that limit. Bank tellers testified before a federal grand jury that in November 1982, a Mena airport employee carried a suitcase containing more than $70,000 into a bank. “The bank officer went down the teller lines handing out the stacks of $1,000 bills and got the cashier’s checks.”

Mind you, most of this occurred more than a decade ago, yet, with a few exceptions like Roger Morris, Sally Denton and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, reporters haven’t wanted to touch it and have spent their efforts instead creating a benign Clinton myth. Clinton was – like a typical prohibition era politician – a beneficiary and peripherally complicit at the very least through studied indifference, but in a sense he was really just part of the background. He was a window into the real story: how a huge part of the American economy – created by the crudely misnamed War on Drugs – operated in just one state.

If the media had honestly followed the money back then, if they had asked obvious questions about the war on drugs, if they hadn’t fallen for the politicians’ lines on BCCI and the S&L scandal, if they had wondered why so much money was moving around without any visibility or regulation, we might have approached the end of 2008 in better shape.

Government fails its data security training target

0

By Siobhan Chapman

Government departments are failing to meet IT security training requirements, according to responses to a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request.

Despite high-profile government data breaches, most departments have yet to implement a basic level of training on data handling, a freedom of information request made to 16 government departments has found.

The Data Handling Report, published by the Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in June 2008, committed all departments to mandatory training for those with access to protected personal information or involved in managing it. Each department should have started their mandatory training by the end of October 2008.

But FOI requests made to 16 government by learning provider Firebrand Training departments found many have failed to meet basic training requirements.

The departments for Department for Children, Schools and Families revealed it had no mandatory IT security training in place at all.

While new employees in the Department for Communities and Local Government are issued with an induction pack, they do not receive any formal training.

The Data Handling Report also mandates that employees that handle personal data must undergo annual refresher training. But eleven out of the 14 departments that responded revealed that they not have any refresher training in place for employees. One exception was the Foreign & Commonwealth Office that does operate a refresher training policy, but on a five-year schedule. All departments stated there were plans to implement refresher classes in 2009.

Eight government agencies, including the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said they had no budget for IT security training this year.

Seven departments were unable to respond to the question on whether there was a training budget for IT security. These included the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office, the department for Health, Department for Environment Food Rural Affairs, the Culture department, the Home Office and the Department for Work & Pensions.

Robert Chapman, chief executive of Firebrand Training, which put in the FoI request, said it was a disappointing, but “not surprising” indication that the government was “failing to demonstrate a commitment to data protection”.

“The education of employees is essential to any organisation’s security,” he said, adding: “We rely far too heavily on IT departments. It is clear that inadequate training and inconsistency between departments has produced a naiveté among government employees.”

National ID card database ‘will never be 100% secure’ put citizens at risk’

0

By Martin Bentham

British citizens will be “seriously harmed” by breaches of the Government’s identity card scheme and other national databases, a report by technology experts warned today.

The report, whose authors were commissioned by firms including Microsoft, BT and Symantec, says no database can be “100 per cent secure or failsafe” and that accidents and security breaches will occur.

It warns that the creation of expanded national databases, such as that which will be used for the ID card scheme, will present “fresh opportunities” for criminals to exploit and suggests that the risks to the public will be further increased by the “poor information management culture” that exists in many areas of Whitehall.

The findings will be seized on by critics of ID cards and schemes such as the Contact Point database on which details of all children are being stored.

Ministers have insisted that the ID card scheme will be virtually immune from misuse because of its use of biometric data and other safeguards and insist that robust precautions will be taken to ensure the security of personal information held.

Today’s report by the Information Assurance Advisory Council, a private sector group of technology experts, suggests that the creation of a “national identity infrastructure” is inevitable as the need for each person to have a “trustworthy” electronic identity increases.

It warns, however, that government plans are flawed in a number of key areas and emphasises that even with improved precautions, some misuse or loss of confidential data will still be impossible to prevent.

The report states. “Whilst the creation of a national identity infrastructure will undoubtedly help to address some existing risks with the way people gain access to personal electronic services today, it will also undoubtedly create other, new ways in which people can be harmed.

“It is incontestable that identity subjects could be harmed, in some cases seriously, by the types of accident, failure, mistake and security breach that could take place within a national identity management system.

“It is also incontestable that no system can be 100 per cent secure, and no system can be either 100 per cent reliable or 100 per cent failsafe.

“The UK Government has to accept that its citizens will be put at risk of harm from accidents and incidents arising within the operation of any national identity management system.”

The report emphasises that the need for secure electronic identities will be essential over coming years, but warns that safeguards contained in the ID card legislation fall short of what will be needed to protect the public.

It also expresses concern about the poor data security record within government and calls for tougher sanctions against those who lose or misuse
information.

The report says that even with improvements, breaches of databases will be inevitable, but says that measures to ensure that such problems are dealt with swiftly are also inadequate.

Obama set to launch military “surge” in Afghanistan

0

By Barry Grey

President Barack Obama is set to formally authorize the dispatch of 10,000 to 12,000 additional US combat troops to Afghanistan, the beginning stage of a military “surge” that will likely add 30,000 more soldiers and Marines over the next 12 to 18 months, doubling the US occupation force to 60,000. Obama’s announcement of the initial compliment of three combat brigades, to begin deploying in April, could come this week.

 

The first stage of the escalation is bound up with a strategic overhaul of US policy in the region that will initiate a vast expansion of military violence and increase the focus on exterminating the popular resistance to the neocolonial occupation of Afghanistan, both in Afghanistan and the neighboring regions of Pakistan.

 

In response to a growth of the anti-US insurgency in both Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and an increasingly dire security situation for US and NATO troops and the US-backed puppet government in Kabul, Obama and Pentagon officials are calling for setting more “limited” objectives while warning of a “long and difficult fight” in a war that has already lasted more than seven years.

 

Behind the talk of limited objectives are plans to dispense with the pretense of “nation-building” and the establishment of democracy and, in Obama’s own words, engage in “more effective military action.”

 

As Obama’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 27 in a statement dripping with cynicism, “This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan. If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money.”

 

In other words, the much expanded US military force will concentrate its efforts on drowning the insurgency in blood, whatever the cost in Afghan and Pakistani lives and US troop casualties. This was already indicated when the US launched a new missile strike inside Pakistan within days of Obama’s inauguration that killed 19 Pakistani civilians.

 

It is further underscored by Obama’s decision to appoint as US ambassador to Kabul a former top military commander in the country, Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, described by the New York Times as a “highly unusual choice.” Eikenberry served two stints in Afghanistan, the most recent an 18-month command tour that ended in 2007. He is known for advocating a sharp escalation of US military strikes in the border regions of Pakistan which are used by Taliban, Al Qaeda and other anti-US Islamist forces as safe havens and staging areas for strikes against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and supply convoys crossing the Khyber Pass separating the two countries.

 

With Eikenberry’s expected approval by the Senate, four of the administration’s most influential voices on Afghan policy will be active or retired generals, including Gen. David Petraeus, chief of the Central Command, Gen. David McKiernan, the top US commander in Afghanistan and Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine Corps officer who is Obama’s national security adviser.

 

Some sense of what is to come can be seen in the proposal made last month by NATO’s senior military commander, Gen. John Craddock of the United States, that NATO troops shoot alleged drug traffickers without waiting for proof of any involvement with the Taliban or other insurgent forces. In a country whose main crop is opium, upon which large sections of the impoverished population depend for survival, this would amount to a license to kill Afghan civilians at will. The proposal was made in a confidential letter to Gen. Egon Ramms, a German officer who heads the NATO command center responsible for Afghanistan, and came under heavy criticism from German political circles. It was eventually scuttled by McKiernan and others, according to an exposé published last month by the online edition of Der Spiegel magazine.

 

The bulk of the additional US troops are to be deployed to Afghanistan’s major opium-producing region in the south, in an effort to cut off the main source of funds for insurgent forces, and its eastern border region with Pakistan.

 

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Pentagon officials said troops will be deployed along the Helmand River Valley; along the two main highways of southern Afghanistan, which have been hit by growing numbers of roadside bombs; in two provinces outside Kabul where insurgent activity is on the rise; and along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

 

Asked on a Sunday news program if US troop casualties would rise, Vice President Joseph Biden replied, “I hate to say it, but yes.”

 

Various news outlets have reported the adoption by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of a classified report, part of the Obama administration’s review of policy in Afghanistan, that essentially calls for the military to drop efforts at reconstruction and “nation-building” and instead devote all of its resources to attempting to wipe out the Taliban and other insurgent forces and destroy Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan. The recommendations have reportedly been approved by Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and seen by Gates.

 

The new strategy means a further widening of the war into Pakistan. As the Washington Post put it on Wednesday, “Afghanistan and Pakistan are to be treated as a single theater of war and diplomacy…”

 

This was underscored in a speech Monday to the Reserve Officers Association by Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, who emphasized halting the use of Pakistan border regions as staging grounds for insurgents to mount attacks into Afghanistan. “We cannot accept that Al Qaeda leadership, which continues to plan against us every single day,” has a “safe haven in Pakistan” and “could resume one in Afghanistan,” he said.

 

The expanded war is to be not only more deadly, but also long. According to FOXNews.com, Gen. George Casey, chief of the Army, reportedly told Obama during a meeting at the Pentagon last week that there are no “quick fixes” in Afghanistan and the strategic review should be looking “at where the military expects to be in 10 years” in Afghanistan.

 

The US military escalation comes amidst a deepening crisis for the US occupation. On Monday, in a quarterly submission to Congress on conditions in Afghanistan, the Pentagon reported that “the spring and summer of 2008 saw the highest levels of violence” since the US invasion in 2001. “The Taliban regrouped after its fall from power and has coalesced into a resilient and evolving insurgency,” the report concluded.

 

Among the findings in the report:

 

* Between January and December 10, 2008, 132 US personnel in Afghanistan died as the result of hostile action, up from 82 in 2007, an increase of 60 percent.

 

* Attacks by Taliban insurgents increased by a third last year, assaults along the country’s major highway increased by 37 percent, and “The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in several areas of the country since the last report” six months ago.

 

* Insurgent surface-to-air fire rose 67 percent. Car bombs and attacks in Kabul have also increased.

 

* A resurgent Taliban is challenging the Kabul government for control of the south and east of the country, “and increasingly in the west.”

 

An article in the current edition of Newsweek magazine entitled “Obama’s Vietnam” cites a report released last month by the London-based International Council on Security and Development which states that the Taliban “now holds a permanent presence in 72 percent of Afghanistan, up from 54 percent a year ago.” The report notes that insurgent forces are moving closer to Kabul and that “three of the four main highways in Kabul are now compromised by Taliban activity.”

 

The article cites a briefing to Democratic congressional leaders last month by Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst Anthony Cordesman, who said, “The development of Afghan security forces has been a badly managed, grossly understaffed and poorly funded mess.”

 

The worsening security situation for the US is despite a sharp increase in American air strikes. “In 2004, the US Air Force flew 86 strike sorties against targets in Afghanistan. By 2007, the number was up to 2,926–and that doesn’t count rocket or cannon fire from helicopters,” wrote the author, Fareed Zakaria.

 

The result has been a rapid rise in civilian casualties. In what is certainly a major underestimation, the United Nations reports that civilian deaths have climbed from 929 in 2006 to close to 2,000 in 2008, with civilian deaths climbing by 60 percent in 2008.

 

The growth of insurgent strength has forced the Afghan government to postpone scheduled presidential elections from the spring of this year to August 20. A top election official said that of the 364 districts around the country, 84 are not safe enough to hold elections.

 

On Tuesday, militants destroyed a bridge in northwest Pakistan that lies on the main supply route for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, temporarily halting the shipments of food, gas and military equipment into the country. On Wednesday, insurgents torched at least ten trucks that were stranded near the Khyber Pass connecting Pakistan and Afghanistan as a result of the bridge having been wrecked. These attacks are the latest in a series of increasingly bold assaults on the route used to move 75 percent of supplies for US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

 

US efforts to develop alternate supply routes through the former Central Asian Soviet republics were dealt a blow this week when the president of Kyrgyzstan said his government had decided to close the last remaining American air base in Central Asia. The base at Manas airport outside of the capital Bishkek is a key transport point for US troops into Afghanistan and a staging ground for tanker planes used to refuel American military jets. The US said it was seeking to renegotiate the terms of its lease of the base with the Kyrgyz government.

 

The dispute with Kyrgyzstan is indicative of rising tensions across the region, in this case between the US and Russia, which just agreed to loan the former Soviet republic $2 billion and has worked to counter US efforts to extend its military sway in the traditional Russian sphere of influence in Central Asia.

 

The response of the Obama administration to Washington’s deepening crisis in Afghanistan is to escalate the killing and widen the war into Pakistan, threatening a far greater military conflagration.

Evidence of Torture ‘Buried by Ministers’

0

Judges condemn secrecy over files detailing treatment of suspect by CIA
Richard Norton-Taylor | The Guardian

Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, the legal charity and human rights group which acted for Mohamed, said last night: “The US is under a legal duty to investigate the crime of torture, not to suppress evidence that it happened … For the foreign secretary to give in to these illegal demands by the Bush administration is capitulation to blackmail, pure and simple.”

The government was accused last night of hiding behind claims of a threat to national security to suppress evidence of torture by the CIA on a prisoner still held in Guantánamo Bay.

An unprecedented high court ruling yesterday blamed the US, with British connivance, for keeping the “powerful evidence” secret, sparking criticism from lawyers, campaigners and MPs, who claimed the government had capitulated to American bullying.

Two senior judges said they were powerless to reveal the information about the torture of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, because David Miliband, the foreign secretary, had warned the court the US was threatening to stop sharing intelligence about terrorism with the UK.

In a scathing judgment, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said the evidence, and what MI5 knew about it, must remain secret because according to Miliband, the American threats meant “the public of the United Kingdom would be put at risk”.

The judges made clear they were unhappy with their decision, but said they had no alternative as a result of Miliband’s claim. Their ruling revealed that Miliband stuck to his position about the threat to the UK even after Barack Obama signed orders two weeks ago banning torture and announcing the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

Last night Miliband seemingly backtracked on his office’s submission, saying there had been no threat by the US to break off intelligence co-operation. “It’s American information and it is for the Americans to decide whether to publish their information,” Miliband told Channel 4 television.

Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, the legal charity and human rights group which acted for Mohamed, said last night: “The US is under a legal duty to investigate the crime of torture, not to suppress evidence that it happened … For the foreign secretary to give in to these illegal demands by the Bush administration is capitulation to blackmail, pure and simple.”

Yesterday’s ruling was the latest in unprecedented court hearings into the abduction of Mohamed, who was seized and held incommunicado in Pakistan in 2002 before being secretly renditioned to Morocco, where he says he was tortured. He was subsequently flown to Afghanistan before being sent to Guantánamo Bay. He has been on hunger strike and the US and UK are discussing his possible return to the UK.

Yesterday’s ruling, studded with thinly disguised attacks on the attitude of the foreign secretary and the American authorities, came after the judges last year invited the Guardian and other media groups to overturn Miliband’s refusal to disclose information in the documents given to him by the US. In a telling passage, the judges said: “Given [the documents’] source and detail, they would … amount to powerful evidence”. None of the contents at issue could possibly be described as sensitive US intelligence, they said.

In further stinging comments they said: “Moreover, in the light of the long history of the common law and democracy which we share with the United States, it was, in our view, very difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters.

“Indeed we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials … relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.” The judges said yesterday: “It is plainly right that the details of the admissions in relation to the treatment of [Mohamed] as reported by officials of the United States government should be brought into the public domain.”

They urged the Obama administration to reconsider the US position and also said that parliament’s intelligence and security select committee must investigate the case in line with extended powers the committee had been granted by Gordon Brown. But the judges noted that the committee meets in private and the prime minister can censor its reports.

The judges also emphasised that, as the Guardian reported last year, Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, had asked the attorney general to investigate possible “criminal wrongdoing” by MI5 and the CIA over Mohamed’s treatment.

A spokesman for Lady Scotland, the attorney general, said last night the matter was “still under consideration”.

In earlier rulings judges described the American attitude in the case as “deeply disturbing”. Miliband is expected to stand by what he told the high court, in a Commons written statement today. He is also expected to repeat the government’s condemnation of torture.

A spokesman for the US state department said: “The US thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long standing intelligence-sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens. The US investigates allegations and claims of torture … such as those raised by Binyam Mohamed.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said last night: “Despite best efforts to shine a light on the grubbiest aspects of the ‘war on terror’, the Foreign Office has claimed that the Obama administration maintained a previous US threat to reconsider intelligence sharing unless our judges kept this shameful skeleton in the closet. We find this Foreign Office allegation … surprising.” David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, said it implied that torture had taken place and British agencies may have been complicit.

Sri Lankan cluster bombs ‘hit hospital’

0

THE United Nations reported on Wednesday that cluster bombs had hit the last functioning hospital in Sri Lanka’s northern war zone.

After days of shelling had sent patients fleeing the Puthukkudiyiruppu hospital, the Red Cross evacuated the staff and wounded, effectively closing the last remaining medical facility in the area.

UN spokesman Gordon Weiss said that 15 UN staffers and 81 family members who was trapped near the hospital had fled en masse after the area had been pounded for more than 16 hours.

Military spokesman Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara denied firing the cluster bombs.

Cluster munitions are controversial because they spread bomblets over a wide area and they do not explode immediately, thus posing a danger to civilians long after fighting ends.

Mr Weiss said that 52 civilians had been killed and 80 wounded in fighting inside and outside a government-designated safe zone on Tuesday, which is an area of territory held by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) guerillas that the Sri Lankan military has pledged not to strike.

Sri Lanka marked its 61st independence day with a military parade on Tuesday.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa repeated claims that the military stands on the verge of crushing the LTTE, which has waged a 25-year war for a separate homeland for the country’s Tamil minority.

The fighting is concentrated in a sliver of coastal land of about 30 square miles, where an estimated 250,000 Tamil civilians are trapped along with LTTE fighters.

Earlier in the week, Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat called on New Delhi and the UN to “make all efforts to see that the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE come to an understanding to ensure safe passage for the civilian population.”

Mr Karat emphasised that the CPI(M) distinguishes between the LTTE and the Tamil people of Sri Lanka.

He said that his party has “a consistent stand on the just right of the Tamils of the north and the east for autonomy through devolution of powers.”

Mr Karat said that Sri Lanka appears to be “paying more attention to a military solution than a political solution.”

The US and British governments released a joint statement on Wednesday calling on both sides to agree to a temporary ceasefire to allow the civilians and wounded to leave the conflict area and to give humanitarian agencies access to the war zone.

Copyright Morning Star

The emergence of a police state

0

Open threats by Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse this week against foreign journalists and diplomats in Colombo are another chilling reminder of the abuse of basic democratic rights on the island. Under the guise of fighting a “war on terror”, the regime is rapidly establishing the basis for a military/police state directed above all against the working class.

 

Rajapakse, the brother of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse, was reacting to growing media coverage of the brutal war being waged by the Sri Lankan army against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Reports, images and videos of the death and destruction caused by the army’s indiscriminate shelling have leaked out through the government’s tight media controls, provoking outrage and protests internationally.

 

As far as Rajapakse is concerned, anything that threatens the web of lies concocted to justify the communal war is tantamount to sabotage and treason. In comments over the weekend, he lashed out at foreign ambassadors, news agencies and international aid agencies for acting irresponsibly and warned of “dire consequences” if they undermined the war. “They will be chased away [if they try] to give a second wind to the LTTE terrorists at a time [when] the security forces, at heavy cost, are dealing them the final death blow,” he said.

 

Rajapakse singled out CNN, Al-Jazeera and especially the BBC, and accused them of sensationalising the hardships confronting civilians trapped by the fighting. He repeated the government’s claim that the LTTE was holding civilians against their will as human shields and demanded that the “international community” pressure the LTTE to release them. He criticised BBC journalist Chris Morris for failing to echo the government line, warning: “If he does not act responsibly and attempts to create panic, I will have to chase him out of the country.”

 

In an interview with the BBC this week, Rajapakse categorically declared that people fell into “only two groups–the people who fight terrorism and the terrorists”. Asked if he regarded dissent or criticism in time of war as treason, Rajapakse snapped back: “Yes, we are fighting to save our country.” The comments underline the reactionary rationale behind the government’s repeated threats and denunciations of journalists, opposition politicians, striking workers, protesting students and farmers over the past two and half years, no matter how limited their criticisms of the government.

 

The Sri Lankan conflict is not a war for democracy against terrorism. Its roots lie in the anti-Tamil communalism exploited by successive Colombo governments to split and divide the working class. After coming to power in early 2006, President Rajapakse rejected any compromise, flagrantly breached the prevailing 2002 ceasefire and, with the backing of the US and other major powers, restarted a ruthless war aimed at consolidating the untrammelled domination of the island’s Sinhala elites.

 

His brother’s hysterical threats against foreign diplomats and journalists reflect broader fears in Colombo ruling circles that the military defeat of the LTTE will be followed by a wave of political unrest and social struggles. The government has mortgaged the Sri Lankan state to the hilt to finance massive military spending and imposed the full burden of the war onto the working class. Now, confronting the impact of an unprecedented global economic crisis for which it has no answers, the regime has no alternative but to use police state measures to stamp out opposition, particularly by workers.

 

The threats to expel foreign journalists, diplomats and aid officials are just a pale reflection of the measures employed against domestic critics and opponents. The media in particular has been targetted. Last month, the studios and offices of the MTV/Sirasa television station were ransacked and torched by a gang of armed, pro-government thugs. Two days later, Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor of the Sunday Leader, was killed in broad daylight by a highly organised hit squad as he drove to work in Colombo. Since President Rajapakse took office, at least nine journalists have been killed and 27 assaulted. Others have been arbitrarily detained without trial. After Wickrematunge’s murder, a dozen well-known journalists and media activists fled the country.

 

The Tamil minority as a whole is treated by the government and security forces as the enemy. Harassment, persecution and arbitrary arrest are part of daily life. A network of police and military roadblocks and checkpoints function throughout the country. Police dragnet operations through the Tamil areas of cities and towns are common. In one particularly appalling case in mid-2007, the police and military rounded up more than 350 Tamil men, women and children living in Colombo and dumped them by bus in the war zones of the North and East. Gotabaya Rajapakse defended this blatant abuse of democratic rights on the grounds of “national security,” even suggesting that it was quite benevolent because those picked up had not been jailed indefinitely without charge.

 

More sinister are the murky activities of death squads that have carried out hundreds of abductions, “disappearances” and murders over the past 30 months, including of prominent politicians. At the very least, these killings are carried out with the complicity of the security forces, and it is more than likely that military personnel are actively involved. In a country in which road blocks and identity checks are routine, these squads are able to freely come and go, usually in the dead of night. Only a handful of cases have resulted in an arrest.

 

These gross abuses are not simply isolated instances but reflect the workings of the huge military/police apparatus spawned by 25 years of civil war and the militarisation of society as a whole. Last month, plans were announced for military registration, on top of the present system of national identity cards, providing the defence apparatus with a vast data base on all citizens. Even though the LTTE has been virtually destroyed as a regular military force, the government plans to boost the size of the army–already one of the largest per capita in the world–from 150,000 to 200,000. In addition, the navy and air force each have around 30,000 personnel and the home guard another 35,000. All this is in a country with a population of around 20 million.

 

The most ominous signs of the emerging police state are to be found in the political physiognomy of the present government, which, even by Sri Lankan standards, is unparalleled in its contempt for democratic rights. While the political and media establishment in Colombo routinely describe the country as a “democracy,” parliamentary institutions have undergone a profound degeneration. The key political decisions are not made in parliament or even in cabinet but by the military/politico cabal surrounding President Rajapakse, which is limited to his brothers, trusted aides, a handful of ministers and the country’s military and police chiefs.

 

The very fact that Gotabaya Rajapakse, an unelected bureaucrat, is able to make his outrageous threats against diplomats and journalists, unchallenged by the media and opposition parties, testifies to the enormous power that has been concentrated in the presidential camarilla. His brother, President Rajapakse, is exploiting to the full the extraordinary executive powers contained in the country’s anti-democratic constitution. He holds the key posts of defence minister and finance minister and increasingly rules by decree. In addition, he has wide powers under the island’s anti-terrorism laws and long-standing emergency measures to detain individuals, search premises, seize property, ban strikes and impose censorship.

 

President Rajapakse and his coterie operate with complete contempt for the law, the constitution and the courts. He has failed to act on the constitutional amendment requiring the establishment of a constitutional council and other bodies to supervise the appointment of top officials and judges, as that would undermine the functioning of his own network of cronies. He not only ignored a Supreme Court decision in December to lower petrol prices, but issued a thinly veiled threat that the homes of the judges might be stoned. All the planks of a police state are in place. All that is missing is the pretext, which, having destroyed the military capabilities of the LTTE, is likely to come in the form of “an emergency” caused by the rapid deepening of the country’s economic crisis and an eruption of working people against the imposition of new burdens.

 

Such is the state of affairs in Sri Lanka on February 4, 2009 as the political establishment in Colombo celebrates 61 years of independence from British colonial rule. The entire history of these decades has confirmed again and again the basic proposition of Leon Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution–the organic incapacity of the bourgeoisie in countries of a belated capitalist development such as Sri Lanka to meet the democratic aspirations and elementary social needs of ordinary working people. As he crows today over the government’s victories in the “war on terrorism”, President Rajapakse is poised to launch a new onslaught to defend the interests of the venal Sri Lankan elites–this time against the working class, Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim alike.

 

These very real dangers highlight the profound significance of the struggle waged by the Socialist Equality Party in Sri Lanka. Since its founding as the Revolutionary Communist League in 1968, it has opposed all forms of nationalism and communalism, including the LTTE’s Tamil separatism, and fought in difficult circumstances to unite all workers against the war, the widespread abuse of democratic rights and attacks on living standards. Its program of a Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and Eelam, as part of the Union of Socialist Republics in South Asia, offers the only viable road forward for the working class in Sri Lanka and throughout the subcontinent, where ethnic and communal conflicts have created disaster after disaster for working people.

Peter Symonds

Dozens of secret Bush surveillance, executive power memos found; Could be made public

0

By John Byrne

Details about more than three dozen secret memoranda written by Bush Administration officials now sit atop a chart created by a public interest reporting group. The memos track new details about dozens of secret Bush Administration legal positions on torture, detention and warrantless wiretapping.

Meanwhile, Obama’s freshly-confirmed Attorney General Eric Holder told senators that he was open to declassifying White House legal memos if no support for their original classification could be found, signaling a likely showdown with former President George W. Bush over executive privilege.

“The Bush administration’s controversial policies on detentions, interrogations and warrantless wiretapping were underpinned by legal memoranda,” Pro Publica’s Dan Nguyen and Christopher Weaver write. “While some of those memos have been released (primarily as a result of ACLU lawsuits), the former administration kept far more memos secret than has been previously understood. At least three dozen by our count.”

Nguyen and Weaver produced the chart. Propublica was founded in 2007 as a non-profit driven investigative news outlet and is run by a former managing editor from the Wall Street Journal.

The chart lists 40 memos that remain secret, along with identifying the 12 that have been made public.

Click for more

Given the chart, one can find the exact date a memo was written, its author and sometimes short details the authors have gleaned from other sources.

Among the memos’ titles: “Criminal Charges against U.S. terrorists”; “Options for Interpreting the Geneva Convention” and “Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to military operations abroad or in U.S.”

Little is known about the specifics or the resulting effect of the other clandestine briefs.

For example, the effects of the secret Fourth Amendment memo could be stunning. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in another memo that the White House’s lawyers had concluded that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against warrantless search and seizure don’t apply to the US military — even when the operations take place on U.S. soil.

Holder told senators in response to questions sent to him before his confirmation hearings that he’d take an aggressive stance with regard to releasing the White House legal opinions his predecessors’ had labeled as secret.

“Once the new Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel is confirmed, I plan to instruct that official to review the OLC’s policies relating to publication of its opinions with the [objective] of making its opinions available to the maximum extent consistent with sound practice and competing concerns,” Holder wrote.

Holder’s comments were first noted by Secrecy News‘ Steven Aftergood.

WERE SPECIFIC REPORTERS TARGETED BY NSA WIRETAPS?

0

Center for American Progress – Fewer than 24 hours after the end of the Bush presidency, a former analyst at the National Security Agency revealed on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that Bush’s National Security Agency “monitored all communications” of Americans and that U.S. news organizations and individual journalists were specifically targeted.

Former analyst Russell Tice told Olbermann that, “The National Security Agency had access to all Americans’ communications-faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications. And it didn’t matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made any foreign communications at all.”

Tice went on to explain that, in fact, particular journalists were targeted, just as they were during the bad old days of Watergate. When Olbermann asked if there was “a file somewhere full of every e-mail sent by all the reporters at the New York Times?” or if “there [is] a recording somewhere of every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York? Is it like that?” Tice responded that, indeed, “if it was involved in this specific avenue of collection, it would be everything. Yes. It would be everything.”

Within days, New York Times reporter James Risen also appeared on Olbermann and said that he suspects he was a victim of such surveillance: “What I know for a fact is that the Bush administration got my phone records. Whether that was obtained by the FBI or the NSA, my lawyers and I have been trying to investigate that.”

Risen and Tice have some history together-in 2005, Risen, along with Eric Lichtblau, wrote an article in The New York Times exposing the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program for the first time. Tice was one of their sources. Risen and Lichtblau won Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting – something that Dick Cheney noted during his farewell round of interviews “always aggravated him.”

The Bush administration was aggravated as soon as the story was printed and attempted to identify Risen’s sources within the federal government. The New York Times reported in April that government officials called before a grand jury were confronted with phone records documenting their calls with Risen. Notably, neither Risen nor The New York Times received a subpoena for those records. This is why Risen believes he was targeted under the surveillance now described by Tice.

So, how did The New York Times cover Tice’s revelations that ordinary American citizens, journalists in general, and possibly one of their own reporters in particular, had their communications monitored without a warrant? As far as we can tell, not at all. . .

Human Rights Watch Goes to War

0

The Middle East has always been a difficult challenge for Western human rights organizations, particularly those seeking influence or funding in the United States. The pressure to go soft on US allies is in some respects reminiscent of Washington’s special pleading for Latin American terror regimes in the 1970s and 1980s. In the case of Israel such organizations also face a powerful and influential domestic constituency, which often extends to senior echelons of such organizations, for whom forthright condemnation of Israel is anathema.

Given that Israel is reliant on US subventions and public goodwill to a degree without precedent in the history of American foreign policy, there is considerably more than vanity at stake. If Israel’s stature in the United States were to be reduced to that of South Africa during the apartheid era, or Serbia during the Balkan wars, this would almost certainly have material consequences for the “special relationship”. It is a reality very unlike that between the US and Saudi Arabia, for example, in which the American public’s longstanding contempt for the House of Saud has proven basically inconsequential. In Israel’s case, image is a political resource of the first order, and its preservation a matter of national security.

Until the mid-1980s, before which Israel’s human rights violations — from deportation to area bombing and all in-between — were generally several orders of magnitude worse than during the subsequent quarter century, the human rights community simply ignored the question of Israel. If challenged, organizations would respond that in view of limited resources they had to go after serious violators, like Ba’thist Iraq and Iran under the Shah, or hide behind an Israeli judiciary that although essential to the machinery of occupation at least went through the motions of oversight, or express fears of being tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism (or all of the above). In private, such justifications would be augmented by references to political pressures and funding issues, often with a barb at one or more director or board members’ Zionist sympathies thrown in. That the first widespread exposure of the systematic application of torture in Israel’s prison system was reported by the Sunday Times rather than Amnesty International was no mere coincidence.

The eruption of the Palestinian uprising in December 1987 made it impossible for human rights organizations to continue relegating the question of Israel to the backburner. With Israeli leaders like Yitzhak Rabin publicly exhorting Israel’s soldiers to “break the bones” of unarmed Palestinian protestors, and television images that made it impossible to explain away such barbarism as a mistranslated rhetorical flourish, human rights organizations faced a real quandary: ignore the question of Israel and lose credibility, or confront it and lose support.

By and large they chose a third way, producing reports that were often strong on documentation but exceptionally weak when it came to conclusions and consequences. No less importantly, they adopted the criteria of ‘balance’. In effect, a Hubble telescope was deployed to discover Palestinian actions that could in any way be considered violations of International Humanitarian Law, with these subsequently placed under an industrial-strength microscope. Treatment of Israeli actions was rather more selective and careful. Primary issues such as the legality of Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or its settlement enterprise in the occupied territories were avoided; detailed analysis of Israeli abuses, like deportation and summary executions, that indisputably constituted “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the latter’s equivalent of war crimes) steered clear of unambiguous conclusions; and on the key issue of how to resolve the human rights emergency, such reports typically ended with exhortations to the Israeli government and military to show greater concern for Palestinian rights — as opposed to demands that Western governments use their various forms of aid to Israel as leverage to halt abuses.

In the process any sense of context, of this being a struggle for freedom by a dispossessed and occupied people against a colonial army — a context that in other cases the human rights community communicated so well — was entirely lost. All the more so because Israel was systematically spared the type of rhetoric and denunciations typically deployed with respect to similar situations in other continents and domestic repression in Arab states. If it was an approach that left neither the victims nor apologists of Israeli human rights violations satisfied, it at least met their minimal requirements — unprecedented exposure for the Palestinians, continued impunity for Israel. More importantly, it enabled the human rights organizations in question to navigate the storm and emerge relatively unscathed.

The Oslo agreements of 1993 provided a welcome development in this respect. Henceforth, ‘balance’ could be maintained by releasing reports on both the Israeli and Palestinian Authority judiciary, discrimination against Arabs in Israel and of violence against women in the occupied territories, torture in Israeli as well as Palestinian prisons. The idea of an overarching regime of occupation primarily responsible for both sets of violations — a concept that came so naturally when discussing the brutalities inflicted on the residents of South Africa’s ethnic homelands — rarely entered into the fray.

The onset of the Al-Aqsa Uprising in September 2000 posed a new set of challenges. Israel’s image was once again under unprecedented pressure on account of its savage attacks on Palestinians throughout the occupied territories, while committed staff on the ground — motivated by a combination of genuine concern and professional honour — exercised significant pressure on human rights organizations to step up to the plate. At the same time, particularly after 11 September 2001, such organizations were under massive pressure by right-wing and pro-Israeli forces — the latter of whom often tended towards the liberal end of the spectrum — to toe the line. Nowhere was this more true than at Human Rights Watch, an American organization that by the late 1990s had emerged as the industry leader.

In the years since 2000, HRW pursued a consistent — and consistently effective — formula: criticize Israel, but condemn the Palestinians. Challenge the legality of an Israeli aerial bombardment, preferably in polite, technical terms, and vociferously denounce the Palestinian suicide bomber in unambiguous language — especially when raising questions about the latest Israeli atrocity. In HRW publications, explicit condemnations and accusations of war crimes were almost wholly monopolized by Palestinians. With Israeli citizenship a seeming precondition for the right to self-defense, the right to resist was for all intents and purposes non-existent.

Where — as with the obliteration of a good portion of the Jenin Refugee Camp in 2002 — accusations of Israeli war crimes could not be avoided, HRW diluted these by just as prominently reporting that it did not find evidence of much worse atrocities. Its major report on the issue, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, was several months later ‘balanced’ by Erased in a Moment: Suicide Bombing Attacks Against Israeli Civilians.

One need only compare the titles of these two reports to surmise which party to the conflict stands accused of perpetrating “atrocities” that HRW “unreservedly condemns”, “war crimes”, and indeed “crimes against humanity”; in which of the two cases HRW repeatedly demands that all those with command or operational responsibility — and they are many indeed — face “criminal liability”; whose national leader must, despite HRW’s finding no evidence of command responsibility, face “accountability” for not preventing the acts of others, as well as for “significant political responsibility for the deliberate killing of civilians”; and whose actions HRW concludes “are among the worst crimes that can be committed, crimes of universal jurisdiction that the international community as a whole has an obligation to punish and prevent”.

A comparison of the two reports’ covers might also help readers judge whether it was Israel or the Palestinians who are merely referred for further examination: “Every case in the report listed below warrants additional thorough, transparent, and impartial investigation, with the results of such an investigation made public. Where wrongdoing is found, those responsible should be held accountable”.

Needless to say the press release accompanying Erased in a Moment did not, as in the case of the Jenin report, use the opening paragraph to shift discussion to more sensational allegations for which no evidence could be found — such as “HRW researchers were unable to substantiate published claims by prominent advocates of Israel that Palestinian suicide bombers have been lacing their explosives with AIDS, hepatitis and rat poison”. Its summary did however delve extensively — in fact primarily — on the person of Yasir Arafat, even though most suicide bombings were carried out by rival organizations and HRW concluded he was not involved in attacks carried out by his Fatah organization. It was presumably a simple coincidence that HRW’s highly critical account of the late Palestinian leader — occupying significantly more space in the report summary than Hamas and Islamic Jihad combined — was published at the height of the Bush administration’s campaign for Palestinian regime change.

Moving forward, and in an incident that might otherwise be considered comic, HRW in November 2006 went so far as to denounce Palestinians who refused to vacate homes threatened with imminent aerial bombardment, rather than the state bent on obliterating their houses, as war criminals. By the time it retracted its claims in a rare recantation — the howls of outrage from less partisan lawyers and human rights professionals were simply too loud to be ignored — the damage had already been done.

Interestingly, Palestinians were denounced by HRW on the legally correct (but in this case factually inaccurate) assumption that “It is a war crime to seek to use the presence of civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations or to direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attack”. Yet HRW’s 2002 report, In a Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians During IDF Arrest Operations, which according to the accompanying press release “documents how the IDF routinely has taken civilians at gunpoint to open suspicious packages, knock on doors of suspects, and search the houses of ‘wanted’ Palestinians during its military operations”, pointedly declines to define human shielding as a war crime. Indeed, the only differences between the documented 2002 cases and falsely alleged 2006 incidents are that the former were conducted by Israel and reached the level of systematic practice.

In 2006 HRW additionally leveled war crimes charges against Palestinian militants who captured Gilad Shalit — a uniformed soldier on active duty — on the grounds that they intended to exchange him for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Consequently, the main and clearest finding of “Israel: Gaza Offensive Must Limit Harm to Civilians” (28 June 2006), is that “A hostage is a person held in the power of an adversary in order to obtain specific actions, such as the release of prisoners, from the other party to the conflict … which is a war crime under the laws of war”. Against this apparently unprecedented act in the annals of military history, Israel’s own actions, which included the mass arrest of Palestinian parliamentarians and in some respects resembled a test run for Israel’s latest onslaught on the Gaza Strip (and which were the alleged subject of the press release), elicited only legal exegesis, shorn of meaningful conclusions.

More recently, the organization has issued a fatwa that any Arab launching a projectile at an Israeli target is by definition a war criminal, because such rockets and mortars are — unlike the state-of-the-art shells and missiles fired by Israel at apartment blocks, schools, hospitals, and UN facilities — not precision-guided and therefore according to HRW incapable of distinguishing between a military and civilian target. Such gunners can also not hide behind the excuse that they hit an empty field or even that they successfully aimed at and struck a legitimate military target; for HRW it is the act of using yesterday’s weapon rather than its impact that defines the crime. (There is, parenthetically, no record of HRW condemning Israel or the US of committing war crimes by virtue of using unguided projectiles).

Asked about this rather bizarre state of affairs, every current and former HRW staff member spoken to over many years — most of them in rather senior positions – point at least two fingers at HRW director Kenneth Roth’s affinity for Israel. At least as important, apparently, is Roth’s exceptional ability to divine the political wind, and do whatever is necessary to ensure that HRW retains the resources and credentials to remain the industry leader. It is that rare case where principle and opportunism merge rather than collide. (While Roth undoubtedly has allies on the organisation’s board and among its staff for his approach to the question of Israel, these are easily outnumbered by critics who would like to see a more uniform standard applied by their organisation).

Thus, in a 2006 missive to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the eve of her Mideast sojourn at the height of Israel’s US-sponsored onslaught on Lebanon Roth, in perhaps the outstanding act of political courage during the Bush years, insisted on drawing her attention to the war crimes being perpetrated in the conflict — by Hizballah. According to several senior HRW employees, Roth subsequently tried to arrange for a critic who questioned HRW’s partisanship to be fired by filing a written complaint to the critic’s director.

As a case study of HRW’s response to the question of Israel, its publications during the recent Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip – all of which were consulted on www.hrw.org on 25 January 2009 — only confirm the pattern discussed above, and in some respects go beyond it as well.

True to form, HRW’s first pronouncement on the conflict, issued on 30 December 2008 and entitled “Israel: Artillery Poses Risk to Gaza Civilians”, despite its brevity meticulously documents relevant Israeli practice and the cost it has exacted in Palestininian life and limb. That said, there is no condemnation to be found. “In assessing the legality of the IDF’s artillery fire under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war”, it politely concludes, “it is necessary to determine for each attack whether it was targeted at a specific military objective; whether the weapon used could be aimed with sufficient accuracy to differentiate between the military objective and civilians; and whether the anticipated civilian casualties were not disproportionate to the expected military gain from the attack”.

Turning next to a subject entirely unrelated to the publication’s title — namely Palestinian rocket attacks — the arcane technical analysis suddenly comes to a screeching halt. Rather than ‘if on the one hand, but then on the other’, we read the following: “Human Rights Watch has repeatedly condemned the launching of rockets at population centers in Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. The rockets are highly inaccurate, and those launching them cannot accurately target military objects. Deliberately firing indiscriminate weapons into civilian-populated areas, as a matter of policy, constitutes a war crime”.

For good measure HRW that same day released “Israel/Hamas: Civilians Must Not be Targets”. On the one hand, “Human Rights Watch investigated three Israeli attacks that raise particular concern about Israel’s targeting decisions and require independent and impartial inquiries to determine whether the attacks violated the laws of war. In three incidents detailed below, 18 civilians died, among them at least seven children”. Indeed, “Some other Israeli targets may have also been unlawful under the laws of war”.

Yet, on the other hand, “Human Rights Watch has long criticized Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli civilians – most recently, in a public letter to Hamas on November 20 (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/letter-hamas-stop-rock
et-attacks).
The rockets are highly inaccurate, and those launching them cannot accurately target military objects. Deliberately firing indiscriminate weapons into civilian populated areas, as a matter of policy, constitutes a war crime”.

Nevertheless by the following day, in the lengthy “Q&A: Hostilities between Israel and Hamas” Hamas leaders were no longer being led to a war crimes tribunal in HRW chains. Confronted with evidence too overwhelming to ignore that Israel was deliberately firing much greater quantities of precision-guided weapons not only into civilian-populated areas, but directly at the civilian population and to much greater effect, HRW was confronted with a stark choice: accuse Israel of war crimes, or change Hamas’s rap sheet. It prudently opted for the latter, accusing Israel only of “indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war”.

For the rest of the conflict, Hamas was able to “deliberately fire indiscriminate weapons into civilian populated areas, as a matter of policy”, with total impunity, not once being denounced by HRW for committing war crimes. Too clever by half, Roth apparently believed no one would notice this sudden about-face.

As the devastation of the Gaza Strip continued apace, and the death toll reached horrific levels, it was becoming increasingly clear that civilians were very much in Israel’s crosshairs. In an orgy of organized savagery entire families were obliterated with the press of a button; refugees were herded into buildings, the premises shelled, and survivors denied medical care and essential supplies for days afterward; UN facilities, including the UNRWA headquarters and schools transformed into safe havens (whose precise coordinates and functions were communicated to the Israeli military) were repeatedly bombed; women and children seeking refuge with white flags raised were summarily gunned down; and entire neighborhoods were systematically razed to the ground. Yet, from HRW’s perspective, none of these acts — whether individually or collectively — merited the same characterization that had until 30 December 2008 been routinely meted out to their Palestinian adversaries.

As part of its response, the organization simply feigned ignorance. “Israel’s refusal to grant access to Gaza for all international media and human rights monitors since the fighting began on December 27”, it complained on 12 January, “has limited severely the flow of information and investigation from impartial observers into events on the ground”. “Human Rights Watch,” it had the cheek to report on 16 January, “is unable to conduct full investigations into alleged laws of war violations by either side because of Israel’s continuing denial of access to Gaza”. This despite the fact that the Gaza Strip was saturated with Arab journalists, local and international humanitarian staff, medical personnel including several Europeans, and approximately 1.5 million residents most of whom had at least intermittent access to telecommunications. Yet none of these, apparently, met the criteria of credible witness. Indeed, HRW’s main and almost exclusive source of reliable information consisted of staff located on the Israeli side of the boundary on account of Israel and Egypt’s ban on entry to the Gaza Strip.

HRW’s insistence on the most scrupulous standards of quality control for information emanating from the Gaza Strip, while in principle laudable, stands in rather sharp contrast to its operations in Ba’thist Iraq, where much more severe restrictions didn’t preclude the organization from concocting stories about babies thrown out of incubators and issuing detailed accounts of genocide. Similarly, even during the Gaza conflict HRW had no problem lending its imprimatur to reports of state repression of pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia — countries in which it was also denied access. “Gaza Crisis: Regimes React with Routine Repression”, issued on 21 January, didn’t hesitate to assert as fact various beatings and arrests in the darker parts of the Middle East, using precisely those forensic methods deemed insufficiently impartial in the Gaza Strip. Nor did denial of access prevent HRW from denouncing such regimes for throwing not one but two shoes at their people — a wholly appropriate turn of phrase but also the type of rhetoric one never sees deployed when addressing the question of Israel.

At several points HRW’s coverage of the conflict descended to the level of obscenity. On 16 January, in a press release entitled “Israel: Stop Shelling Crowded Gaza City”, the organization once again provides an accurate account, based primarily on the testimony of HRW senior military analyst Marc Garlasco, of the facts — in this case Israel’s use of heavy artillery against the centre of Gaza City, including the shelling of UNRWA headquarters with white phosphorous. Yet rather than conclude that a war crime had been perpetrated, or even suggest that the time may be ripe for investigation and accountability, the microphone is handed to Israel’s Prime Minister: “Ehud Olmert apologized for the attack, but said Israeli forces had come under fire from the UN compound. ‘It is absolutely true that we were attacked from that place, but the consequences are very sad and we apologize for it’, he said”.

Curiously, UNRWA officials, who are quoted elsewhere in the press release describing the attack, are not cited as “categorically rul[ing] out any possibility that militants had been firing from the compound,” as they had to the Associated Press and other media. Nor is the lay reader informed about the legality of the attack even if Olmert’s version of events was substantiated, or of the consequences in terms of accountability even if he was genuinely saddened and apologetic. Indeed, the only reference to an investigation is to the one HRW was purportedly unable to conduct.

Further down the same press release reports: “Israeli fire also hit the al-Shurouq tower, which houses media outlets such as Reuters, al-Arabiyya Television, and al-Hayat newspaper, causing substantial damage and wounding at least two journalists … Media organizations had provided the Israeli military with the GPS locations of all their offices. Israeli forces told the media that they had come under fire from the building”. Seemingly, the recently pardoned war criminals of Hamas successfully transformed the building into the headquarters of their rocket battalion without even being noticed by the dozens of journalists and their dozens of cameras in, on and around the building – though a more likely explanation is that the journalists, all of them Arab, fail to meet Roth’s standards for “impartial observers into events on the ground”.

The press release then states, “”Human Rights Watch is unable to conduct full investigations into alleged laws of war violations by either side because of Israel’s continuing denial of access to Gaza. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have also violated the laws of war by continuing to fire unguided Qassam and Grad rockets at population centers in Israel.” Once again, HRW insists on having it both ways: If violations can only be alleged pending confirmation by exhaustive investigations in situ, how can a mere reference to the type of weapon used by one party prove sufficient for finding that it has in fact committed such violations? By the time the reader gets to the final paragraph of the press release, a recommendation to Israel to “Collect and analyze data regarding Palestinian civilian casualties from artillery shelling in order to assess the harm to civilians caused by the use of artillery in particular locales and situations, and thus to base targeting decisions on a proper weighing of foreseeable civilian harm”, the reader could be forgiven for reading this as an exhortation for further Israeli shelling to ensure sufficient data is collected.

The low point of HRW’s coverage of Israel’s onslaught on the Gaza Strip was not its consistent refusal to apply a single standard — whether legal or rhetorical — to Israel and the Palestinians, nor its effective contribution to Israeli impunity, but rather a personal betrayal of an HRW colleague in his hour of greatest need.

“On the afternoon of January 3, 2009”, according to HRW’s “Israel: Investigate Former Judge’s Killing in Gaza” (issued on 9 January), “an Israeli bomb or missile from an F-16 jet fighter killed the two Gazans at the al-Ghoul farm, northwest of Beit Lahiya and close to Gaza’s border with Israel. Akram al-Ghoul was a judge who worked in the Palestinian Authority courts and resigned after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June 2007. He is the father of Fares Akram, Human Rights Watch’s research consultant in Gaza. Mahmoud al-Ghoul, 17, was a student”.

One aspect of the question of Israel on which HRW has pulled considerably fewer punches than others concerns internal investigations conducted by the Israeli military. Only two days before it issued the above press release, in fact, in a separate press release entitled “Gaza: Israeli Attack on School Needs Full Investigation”, the organization noted that according to its previous studies of the matter, “IDF investigations into alleged laws-of-war violations, when they have occurred, have been deeply flawed … To Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, Israel never conducted impartial and thorough investigations of those [previously recounted] incidents or held any of its military personnel accountable. During Israel’s last major ground offensive in Gaza in March 2008, Human Rights Watch found that Israeli forces committed several targeted killings and other serious violations of the laws of war. To date, no IDF investigation has taken place in these cases”.

Yet how did Kenneth Roth and the world’s leading human rights organization respond to the killing of their colleague’s father and relative? “Human Rights Watch today called on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the deaths by an Israeli airstrike of Akram al-Ghoul, 48, and Mahmoud Salah Ahman al-Ghoul, 17, the father and cousin of Human Rights Watch’s research consultant in Gaza. In a letter to Brig.-Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, IDF Military Advocate General, Human Rights Watch urged the military to investigate the attack, make the results of the investigation public, and prosecute any persons it finds to have acted in serious violation of international humanitarian law”. HRW didn’t even bother to go through the motions of calling for an “independent” investigation of the killing of their Arab informant’s father.

In doing so, HRW chose to pursue justice for a colleague by steering his case into what they better than perhaps any others know to be meaningless dead end. The impression that the murder of Fares Akram’s father was instrumentalised by HRW to lend a much-needed veneer of respectability to the Israeli military’s investigations of itself is particularly reprehensible.

Mouin Rabbani is a Contributing Editor to Middle East Report

‘Time to get rid of Trident in Scotland’

0

By JAMES TWEEDIE

SCOTTISH peace campaigners and parliamentarians demanded the scrapping of Britain’s weapons of mass destruction at a conference in Edinburgh on Tuesday.

Delegates insisted that “the time is right” to remove the submarine-based Trident nuclear missile system from Scotland just hours before the British government launched a new policy paper on the abolition of nuclear weapons entitled Lifting the Nuclear Shadow.

The Trident and International Law – Scotland’s Obligations conference at Edinburgh’s Our Dynamic Earth exhibition centre was organised by the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre and Trident Ploughshares.

It was attended by international legal experts, including former International Court of Justice vice-president Judge Christopher Weeramantry.

Scottish National Party foreign affairs and defence spokesman Angus Robertson MP said: “The time is perfect for Scotland to play its part in reducing global nuclear stockpiles by getting rid of weapons of mass destruction stationed on our shores.

“Majority opinion in Scotland is opposed to the Trident weapons system that is based on the Clyde. Scotland can help lift the nuclear shadow by deciding to end the presence of Trident weapons.”

In recent weeks, senior British military figures have described Trident as “completely useless,” Russia has halted the stationing of missiles in its western outpost of Kaliningrad and US President Barack Obama has launched a review of the Pentagon’s controversial missile defence shield in central Europe.

In a letter to the Times newspaper on January 15, former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall and generals Lord Ramsbotham and Sir Hugh Beach described Trident as “irrelevant” and called its purported influence and effectiveness as a deterrent a “fallacy.”

SNP MSP Roseanna Cunningham added: “The Scottish Parliament has confirmed its opposition to plans for a new generation of nuclear weapons and even a majority of Scottish MPs are opposed to a new generation of Trident on the Clyde.

“Those around the world opposed to nuclear weapons are looking to Scotland to lead the way. That is a role we must fulfil.”

CND chairwoman Kate Hudson said: “As our government persists in pursuing the costly Trident replacement programme, it is well for them to remember Britain’s legal obligation to disarm.

“Gordon Brown should heed this powerful message and begin the process of Britain’s nuclear disarmament.”

Blackwater under review in Afghanistan

0

The State Department‘s inspector general will review services provided by Blackwater Worldwide in Afghanistan, only weeks after the Baghdad government canceled the embattled security company’s contract in Iraq.

Inspector General Harold W. Geisel told the Commission on Wartime Contracting on Monday that his department will begin the performance review in March.

“We are reviewing Blackwater,” Mr. Geisel said.

The commission was established in 2008 with a mandate to provide two annual reports to Congress about corruption and other irregularities involving wartime contractors and related issues. An interim report is due to Congress by May 1.

The seven-member commission is bipartisan and independent. It hopes to prevent the sorts of problems that have plagued U.S. contracting in Iraq from occurring in Afghanistan, according to its Web site. The panel can refer any violation or potential violation of law to the attorney general.

Blackwater suffered intense criticism after its guards opened fire in a crowded square in Baghdad on Sept. 16, 2007, killing at least 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians.

A Blackwater security officer has pleaded guilty in U.S. court to voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter. Five other security personnel are awaiting trial next year.

Mr. Geisel told the panel that he was not surprised by Blackwater’s expulsion from Iraq. He “had every reason to believe that [the State Department’s] Diplomatic Security was planning for a forced departure from Blackwater in Iraq” prior to the Iraqi government’s announcement.

He added, however, that previous audits conducted on Blackwater showed that the company had an overall “good” performance apart from the incident in Baghdad’s Nusoor Square.

The upcoming review of Blackwater’s conduct in Afghanistan was requested by the Office of Inspector General’s new Middle East Regional Office, which serves as the principal planning and coordinating office for operations from North Africa to the Middle East and Central/South Asia. The office, which has headquarters in Amman, Jordan, called for the review of the security firm last month.

“The fact that adverse action is taken against Blackwater in one country does not mean adverse action will be taken against them in another country,” a State Department official told The Washington Times. He asked not to be named, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne Tyrrell, said she would not comment on the pending review but that the security company, based in Moyock, N.C., would continue to provide services “at the behest of the U.S. government and will continue to do so for as long as our services are required.”

The company has between 1,000 and 3,000 people abroad at any given time, mostly providing security for U.S. diplomats as well as training and aviation support, Miss Tyrrell said. She would not give the number of employees in Afghanistan but indicated that it was fewer than 1,000. It was not clear who might replace them if they are asked to leave.

The fate of Blackwater’s contract in Afghanistan will depend on the findings of the acquisitions office within the State Department as well as recommendations from the FBI and the U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan and Iraq, the State Department official told The Times.

The Defense Department’s principal deputy inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble, and U.S. Agency for International Development Inspector General Donald A. Gambatesa also testified Monday before the panel. They said serious problems plague U.S. contracting in both Afghanistan and Iraq because of corruption, inadequate resources and lack of oversight.

Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

ICC examines Gaza war crimes

0

THE prosecutor of the International Criminal Court was conducting a “preliminary analysis” of alleged crimes committed by Israelis during the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip, his office said today.

Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has received communications on this issue from Palestinian justice minister Ali Kashan, the Palestinian National Authority, and more than 200 other individuals and non-governmental bodies, his office said.

“The office of the prosecutor will carefully examine all relevant issues, including on jurisdiction.”

“The preliminary analysis conducted by the office of the prosecutor is not indicative that an investigation will be opened.”

Mr Moreno-Ocampo’s office said he had met Mr Kashan in The Hague on January 22, when “they discussed allegations of crimes committed in Gaza”.

The same day, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) lodged a declaration with the ICC registrar, recognising the court’s jurisdiction over the alleged crimes, the nature of which the prosecutor’s office did not divulge.

It also did not say which Israeli individuals have been fingered.

Mr Moreno-Ocampo’s office has to date insisted the ICC – which started work in 2002 as the world’s first permanent tribunal on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide – had no competence over the Gaza situation.

The court can try an individual if the alleged crime was committed on the territory of, or by a national of, a signatory to the Rome Statute which created the court, or if requested by a state party – which Israel is not.

The prosecutor can also start an investigation into the Gaza situation at the request of the United Nations security council, or if a non-party state accepts the court’s jurisdiction – the road the PNA has now sought to take.

But the Palestinian territories are not recognised as an independent state.

© Herald and Weekly Times

European Activists Call For Bush To Be Tried For Torture

0

By Julio Godoy, IPS

Now that former U.S. president George W. Bush is an ordinary citizen again, many legal and human rights activists in Europe are demanding that he and high-ranking members of his government be brought before justice for crimes against humanity committed in the so-called war on terror.

“Judicial clarification of the crimes against international law the former U.S. government committed is one of the most delicate issues that the new U.S. president Barack Obama will have to deal with,” Wolfgang Kaleck, general secretary of the European Centre for Human and Constitutional Rights told IPS.

U.S. justice will have to “deal with the turpitudes committed by the Bush government,” says Kaleck, who has already tried unsuccessfully to sue the former U.S. authorities in European courts. “And, furthermore, the U.S. government will have to pay compensation to the innocent people who were victims of these crimes.”

Kaleck and other legal experts consider Bush and his highest-ranking officials responsible for crimes against humanity, such as torture.

Many agree that the evidence against the U.S. government is overwhelming. U.S. officials have admitted some crimes such as waterboarding, where a victim is tied up and water is poured into the air passages. Also, human rights activists have gathered testimonies by innocent victims of torture, especially some prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

In an interview with the German public television network ZDF, Austrian human rights lawyer Manfred Nowak, UN special rapporteur on torture, said that numerous cases of torture ordered by U.S. officials and perpetrated by U.S. authorities are well documented.

“We possess all the evidence which proves that the torture methods used in interrogation by the U.S. government were explicitly ordered by former U.S. defence minister Donald Rumsfeld,” Nowak told ZDF. “Obviously, these orders were given with the highest U.S. authorities’ knowledge.”
Story continues below

“George W. Bush is without doubt responsible for crimes such as torture,” says Dietmar Herz, professor of political science at the university of Erfurt, 235 km southwest of Berlin.

“According to the U.S. constitution, the U.S. president is responsible for all actions carried out by the executive,” Herz told IPS. “Therefore, George W. Bush is responsible for the torture methods used by U.S. authorities, such as waterboarding.”

International justice against crimes against humanity began in 1945, with the Nuremberg trials against Nazi criminals, says Kaleck. Leading prosecutor Robert Jackson said at the opening of the trials in October 1945 that “we are able to do away with…tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of (the) people…only when we make all men answerable to the law.”

But since then this promise has been fulfilled only in exceptional cases, Kaleck said.

“Crimes against humanity have been repeatedly committed ever since, but very few people have been brought before international courts for these crimes,” he said, adding that this impunity is particularly obvious for leaders of the Allied countries (such as the U.S., France and Britain), who had organised the Nuremberg trials.

Nobody was ever judged for crimes against humanity committed in Algeria by France, in Vietnam and Latin America by the U.S., in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and in Chechnya by Russia.

Only in the 1990s, after the Yugoslav wars of secession, the Rwanda genocide, and civil wars in countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone were state criminals captured, judged and convicted.

“The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 in The Hague in the Netherlands marks a turning point in the prosecution of state officials accused of crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity or of war,” Kaleck added.

But prosecution for crimes of war or for crimes against humanity continues to be highly selective. So far, only perpetrators from weak or failed states from south-eastern Europe, or from the south, especially Africa, have been brought to court. In a case such as that of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, Britain acted as an accomplice to protect him.

Over the last couple of years, human rights activists and some national courts in Europe have been fighting these arbitrary ways. They are appealing for, and in some cases even applying, a universal jurisdiction of national courts.

The Spanish judiciary has opened cases against Latin American dictators such as Guatemalan general Efraín Ríos Montt, who ruled the Central American country between 1982 and 1983, and Argentinean military officers involved in kidnapping and killing civilians.

Gaza Invasion: Powered By The U.S.

0

Taxpayers are spending over $1 billion to send refined fuel to the Israeli military — at a time when Israel doesn’t need it and America does.

By Robert Bryce

Editor’s note: Generous support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

January 31, 2009 “Salon” Jan. 16, 2009— Israel’s current air and ground assault on the Gaza Strip has left about 1,000 Palestinians dead, including 400 women and children. Several thousand people have been wounded and dozens of buildings have been destroyed. An estimated 90,000 Gazans have abandoned their homes. Israel’s campaign in Gaza, which began more than two weeks ago, has been denounced by the Red Cross, multiple Arab and European countries, and agencies from the United Nations. Demonstrations in Pakistan and elsewhere have been held to denounce America’s support for Israel.

It’s well known that the U.S. supplies the Israelis with much of their military hardware. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has provided about $53 billion in military aid to Israel. What’s not well known is that since 2004, U.S. taxpayers have paid to supply over 500 million gallons of refined oil products — worth about $1.1 billion —- to the Israeli military. While a handful of countries get motor fuel from the U.S., they receive only a fraction of the fuel that Israel does — fuel now being used by Israeli fighter jets, helicopters and tanks to battle Hamas.

According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, between 2004 and 2007 the U.S. Defense Department gave $818 million worth of fuel to the Israeli military. The total amount was 479 million gallons, the equivalent of about 66 gallons per Israeli citizen. In 2008, an additional $280 million in fuel was given to the Israeli military, again at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. The U.S. has even paid the cost of shipping the fuel from U.S. refineries to ports in Israel.

In 2008, the fuel shipped to Israel from U.S. refineries accounted for 2 percent of Israel’s $13.3 billion defense budget. Publicly available data shows that about 2 percent of the U.S. Defense Department’s budget is also spent on oil. A senior analyst at the Pentagon, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, says the Israel Defense Force’s fuel use is most likely similar to that of the U.S. Defense Department. In other words, the Israeli military is spending about the same percentage of its defense budget on oil as the U.S. is. Therefore it’s possible that the U.S. is providing most, or perhaps even all, of the Israeli military’s fuel needs.

What’s more, Israel does not need the U.S. handout. Its own recently privatized refineries, located at Haifa and Ashdod, could supply all of the fuel needed by the Israeli military. Those same refineries are now producing and selling jet fuel and other refined products on the open market. But rather than purchase lower-cost jet fuel from its own refineries, the Israeli military is using U.S. taxpayer money to buy and ship large quantities of fuel from U.S. refineries.

The Israeli government obtains the fuel through the Defense Department’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, and pays for the fuel and the shipping with funds granted to it through Foreign Military Financing (FMF), another Defense Department program. (In 2008, Congress earmarked $2.4 billion in FMF money for Israel, and $2.5 billion for 2009.) The dimensions of the FMS fuel program are virtually unknown among America’s top experts on Middle East policy. For his part, the Pentagon analyst was surprised to learn that FMS money was even being used to supply fuel to Israel. “That’s not the purpose of the program,” he says. “FMS was designed to allow U.S. weapons makers to sell their goods to foreign countries. The idea that fuel is being bought under FMS is very, very odd.”

The fuel program, in fact, raises a number of pressing questions. The shipments have occurred during times of record-high oil prices, when American consumers have been angered by motor fuel prices that in 2008 exceeded $4 per gallon. Given those high prices, it appears to make little sense for the U.S. government to be promoting policies that reduce the volume of — and potentially raise the price of — motor fuel available for sale to U.S. motorists.

The U.S. fuel shipments are part of a sustained policy that has widened the energy gap between Israel and its neighbors. Over the past few years, the Israel Defense Force has cut off fuel supplies and destroyed electricity infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Those embargoes and attacks on power plants have exacerbated a huge gap in per-capita energy consumption between Israelis and Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. And that sharp disparity helps explain why the Palestinians have never been able to build a viable economy.

Edward S. Walker, former president of the Middle East Institute, a Washington-based think tank, says the fuel supply program is emblematic of U.S. military support for Israel. Walker, who has served as U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Israel, explains that the FMF money allows the Israelis to “do with it what they want. They can buy equipment or fuel. It’s their choice, not the government’s choice. It’s the only program where we give someone a blank check and they can use it any way that they choose.”

Given the recent spike in oil prices, which helped send the U.S. and the world economy into a tailspin, and Americans still smarting from paying $4 at the pump, says Walker, “Why are we supplying fuel to Israel when we are paying such high prices?”

Since 1948, oil has been a critically important commodity for both the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli economy. And Israeli leaders have long worried about their energy security. In 1957, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion wrote in his diary, “The only sanctions which could defeat or break us are oil sanctions.”

In 1967, Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran precipitated the Six Day War. The Straits, writes Israeli historian Michael Oren in his book on the conflict, “Six Days of War,” were “a lifeline for the Jewish state, the conduit to its quiet import of Iranian oil.” In 1973, the Yom Kippur War (Arabs call it the Ramadan War) led to the Arab Oil Embargo, an event that still reverberates in the U.S., particularly in the fanciful political rhetoric about the desire for “energy independence.”

The U.S.-Israel oil relationship goes back to 1975. In September of that year, Henry Kissinger, who was then secretary of state, struck a deal with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that led the Israelis to partially withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula. The agreement required Israel to pull out of the Giddi and Mitla passes and relinquish the Sinai oilfields the Israelis had captured during the 1967 war.

In return, Kissinger agreed that America would provide multibillion-dollar economic and military subsidies to Israel. He also agreed that the U.S. would supply Israel with oil in case of any emergency. That agreement was formalized in 1979 about the time of the Camp David peace talks. It says that the U.S. will “make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport” for the oil that it purchases. The agreement concludes by saying that the U.S. and Israel will “meet annually, or more frequently at the request of either party, to review Israel’s continuing oil requirement.”

Since 1979, the agreement has been quietly renewed every five years. (The most recent approval of the document was done by the U.S. State Department in November of 2005.) The U.S. does not provide any other country the same insurance.

Nor does any other country get anything close to the volume of fuel that Israel does under FMS. In 2004, more than 140 countries received FMS aid from the U.S. Of that group, only about 13 countries received fuel of any kind through the FMS program and the biggest recipient, after Israel, was Singapore, which got $7.3 million in fuel. That year, Israel received 17 times more FMS fuel than all of the other countries combined.

Why did the U.S. Defense Department begin providing oil to Israel in 1986? And why does the program persist, particularly given that Israel no longer sees its refineries as strategic assets? The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which manages the FMS and FMF programs, referred questions about the program to the Israeli government. The press office of the Israeli Embassy in Washington did not respond to numerous requests about the program.

While the rationale for the oil transfers remains elusive, the facts behind Israel’s refinery privatization are freely available. In 2006, the government sold the Ashdod refinery to Israeli tycoon Zadik Bino for about $500 million. And in early 2007, it sold the larger refinery in Haifa to a group led by Israel Corp., the shipping and chemicals conglomerate, for $1.5 billion.

The sale of the refineries marked a major turning point in Israel’s attitude toward oil. In its earliest years as an independent nation, Israel’s survival was made possible by using crude from the Soviet Union and Venezuela. From the 1950s to the late 1970s, Iranian crude was the lifeblood of the Zionist state. Later still, the Israelis relied on the Kuwaitis. Today, the Russians are providing much of Israel’s crude needs. And the sale of the refineries is indicative of the Israeli government’s confidence in its ongoing ability to purchase the oil it needs on the international market.

Nevertheless, the FMS fuel shipments to Israel have continued. The most recent shipments for which records are readily available occurred in July and October 2008.

On July 7, 2008, the spot price for U.S. crude oil hit a near-record of $141. That same day, the San Antonio Business Journal reported that San Antonio-based refiner Valero Energy Corp. had been awarded a contract by the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) worth $46 million to provide fuel to Israel. Valero has won a number of lucrative contracts from the DESC, the Defense Department agency that handles all of the Pentagon’s bulk fuel purchases. On Oct. 9, the Journal reported that Valero had been awarded a $235 million contract under FMS. Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero, says that the company “doesn’t talk publicly about its contracts.”

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that U.S. taxpayers are paying the shipping costs to move the fuel from refineries — many of them on the Texas Gulf Coast — to Israeli ports at Haifa or Ashkelon. Shipping costs vary but one specific bid called for shipping costs of $.30 per gallon. Officials with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arm of the Pentagon that manages programs that “strengthen America’s alliances and partnerships,” has confirmed that the costs to ship the fuel from U.S. refineries to Israel have been paid for with FMF money designated for Israel by Congress.

The huge FMS fuel shipments are puzzling to the Israelis. Amit Mor, CEO of Eco Energy, an Israeli consulting and investment firm, has worked on energy issues in his home country for about two decades. In a recent e-mail, Mor says that “there is a paradox” in the fuel shipments that Israel gets from the U.S. He said that the privately owned Israeli refineries export jet fuel in “FOB prices,” while the defense ministry imports jet fuel in “high CIF prices,” with the funds of U.S. military assistance.

FOB, short for “free on board,” means that customers must take possession of the fuel at the refinery and then pay for all shipping and related costs to get the fuel to its final destination. On the other hand, as Mor explains, the Israeli military is importing fuel from U.S. refineries located 7,000 miles away, while incurring the CIF, short for “cost, insurance and freight,” of moving the fuel that distance.

Mor says Israeli refiners have “complained about this issue” but have had no luck with the Israeli government. He goes on to say that “it is the U.S. government that insisted for some reason to continue with this historical, costly and inefficient arrangement.”

Energy analysts squabble about a myriad of issues. But if there is one truism that draws near-universal agreement, it’s this: As energy consumption increases, so does wealth. And while that truism holds for oil use, it is particularly apt for electricity. As Peter Huber and Mark Mills point out in their 2005 book, “The Bottomless Well,” “Economic growth marches hand in hand with increased consumption of electricity — always, everywhere, without significant exception in the annals of modern industrial history.”

That statement underscores the significance of the FMS fuel shipments to Israel, many of which have occurred at or near the time that the Israeli military has attacked the electric power plants of its neighbors.

In late June 2006, Israeli aircraft fired nine missiles at the transformers at the Gaza City Power Plant, the only electric power plant in the Occupied Territories. (One of the original partners in the project was Enron, but that’s another story.) The missiles caused damage estimated at $15 million to $20 million and, for a time, made Gaza wholly reliant on electricity flows from Israel. The 140-megawatt power plant, owned by the Palestine Electric Co., was insured by the Overseas Private Investment Corp., an arm of the U.S. government. Thus the U.S. was providing fuel and materiel to the Israeli military, which destroyed the plant, but it was also paying to fix the damage. Call it cradle-to-grave service.

The Israeli attack on the Gaza City Power Plant offers a stark example of how the FMS fuel helps assure that Israel stays energy rich while many of the citizens in neighboring regions live in energy poverty.

Two weeks after the attack on the Gaza City plant in 2006, during Israel’s monthlong war against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, Israeli aircraft attacked the 346-megawatt Jiyyeh power plant, the oldest electric power plant in Lebanon. Those attacks resulted in the largest-ever oil spill in the eastern Mediterranean. About 100,000 barrels of fuel oil that was stored in tanks at the Jiyyeh site flowed into the sea, creating an oil slick that stretched for more than 150 kilometers.

The attacks on the Jiyyeh plant occurred on July 13 and July 15. Those dates are important because they underscore the timing of the U.S. fuel transfers to Israel.

On July 14, 2006, the U.S. military issued two press releases. In one of them, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced that it would be providing up to $210 million in JP-8 jet fuel to the Israeli government. The other release, put out at 5 p.m. Eastern time, came from the Defense Logistics Agency, which said that it had awarded a $36.7 million contract to Valero as part of another JP-8 supply deal for Israel.

The July 14 release contains this rather bland description of the fuel deal: “The proposed sale of the JP-8 aviation fuel will enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory. The jet fuel will be consumed while the aircraft is in use to keep peace and security in the region. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this additional fuel into its armed forces.” The release goes on to claim that the “proposed sale of this JP-8 aviation fuel will not affect the basic military balance in the region.”

While the attacks on the Jiyyeh plant were important, Lebanese citizens could get electricity from other power plants in the country. That was not true in Gaza, a province in which electricity has always been in short supply. According to the CIA Fact Book, the Gaza Strip ranks dead last — 214th out of 214 countries and territories listed — in the amount of electricity consumed. According to the Palestinian Energy and Natural Resources Agency, in 2004, the average Gazan used about 654 kilowatt-hours of electricity. By contrast, the 7.1 million residents of Israel consume about 6,295 kilowatt-hours of electric power per person per year, nearly 10 times as much as the average Gazan.

Although more recent energy consumption data for Gaza is not available, there’s no question that the endemic poverty in the West Bank and particularly in Gaza, is due, largely, to a continuing lack of energy resources. And the Israelis have frequently cut off the flow of fuel and electricity, which has exacerbated the Palestinians’ energy poverty.

Over the past few years, the Israelis have cut off the flow of energy to Gaza as retribution for various transgressions. And those cutoffs have forced the Gaza City Power Plant to shut down for lack of the fuel oil it needs to operate. When the power plant is idled, most of the residents of Gaza City are left without power and overall power supplies in the Gaza Strip decline by about 25 percent.

In May 2006, Israel cut off the flow of oil into the Occupied Territories after the Islamic group Hamas won local elections. In January 2008, the Israelis closed the border crossings into Gaza, which resulted in a fuel shortage that closed the Gaza power plant. In April 2008, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency stopped distributing aid in Gaza after it ran out of fuel. The Israelis stopped the fuel flow as retribution for attacks that killed two Israeli civilians and three Israeli soldiers. In November 2008, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency was again forced to suspend work due to lack of fuel. The fuel shortage occurred after Israel closed the border into Gaza in response to rockets and mortar shells that had been fired into Israel from Gaza.

The disparity in energy consumption between the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza and their counterparts in Israel is just one element in the centuries-old story of tragedy and conflict in the region. But with the U.S. squarely on the side of the Israelis in the Gaza campaign, the potential for an angry backlash against the U.S. appears to be growing.

And that anger will likely only increase when Arabs begin to understand that much of the fuel that the U.S. is giving to Israel is being refined from Arab oil. The Valero refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, which has won several of the FMS contracts for Israel, is a big buyer of Mideast crude. During the second quarter of 2006, according to data collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the refinery got about 40 percent of its crude oil from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

In short, U.S. taxpayers are paying for U.S. energy companies to buy Arab crude, ship it across the Atlantic to refineries in the U.S., refine it, and then ship it back across the Atlantic so that the Israel Defense Force can use it in its wars.

While the origination point of the crude may only matter to part of the Arab world, it is becoming apparent that bloodshed in Gaza is further complicating America’s efforts to gain credibility as an honest broker in the region. Anti-U.S. sentiment is not in America’s long-term interest, says former diplomat Chas Freeman, a man whose résumé in international affairs extends back nearly four decades.

Freeman is a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as well as a former assistance secretary of defense. He served as Richard Nixon’s chief interpreter during Nixon’s visit to China in 1972. Now the president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank, Freeman says the FMS fuel program for Israel runs counter to long-term goals of resolving the Palestinian conflict and America’s stated goal of protecting the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. The Defense Department has assumed “unilateral responsibility for the protection of the oil trade in the Persian Gulf, and yet it’s assuming responsibility for the delivery of aviation fuel for the Israeli military,” he says. “That’s confused and contradictory.” The program, he adds, is “one of many elements of our relationship with Israel that is very hard to explain.”

Freeman may be correct, but the House of Representatives has scant doubt about continued U.S. support for Israel. Nor has Congress shown much interest in the fuel shortages among Palestinians. On Jan. 9, the 14th day of the fighting in Gaza, the House passed a resolution sponsored by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza.” The vote was 390 to 5.

Two days before the vote, UNICEF estimated that 800,000 Gazans did not have running water and 1 million were living without electricity.

FDA Approves 18 Drugs from Pharma Company Accused of Fraud and Conspiracy

2

By David Gutierrez

The FDA has approved 18 products for market from generic drug manufacturer Ranbaxy Laboratories, even though the company is currently being investigated by Congress for making substandard products and conspiring to fraudulently cover it up.

“Allegations from reliable sources and supporting documents indicate a pattern of systemic fraudulent conduct, including submissions by Ranbaxy to the FDA that contain false and fabricated information,” the Department of Justice said.

The Department of Justice is investigating claims that Ranbaxy, India’s largest drug manufacturer, produced HIV medication that contained insufficient active ingredients or was adulterated with other ingredients. These drugs were then used to treat patients in Africa.

Other drugs are also suspected of containing active ingredients in concentrations that are either too low or too high. The company also stands accused of attempting to conceal manufacturing procedures that do not meet FDA standards and of forging documents relating to U.S. government investigations of its practices.

Finally, Ranbaxy is being investigated for falsifying data suggest that its generic drugs are absorbed into the body in a similar fashion to brand-name products. This proof is an essential part of the process of gaining FDA approval for a generic drug without going through large clinical trials.

In July, Congress also began a probe into why the FDA had not taken action against Ranbaxy, even though it had known for months of allegations against the company. As part of this probe, the FDA was asked to provide information on every FDA-approved Ranbaxy product and the approval process that it went through.

Former FDA Deputy Commissioner Mary Pendergast has criticized the FDA’s failure to take action against Ranbaxy and its products.

Because the FDA “wouldn’t be confident of the accuracy and reliability of the information in the applications,” Pendergast said, “they might be approving a product that ought not be approved.”

President Obama — It’s time to stop illegal spying on all Americans

5

Dear President Obama;

I know you have a full plate right now but there’s something I need to talk to you about.

Does anyone on your staff remember former National Security Agency (NSA) analyst, Russell Tice, who offered to provide you with illegally suppressed information regarding spying on all Americans, including journalists?

In case you missed it, Mr. Tice was interviewed by Keith Olbermann recently, and he sang like a canary. One group of Americans targeted by the Bush administration for surveillance was the press. That shocked me, and that’s why I’m writing this open letter to you.

I know you believe in transparency. What the NSA has done for years is beyond questionable. It’s criminal. I’ve seen estimates that the NSA collected millions of transmissions, emails and phone calls of average Americans by patching into the networks of cooperative telecommunications companies.

According to Tice, he was ready to give you a lot of inside information last February, but your staff politely declined the offer. They said they knew who Tice was, but did not need his help.

I figure you were busy trying to get elected and that’s why he hasn’t heard from you on this subject.

Now that you are the country’s Commander-in-Chief, I’m sure this situation of illegal spying on Americans is of interest to you. Remember back in 2005 when then-President Bush told the press the only Americans spied on were those talking with terrorists overseas?

We now know that was a lie. Tice made that clear while talking with Olbermann. Lots of other evidence rest in data banks in spy land, according to Tice. As I write this, I suspect that secret files on this practice are being shredded at the intelligence agencies. The FBI and the CIA had complicity in this scandalous matter too.

I hope you didn’t forget Bush authorized the Highlander Project (United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18) by the NSA and the United States Army 513th Military Intelligence Brigade in 2005. There’s proof that conversations of American citizens were intercepted and entered into data banks.

The existence of this NSA domestic program was first reported by The New York Times on Dec. 16th, 2008, in an article that was spurred by a whistle-blower’s shocking revelations. The Times published the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration considered seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block publication.

In a Dec. 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself as that whistle-blower.

The exact scope of this program is still not fully known. It is known that the NSA provided unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications between some of the nation’s major communications, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate network traffic.

I know this will not be easy to settle, especially because Congress passed a law in 2007 that legalized warrantless surveillance (The Protect America Act). I just don’t agree with the defense of this law by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who said the NSA “has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the conversation is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in the support of al Qaeda.”

That was painting with a broad brush and caused immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse.

I’m not the only person who thinks Bush’s claim that the NSA only spied on Americans making phone calls to people with known al Qaeda links, stinks. What the heck is a “known link?” Would that be a journalist who has a contact inside al Qaeda?

Now that Tice has re-opened Pandora’s Box about the Bush administration’s spying on journalists, I have two questions for you, President Obama.

Are you aware of this illegal spying on American journalists, private citizens, and organizations?

As It Stands, what are you going to do about it?

 

Dave Stancliff is a columnist for the Times-Standard. He is a former newspaper editor and publisher.

MI5 ‘Colluded in Torture’ Claim

0

A committee of MPs is to consider allegations tomorrow that British security services colluded in the torture of terrorism suspects.

The claims, which were first reported in the Guardian last year, relate to a number of suspects arrested in Pakistan at the request of British authorities between 2003 and 2007. The men say they were repeatedly tortured by agents of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), before being questioned by MI5.

Yesterday Andrew Dismore, chair of the joint committee on human rights, said: “The fact that we are holding this hearing underlines the seriousness of these allegations.”

The men, or their legal representatives, have detailed accounts of their alleged ordeal at the hands of the ISI. Some appeared to have been taken to the same secret interrogation centre in Rawalpindi, where they say they were repeatedly tortured by ISI agents before being questioned by British security services.

In an editorial last year the Guardian, which will give evidence to the committee, described the allegations as being “at the heart of the difficulties which terrorism poses for democracies”. It also said that an investigation by the bodies responsible for the oversight of the country’s intelligence agencies is “the least a democracy expects”.

The committee will also hear from the campaign group Human Rights Watch. Brad Adams, the charity’s Asia director, said: “What is most disturbing about these accounts is that the British government knew full well the techniques the ISI and Pakistani law enforcement agencies use in interrogations, particularly in terror investigations.”

One of the alleged victims, Rangzieb Ahmed, from Manchester, says that in 2006 he was beaten, whipped, deprived of sleep and had three fingernails extracted by ISI agents at the Rawalpindi centre before being interrogated by two MI5 officers. In December a jury at Manchester crown court convicted Ahmed of being a member of al-Qaida and of directing a terrorist organisation. But it was not told that three fingernails of his left hand had been removed.

Ahmed, 33, says the nails were removed slowly with a pair of pliers over three consecutive days at a secret ISI prison, and alleged that on the fourth day he was hooded and bound and taken to a place where he was questioned by two MI5 officers. Before Ahmed’s trial began, the judge ruled that he did not believe the fingernails were taken out before the meeting with MI5. Part of the judges ruling is being kept secret.

A second man, from Luton, Bedfordshire, alleges that he was whipped, suspended by his wrists and beaten, and threatened with an electric drill, possibly at the same torture centre. His interrogation was coordinated with the questioning of several associates at Paddington Green police station, west London, and the questioning of a further suspect in Canada.

Another man, who is accused of being an al-Qaida terrorist from the West Midlands, claimed he was tortured after being detained in Pakistan during a British-led counter-terrorism investigation. He says that for several months the ISI kept him in a pitch-black cell not much bigger than a coffin, and that he was brought out to be beaten, whipped and subjected to electric shocks. On one occasion, he alleges, he was kept hooded and interrogated by people speaking English, with British and American accents.

The hearing is part of the JCHR’s ongoing inquiry into the UN charter against torture. If the MPs decide the issues need further investigation they can hold further hearings, calling more witnesses and may produce a written report.

Source

Reading councillors do not support ID cards

0

Reading borough councillors could not be less enthusiastic about the Government’s proposed ID card scheme if they tried.

They agreed on Tuesday last week that they:

– Opposed the introduction of National Identity Cards
– Did not believe they would be effective against terrorism
– Thought the cost would be an unjustifiable waste of money
– Had concerns over the confidentiality of information
– And had no confidence in public sector IT projects to implement and successfully secure the scheme.

At the full council meeting the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted for the entirely negative response to the scheme, and also said the council should not take part in any pilot scheme.

Even the leading Labour group could not bring themselves to vote against the proposals which so completely condemned the Government scheme. They abstained.

The original plan to scrutinise the Government’s scheme came from Lib Dem leader Councillor Gareth Epps.

The negative findings of the scrutiny panel were put to the full council by Tory Cllr David Stevens.

Leader of the council Cllr Jo Lovelock said she thought the resolution was premature but agreed the council should not take part in a pilot scheme.

Obama’s green plan must include Native Americans

0

To accomplish the green energy goals he talked about in his inaugural address, President Obama must work with Native Americans.

“Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet,” the president said, vowing that “we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”

To realize these goals, Obama’s administration must collaborate with Native American tribes to realize their vast wind and solar power potential. For instance, using solar power alone, Native lands have the potential to generate about 4.5 times the amount of electricity that is produced in the entire United States. Tribal wind resources could provide a double digit percentage of the country’s electricity, as well.

In addition, a green jobs initiative could transition the most wasteful economy in the world into one that has a chance at surviving, all while providing economic development where it’s needed most. By working with Native American tribes, the Obama administration can catalyze the development of tremendous human and economic potential in some of the country’s poorest communities.

For too many years, Washington presented tribes with a false choice: either develop polluting energy resources or remain in dire poverty. Often, the oil and mining companies ripped the tribes off by underpaying royalties, even as they polluted the land. But economic development does not need to come at the expense of Native cultural identity or thriving ecosystems.

The Obama administration should not provide more incentives to extract fossil fuels and uranium from Indian country. These are the dirty resources of yesterday. They have assaulted the well-being of tribes and Alaska Native villages, exploiting the vulnerabilities of poor, politically isolated communities for too long. Oil drilling in sensitive Arctic regions threatens Alaska Natives’ way of life and perpetuates Washington’s addiction to oil. We need a federal timeout on the proposed offshore development of the Outer Continental Shelf areas in Alaska.

Nor is “clean coal” the answer. Mining coal is never clean. Coal plant emissions cause global warming. Obama should not approve coal expansion on or near Native lands. Carbon “sequestration” is unproven. There is no sure way to sequester “forever” – except to leave it in the earth.

And nuclear power is not a solution to anything. Mining uranium has caused high levels of cancer deaths among Native peoples. (There are still 1,000 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo reservation from the last nuclear era.) What’s more, nuclear waste contaminates the earth for a hundred thousand years.

The Obama administration must end corporate welfare to coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries and redirect the billions in subsidies to clean energy development and efficiency in Native America.

Native American and Alaskan Native peoples have suffered the most from our senseless carbon-based energy policy. For example, the entire indigenous village of Shishmaref in Alaska will need to relocate because of rising temperatures and nastier storms, ruining the way of life there.

To turn things around, the Obama administration should provide funding for wind and solar development on Native lands along with efficiency improvements in tribal housing.

Tribally owned and operated renewable energy projects, along with green jobs that help reduce dependence on fossil fuels, are central to a sustainable and affordable low-carbon future.

A green jobs economy and a new, forward-thinking energy and climate policy will transform tribal and other rural economies and provide the basis for a robust and sustainable recovery.

Now is the time.

Winona LaDuke is the executive director of Honor the Earth, a Native organization that stresses sustainable environmental policies. Honor the Earth submitted an extended version of this information to the Obama administration’s transition team with allies Intertribal Council On Utility Policy, Indigenous Environmental Network and the International Indian Treaty Council. LaDuke can be reached pmproj@progressive.org.

Most Citizens Kept in Dark on Govt Spending

0

The vast majority of the world’s governments effectively deny citizens basic information they need to understand how public monies are being spent, according to a new report [.pdf] released Sunday by the International Budget Partnership (IBP), a Washington-based project that works with civil society groups to promote government transparency and improve accountability.

Of the 85 countries surveyed by the IBP, only five governments provided what the study called “extensive” information about their budgets, while another dozen made “significant” information available to their publics.

Best performers — those with scores over 81 on a 100-point scale — included Britain, South Africa, France, New Zealand, and the United States, in descending order.

But 68 of the countries — or 80 percent — do not provide the public with comprehensive, timely, and useful information that citizens need to understand and monitor the use of public funds, according to the “Open Budget Index” designed by IBP to measure budget transparency.

And nearly half of the countries provided so little information publicly as to make it virtually impossible to uncover waste, gross mismanagement, or corruption.

The worst performers — those scoring zero or one on the scale — include Sao Tome e Principe, Equatorial Guinea, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria, according to the index.

“[O]verall, the state of budget transparency around the world is deplorable,” the 55-page report found. “In most of the countries surveyed the public does not have access to the comprehensive and timely information needed to participate meaningfully in the budget process and to hold government to account.”

“This lack of transparency encourages inappropriate, wasteful, and corrupt spending and — because it shuts the public out of decision making — reduces the legitimacy and impact of anti-poverty initiatives,” among other government programs, according to the report, entitled “Open Budgets. Transform Lives.”

The survey found that more developed countries tended to offer a higher degree of transparency in their budgetary practices than less developed countries, although there were significant exceptions.

Not only did South Africa rank second among all countries surveyed, but Brazil took eighth place, just behind Norway and Sweden. Peru, Sri Lanka, Botswana, Colombia, Papua New Guinea, and India were also ranked among the top 20.

“The high, good, and poor performers include low-, medium-, and high-income countries,” said Warren Krafchik, the IBP director. “In other words, being poor or being dependent on aid or oil and gas revenues is not a sufficient excuse to fail to provide adequate budget transparency.”

The survey also found that many poor countries that currently provide insufficient information to their publics are capable of doing so at little or no cost because they already produce that information for their aid donors or for internal purposes.

“All these countries have to do is put the information they already have available on the Internet,” he told IPS. “The problem is not really the production of information or the capacity to produce it. The problem is the political willingness by the governments to disseminate that information to their publics.”

Indeed, he said, many countries have already taken steps to improve their performance, compared to two years ago when the IBP produced its first survey. Among them were Croatia and Bulgaria, whose accession to membership in the European Union (EU) required them to increase transparency; Sri Lanka and Kenya, where new governments proved responsive to demands reforms by civil society groups; and Egypt, where a new constitutional amendment boosted the budgetary powers of parliament.

“Whether the parliament will be able to use those powers effectively or not remains to be seen,” Krafchik said about the constitutional change in Egypt, whose government has long been regarded as both corrupt and authoritarian.

The survey is based on a detailed questionnaire of more than 120 questions focused on the contents and timeliness of eight key budget documents that all governments should issue, according to generally accepted good-practice criteria developed by multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank. The documents cover the government’s initial budget proposal through the final audit report when the monies included in the budget have been spent. The survey was limited to the budgets of national governments and did not include sub-national units.

The questionnaires were completed by independent researchers in each of the countries surveyed, and their answers were subject to peer review to ensure their accuracy. Each answer was then given a score, and the combined scores determined the final rankings. As the questionnaires were submitted at the end of September 2007, the survey does not cover governments’ performance since then.

The worst performers were mostly located in the Middle East and North Africa, followed by sub-Saharan Africa. In the Middle East and North Africa, the best performer was Jordan with a score of 52, more than twice the regional average of 24. The average of sub-Saharan Africa was 25, despite the strong performance of South Africa (87) and Botswana (62). The average score for all 85 countries was 39.

The worst performers also tended to be low-income countries and often heavily dependent on revenues from foreign aid or oil and gas exports. Altogether, 21 oil- and gas-producing countries were surveyed. Their average score was 23, despite relatively strong showings by Colombia, Norway, and Mexico. Of the 13 worst performers, nine — Sao Tome, Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Bolivia, and Chad — are oil or gas producers.

By contrast, the 34 countries in the survey that are heavily dependent on mineral wealth, such as gold, platinum, and silver, averaged a score of 44.

The survey also found a correlation between transparency and democratic systems, with all of the 17 countries that provided either extensive or significant budget information assessed as either “full” or “flawed” democracies by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracies. Most of the worst performers, on the other hand, were classified as “hybrid” or “authoritarian” regimes.

The report called for governments not only to publish more information about their budgets, but to also produce “Citizens Budgets” that would be easily understandable to the public. Seventeen governments, including Angola, Ghana, India, and Uganda, currently produce them, although they vary considerably in how much information they provide.

The report also urged donor agencies to do more to encourage governments to inform their citizens both by increasing the transparency of their own aid and avoiding funding that is not included in the recipient’s budget.

“Wherever possible, aid should flow through country budgets,” said Krafchik, who added that this would not act as leverage for increased transparency, but also ease the burden on governments themselves that receive aid from multiple sources and must account to each of them. “This would reduce the incredible strain on the monitoring and reporting capacities of the recipient governments,” he said.

Donors should also increase technical assistance for civil society, legislatures, and audit institutions to improve accountability and oversight, the report said.

(Inter Press Service)

Over 100,000 demonstrate in London against Sri Lankan war

1

By Ajay Prakash and Paul Mitchell 

Over 100,000 people, mostly Tamils came from across the UK to march in central London on Saturday demanding an end to the war in Sri Lanka and the atrocities carried out by the military. During the march itself reports came in of a cluster bomb attack that killed 39 civilians and wounded 128 more.

Saturday’s demonstration was the largest ever of its kind and took the organizers, who only expected a few thousand to turn up, completely by surprise. The police were likewise unprepared, and central London ground to a halt as the march made its way from the Tate Britain gallery past Downing Street, the residence of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to Temple Station where speakers addressed the enormous crowd. Only a few were able to make their speeches before the police demanded an end to the rally claiming the organizers did not have permission to use a public address system.

 

Despite the unprecedented nature of the demonstration, a similar one of 50,000 people in Toronto the previous day and other demonstrations across Europe, none of the British or international TV news channels or Sunday newspapers reported it.

The march was dominated by home-made banners and placards condemning the slaughter of Tamil civilians by the Sri Lankan military. Others attacked India for sending in troops and the silence of the “international community” over the humanitarian crisis that has developed. The BBC was criticized for failing to report the killings and the British government for its role in Sri Lankan history. Young and old alike shouted, “Stop the killing of Tamil people”, “End the War Now”! “Drop food and medicines–not bombs.

There were calls for self-determination for Tamil Eelam and shouts of support for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam but there were few red and yellow Tamil Eelam flags and no Tamil Tigers flags.

 

Leaflets were handed out by several Tamil nationalist organisations, but their perspective was limited to putting pressure on various governments to intervene. Typical was that put out by the main organizer, the Tamils Forum, which called for people to “pressure the UK government to prevail upon Sri Lanka to stop the genocide” and write to their MPs. A petition was circulated calling for Brown to remove the LTTE from the list of banned terrorist organizations.

 

Members and supporters of the Socialist Equality Party handed out thousands of leaflets in English and Tamil of the January 29 perspective article from the World Socialist Web Site “Troops out of northern and eastern Sri Lanka!” It denounced the criminal assault being unleashed by the Sri Lankan military, criticised the bankrupt perspective of the LTTE and called for the unity of the Tamil, Sinhala and international working class. Demonstrators clamoured for the leaflet, and after they had read it several came back for more and began distributing it themselves.

 

Many had heard of the World Socialist Web Site and were eager to express their views. V. Vijay said, “First of all we have gathered here to stop the war against the Tamil people. It is ethnic mass murder. Afterwards we should talk about a peace process and solution.

 

“The Sri Lankan government has used Sinhala chauvinism for a long time to carry out war against the Tamils. It wants to eliminate the rights of Tamils using the ‘war on terror’.

 

“None of the imperialist countries are willing to stop the war, particularly India, which has used our ethnic conflict for its own purposes and fomented conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils for a long period. India wants to establish its own regional power and markets.

 

“People are conscious that Sinhala and Tamil people should solve the national conflict, establish permanent peace without involving imperialism.

 

“We have to show solidarity with our people and show our anger. However, I don’t think this movement is going to stop the war. Mass demonstrations were carried out in 2003 against the war on Iraq but it didn’t stop the US.

 

“We should appeal to all people to fight to end the war”, V. Vijay concluded.

 

Govindaraj [Indian Tamil], a member of a Tamil youth organization who has come from Manchester to London to start a hunger strike in protest at the war said, “We want to express our anger at the world powers. It is not simply genocide; it is predetermined structural and physical genocide against the Tamil people in Sri Lanka by the world powers.

 

“What we want immediately is to stop the war because Tamils have been killed using the ‘War on Terror’. The imperialist countries have turned the ‘liberation struggle’ into a mere fight against terrorists in order to mask the real issues behind it. As a result, the Tamil people have been killed and their rights attacked.

 

“If India wants to stop the war it could do so, but it won’t because of its own geo-strategic interests. The Sri Lankan government uses the location of Sri Lanka [close to India] to sell itself to India. But Indian people are not supporting this war, only the government is doing so.

 

“We should push our [Indian] government to impose peace in Sri Lanka. What we want is to protect Tamils in Sri Lanka,” Govindaraj adde.

K, a Tamil youth, who did not want his full name used because he feared being targeted by the Sri Lankan government in future, said that he had only come to the UK a few months ago after being released from jail in Sri Lanka where he had been badly tortured. He said that though he was a refugee and immigrant worker and was unable to get time off to come to the demonstration, “I am ready to sacrifice my job in order to show my anger against this war”.

 

“The Sri Lankan government won’t give anything to the Tamil masses,” K explained. “It wants to keep Tamils as slaves.

 

“Tamil people are living in fear in Colombo. Any time anything could happen to them. No one is there to protect them. People are afraid of being identified and targeted by the government if we have relatives in LTTE held area”, he continued.

 

“I have lost my relatives in this bombardment. My relatives in Colombo and Vavuniya are unable to mourn or cry for them. This is cruel and criminal war against the Tamils.

 

“I know Tamil people who refuse to come to the so-called ‘safe zones’ after they were bombarded by the government and because they are going to be held like criminals in camps. The government did it before and is going to do so again. Most people have a relative in the LTTE and they are going to be the first target of the government. I know what will happen if they move to the Sri Lankan army area.

 

“The government is bombarding the area to terrify Tamils saying they supported the LTTE and joined them. Through the aggression, shelling and killing the government expects to eliminate the Tamil struggle, but it won’t happen like that. More Tamils will take up arms again because every day they see the atrocities carried out by the Sri Lankan army”, K said.

 

Paris demonstration

 

Members and supporters of the SEP in France also found strong support for the perspective to unite workers across ethnic lines based on socialist internationalism during their campaign in Paris.

 

More than 1,000 people gathered in the La Chappelle area for a demonstration over the war. Although organised by LTTE front organizations, Tamil youth organisations and Tamil shop owners, many people were participating independently angered not only by the actions of the Sri Lankan government but also the Indian government and the international community, which is backing the Colombo ruling class.

 

SEP members distributed the statement “Troops out of north and eastern Sri Lanka” and spoke to many Tamil youth who expressed their concerns about the innocent people who are losing their lives because of the Rajapkse government and the military, which is using powerful weapons such as multi-barrel rockets, mortars and airplanes.

 

“Where is the United Nations? And where is the international community? Why they can’t stop the war”? one asked.

 

Another youth, Ravee, said, “I have come with our sports club to oppose the war. We are not supporters of the LTTE, but we are gathering here in solidarity with our people who are being killed in barbaric military attacks every day.

 

“They are living in a very inferior situation in Wanni without any food, medicines or shelter. Today I heard about 3,000 Indian army [soldiers who] landed in Mullaitheevu. Rajapakse is very cunning man. He announced a two-day cease fire, but in reality, he deployed his army with the support of the Indian army to prepare another assault against Wanni peoples and the LTTE”, Ravee concluded.

 

Kandeepan said, “Once I was a supporter of the EPRLF (one of the Tamil national movements, now with the Rajapakse government) but now I do not support them. In the past I lost many of my family members. This war is destroying many Tamils in Sri Lanka”.

Meet the New Criminals: Obama Keeps Rendition

0

Obama lets CIA keep controversial renditions tool

By Greg Miller, Chicago Tribune 

WASHINGTON – The CIA’s secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these discredited programs, President Barack Obama left an equally controversial counterterrorism tool intact.

Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism–aside from Predator missile strikes–for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.

The European Parliament condemned renditions as an “illegal instrument used by the United States.” Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.

But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.

The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the U.S. is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.

“Obviously you need to preserve some tools, you still have to go after the bad guys,” said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing legal reasoning behind the decision. “The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice.”

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA’s ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA’s secret prison sites “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.”

Obama’s decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human-rights groups. Leaders of such organizations said that reflects a sense, even among advocates, that the United States and other nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.

“Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “What I heard loud and clear from the president’s order was that they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured.”

In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they “do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture” or otherwise circumvent human-rights laws and treaties.

CND conference attacks missile defence

0

By ADRIAN ROBERTS

ANTI-WAR activists gathered in London on Saturday to condemn US plans for a missile defence system in Europe.

At a CND conference named Europe Against US Missile Defence, delegates also attacked Britain’s intention to spend £40 billion on renewing the Trident missile system despite opposition across the political spectrum.

Conference heard that US plans to install so-called “defensive” missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic are designed to create international instability and tension in order to spark a new cold war.

CND parliamentary committee chairman Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “We are not going to be divided by US bilateral negotiations designed to create conflict. This is a chronic waste of money and a reigniting of cold-war strategy still present within the Pentagon.”

Representing the Czech Social Democrats, Ivona Novomestska added: “The Czech people have to have a referendum on this and the strategy employed by the government is silence in order to stop people from opposing the plans.”

The conference also praised Russia’s decision not to retaliate by stationing missiles on the Polish border.

In a sign that Moscow could be seeking better ties with the new US administration, it was reported last week that the Russian military had halted plans to deploy its Iskander missile system.

Moscow had previously threatened to install the system in Russia’s western outpost of Kaliningrad as a response to any deployment of the US missile shield in eastern Europe.

Labour MP Michael Connarty said: “As the Soviet Union was forced by the US to spend a fortune on armaments instead of investing in social projects, which brought about its collapse, the same thing is happening to Russia.

“This is a direct invitation from Russia for negotiations.”

CND chairwoman Kate Hudson noted that the structure of power in the world is changing.

“We have to accept a multipolar world with no superpower,” she said.

Delegates also raised the question of whether US President Barack Obama will actually bring about a much-needed change in US foreign policy.

Waterford Crystal workers occupy factory

1

Workers occupying the factory of Ireland’s troubled Waterford Crystal pledged on Saturday to continue their sit-in until the future of the company is resolved.

Workers started their occupation of the Kilbarry factory and visitor centre in Waterford city on Friday after an official who has been running the company for almost a month informed staff that production would cease immediately.

Walter Cullen, organiser in south-east Ireland for the Unite trade union, told AFP they wanted the closure reversed while talks about the future of the company continued.

“We will continue to sit in until the situation is resolved. We have huge support,” Cullen said.

Waterford Wedgwood, the maker of high-quality china and glass, went into administration and receivership and its shares were suspended on January 5 after efforts to find a “white knight” investor failed.

The official said the decision to cease manufacturing did not “necessarily preclude a resumption of operations in Waterford in the future.”

Cullen said the receiver had been in discussions with two potential buyers, US-based investors KPS Capital and Clarion Capital.

The glass business, originally founded in the late 18th century, has been one of Waterford’s major employers.

Cullen said 480 of 650 workers had received termination notices.

“Most of these workers would have long service and be aged in the 45 to 50 bracket. Even for the younger people, the chances of them getting alternative jobs are not great.

“We have had huge crises in the past. There have been nine restructuring plans put in place since 1987 and we have managed to resolve all those and move the company forward all the time.”

Cullen said they had staged the sit-in because they believed the business was much more attractive as a going concern.

The glassworks visitor centre has become an import factor in local tourism, attracting about 300,000 visitors a year.

Waterford mayor Jack Walsh said the decision to close had come as a “huge shock.”

“While there has been a clear awareness for some time now of how serious the situation faced by the company is, the soundings coming out of the discussions with the two interested parties from the US gave people reason to believe that a sale could be completed without the doors being closed at Kilbarry,” Walsh said.

Manufacturing in Ireland has been hit hard by the global downturn.

The once-booming Irish economy will have shrunk up to 10 percent by 2010, Prime Minister Brian Cowen said on Wednesday.

AFP

No Random Drug Tests, No Foodstamps

2

Via Don’t Tase Me, Bro! 

Call it the Great Recession meets the War on Drugs. West Virginia ponders law mandating compulsory random drug tests for anyone applying for food stamps or unemployment benefits.

The Register-Herald (WV) reports:

An Eastern Panhandle lawmaker is attempting to craft a bill for the 2009 legislative session that would require anyone on welfare, food stamps or unemployment benefits to undergo random drug testing.

Under the tentative plan in mind by Delegate Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, it would be two strikes and you’re out.

“It’s pretty simple,” Blair said Monday, when asked why he is pursuing such legislation in West Virginia.

“If you go out here and want a good job, most of the time, we have to sign off and say, ‘Hey, it’s OK, I submit to random drug testing on the job. That’s part of the deal you make whenever you get a job. It’s sort of crazy, in my opinion, and I think in the general public’s opinion, when they’re on the dole with the state, we’re subsidizing their income one way or another, that they don’t have to submit to the same thing.”

Blair wants to compel anyone collecting food stamps, welfare checks or jobless benefits to submit to random testing. If the first test proves positive, under his proposal, a second one would be mandatory in two months, allowing the recipient that much time to clean up his act, or face a cutoff of government relief.

“It’s just a common sense approach to this,” he said.

“There have been issues in the past. For instance, in the food stamp program, people would take a $10 stamp, buy a pack of gum, get the rest in cash and buy beer with it.”

That no longer is possible, he acknowledged, but there exists the potential to spend taxpayer dollars to satisfy a drug habit.

“It’s just a natural deterrent, in my opinion, that if you want that assistance program, you’ve got to show that you’re clean,” the legislator said.

“You get two marks, and you get off. You can go into a program that can help you get off the drug and then you test again. So, you would get a two-month grace period from the time that you fail to the time you get cut off financially. But you’ve got to be able to pass in those two months.”

Blair said he must overcome one “obstacle,” a ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that found this approach a constitutional violation.

“I’m still in the middle of how to get this drafted so I can circumvent this,” he said. “Everybody I’ve talked to loves this idea.”

Not everyone who sent him an e-mail is on board, however.

One person who contacted him said only 2 percent of people on public assistance have a drug problem, but Blair feels the number is far too low, given the substance abuse that is prevalent in the general society.

“I don’t believe the 2 percent number for a minute,” he said.

“You and I know there are more people hooked on drugs in the general population. I’m trying to find a way to get around this court ruling. If I feel I can’t get around it, then it’s just wasting the Legislature’s time.”

Council worker feared she was being spied on

0

Christine Laird thought her emails were being spied on while she was managing director of Cheltenham Borough Council and asked Gloucestershire police and GCHQ to investigate, a court was told yesterday.

Mrs Laird is being sued in London’s High Court for £982,000 by her former employer for fraud and negligence for failing to disclose she was depressed when she applied for the job in 2002.

After collapsing in courtroom 36 of the Royal Courts of Justice at the end of Tuesday’s proceedings, Mrs Laird was again present with her husband Hugh.

Her solicitor John Dagnall concentrated on the events leading up to Mrs Laird’s suspension in June 2004.

The court heard that Mrs Laird was convinced that her emails were being read and that some were being deleted without her knowledge.

Fearing she was due to be suspended, she asked an officer to retrieve politically sensitive emails, who discovered a virus that gave access to her email account.

Mr Dagnall read an email from Christine Laird which said: “I was relieved to dis$I wasn’t imagining it, that emails were missing.”

Mrs Laird downloaded the contents of her hard drive to disc and sent it to Gloucestershire police for investigation, said Mr Dagnall.

He quoted an email from a member of the council’s IT department saying he had also been in contact with GCHQ about Mrs Laird’s email.

Mrs Laird denies she acted fraudulently and is not liable for the £982,000 the council is claiming against her.

Mr Dagnall questioned borough council solicitor Sarah Farooqi about whether the invoices for legal advice in the matter were reasonable.

She said: “I have just added up all the invoices we have received. I haven’t made an assessment as to whether the costs are reasonable.”

Mr Dagnall suggested the council were guilty of ‘double counting’ as it is claiming in damages both Ms Farooqi’s salary for her work in the dispute and also the fees charged for locum support to cover Miss Farooqi’s work.

Miss Farooqi said: “That’s your opinion.”

The case continues.

Spain to stop investigations of Israeli war crimes

1
A day after a Spanish court ordered an investigation into an assassination of a Palestinian militant in 2002, the Spanish government has said it will cancel the investigation, and change the law to prevent such investigations being undertaken in the future.

The moves came after Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni telephoned the Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos on Friday. Livni said after the call Moratinos told her he ‘would fix it.’

The Spanish judge on Thursday ruled the assassination of Salah Shehadeh by an F-16 air strike on a home on July 22 2002, which resulted in fifteen people killed, including nine children, and more than 100 wounded, should be investigated as a war crime. He placed seven current and former Israeli government and military officials, including two current ministers, under investigation. They are Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who was defense minister at the time, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, who was then heading the Shin Bet agency, Likud Knesset candidate Moshe Ya’alon, who was chief of General Staff, Dan Halutz, the then commander of the Israel Air Force, Doron Almog, who was OC Southern Command, then-National Security Council chief Giora Eiland, and the defense minister’s military secretary, Mike Herzog.

Moratinos, according to Israel Radio, has since told Livni his government will amend the authority of the Spanish courts to prevent such investigations from being launched in the future and limit the courts’ jurisdiction.

Livni told Moratinos, “This is very important news for the Israeli public. Unfortunately, the legal systems in the free world are used by parties with interests who have no connection whatsoever to the rule of law or the values of the free world.”

“It’s a good thing that the Spanish government has decided to stop this phenomenon. Israel will continue to work with other governments in the world in a bid to stop similar groundless prosecutions.”

Moratinos told Livni the change in the law could not be done in time to prevent the current investigation from proceeding, but his office would work to annul the investigation, Israel’s Army Radio broadcast in a report late Friday.

On July 22 2002 an Israel Air Force F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb on the building housing Shahade, his wife and child. The blast destroyed many adjacent houses in a densely populated neighborhood of Gaza City, killing Shehade and fourteen civilians, including 9 children, and wounding more than one hundred others.

There was widespread international condemnation of the attack at the time. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan “deplored” the incident, saying, “The government of Israel must halt such actions and it must conduct itself in a manner which does not allow for the killing of innocent civilians.”

The European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana strongly condemned, “the death of innocent civilians in last night’s attack against Gaza,” while British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said, “The action taken last night, which resulted in the deaths of children among others in a missile attack in Gaza, is unacceptable and counterproductive.”

Even the United States, a close ally of Israel, was critical of the operation. Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer described the Israeli actions as “heavy handed” and said it “does not contribute to peace.”

Then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon however, expressing concern about the civilians killed, described the operation as one of Israel’s biggest successes. “We have no interest to hurt innocent civilians and are always sorry about civilians that are hurt but this action, according to me, is one of our biggest successes,” he said.

Not all in Israel however agreed with the operation. Yesh Gvul, the leader of an organization of Israel Defense Forces reservists who oppose service in the territories, filed a petition requesting the Israeli army’s chief military advocate general launch a criminal investigation into the assassination. The petition was refused. However in 2007 the State Prosecutor’s Office told the Israel High Court an independent commission of inquiry would be set up to investigate the incident.

“We recognize there are special circumstances that apply to this case,” Deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan told the High Court at the time. “We therefore agree to an examination of the case by an objective, state-appointed committee.”

Irish Sun

Guantanamo Bay comes to the UK

0

By JAMES EAGLE

REFUGEE campaigners have blown the lid off a detention scandal which has been dubbed “Britain’s Guantanamo.”

Hundreds of immigrants are being locked up indefinitely at the whim of a brutal and bungling Home Office, the London Detainee Support Group (LDSG) revealed.

Some have been detained for over three years, at horrifying cost to their mental health.

They are hearing voices or have been driven to cut themselves or attempt suicide.

The LDSG exposed the shocking situation in its Detained Lives study, which it launched on Thursday night.

It is the first such research on the subject and the LDSG hopes it will inspire mass public outrage over indefinite detention, which director Jerome Phelps branded “the most extreme threat to civil liberties in the UK.”

The Home Office secretly introduced the policy in 2006 after media hysteria over the release of 1,023 jailed foreign nationals.

It now prefers to detain foreigners from their release until they are deported. But hundreds of detainees – from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, China and Afghanistan – can’t be sent back.

So they are left languishing in removal centres with no idea when they will be released and little chance of seeing a judge.

The crimes for which detainees were jailed are often as minor as claiming asylum in a false name or petty theft after being denied benefits.

Legal expert Alasdair McKenzie told the launch meeting that, under the “staggeringly incompetent” Home Office, detainees faced constantly “moving goalposts” and had no idea how to progress their cases.

He attacked the “shocking and scandalous” way in which the government had introduced indefinite detention, which a US audience member called “Britain’s Guantanamo.”

Britain’s policy, which the report branded “ineffective and grossly inefficient,” is among the worst in the EU and defies calls by the UN human rights commissioner to set limits on detention.

The LDSG is in touch with 188 such detainees and Mr Phelps said this was just the tip of the iceberg, as his group only heard about individual cases by word of mouth.

“The human cost of this policy is vast,” he said. “We work with these guys on a day-to-day basis and we see them fall apart.”

He appealed to the hundreds present to write to their MPs to highlight this scandal and to “send a message to the Home Office that this is an unacceptable practice in a civilised country.”

‘Future? My future? There is no future,’ says Darfuri activist detained since 2006

THE Detained Lives report tells story after story of detainees trapped in a system they do not understand and cannot escape and which is slowly destroying their minds and spirits.

Reza, who fled Iran after being repeatedly detained for criticising the Iranian authorities, found himself locked up indefinitely in Britain.

“We just want to live our lives,” he says. “When I see I’m not welcome here, I understand, and I want to go. But how can I go when I’m detained?”

Some detainees cannot be deported under Home Office rules. Others face the terrible choice between indefinite detention and returning to a country where their life is at risk.

Darfuri activist Ahmed Abu Bakar Hassan was jailed for seeking asylum under a false name.

He has been detained since October 2006 and has agreed to return to Sudan – but the Sudanese embassy will not admit him.

“Future? My future? There is no future at all,” he says. “I’m lost. I cannot imagine that there is something called future.”

Mohammed Ali Saad tells of “hearing voices, hearing voices, tell you do crazy things to myself.”

“They keep changing my case worker. I never talk to them. I never meet them, I don’t know who they are,” says Joseph Lumba of his futile efforts to win freedom.

Karim Benhamou has been held for a shocking eight years. He says: “My beard is getting whiter every day. I feel like I’m 85 years old, like my life is gone, it’s wasted.”

Saddam-Qaeda Conspiracy Theorist Surfaces Writing Iraq Reports For The Pentagon

0

It’s a truism that neoconservatives have a talent for failing upward: for repeatedly getting important things wrong and not seeing their careers suffer – for, in fact, being handed new opportunities to pursue their work (see, e.g., Kristol, Bill; and Hayes, Stephen).

Today we can add another name to that list: Laurie Mylroie, the quintessential conspiracy theorist of the Iraq War era, wrote reports about Iraq for the Pentagon as recently as Fall 2007, years after she was discredited, according to documents obtained by TPMmuckraker.

Mylroie is the author of two studies — “Saddam’s Strategic Concepts: Dealing With UNSCOM,” dated Feb. 1, 2007, and “Saddam’s Foreign Intelligence Service,” dated Sept. 24, 2007 — on a list of reports from the Pentagon’s Office Of Net Assessment [ONA], obtained by TPMmuckraker through the Freedom Of Information Act. The ONA is the Defense Department’s internal think tank, once described by the Washington Post as “obscure but highly influential.”

Those who follow the neoconservative movement closely are stunned that Mylroie has surfaced again — and especially that she is doing government-sponsored work on Iraq. “It’s kind of astonishing that the ONA would come even within a mile of her,” says Jacob Heilbrunn, author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. “I think she is completely discredited.”

“I’m shocked,” Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation says. “If this came out in 2007, she was presumably working on it in 2006, and, by that time, the fate and fortunes of a lot of these people was already switching.”

Why is it so astonishing that a government agency would hire Mylroie to write about Iraq? While her career as an Iraq specialist started out auspiciously enough — she studied and later taught at Harvard, wrote a book on Saddam with Judith Miller in 1990, and served as an adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign — Mylroie later veered outside the mainstream and became enamored with theories rejected by virtually everyone else in the field.

Heilbrunn suggests Mylroie has been underappreciated as one of the intellectual progenitors of the Iraq war. “She was one of the original fermenters of the idea that Saddam Hussein had these intimate ties with Al Qaeda,” he says.

In the definitive profile of Mylroie, written for the Washington Monthly in 2003, terrorism analyst Peter Bergen locates Mylroie’s turn in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, when she developed her theory that the Iraqi government was behind the attack. Bergen sums up the animating principle of Mylroie’s work: that “Saddam was the mastermind of a vast anti-U.S. terrorist conspiracy in the face of virtually all evidence and expert opinion to the contrary.” (For a good example of Mylroie Logic, read her Sept. 13, 2001, WSJ op-ed “The Iraqi Connection,” in which she argues that Iraq had a hand in 9/11 because … well, mainly just because.) Bergen goes on:

Mylroie believes that Saddam was not only behind the ’93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself.

Mylroie’s theories wouldn’t have mattered – except that she had the ear of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Jim Woolsey, et al. Perle blurbed Mylroie’s January 2001 book, Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War against America, as “splendid and wholly convincing.”

In response to TPMmuckaker’s questions about the selection process for ONA researchers, a DOD spokesperson said in a statement: “All aspects of researchers and research institutions are considered, with an 
emphasis on obtaining the widest range of possible intellectual approaches in order to provide a fully balanced approach to the analysis of future developments.”

And how did the Pentagon use Mylroie’s Iraq reports? Says DOD: “These reports were part of a multi-scope research effort to identify the widest possible range of analysts whose expertise was likely to generate insights and concepts which would contribute to Net Assessments on-going work to develop and refine trends, risks, and opportunities which will shape future (2020) national security environments.”

Mylroie’s work for the Pentagon is all the more interesting because, as her star faded along with the Iraq war, she largely disappeared from the public sphere. Her most recent public writings consist of a nasty spat with other writers on the right in 2008. The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, himself a prominent perpetuator of falsehoods about Saddam-Al Qaeda links, is one of a group of journalists who cannot stomach Myrloie out of annoyance that her work helps to discredit their own, somewhat less feverish theories. Hayes has reported, with distaste, that Mylroie believes “al Qaeda is little more than an Iraqi ‘front group.'” For more, read Daniel Pipes on “Laurie Mylroie’s Shoddy, Loopy, Zany Theories – Exposed.”

While Mylroie is often identified as an “adjunct fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute, an AEI spokesperson calls that category “a very loose relationship” and says that the main link between Mylroie and the think tank was the publication of her book back in 2001.

Laurie Mylroie did not respond to emails seeking comment. The DOD spokesperson has promised to send me copies of Mylroie’s Iraq reports. We’ll tell you more when we hear anything.

Bush officials authorized torture of US citizen, lawyers say

0

By John Byrne, RawStory

Attorneys for US citizen Jose Padilla — who was convicted of material support for terrorist activities in 2007 — say that high-level Bush Administration officials knew their client was being tortured during the time he was held an enemy combatant in a South Carolina brig, because of the command structure and that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld employed in approving harsh interrogation tactics.

Rumsfeld approved the harsh interrogation techniques early in Bush’s presidency. In Iraq, a cheat sheet titled “Interrogation Rules of Engagement,” revealed that some of them required the Iraq commanding general’s approval.

Among those requiring approval are tactics Padilla’s mother and lawyer say he was the victim of: “Sleep adjustment,” “Sleep management, “Sensory deprivation,” “isolation lasting longer than thirty days” and “stress” positions.” It wouldn’t be a shock if military guards went beyond the traditional treatment of a US prisoner, given Rumsfeld’s approved techniques and that Padilla was is legal limbo as an enemy combatant and eligible to be held for years without charge.

Padilla and his mother filed suit against the US government last year alleging a litany of harsh interrogation practices they said were tantamount to torture. His lawyer also says he was held in isolation for years while held at the South Carolina brig.

“They knew what was going on at the brig and they permitted it to continue,” Tahlia Townsend, an attorney representing Padilla, told the Associated Press Thursday. “Defendants Rumsfeld and [Deputy Paul] Wolfowitz were routinely consulted on these kinds of questions.”

The Justice Department is attempting to get the case dismissed. Padilla’s suit alleges mistreatment and that Padilla’s being held as an enemy combat was unconstitutional.

Dismissal might quietly shut the door on a troubled case that drew broad attention because the Bush Administration had deemed a US citizen an enemy combatant, the quasi-legal terminology used to hold suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in 2002 and accused of plotting with al-Qaida to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in a major U.S. city, but those charges were dropped. He was declared an enemy combatant after his arrest, and held at the brig from June 2002 until January 2006, again without charge.

In 2008, Padilla and his mother, Estela Lebron, filed a lawsuit accusing the government of mistreating and illegally detaining Padilla while he was held near Charleston, South Carolina. Padilla suffered “extreme isolation, sensory deprivation, severe physical pain, sleep deprivation, and profound disruption of his sense and personality, all well beyond the physical and mental discomfort that normally accompanies incarceration,” according to the lawyers’ claim. Such treatment bears the hallmarks of harsh interrogation techniques approved by then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and used by interrogators of other enemy combatants held at the US’ Guantanamo Bay and Iraqi prisons.

In particular, they singled out then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Padilla has alleged he was shackled in painful “stress positions,” a technique used at Guantanamo Bay that a bipartisan U.S. Senate panel ruled last year was the direct result of Bush administration detention policies, not individual guards or interrogators.

The original charge leveled at Padilla when he was arrested in 2002 was that he was part of a “dirty bomb” al Qaeda plot. By the time he was charged five years later, government lawyers had dropped the charge.

The following are excerpts from Padilla’s 2006 motion (PDF link) which describe the claims of torture in more detail:

####

A substantial quantum of torture endured by Mr. Padilla came at the hands of his interrogators. In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in the Naval Brig. He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds. He was also threatened with imminent execution. He was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time. He was forced to endure exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be confronted with false information, scenarios, and documents to further disorient him. Often
he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake, and otherwise assault Mr. Padilla. Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

….

It is worth noting that throughout his captivity, none of the restrictive and inhumane conditions visited upon Mr. Padilla were brought on by his behavior or by any actions on his part. There were no incidents of Mr. Padilla violating any regulation of the Naval Brig or taking any aggressive action towards any of his captors. Mr. Padilla has always been
peaceful and compliant with his captors. He was, and remains to the time of this filing, docile and resigned B a model detainee.

….

In sum, many of the conditions Mr. Padilla experienced were inhumane and caused him great physical and psychological pain and anguish. Other deprivations experienced by Mr. Padilla, taken in isolation, are merely cruel and some, merely petty. However, it is important to recognize that all of the deprivations and assaults recounted above were employed in concert in a calculated manner to cause him maximum anguish. It is also extremely important to note that the torturous acts visited upon Mr. Padilla were done over the course almost the entire three years and seven months of his captivity in the Naval Brig. For most of one thousand three hundred and seven days, Mr. Padilla was tortured by the United States government without cause or justification. Mr. Padilla=s treatment at the
hands of the United States government is shocking to even the most hardened conscience, and such outrageous conduct on the part of the government divests it of jurisdiction, under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment, to prosecute Mr. Padilla in the instant matter.

####

Tony Blair admits daily doubts about the war in Iraq

2

By James Kirkup

Mr Blair, now an international envoy to the Middle East, spoke of his “sense of responsibility” over the deaths of soldiers and civilians since the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

Asked if he suffered from doubt over Iraq, Mr Blair replied: “Of course you ask that question the whole time. You’d be weird if you didn’t ask that question.”

Mr Blair spoke in an interview with The Times, which is due to be published tomorrow.

In some of his frankest comments on the Iraq war, he spoke of his daily reflections on the decision and its consequences.

He said: “The most difficult thing in any set of circumstances is the sense of responsibility for people who have given their lives and fallen — the soldiers and the civilians. If I did not feel that, there really would be something wrong with me, and there is not a single day of my life when I do not reflect upon it . . . many times. And that’s as it should be.”

Yet Mr Blair still stands by his decision to back the US invasion of Iraq, suggesting it could actually have saved lives.

He said: “On the other hand you have to take the decision and I look at the Middle East now and I think, well, if Saddam and his two sons were still running Iraq how many other people would have died and would the region be more stable?”

POA delegates scorn Straw’s big bribe

0

By ADRIAN ROBERTS

FURIOUS prison officers urged their colleagues to reject a £50 million bribe from Justice Secretary Jack Straw on Thursday which they warned would lead to job cuts and downgrading of work.

At a special delegate’s conference, members from every public-sector prison in England and Wales gathered to consider an offer from Mr Straw to modernise the Prison Service.

The offer contains a three-year pay deal which purports to give some staff a 51 per cent pay increase over three years.

The “workforce modernisation” (WFM) plan is to be financed by £50 million given to Mr Straw by the Treasury last year. However, the Prison Officers Association (POA) warned that this up-front funding has to be clawed back by management over its three-year lifespan or the Chancellor will demand it back.

The union said that WFM is about doing more for less and is designed to slow down the pay bill, justify job losses and downgrade work to its cheapest level.

Another part of the deal will see warders and other prison workers having allowances taken away and forced to take regular fitness tests, which the union explained is just a back-door way to sack long-serving staff.

POA national chairman Colin Moses noted that the Prison Service sold off all its assets many years ago and they now have nothing to offer.

“Therefore, they are using the welfare and safety of prisoners, staff and the general public as bargaining chips in an attempt to shore up the economy.

“The so-called 50 per cent pay offer or 10 per cent over three years is pure spin. The majority of the pay increases are already built into staff’s terms and conditions.

“As a union, we are shackled by anti-trade union legislation introduced by the Conservative government, legislation which limits the right of my members and my union and every worker’s right to free collective bargaining.

“We will not sell off the safety and welfare of prisoners, staff and the general public for 30 pieces of silver.”

General secretary Brian Caton added that National Offender Management Service bosses and the government are hell-bent on using public services to balance the books of the economy.

“In the good times, they ignore public-sector workers and feather the nests of the private sector,” he said.

“In the bad times, they attack all essential services in an attempt to cover up the black holes of Treasury, all at the expense of the public and the worker.

“POA members want a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We want prisons to be fit for purpose and not warehouses.

“We demand safe prisons that have adequate professional staff to serve the public. It appears that the government are happy to attack our workers, accept violence as part of everyday life in prisons and play Russian roulette with public safety.”

Bush okayed torture to outwit defense lawyers

1

By Stephen C. Webster

It comes as no surprise that the Bush administration had little love for lawyers. Long before the “Attorneygate” scandal developed around the firing of nine US Attorneys in his second term, former President George W. Bush spent a good amount of the time bashing trial lawyers whenever he had the opportunity.

And it was just recently revealed that Bush appointee Bradley Schlozman, who supervised civil rights and voting rights lawyers from 2003 to 2006, thought his charges were little more than a bunch of “mold spores,” “commies” and “crazy libs.”

But now, in a Thursday editorial published by the Wall Street Journal, John Yoo, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, explained that the Bush administration’s torture programs, for which he co-authored the legal justifications, were initially designed to outwit crafty defense attorneys.

“The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up,” writes Yoo. “The [Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds] or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery — which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place.”

Yoo neglects to mention, however, that before the Supreme Court stepped in, terror defendants were using military lawyers. Nor does he mention that that judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines later “said they expressed their concerns as the policy was being hashed out at the Pentagon in March and April 2003.”

“Though their letters to the Defense Department’s general counsel are classified, sources familiar with them said the lawyers worried that broadly defined, tough interrogation tactics would not only contravene long-standing military doctrine — leaving too much room for interpretation by interrogators — but also would cause public outrage if the tactics became known,” Josh White wrote for The Washington Post in 2005.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who chaired the 2005 Armed Services subcommittee hearing, told the top military lawyers then, “If they had listened to you from the outset, we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems we’ve dealt with.”

Evidently, the Bush administration never did listen to them.

In his time with the Department of Justice, John Yoo co-authored the Patriot Act and helped craft legal justifications for the Bush administration’s torture programs and the NSA’s full-spectrum spying apparatus.

“Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us,” continued Yoo. “If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant’s constitutional right to demand the government’s files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.”

In the piece, titled Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo, Yoo also directly states that President Bush ordered waterboarding “three times” after 9/11.

“Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001,” he opined.

Yoo argues Obama’s order banning torture “amounts to requiring — on penalty of prosecution — that CIA interrogators be polite,” and even parrots a Rove talking point: the claim that Obama’s ban of torture somehow “prohibits” good-cop, bad-cop interrogation routines with prisoners.

“The Army Field Manual, for example, prohibits you from using good cop-bad cop in interrogating,” Rove said on Fox News’ Hannity on Monday.

“The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America,” writes Yoo Thursday.

Of course, it doesn’t.

“In fact, the Army Field Manual explicitly permits good cop-bad cop interrogations under the name of ‘Mutt and Jeff’ interrogations, which involve two interrogators ‘display[ing] opposing personalities and attitudes toward the source,'” reported Media Matters, on the instance of Rove introducing the manufactured “fact.” “The Field Manual says the ‘goal of this technique is to make the source identify with one of the interrogators and thereby establish[ing] rapport and cooperation.'”

After stating unequivocally that the new interrogation rules will completely cut off any further intelligence from captured al-Qaeda members, he goes so far as to imply that President Obama is “naïve.”

“It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can ‘reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,'” opines Yoo. “That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al-Qaeda — a hardened enemy committed to our destruction — the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.”

His opinion seems to be that suspected terrorists should be given no rights, and the government should not be burdened with needing to provide legitimate evidence against the accused.

“Zacarias Moussaoui, the only member of the 9/11 cell arrested before the attack, turned his trial into a circus by making such demands,” his screed against the American justice system concludes. “He was convicted after four years of pretrial wrangling only because he chose to plead guilty. Expect more of this, but with far more valuable intelligence at stake.”

This, coming from the man who once refused to say whether, under his definition of executive power, the president could order a man buried alive.

Speaking with a reporter, Yoo also agreed with an analysis of executive power which posited the hypothetical situation in which Bush might order a boy’s testicles “crushed” in order to affect a response from his parents.

On the legality of such an order, Yoo said, “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.”

“The real reason John Yoo wrote this foolish, inaccurate piece is in the hopes of gathering around him some support for his illegal actions,” writes RAW STORY investigative news editor Larisa Alexandrovna on her blog, at-Largely.

“You may wish to read his latest epic verbiage festival, but I would urge you not to waste your time,” she writes. “The man is a liar, a coward, and now defends his illegal actions by using lies and discredited propaganda to justify the unjustifiable.”

Ron Brynaert contributed to this report.

Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

0

Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Continue Systematic Attacks against Palestinian Civilians and Property in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and Continue to Impose a Total Siege on the Gaza Strip

 

 

  • A Palestinian farmer was killed by IOF, and two civilians, including a child, died of previous injuries.  

  •  

  • 17 Palestinian civilians, including four children and two international journalists were wounded by IOF in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

  •  

  • IOF conducted 32 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank.

  •  

  • IOF arrested 64 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, including 15 children.

  •  

  • IOF transformed a house in Battir village near Bethlehem into a military site.

  •  

  • IOF have continued to impose a total siege on the OPT.

  •  

  • The Gaza Strip is completely isolated from the outside world.

  •  

  • IOF troops positioned at various checkpoints in the West Bank arrested 4 Palestinian civilians, including a child.

  •  

  • IOF have continued to take measures towards the Judaization of Jerusalem.

  •  

  • IOF demolished two houses in Jerusalem, making 53 people homeless.

 


 

Summary

Israeli violations of international law and humanitarian law continued in the OPT during the reporting period (22 — 28 January 2009):

Shooting: During the reporting period, IOF killed a Palestinian civilian and wounded 17 others, including four children, and two international journalists in the West Bank. Two Palestinian civilians, including a child, also died of injuries they had sustained during the IOF offensive on the Gaza Strip.

On 27 January, IOF opened fire at a number of Palestinian farmers east of Khan Yunis, killing one of them.

On 22 and 23 January, medical sources confirmed that two Palestinian civilians, including a child, had died of injuries sustained during the IOF offensive on the Gaza Strip.

During the reporting period, seven Palestinians were injured by IOF gunfire in the Gaza Strip.

In the West Bank, ten Palestinian civilians, including two children, and two international journalists, were injured by IOF gunfire.

Two Palestinian civilians were injured by IOF during an IOF incursion into al-Fara’a refugee camp, south of Tubas.

During the reporting period, eight Palestinian civilians, including two children, and two international journalists, were injured when IOF used force against peaceful demonstrations organized in protest at the construction of the Annexation Wall.  

Incursions: During the reporting period, IOF conducted at least 32 military incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank. IOF arrested 64 Palestinian civilians, including 15 children. IOF also transformed a house in Battir village near Bethlehem into a military site.

Restrictions on Movement: IOF have continued to impose a tightened siege on the OPT and imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.

 

Gaza Strip

IOF have continued to close all border crossings to the Gaza Strip for more than two years. The IOF siege of Gaza, which has steadily tightened since June 2007, has had a disastrous impact on the humanitarian and economic situation in the Gaza Strip.

·     1.5 million people are being denied their basic rights, including freedom of movement, and their rights to appropriate living conditions, work, health and education..

 

·     Hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Gaza Strip are facing power cuts for 8-12 hours per day, which is severly affecting their quality of life and access to basic facilities incuding light and heat, and also impacts on their access to drinking water, as electric pumps are frequently not working.

 

·     The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has been repeatedly forced to suspend it humanitarian aid program for at least 750,000 Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, due to consistent obstructions in aid delivery and the risks facing its staff.

 

·     Rafah International Crossing Point has been opened for only a few days for a limited number of patients who were permitted to receive medical treatment abroad and subsequently needed to return home to Gaza. The corssing remains closed for all other Palestinians.

 

·     IOF have continued to close Beit Hanoun (Erez) crossing to all Palestinian civilians wishing to travel to the West Bank and Israeli for medical treatment, trade or to visit family, relatives and friends.  

 

·     IOF have imposed additional restrictions on access to Gaza for international diplomats, journalists and humanitarian workers. They have prevented representatives of international humanitarian organizations from entering the Gaza Strip to carry out humanitarian work.

 

·     Health conditions in the Gaza Strip have deteriorated, and all medical facilities are being affected by the chronic power shortages.

 

·     The lives of premature babies continue to be at risk as they depend on medical equipment in neonatal units that are electrically powered.

 

·     Standards of living arcoss Gaza have seriously deteriorated, whilst poverty and unemployment levels have sharply increased.  

 

·     At least 900 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails continue to be deprived of all family visits. The viist were first suspended sixteen months ago, in June 2007.   

 

West Bank

IOF have continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians throughout the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem. Thousands of Palestinian civilians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continue to be denied access to Jerusalem.

 

·     IOF have established checkpoints in and around Jerusalem, severely restricting Palestinian access to the city. Civilians are frequently prevented from praying at the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

 

·     There are approximately permanent 630 roadblocks, manned and unmanned checkpoints across the West Bank. In addition, there are some 60-80 ‘flying’ or temporary checkpoints erected across the West Bank by IOF every week.

 

·     When complete, the illegal Annexation Wall will stretch for 724 kilometers around the West Bank, further isolating the entire population. 350 kilometers of the Wall have already been constructed. Approximately 99% of the Wall has been constructed inside the West Bank itself, further confiscating Palestinian land.

 

·     At least 65% of the main roads that leads to 18 Palestinian communities in the West Bank are closed or fully controlled by IOF (47 out of 72 roads).

 

·     There are around 500 kilometers of restricted roads across the West Bank. In addition, approximately one third of the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, is inaccessible to Palestinians without a permit issued by the IOF. These permits are extremely difficult to obtain.

 

·     IOF continue to harass, and assault demonstrators who hold peaceful protests against the construction of the Annexation Wall.

 

·     Palestinian civilians continue to be harassed by IOF in Jerusalem, and across the West Bank, including being regularly stopped and searched in the streets by IOF.

 

·     During the reporting period, IOF arrested 4 Palestinian civilians, including one child, at various checkpoints in the West Bank.

 

·    IOF have escalated arbitrary measures against Palestinian civilians in East Jerusalem aimed at forcing them to leave the city. During the reporting period, IOF demolished two houses in Jerusalem, making fifty three Palestinians homeless.  

 
 

Israeli Violations Documented during the Reporting Period (22- 28 January 2009):

 

1.     Incursions into Palestinian Areas and Attacks on Palestinian Civilians and Property in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

 

Thursday, 22 January  

·     At approximately 01:30, IOF moved into Jenin town and refugee camp. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     Also at approximately 01:30, IOF moved into al-Yamoun village, west of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Maher Jameel Khamaisa, 19.

 

·     At approximately 02:00, IOF moved into Qiffin village, north of Tulkarm. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Eyad Ahmed Khader, 26.

 

·     At approximately 02:30, IOF moved into Taqqou’ village, south of Bethlehem. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested 3 Palestinian civilians:

1.     Ahmed Kayed Jebril, 29;

2.     Tariq Mousa Jebril, 29;

3.     Akram Mousa Jebril, 26.

 

·     Also at approximately 02:30, IOF moved into Bethlehem. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Ahmed Khader Masalma, 21.

 

·     At approximately 04:00, IOF moved into Deir Estia village, northwest of Salfit. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested two Palestinian civilians:

1.     Mo’taz Kayed Abu Khalaf, 20;

2.     Shaher ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Salman, 31.

 

·     At approximately 16:00, medical sources in Egypt confirmed that ‘Eid ‘Ayada Abu Rabee’, 56, from al-Mughraqa village, south of Gaza City, had died of injuries sustained on 4 January 2009 during the IOF offensive on the Gaza Strip.

 

Friday, 23 January   

·     At approximately 01:00, medical sources confirmed that ‘Abdullah Mohammed Hamdan Abu Touk, 17,m from Khuza’a village, east of Khan Yunis, died at an Egyptian hospital of injuries sustained when IOF shelled his village on 11 January, 2009.

 

·     Also at approximately 01:00, IOF troops positioned at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel opened fire at Palestinian civilians who were checking the destruction of their houses in Khuza’a village, east of Khan Yunis. As a result, Nabeel Ibrahim al-Najjar, 40, was wounded by shrapnel from a gunshot to the left hand.

 

·     At approximately 02:30, IOF moved into ‘Arraba village, southwest of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

·     At approximately 03:00, IOF moved into Kufor Qallil village, southeast of Nablus. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested 4 Palestinian civilians, including a child:

1.     Sanad Subhi Mansour, 22;

2.     Diaa’ Ra’d Mansour, 22;

3.     ‘Abdullah Ref’at ‘Aamer, 17;

4.     Tariq Diab al-Hourani, 18.

 

·     At approximately 03:30, IOF moved into al-‘Eissawiya village, northeast of Jerusalem. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested 17 Palestinian civilians, including 10 children:

1.     Mohammed Khader Abu al-Hummos, 18;

2.     Ra’ed Taha, 19;

3.     Ahmed ‘Arafat Mustafa, 19;

4.     Ahmed Mousa Mustafa, 20;

5.     Anas Riad Hamdan, 18;

6.     Hussein Maher Muhaisen, 18;

7.     ‘Aassem ‘Obaid, 19;

8.     Rami ‘Obaid, 15;

9.     Farahat ‘Obaid, 16;

10. Rami ‘Obaid, 16;

11. Mohammed Jamal ‘Obaid, 16;

12. Eihab ‘Olayan, 17;

13. Ahmed Ra’ed Muhaisen, 15;

14. Mohammed Faisal ‘Obaid, 15;

15. ‘Aaref Hamayel, 17;

16. Kareem al-Masri, 16;

17. Bassel ‘Obaid, 16.

 

Saturday, 24 January  

·     At approximately 02:00, IOF moved into Qabatya village, southeast of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested 6 Palestinian civilians, including a child:

1.     Muhannad Fat’hi Hanaisha, 32;

2.     Mohammed Yousef Khuzamia, 18;

3.     Mohammed Ahmed Abu Zaid, 18;

4.     Ussama Mahmoud Abu Zaid, 19;

5.     Ahmed Mo’men Abu Zaid, 16;

6.     Hamad Rafeeq Abu ‘Eisha, 19.

 

Sunday, 25 January

·     At approximately 01:00, IOF moved into Hebron. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested 7 Palestinian civilians, including two children:

1.     Hussein Mohammed al-Atrash, 30;

2.     Wissam Mustafa al-Rajabi, 31;

3.     Isma’il Fayez Abu Hussein, 21;

4.     Sameh Mohammed al-Sharbati, 26;

5.     Mahmoud Yousef Abu Turki, 17;

6.     Ahmed Sa’id al-Sammak, 20;

7.     ‘Ali ‘Abdul Muttaleb Ahmed, 16.

·     At approximately 01:30, IOF moved into al-Duhaisha refugee camp, southwest of Bethlehem. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     At approximately 02:00, IOF moved into Shyoukh village, northeast of Hebron. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Yousef Ghassan Su’aifan, 20.

 

·     At approximately 15:00, IOF moved into Beita village, southeast of Nablus. They stormed the local market searching for children who allegedly threw stones at military vehicles. Before leaving the area, IOF troops arrested ‘Abed Rabbu Zaid Abu al-Radah, 28.

 

·     At approximately 16:00, IOF troops positioned at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel opened fire at houses and streets in Khuza’a village, east of Khan Yunis. As a result, Subhi Tafesh Qudaih, 55, was wounded by a gunshot to the back.

 

Monday, 26 January

·     At approximately 01:00, IOF moved into Hebron. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested ‘Abdul Ghani Nihad Bader, 18.

 

·     Also at approximately 01:00, IOF moved into Dura village, southwest of Hebron. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Amjad Mohammed Qazzaz, 26.

 

·     At approximately 01:30, IOF moved into Nablus and the neighboring Balata refugee camp. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested two Palestinians:

1.     Mohammed Jamal Jaber, 20;

2.     Yasser Rushdi Nada, 24, a member of the Palestinian Preventive Security Service.

 

·     At approximately 02:00, IOF moved into Bitounia town, west of Ramallah. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Tayseer Mohammed Sammar, 25.

 

·     At approximately 06:00, IOF moved into Battir village, west of Bethlehem. They raided a house belonging to Ibrahim al-Sagheer and transformed the second floor into a military site. IOF troops informed the owner that the house would be seized for several days for “security purposes.”

 

·     At approximately 22:30, IOF moved into Budros village, west of Ramallah. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested 3 Palestinian civilians:

1.     Ahmed Hassan Khalil, 40, a member of the local council;

2.     Jebril Ahmed ‘Abdul Karim, 24;

3.     Yousef Mohammed Shaheen, 23.

 

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

·     At approximately 01:00, IOF moved into Bethlehem. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested ‘Aayesh Ibrahim Nawawra, 24.

 

·     Also at approximately 01:00, IOF moved into al-‘Azza refugee camp, north of Bethlehem. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Maher Mohammed Zabboun, 18.

 

·     At approximately 01:30, IOF moved into Beit Dajan village, east of Nablus. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     Also at approximately 01:30, IOF moved into ‘Arraba village, southwest of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     Also at approximately 01:30, IOF moved into Kufor Ra’ei village, southwest of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     At approximately 02:00, IOF moved into Fahma village, southwest of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     At approximately 03:00, IOF moved into al-Fara’a refugee camp, south of Tubas. They raided a local market in the center of the camp. A number of Palestinian boys gathered and threw stones at IOF military vehicles. Immediately, IOF troops fired at these boys. Two Palestinian civilians were wounded:

1.     ‘Emad Waleed Abu Tayeh, 20, wounded by a gunshot to the leg;

2.     Jamal Jalal Eshtaiwi, 18, wounded by a gunshot to the right hand.  

 

·     Also at approximately 03:00, IOF moved into Jaba’ village, south of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     Also at approximately 03:00, IOF moved into Seilat al-Zaher village, south of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses, but no arrests were reported.

 

·     At approximately 10:00, IOF troops positioned at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of Khan Yunis, opened fire at a number of Palestinian farmers who were farming agricultural land belonging to the Abu Daqqa clan, nearly 600 meters away from the border. The farmers lay down to avoid being shot. When the shooting stopped, the farmer stood up to leave the area, but IOF troops opened fire at them. One of them, 26-year-old Anwar Zayed al-Buraim, was killed by a gunshot to the neck.

 

·     At approximately 15:00, IOF heavy military vehicles moved nearly 500 meters into the east of Deir al-Balah town in the central Gaza Strip. They razed areas of Palestinian agricultural land. At approximately 19:00, IOF troops opened fire at houses in the areas. As a result, Mohammed Salama al-Ma’ni, 21, was wounded by a gunshot to the left thigh. IOF military vehicles moved 200 meters back, but continued to patrol the area.  

 

·     At approximately 16:40, an IOF drone fired a missile at a Palestinian who was riding a motorcycle in al-‘Aqqad area in Khan Yunis. He was seriously wounded. He was identified as Hussein Fayez Shamiya, age 25. Two children in the vicinity were also wounded by shrapnel throughout their bodies: Ahmed Wa’el Sirdah, 5, and Mahmoud Mohammed Abu Tawq, 13.

 

·     At approximately 23:00, IOF moved into Zabbouba village, west of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested 8 Palestinian civilians, including a child:

1.     Mubdi Mahmoud Maqalda, 18;

2.     Hussein Abu Zaytoun, 19;

3.     Sa’id Mohammed Jaradat, 19;

4.     Tha’er Bassam Maqalda, 19;

5.     Mohammed ‘Emad ‘Amarna, 18;

6.     ‘Abada Fudail Zughol, 18;

7.     Hussein Mohammed ‘Atatra, 16;

8.     Hassan Mohammed ‘Atatra, 19.

 

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

·     At approximately 01:00, IOF moved into Shyoukh village, northeast of Hebron. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Isma’il Hamed Hassasna, 21.

 

·     At approximately 01:30, IOF moved into al-Zahiriya village, south of Hebron. They raided and searched a number of houses and arrested Khaled Mohammed al-Battat, 40.

 

·     At approximately 02:00, IOF warplanes bombarded tunnels along the Egyptian border, south of Rafah. A number of houses in the area were damaged, but no casualties were reported.

 

Continued Siege on the OPT

IOF have continued to impose a tightened siege on the OPT and imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including Occupied East Jerusalem.

 

Gaza Strip

IOF continue to impose a siege on the 1.5 million civilians of the Gaza Strip. The border crossings of the Strip have been closed for more than two years as part of IOF’s policy of collective punishment, imposing severe restrictions on the movement of civilians and goods. As a result, the territory is unable to secure basic foods, medicine, and other supplies, and the poverty rate now stands at more 80%.

 

The continued Israeli ban on fuel supplies has led to the paralysis of the educational sector. Healthcare facilities have registered a drop in clients due to the transport crisis, and hundreds of healthcare professionals have been unable to reach their work places.

 

The tightened siege has led to the collapse of the Gaza Strip economic sectors. Most production facilities have ceased to operate due to the siege and restriction on movement of goods and individuals.

With regard to Rafah International Crossing Point on the Egyptian border, the Egyptian authorities started to open on a limited basis for some patients.

 

IOF allow a very limited number of seriously ill patients and staff of international organizations to pass through Beit Hanoun (Erez) crossing..

 

The closure of border crossings deprives the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip of their right to freedom of movement, education and health. IOF also continue to impose severe restrictions on fishing in the Gaza Strip. Approximately 35,000 people in and around Gaza’s coastal communities rely on the fishing industry, including at least 3,500 fishermen, 2,500 support staff and their families. Fishermen have been subjected to intensive monitoring by IOF, which use helicopter gunships and gunboats to monitor the fishermen. The Oslo Accords permit Palestinian fishermen to go fishing up to 20 nautical miles from the Gaza coastline.  

 

During the twenty two day IOF offensive in the Gaza Strip, the civilian population suffered a massivie deterioration in the overall humanitarian situation. The resulting acute humanitarian crisis is increasingly impacting on all aspects of civilians life, and Palestinian civilians continue to be denied their economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights.

 

The overall deterioration of health services in the Gaza Strip has been exacerbated due to the overwhelming number of fatalities and casualties caused by the IOF military offensive. All medical institutions in the Gaza Strip continue to be affected, including hospitals, primary healthcare centers and mental health service providers. Health institutions cannot meet the demand for their services.

 

 

Movement at Border Crossings during the Reporting Period:

 

Movement at Karm Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) Crossing

14 — 27 January 2009

Date

Details

14 January 2009

104 containers of food aid for international humanitarian organizations were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

15  January 2009

65 containers of food aid for international humanitarian organizations were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

16 January 2009

73 containers of humanitarian aid were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

17 January 2009

52 containers of humanitarian aid were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

18 January 2009

97 containers of humanitarian aid were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

19 January 2009

108 containers of humanitarian aid for international humanitarian organizations and of goods for local traders were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

20 January 2009

118 containers of humanitarian aid for international humanitarian organizations and goods for local traders were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

21 January 2009

71 containers of humanitarian aid for international humanitarian organizations and goods for local traders were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

22 January 2009

99.5 containers of humanitarian aid for international humanitarian organizations and goods for local traders were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

23 January 2009

65 containers of humanitarian aid for international humanitarian organizations and goods for local traders were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

24 January 2009

Closed.

25 January 2009

118 containers of humanitarian aid for international humanitarian organizations and goods for local traders were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

26 January 2009

118 containers of humanitarian aid for international humanitarian organizations and goods for local traders were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

27 January 2009

Closed.

 

Movement at Rafah International Crossing Point

14 — 27 January 2009

 

Date

Details

14 January 2009

29 Palestinians who were injured by IOF, accompanied by 29 of their relatives, were allowed to travel to Egypt. 33 Arab physicians, 4 Palestinians, the bodies of two Palestinians who had died of their wounds, 14 trucks of medicines and medical equipment and 24 ambulances were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

15 January 2009

3 Palestinians who were injured by IOF, accompanied by 3 of their relatives, were allowed to travel to Egypt. 7 Arab physicians, 60 international journalists and 4 trucks of medicines and medical equipment were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

16 January 2009

16 Palestinians who were injured by IOF, accompanied by 16 of their relatives, were allowed to travel to Egypt. 6 international physicians, 5 international journalists, 20 Palestinians, 20 trucks of medicines and medical equipment and 3 ambulances were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

17 January 2009

37 Palestinians who were injured by IOF, accompanied by 37 of their relatives, were allowed to travel to Egypt. 24 Arab physicians, 15 internationals, 7 Palestinians, the body of a Palestinian who had died of his injuries and 10 trucks of medicines and medical equipment were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

18 January 2009

40 Palestinians who were injured by IOF, accompanied by 40 of their relatives, were allowed to travel to Egypt. 48 Arab and international physicians, 60 international journalists, 5 Palestinians, the body of a Palestinian who died of his wounds, 15 trucks of medicines and medical equipment and 11 ambulances were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

19 January 2009

75 Palestinians who were injured by IOF, accompanied by 75 of their relatives, and 259 Arabs and internationals were allowed to travel to Egypt. 27 Arab physicians, 50 Palestinians, 28 trucks of medicines and medical equipment and 3 ambulances were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

20 January 2009

40 Palestinians who were injured by IOF, accompanied by 40 of their relatives, and 186 Arabs and internationals were allowed to travel to Egypt. 27 Arab and international physicians, 50 Palestinians, 28 trucks of medicines and medical equipment and 3 ambulances were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

21 January 2009

66 Palestinian patients and 128 Arabs and internationals were allowed to travel to Egypt. 42 Palestinians, 107 Arabs and internationals and 10 trucks of medicines and medical equipment were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

22 January 2009

80 Palestinian patients and 150 Arabs and internationals were allowed to travel to Egypt. 200 Palestinians, Arabs and internationals, 12 trucks of medicines and medical equipment and 15 ambulances were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

23 January 2009

41 Palestinian patients, 20 physicians, 15 journalists, 20 Egyptians and a delegation of Hamas were allowed to travel to Egypt. 50 Palestinians and a Kuwaiti delegation were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

24 January 2009

29 Palestinian patients and 95 Arabs and internationals were allowed to travel to Egypt. 11 Palestinians, 83 Arabs and internationals, 10 trucks of medicines and medical equipment and 10 ambulances were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

25 January 2009

76 Palestinian patients, 86 Arabs and internationals and delegations of Palestinian factions were allowed to travel to Egypt. 32 Palestinians, 5 internationals and 10 trucks of medicines and medical equipment were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

26 January 2009

20 Palestinian patients and 60 Arabs and internationals were allowed to travel to Egypt. 117 Palestinians, Arab and international delegates and 10 trucks of medicines and medical equipment were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

27 January 2009

94 Palestinian patients, Arabs and internationals were allowed to travel to Egypt. 22 Palestinians, Arab and international delegations and 8 trucks of medicines and medical equipment were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

 


 

Movement at Nahal Ouz Crossing

19 — 27 January 2009

Date

Cooking Gas (tons)

Energy Fuel (liters)

19 January 2009

206.160

537,100

20 January 2009

198.900

443,000

21 January 2009

163.840

456,000

22 January 2009

199.680

444,400

25 January 2009

137.880

320,120

26 January 2009

103.880

169,140

27 January 2009

21.160

129,400

 

Movement at Nahal Ouz Crossing

19 — 27 January 2009

 

Date

Details

18 January 2009

18 trucks of wheat and 20 trucks of seeds were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

19 January 2009

34 trucks of wheat and 38 trucks of fodder were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

20 January 2009

48 trucks of wheat and 23 trucks of fodder  were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

21 January 2009

23 trucks of seeds and 14 ones of fodder were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

22 January 2009

43 trucks of wheat, 37 trucks of fodder and 12 trucks of seeds were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

26 January 2009

102 trucks of wheat, 51 trucks of feeds and 12 trucks of seeds were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

27 January 2009

6 trucks of seeds and wheat were allowed into the Gaza Strip.

 

The West Bank

IOF have imposed a tightened siege on the West Bank. During the reporting period, IOF imposed additional restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians.

·     Jerusalem: IOF have continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians to and from the city. Thousands of Palestinian civilians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been denied access to the city. IOF have established many checkpoints around and inside the city. Restrictions of the movement of Palestinian civilians often escalate on Fridays to prevent them from praying at the al-Aqsa Mosque. IOF often violently assault Palestinian civilians who attempt to bypass checkpoints and enter the city. IOF impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians on Fridays to restrict their access to the al-Aqsa Mosque. During the reporting period, IOF imposed additional restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians. On Friday morning, 23 January 2009, IOF prevented Palestinian civilians living outside of the Old Town from entering it. They also prevented Palestinian civilians aged below 50 from reaching the al-Aqsa Mosque for the Friday Prayer.

 

On Tuesday evening, 27 January, IOF troops positioned at the Container checkpoint, east of Jerusalem, arrested Ayman ‘Ali Abu ‘Arqoub, 23, from al-Sammou’ village southwest of Hebron.

 

·     Nablus: IOF have continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians. On Thursday and Saturday, 22 and January, IOF troops positioned at various checkpoints around Nablus imposed additional restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians. On Sunday morning, 25 January, IOF troops positioned at Za’tara checkpoint, south of Nablus, conducted prolonged checking on Palestinian civilians. On Monday morning, 26 January, IOF troops positioned at various checkpoints around Nablus imposed additional restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians.

 

At approximately 14:00 on Sunday, 25 January, IOF troops positioned at Hawara checkpoint, south of Nablus, arrested ‘Abdullah Jihad al-Massimi, 17, from Ramallah.

 

·     Ramallah: On Monday evening, 26 January, IOF troops positioned at a checkpoint near Silwad village, northeast of Ramallah, arrested Ahmed ‘Abdullah Ba’irat, 35, and Ra’ed Suleiman Ba’irat, 28, both from Kufor Malek village east of Ramallah.

 

2.    Construction of the Annexation Wall

IOF have continued to construct the Annexation Wall inside West Bank territory. During the reporting period, IOF used force against peaceful demonstrations organized by Palestinian civilians and international and Israeli human rights defenders in protest at the construction of the Wall.

 

·     Following the Friday Prayer on 23 January, scores of Palestinian civilians organized a peaceful demonstration in Bal’ein village, west of Ramallah, in protest to the IOF offensive on the Gaza Strip. The demonstrators moved towards the Wall and threw stones at IOF troops positioned in the area. IOF troops immediately fired gunshots, rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at the demonstrators. As a result, a Palestinian civilian and two international journalists were wounded:

1.     Khamis Fat’hi Abu Rahma, 28, hit by a tear gas canister to the head;

2.     Kazoki Kairo, 27, a Japanese journalist, hit by a tear gas canister to the hand;  

3.     A Spanish journalist, 40, hit by a tear gas canister to the thigh.  

 

·     Also following the Friday Prayer on 23 January, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international and Israeli human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in protest to the construction of the Wall in Ne’lin village, west of Ramallah. They moved towards areas of land which are threatened to be confiscated for the purpose of the construction of the Wall. IOF troops fired rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at the demonstrators. As a result, 6 demonstrators, including two children, were wounded:

1.     Mohammed ‘Essam al-Khawaja, 20, wounded by a gunshot to the right leg;

2.     Firas ‘Abdul Raziq, 32, wounded by a rubber-coated metal bullet to the head;

3.     ‘Abdul Qader Mustafa al-Khawaja, 18, wounded by a gunshot to the left leg;

4.     Ibrahim Khalil ‘Amira, 28, wounded by a gunshot to the right hand;

5.     Mohammed Ibrahim ‘Amira, 17, hit by a tear gas canister to the shoulder;

6.     Mohammed Ahmed ‘Amira, 16, wounded by a rubber-coated metal bullet to the right leg.

 

·     Also following the Friday Prayer on 23 January, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in protest to the construction of the Wall in Jayous village, northeast of Qalqilya. They moved towards the Wall and attempted to pass through towards their lands, which are isolated by the Wall. IOF troops fired rubber-coated metal bullets, tear gas canisters and sound bombs at the demonstrators. As a result, Laith ‘Abdul Qader Saleem, 19, was wounded by a rubber-coated metal bullet to the leg..


 

3.     Judaization of Jerusalem

OF has recently escalated arbitrary measures against Palestinian civilians in East Jerusalem to force them to leave the city.

 

·     On Wednesday morning, 28 January, IOF moved into Wadi Qaddoum quarter in Silwan village, south of Jerusalem. They demolished the top floor of a three storey house belonging to Talal al-Shwaiki, claiming that it was built without a valid permit.

 

·     Also on Wednesday morning, IOF moved into Tal al-Foul area in Beit Hanina suburb, north of Jerusalem. They demolished a 3-storey house belonging to Mohammed ‘Eid al-Ja’bari, in which 45 people from five families were living. IOF claimed that the house was built without a valid permit.

 

…………………………………………………………


 

Recommendations to the International Community

1.     PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to fulfill their legal and moral obligations under Article 1 of the Convention to ensure Israel’s respect for the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. PCHR believes that the conspiracy of silence practiced by the international community has encouraged Israel to act as if it is above the law and encourages Israel continue to violate international human rights and humanitarian law.

 

2.     PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to convene a conference to take effective steps to ensure Israel’s respect of the Convention in the OPT and to provide immediate protection for Palestinian civilians.

 

3.     PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to comply with its legal obligations detailed in Article 146 of the Convention to search for and prosecute those responsible for grave breaches, namely war crimes.

 

4.     PCHR calls for the immediately implementation of the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice, which considers the construction of the Annexation Wall inside the West Bank illegal.

 

5.     PCHR recommends international civil society organizations, including human rights organizations, bar associations and NGOs to participate in the process of exposing those accused of grave breaches of international law and to urge their governments to bring these people to justice.

 

6.     PCHR calls upon the European Union to activate Article 2 of the Euro-Israel Association Agreement, which provides that Israel must respect human rights as a precondition for economic cooperation between the EU states and Israel. PCHR further calls upon the EU states to prohibit import of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the OPT.

 

7.     PCHR calls on the international community to recognize the Gaza disengagement plan, which was implemented in September 2005, for what it is – not an end to occupation but a compounding of the occupation and the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

 

8.     In recognition of ICRC as the guardian of the Fourth Geneva Convention, PCHR calls upon the ICRC to increase its staff and activities in the OPT, including the facilitation of family visitations to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

 

9.     PCHR appreciates the efforts of international civil society, including human rights organizations, bar associations, unions and NGOs, and urges them to continue their role in pressuring their governments to secure Israel’s respect for human rights in the OPT and to end its attacks on Palestinian civilians.

 

10. PCHR calls upon the international community to pressure Israel to lift the severe restrictions imposed by the Israeli government and its occupation forces on access for international organizations to the OPT.


 

11. PCHR reiterates that any political settlement not based on international human rights law and humanitarian law cannot lead to a peaceful and just solution of the Palestinian question.  Rather, such an arrangement can only lead to further suffering and instability in the region.  Any peace agreement or process must be based on respect for international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law.

 

…………………………………………………………

 

Public Document

For further information please visit our website (http://www.pchrgaza.org) or contact PCHR’s office in Gaza City, Gaza Strip by email (pchr@pchrgaza.org) or telephone (+972 (0)8 2824776 — 2825893).

 

Iraq to Deny New License To Blackwater Mercenary Firm

0

U.S. Embassy’s Preferred Contractor Accused of Killings

By Ernesto Londoño and Qais Mizher, Washington Post 

The Iraqi government has informed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that it will not issue a new operating license to Blackwater Worldwide, the embassy’s primary security company, which has come under scrutiny for allegedly using excessive force while protecting American diplomats, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Iraq’s Interior Ministry conveyed its decision to U.S. officials in Baghdad on Friday, in one of the boldest moves the government has made since the Jan. 1 implementation of a security agreement with the United States that sharply curbed American power in Iraq.

Blackwater employees who have not been accused of improper conduct will be allowed to continue working as private security contractors in Iraq if they switch employers, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.

The officials said Blackwater must leave the country as soon as a joint Iraqi-U.S. committee finishes drawing up guidelines for private contractors under the security agreement. It is unclear how long that will take. Blackwater employees and other U.S. contractors had been immune from prosecution under Iraqi law.

“When the work of this committee ends,” Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said, private security companies “will be under the authority of the Iraqi government, and those companies that don’t have licenses, such as Blackwater, should leave Iraq immediately.”

The State Department said Wednesday that its contractors will obey Iraqi law.

“We will work with the government of Iraq and our contractors to address the implications of this decision in a way that minimizes any impact on safety and security of embassy Baghdad personnel,” spokesman Noel Clay said.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said she was not aware of the Iraqi government’s decision.

“It would be irresponsible for me to comment on a decision that may or may not have been reached,” she said in an e-mail Wednesday.

The United States was unable to persuade the Iraqi government to extend the immunity of its contractors past the expiration of the U.N. Security Council resolution on Dec. 31. No American diplomat has been killed during missions secured by Blackwater.

The North Carolina company became widely despised by Iraqis after a string of incidents during which its heavily armed guards were accused of using excessive force. The deadliest was the Sept. 16, 2007, shooting in Nisoor Square, in central Baghdad, when Blackwater guards opened fire on Iraqis in a crowded street, killing 17 civilians, after the guards’ convoy reportedly came under fire.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington last month charged five of the men with voluntary manslaughter and using a machine gun to commit a violent act. The men entered not guilty pleas and are awaiting trial. A sixth guard reached a plea deal with prosecutors.

Private security companies working for the U.S. government in Iraq have been required to obtain licenses from the Iraqi Interior Ministry since 2004, but some have operated without licenses, and until this year, there was little the Iraqi government could do to enforce the rule.

The ministry revoked Blackwater’s license in September 2007 and threatened to expel the company’s employees, but U.S. officials ignored the order and renewed the company’s contract the following April.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they decided not to issue the company a new license largely because of the Nisoor Square shooting.

“We informed the U.S. Embassy in Iraq about this decision, and they will have to find another company to replace them,” said Gen. Hussain Kamal, a senior Interior Ministry official.

Blackwater employees were also accused of shooting Iraqi guards working for a television station in the spring of 2007. And on Dec. 24, 2006, a drunk Blackwater guard fatally shot a guard employed by Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi.

According to a congressional report issued in October 2007, Blackwater guards have been involved in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005.

The company has received more than $1 billion from the federal government since 2000. In recent months, however, Blackwater has expanded its business model to rely less heavily on private security work overseas. Though tremendously profitable, the field has generated an avalanche of bad publicity for the company and exposed it to numerous lawsuits.

The two other large security companies that protect American diplomats in Iraq are DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, both based in Northern Virginia.

Blackwater employees work under the supervision of the embassy’s regional security officer. The company’s drivers and bodyguards take U.S. diplomats to meetings outside the Green Zone, and its pilots often fly in small helicopters over convoys as an added security measure. The Blackwater employees live in a compound in the Green Zone that is informally referred to as “man camp.” According to the October 2007 congressional report, Blackwater guards made more than $1,200 per day.

Private security contractors in Iraq last year became deeply concerned about losing their immunity with the implementation of the security agreement, which U.S. officials feared would trigger a mass exodus. But few have left. Instead, in recent months, Western private security companies have sought to build strong relationships with the Iraqi government and have hired more Iraqi guards.

Sami Hawa Hamud al-Sabahin, who was among those wounded in the Nisoor Square shooting, said he was overjoyed to hear the news about Blackwater.

“It makes me happy and lets me feel that the government didn’t forget us,” he said.

Umm Tahsin , the widow of Ali Khalil Abdul Hussein, one of the men killed in the shooting, also applauded the government’s decision. But she lamented that neither the Iraqi nor the U.S. government has compensated her family for their loss.

“Those people are a group of criminals,” she said of Blackwater. “What they did was a massacre. Pushing them out is the best solution. They destroyed our family.”

Loophole allows terrorist detentions

0

By  

President Obama’s executive order closing CIA “black sites” contains a little-noticed exception that allows the spy agency to continue to operate temporary detention facilities abroad.

The provision illustrates that the president’s order to shutter foreign-based prisons, known as black sites, is not airtight and that the Central Intelligence Agency still has options if it wants to hold terrorist suspects for several days at a time.

Current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition that they aren’t identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said such temporary facilities around the world will remain open, giving the administration the opportunity to seize and hold assumed terrorists.

The detentions would be temporary. Suspects either would be brought later to the United States for trial or sent to other countries where they are wanted and can face trial.

The exception is evidence that the new administration, while announcing an end to many elements of the Bush “war on terror,” is leaving itself wiggle room to continue some of its predecessor’s practices regarding terrorist suspects.

According to the executive order, “The terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.”

Analysts inside and outside government say this refers to so-called safe houses, which are buildings where operatives can go to protect themselves from pursuers or can hide people they have taken into custody.

“This executive order does not close down all operations. There are still facilities on a temporary basis, often called safe houses, for holding someone for a matter of days,” an administration official said.

Ken Gude, the associate director of international rights and responsibilities at the Center for American Progress, said the temporary facilities operated by the CIA should not be confused with the Bush administration’s black sites.

“My understanding is that these types of temporary facilities can be in no way described as a prison,” Mr. Gude said. “They are temporary holding facilities that the CIA has used in the past for decades, … often parts of exchange agreements with other foreign intelligence agencies.”

“For example, we may have an agreement with the Pakistanis, where we agree to pick someone up and we need a place to hold them temporarily while we decide what is the next appropriate course of action,” he said. “This is not like the so-called black site prisons that we heard about as part of the extraordinary rendition program.”

Michael Kraft, a former senior adviser at the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department, said the temporary facilities could be used for any number of reasons.

“A scenario might be, someone is picked up in country X, and maybe for logistics reasons, we hold him somewhere else, while a plane with larger fuel tanks is prepared to take him to his final destination,” said Mr. Kraft, who retired in 2004.

Duane Clarridge, who founded the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, said the temporary facilities may be used for interrogations.

“It seems to me that they will take down terrorist suspects, bring them to a safe house, which is acquired on a temporary basis and controlled by the CIA or the military, where they interrogate the suspect over a period of days before making a decision on future disposition.

“We don’t know what that is; it could be a variety of things. It could be turn him over to the country of origin, or for standing trial in a third country, or release,” Mr. Clarridge said.

The practice of moving terrorist suspects abroad, called rendition, began during the Reagan administration and escalated under President Clinton. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration began classifying terrorist suspects as enemy combatants and holding them indefinitely without formal charges or the protections afforded prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

The closure of black-site prisons by Mr. Obama was part of a series of orders issued last week that included closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other measures to undo the previous administration’s war on terrorism. The president revoked all executive directives issued by the CIA between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 20, 2009, that have been used to justify harsh interrogation techniques, which critics have called torture. Mr. Obama also revoked Executive Order 13440, which declares al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to be “enemy combatants” and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

The CIA practiced rendition before Sept. 11, 2001, and in some cases sent suspected terrorists to countries where human rights groups have claimed they were tortured.

The issue of rendition will be one of the policies studied by a Cabinet-level special task force on interrogation and transfer policies.

While the CIA operated special prisons overseas for high-value al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, the agency holds no such detainees in custody today, two U.S. officials said.

The last person in the CIA detention program was Muhammed Rahim, purported to be a driver for Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban that governed Afghanistan until being overthrown in a U.S.-led invasion shortly after Sept. 11.

Rahim was transferred to the Guantanamo Bay prison on March 14, 2008.

One of the two officials, when asked about the executive order Tuesday, said: “The wording seems to preserve the ability to capture terrorists. But long-term detention by the CIA is out.”

The loophole for safe houses worries the American Civil Liberties Union, which has pressed for the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the black sites.

“This is a place where what we all understood to be the CIA’s secret prison system with prisons in places like Poland and Thailand is shut down here, and there is no future detention authority to operate those facilities,” said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU.

“But there is a provision on some kind of short-term detention authority, and our position is that the CIA should have no detention authority,” Mr. Anders said. “If President Obama has taken the CIA out of the prison business, he should also take the CIA out of the short-term jailer business as well.”

Marijuana Reform Is Part of the Progressive Agenda

5

So Why Are Obama’s Drug Cops Already Making Pot Raids?

By Paul Armentano 

Pot-reform activists have swarmed Obama’s Change.gov, and huge majorities voted for pot reform in election ’08, but no change yet from Obama.

This past August, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., during a live interview with CNN, did something quite remarkable. She spoke candidly and openly about her support for marijuana-law reform. But rather than demanding her colleagues in Washington take the necessary steps to end the federal government’s seven-decade war on weed, she instead called on the public to act.

“We have important work to do outside the Congress in order for us to have success inside the Congress.” Pelosi said. “[W]e need peoples’ help to be in touch with their members of Congress to say why this (marijuana law reform) should be the case.”

As the saying goes, “Ask and ye shall receive.”

In the past few months, the public has expressed its support for marijuana law reform in unprecedented numbers. The election of former pot smoker, Barack “I inhaled frequently; that was the point” Obama, coupled with a sagging economy, has stimulated tens of thousands of Americans to demand their government stop spending its limited state and federal law enforcement resources on efforts targeting, arresting and prosecuting marijuana smokers.

For example, in December the question: “Will (President Obama) consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar-industry right here in the U.S.?” beat over 7,300 public-policy issues to claim the top spot in Change.gov’s inaugural “Open for Questions” poll. (Change.gov, now WhiteHouse.gov, was the official Web site of President Obama’s transition team.)

The first-place finish was hardly a fluke. The public’s demand to “legalize the medicinal and recreational use of marijuana” also finished first in a two-month-long Web poll hosted by the liberal-leaning social-networking Web site Change.org and Washington’s Case Foundation — finishing some 5,000 votes ahead of the next most popular idea.

More recently, 26,000 visitors cast their vote in a CNBC online poll asking, “Do you favor the decriminalization of marijuana use?” More than 97 percent of those who voted said yes.

Perhaps most impressively, in a follow-up poll conducted by the Obama administration — commissioned under the guise of creating a Citizens’ Briefing Book for the new president — the public’s call to “stop imprisoning responsible adult citizens” finished first out of 44,000 policy proposals. But that was far from the only marijuana-related question to resonate with the public. Amazingly, a separate question calling on the new administration to “stop using federal resources to undermine states’ medicinal marijuana laws” finished in third place.

Critics of the recent poll results are quick to note that online polls are not scientific and that arguably more Americans are concerned about other pressing social issues — such as rising unemployment, for instance — than care about reforming the United States’ pot policies. But those who interpret these results so superficially are missing the bigger political picture.

As the popularity of the marijuana issue in these polls indicates, there is a significant, vocal and identifiable minority of American society that wants to see an end to America’s archaic and overly punitive marijuana laws. Politicians, particularly progressive politicians, would be well-advised to acknowledge this interest group and respond accordingly.

Further, a majority of the American public is ready and willing to engage in a serious and objective political debate regarding the merits of legalizing the use of cannabis by adults, even if their elected officials are not. One only has to log on to the thousands of public comments, both for and against, marijuana legalization on the message board of Change.gov and Change.org to see that Americans are pining for, if nothing else, an honest review of our nation’s so-called war on drugs.

So is the new administration listening? Apparently, not yet.

In response to the Change.gov poll, the administration posted a curt, one-sentence response, “President Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.” The reply, though disappointing to some, was hardly unexpected. In 2004, Obama voiced support for decriminalizing pot (a policy that replaces criminal sanctions with the imposition of fines only), but fell short of endorsing legalization. (Although as a candidate for president, Obama renounced his support for decriminalization.)

Less expected, however, were the actions of the Justice Department last week when U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials raided the office of a California medical marijuana provider, as well as two medical grow houses in Colorado. (The possession of marijuana for medical purposes is legal in both states, and nonprofit organizations may legally dispense marijuana to authorized patients under California law.)

The busts outraged many drug-law-reform advocates, who were quick to point out that the new president had pledged on the campaign trail not to use Justice Department resources to circumvent state medical marijuana laws. Many news outlets also were quick to voice criticism toward the new administration for continuing with the federal raids, noting that these aggressive actions possess little to no public support.

Of course, it is not yet known whether Obama directly authorized the DEA raids. (Both the DOJ and the DEA are staffed, in large part, by holdovers from the Bush regime.) That said, there’s also no indication that anyone at DOJ or DEA has been admonished for their behavior either. Obama’s silence on the issue so far may be telling. It may also be politically detrimental.

Rather than ignore the public’s calls for drug-policy reform, the new administration ought to be embracing it. After all, many of the same voters that put Barack Obama in the White House also voted by wide margins in November to liberalize marijuana laws in two states — Michigan and Massachusetts — and in nearly a dozen municipalities nationwide.

In fact, historically, marijuana-law reform has been a proven winner at the polls. Voters in 10 states and the District of Columbia have approved ballot measures legalizing the medical use of marijuana. (By contrast, only once — in South Dakota in 2006 — have voters rejected such a measure.)

Municipal ordinances mandating law enforcement to make the prosecution of minor pot offenses its “lowest priority” have enjoyed similar success — passing in more than a dozen cities across the country, including Denver, Seattle, Oakland, Calif., Santa Barbara, Calif., Missoula, Mont., Colombia, Mo., and Fayetteville, Ark.

These results shouldn’t be surprising. According to a national poll commissioned by CNN and Time magazine, 80 percent of Americans support the physician-supervised use of cannabis, and some 3 out of 4 say that adults should be fined, but not jailed, for using pot recreationally.

In short, marijuana-law reform should no longer be viewed by legislators as a political liability. It isn’t. Instead, for the new administration and for 111th Congress, it is a political opportunity. The sooner our federally elected leaders recognize this fact, the sooner we, and they, can begin to undo the damage caused by America’s longest and costliest war, the so-called war on drugs.

Military seeks better use of finger, eye scans

0

On the front lines in Iraq, U.S. troops can scan someone’s eye or finger to try to determine if he is a potential enemy or has been connected to a terror attack.

At military bases on U.S. soil, it’s not that easy.

The use of biometrics – ranging from simple fingerprints to more advanced retinal and facial scans – has thrived in Iraq, where soldiers carry handheld devices that enable them to link to databases filled with hundreds of thousands of identities.

But in Colorado, military bases just 20 miles or so apart have different identification requirements and access procedures for personnel or contractors trying to get onto the property. The gaps raise security concerns and worries of another attempted massacre scheme, like the one foiled at Fort Dix in New Jersey in 2007.

“Interestingly, we are probably further forward in using biometrics outside our country in some of the combat environments than we are inside our country,” Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of U.S. Northern Command, said Tuesday. “We’ve got to find a way to fix that.”

Speaking at a biometrics conference, Renuart said the military services and law enforcement agencies around the country all carry different ID badges, and many are embedded with different information. And in some cases those agencies, he said, also have different computer databases that don’t communicate well.

The more coordinated collection and use of biometrics, however, raises privacy concerns in the United States as well as in Iraq, where there are fears the information could be used for ethnic cleansing, to discern whether someone is a Sunni or a Shiite. And the presidential order for improved information sharing is also among the directives signed by President Bush that may be reviewed anew by the Obama administration.

Using biometrics on the battlefield took hold early in the Afghanistan war, when U.S. officials wanted to allow Afghan Muslim pilgrims to travel to the holy city of Mecca for the annual hajj. Officials reached for biometrics as a way to track who was traveling to Saudi Arabia, and to make sure those were the same people allowed back.

Renuart, the military commander in charge of domestic defense, said the thousands of Defense Department installations across the country – from sprawling bases to smaller compounds – have different access requirements and their plastic-encased ID cards may not look the same or tap into similar personal data.

Guards at the gates, he said, are also confronted with an array of contractors, vendors and representatives from other federal agencies – from the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security – all with identification cards that could be faked or stolen.

“ID cards give you data, but they don’t necessarily give you all the right data,” said Renuart. “They don’t give you access into a database that will allow you very quickly to discern whether this person is here legally or not” or if they are a criminal or someone who should not be allowed onto the base.

Underscoring the possible threat, Renuart pointed to the Fort Dix case in which five Muslim immigrants were convicted of conspiracy late last month in connection with a plot to kill military personnel at the base. They were acquitted of attempted murder after prosecutors acknowledged the men were probably months away from an attack and did not necessarily have a specific plan. And they were not accused of any ties to foreign terror groups.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called biometrics the best non-lethal defense against terrorism, and he said Tuesday that while federal agencies have information, it often can’t be shared or accessed easily.

The Defense Science Board, in a 2007 report, echoed many of the same concerns about gaps in information sharing, coordination and research and development. The board, a standing committee of outside experts, including retired military officers and former government officials, found that biometrics is growing in importance and while technology is improving, there is still more to be done.

President Bush signed the presidential directive last June ordering senior leaders to develop coordinated guidelines for the timely collection, storage, use and sharing of biometric information, and giving them a year to report back.

Economic Policy Could Scuttle Obama’s Good Start

1

By Robert Scheer 

Only a week into the new administration, and yet there is this nagging thought that Barack Obama’s legacy already hangs in the balance. Sounds absurd, I know, given the brief time, but his early response to the financial meltdown is just that important. Despite a terrific start in so many directions, Obama is up against an economic crisis that, although not of his making, will, if handled improperly, spell his–and the nation’s–undoing.

Obama is in these early weeks making trillion-dollar decisions that will cast the die for the rest of his promising agenda. Unfortunately, while the new president has already proved to be a brilliant and super-competent agent of change in so many ways, in matters of economic policy he has relied excessively on the financial “experts” who helped get America into this mess.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers are retreads from the Clinton years who sided with congressional Republicans in unraveling the regulatory regime created by Franklin Roosevelt that had served the nation so well. Perhaps they have now come to their senses, given the financial horrors that their deregulatory mania unleashed, but it gives one pause to see these folks back on center stage performing with the same arrogant aplomb as they did when they had it all wrong.

We can only hope they are now prepared to make amends, although Geithner and Summers often seem to be pushing for more of the same: bankers first, women and children later. The good news is that the message coming from the mouth of the new president is that he intends to make a significant departure from the Bush bailout, by placing emphasis on preventing foreclosures, curtailing bank lobbying and holding the recipients of federal funds responsible for opening the tap of loans to the public. The structure of the stimulus package is also reassuring, with its emphasis on spending money in ways that will improve the quality of life for ordinary Americans and its ban on bonuses for corporate execs who utterly failed in their responsibilities. Imagine how much better off we would be if we had just taken the first $350 billion of TARP funds and used it to help teachers, cops, nurses and firemen buy homes in the communities they serve.

We certainly should give Obama the benefit of the doubt. In every other area his early performance has been stellar. Certainly so with respect to human rights and protection of civil liberties; in his first week in office, he reversed many of the atrocious Bush-era policies. With an urgency unmatched by any other modern president, Obama has sharply countered America’s tainted image by acting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, ban the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation tactics and restore the power of the Freedom of Information Act to ensure public access to the information required for an informed democracy.

In other important instances, Obama has been refreshingly true to the promises of his campaign by taking the first steps toward ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq, by moving toward energy conservation and by ending punishment of international health organizations that have been severely undermined by the dictates of anti-abortion zealots. His early actions on global warming and the Mideast show a clarity of commitment absent from the executive office over the past eight years.

In these areas, Obama has acted with an informed confidence not always evidenced in his initial moves on the economy. Why, in the management of the economy, do we hear so little from the Chicago community organizer concerned with the pain of the average person and instead perceive so much of the sensibility of the Harvard business and law school elite, preoccupied with the well-being of the denizens of Wall Street?

As Obama stated in his inauguration speech, “A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” That is the problem with the Bush bailout, which Obama asked to be extended and which has resulted in little more than a rearranging of the chairs, not to mention the commodes, of the first-class passengers on a sinking ship. It has been the biggest corporate welfare program in history, enabling Wall Street hustlers to cut themselves lucrative deals while so many millions lose their jobs and homes. I’m betting that Obama will try to put a stop to all of this, but he needs to hear from ordinary folks who are hurting and outraged.

Israeli Troops Killed Gaza Children Carrying White Flag, witnesses say

1

McClatchy Newspapers — EZBT ABED RABBO, Gaza Strip – Nasser Abu Freeh was one of the first to see the Israeli soldiers as they entered this pastoral Gaza neighborhood overlooking the Israeli border on Jan. 3, hours after the Israeli government ordered the first ground forces into Gaza.

Abu Freeh’s two-story hilltop home is a favorite spot for Israeli soldiers, who used it as a command post during three previous attempts to deter Gaza militants from firing crude rockets into Israel from the surrounding cattle farms, orange groves and dirt alleys.

Scouts from the militant Islamist group Hamas also favored the hilltop as a place to watch for approaching Israeli soldiers, and the fighters tried to lure the Israelis into a trap by planting land mines outside Abu Freeh’s home.

As the Israelis moved in, neighbors said, the Hamas scouts put up little resistance and quickly fell back into the more densely populated part of the neighborhood.

Within hours, the Israeli soldiers took over Abu Freeh’s house, moved the seven people living there into one room and began interrogating the adults. The questioners were angry because one of their soldiers had been killed nearby in the early hours of the ground offensive, and they wanted to know what traps Hamas had set for the Israeli forces.

“Where are the tunnels?” Abu Freeh said the soldiers asked in Arabic. “I will kill you if you don’t tell me.”

Israeli tanks and bulldozers soon took up hilltop positions around Abu Freeh’s home, and Khaled Abed Rabbo’s five-story house in the valley below was one of those in the line of fire.

More than 70 members of his family crowded into one apartment for days. On Jan. 7, Abed Rabbo said, the shelling intensified, and they heard an Israeli solider calling for people to come out of their homes.

Abed Rabbo said he gathered his wife, their three daughters and his mother, Souad. Souad Abed Rabbo said that she tied a white robe around a mop handle and two of her granddaughters waved white headscarves as they walked outside.

When they opened the door, they saw an Israeli tank parked in their garden about 10 yards away.

“We were waiting for them to give us an order,” Khaled said last week as he stood in the ruins of his home. “Then one came out of the tank and started to shoot.”

Souad Abed Rabbo said she was shot as she pushed her son back inside and her granddaughters fell on the stairs. When the shooting was over, she said, 2-year-old Amal and 7-year-old Souad were dead.

The allegation is one of at least five such white flag incidents that human rights investigators are looking into across the Gaza Strip. It’s part of a growing pattern of alleged abuses that have raised concerns that some Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes during their 22-day military campaign in Gaza.

“The evidence we’ve gathered in two of the cases so far is exceedingly strong,” said Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch working in the Gaza Strip. “All the research so far suggests they shot civilians that were leaving their homes with white flags.”

Along with the white flag incidents, Human Rights Watch is calling for an international investigation into widespread charges that Israel prevented medical teams from helping wounded Palestinians trapped in their homes and needlessly demolished hundreds of houses, including dozens in Ezbt Abed Rabbo.

“This was not a rogue unit,” said Abrahams. “The needless civilian deaths resulted from concrete decisions made by the military.”

The Israeli military, which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called “the most moral army in the world,” said it’s investigating the increasing number of war crimes allegations, but it rejected any suggestion that its soldiers had targeted civilians.

“IDF forces have clear firing orders,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement in response to questions from McClatchy. “But in the complex situation in which fighting takes place inside towns and cities, placing our forces also at great risk, civilian casualties are regrettably possible.”

Throughout the war, Israeli officials said Hamas militants put Palestinian civilians in danger by booby-trapping homes and firing on soldiers from crowded buildings.

However, residents living near Khaled Abed Rabbo all said that Hamas forces quickly abandoned the outlying neighborhood once the Israeli forces took over.

With his daughters bleeding to death, Abed Rabbo said, the family screamed for help.

Samieh al Sheik, an ambulance driver who lived in an adjacent home, heard the shouting. Without thinking about what could be waiting outside, Sheik said he ran to his ambulance, turned on the emergency lights and drove toward the screams.

As he turned the corner and headed for Abed Rabbo’s home, Sheik said he came face-to-face with the Israeli tank unit. The soldiers ordered him to get out of the ambulance and told him to walk straight out of the neighborhood.

“I didn’t see what happened to the family that day because I couldn’t reach them,” said Sheik, who returned to find the ambulance crushed under a demolished building.

Faced with his dying children, Abed Rabbo gathered up the wounded and sought to escape, even if the Israelis opened fire.

With Israeli soldiers shooting at the ground near their feet, Abed Rabbo said, the family walked more than a mile to the main road, where they finally found help. His surviving 4-year-old daughter, Samer, was one of the few to be allowed out of Gaza to receive special medical care in Brussels.

Halima Badwan was less fortunate. As Abed Rabbo rushed his surviving daughter to the hospital, she lay dying in a house nearby.

Halima and her husband, Ahmed, a retired 63-year-old Palestinian Authority general, were among nine people who’d gathered in one room during the fighting. The previous day, Ahmed Badwan said, a tank round had smashed into the room, killing a neighbor and seriously injuring his wife.

Badwan didn’t think he could carry his wife to safety. Red Cross officials in Gaza said that Israeli military officials repeatedly denied their requests to send medical teams to the neighborhood.

So, when the Israeli military began declaring a short “humanitarian pause” to the shooting each day, Badwan said he took his wife’s gold necklace and left her lying nearly unconscious in the ruins of their home.

As he walked out of his neighborhood, Badwan said, he stopped at a nearby ambulance station and asked for help. The International Committee for the Red Cross was powerless to do anything.

Iyad Nasr, a Red Cross spokesman in Gaza, said Israeli soldiers had fired at ambulances that tried to reach some areas, even when medical officials had received approval from the Israeli military to enter certain neighborhoods.

“Our request for Ezbt Abed Rabbo was just pending and pending and pending and pending day after day,” Nasr said.

Israel’s widespread denial of access to medical crews in Gaza appears to be a breach of humanitarian law, said Yuval Shany, a legal scholar at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

“In international law, there is obligation to facilitate access to the wounded and even to treat the wounded,” Shany said. “In this area, I think there was a deviation from the international standard and this should be investigated.”

When Badwan, Abed Rabbo and scores of other residents of Ezbt Abed Rabbo finally returned to their neighborhood after Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire on Jan. 17, they were stunned to discover that their neighborhood was reduced to rubble.

Using bulldozers, tank shelling and explosives placed in the houses, the Israeli military had leveled entire blocks of homes.

Badwan found his wife’s body buried under the rubble of their building.

The destruction didn’t come as a complete surprise to Taysir Abed Rabbo, who lived in a two-story home near Badwan’s that Israeli soldiers had used as a temporary post.

Abed Rabbo, a member of the Palestinian Authority presidential guard, was among dozens of men who were rounded up nearly a year ago during an operation called Operation Warm Winter and taken to Israel for interrogation.

The interrogators gave Abed Rabbo a prophetic warning.

“They said if we did not stop the rocket fire, they planned to make this area ‘a red area,'” said Abed Rabbo, who said he wasn’t sure at the time what the Israelis meant.

Israeli leaders are moving swiftly to insulate their soldiers from any penalties for their actions during the offensive, which left more than 1,200 Palestinians dead, destroyed more than 4,000 buildings and caused $2 billion in damage.

The Israeli military has barred reporters from printing the names of military leaders who took part in the Gaza campaign, known as Operation Cast Lead, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has created a legal defense unit to protect any soldiers accused of war crimes.

In a defense of his military on Sunday, Olmert accused Israel’s critics of using “moral acrobatics” to question Israel for using its military to try to halt the Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza that’s killed 12 people since September 2005.

“The soldiers and commanders who were sent on missions in Gaza must know that they are safe from various tribunals, and that the State of Israel will assist them on this issue and defend them just as they bodily defended us during Operation Cast Lead,” Olmert said.

While human rights groups are investigating the allegations, Shany said, Israeli leaders should take the lead and investigate allegations of wrongdoing.

“It makes sense to try to protect the soldiers, but it would also make sense to investigate where needed,” Shany said. “They should investigate, and when actions were justifiable they should protect, and when not, they should prosecute.”

Special correspondent Cliff Churgin contributed to this article from Jerusalem.

Study reveals illegal zionist expansion

0

ISRAELI anti-war group Peace Now released a new study on Tuesday which revealed that zionists continued to expand illegal West Bank settlements in 2008.

According to the group, construction began on 1,518 settler structures.

Out of these, 927 structures, or 61 per cent, were within Israel’s West Bank “security barrier,” while 39 per cent were outside it.

The report said that the settler population had grown from 270,000 in 2007 to 285,000 in 2008.

It pointed out that both the Kadima and Labour parties had flouted numerous UN resolutions by allowing settlement growth to increase.

Tel Aviv’s policy has been to allow settlement growth in areas of the West Bank that Israel is likely to retain under any final status agreement with the Palestinians.

But Peace Now observed that 39 per cent of the growth in 2008 was outside those areas.

In the 100 outposts that the government had committed to evacuate, growth had more than doubled, the report noted.

Peace Now warned that, if this growth continues unchecked, it will make it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state.

And it said that zionist settlers had taken advantage of public attention being focused on the Gaza onslaught to expand their bases in the West Bank.

Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip head Dani Dayan responded to the report by saying that he was glad that Peace Now was recording settlement expansion.

“We are grateful to Peace Now for investing the funds they receive from European governments in documenting the most important zionist endeavour of our generation, the settlement of Judea and Samaria,” Mr Dayan said.

Copyright Morning Star

Brown keeps silent on Iraq ruling

0

By ADRIAN ROBERTS

THE government held its tongue on Wednesday over the order to release the 2003 Iraq war Cabinet minutes.

But peace campaigners insisted that warmongering new Labour ministers should be “brought to account” for their decisions and that the minutes should be put in the public domain immediately.

The Cabinet Office is considering whether to appeal to the High Court after the Information Tribunal ordered the release of the documents on Tuesday.

Stop the War Coalition national convener Lindsey German hoped the ruling meant ministers could be made to face justice for the assault on Iraq.

“Every single argument produced for the invasion of Iraq has been shown to be false,” she said.

“Six years later, with over a million dead and Iraq in ruins, we will read what happened at the heart of government. We will finally find out who knew what and on what basis the decision was made to support George W Bush in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

“It will then be appropriate to demand that the former prime minister, the present one and present and former members of the British Cabinet be brought to account.”

Cabinet papers are not normally released until after 30 years. But the Information Tribunal said that the minutes from March 13 and 17 2003, when ministers considered whether the invasion was legal, were an “exceptional case.”

It upheld a ruling by Information Commissioner Richard Thomas that the minutes should be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “Well done the Information Commissioner in defying the 30-year rule. I hope the government does not appeal against it.

“These documents will help show that the assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was accepted or never put to the Cabinet.

“There needs to be a full judicial inquiry into the Iraq war.”

In its ruling, the tribunal stated: “We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the formal minutes of two Cabinet meetings at which ministers decided to commit forces to military action in Iraq did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.”

CND chairwoman Kate Hudson said that the decision of the Information Tribunal was good news for everyone who supported the rule of law.

“The disgrace of the attorney general ‘changing his mind’ on whether the war could be justified must be exposed in all its detail,” she said.

“We strongly hope the Brown government will not appeal any further against the release of the minutes in a fruitless attempt to save the already tattered reputation of Tony Blair.

“Contrary to what the judges ruled in 2002, it was clearly in the public interest for the matter to be raised then and it remains so today.”

Ms Hudson added: “The illegality of the war on Iraq and the crimes committed there cannot be swept under the carpet. Six years does not erase the guilt of those responsible for breaking international law and bringing about the deaths of countless thousands of innocent civilians.

“This will be a running sore, not only in British politics but in international relations, until the truth comes out and those guilty are put on trial in an international tribunal.”

The Cabinet Office now has 28 days to decide whether to appeal to the High Court against the ruling. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s spokesman said: “We are considering our response.”

British government to spread ID cards message to school children

0

 

The Home Secretary will be spreading the message on identity cards among schoolchildren today.

 

Jacqui Smith is meeting students before attending a police presentation on combating gang-related crime in Manchester.

She is visiting Newall Green High School in Wythenshawe, a deprived part of the city.

The school is a specialist arts, science with mathematics and vocational college, with around 900 pupils.

Two years ago the school inspectorate Ofsted judged Newall Green to be “outstanding”.

A Home Office spokesman said Ms Smith is expected to “discuss with students how identity cards will help them strike out on their own.”

She will also give a speech about identity cards to business and community leaders at Manchester Town Hall.

The Home Secretary is meeting with Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officers to learn about Operation Cougar.

A GMP spokesman described Cougar as “a ground-breaking operation that has had a significant effect on gun and gang crime in Greater Manchester”.

©belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Criminalizing Policy Differences

0

By David Swanson

President Obama wants to avoid criminalizing policy differences and avoid partisan witch hunts. This is taken to mean that Holder will not appoint a special prosecutor for torture.

But the only reason everyone is focused on torture as something to prosecute is that Obama has sought to make it a policy difference. We could prosecute illegal aggressive war and attacks on civilians, but Obama is continuing the illegal occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and has already attacked Pakistan. We could prosecute illegal spying, but Obama appears to most observers willing to engage in it. And so on.

What to do? Clearly one option is not to prosecute for the crimes to be continued and not prosecute for the crimes being discontinued. But that sets a very dangerous precedent. Another option would be to prosecute for all the crimes, even the ones ongoing, and to include Democrats among those held accountable. But that won’t happen. So we’re left with the criminalization of policy differences.

But, remember, 8 years ago nobody supported torture. It was not a policy. It was simply a crime. It is by treating these crimes as potentially legal that Obama and the rest of us do just the opposite of criminalizing policy differences: we policy-difference crimes.

Liberal Democrats Slam New Cannabis Law

1

Euro-MP Chris Davies has branded the Government’s decision to upgrade cannabis from Class C to Class B status as ludicrous.

The Liberal Democrat said the change took no account of evidence, ignored expert advice, and risked ruining the lives of thousands of young people.

From yesterday, possession of cannabis carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, although police will be able to issue spot fines to first-time offenders.

Mr Davies said the new policy was hopelessly confused and would prove ineffective. He called for a reappraisal of Government strategy, with drugs use being treated as a matter not for the courts but for public health.

He said: “Five years ago, the Government followed the advice of its advisers that cannabis presented too few dangers to warrant its status and downgraded it from Class B.

“Since then its use among young people has fallen by more than 20 per cent.

“Now, in the face of this success, the criminal penalties are being raised against the advice of the Advisory Council on Drugs Misuse. It makes no sense at all.”

He claimed cannabis presented fewer dangers than alcohol, and warned the law change would make criminals of individuals who had done no harm to anybody.

He said: “Ten years ago, more than 40,000 people were arrested each year for cannabis possession, and a significant number were imprisoned.

“Lives were ruined for no good purpose. Drugs policy in Britain is a farce. It puts huge sums of money into the hands of real villains, while branding decent people as criminals.”

© Chronicle Online

ACLU Demands Eavesdropping, Torture Memos From White House

0

By David KravetsThe American Civil Liberties Union is hoping a kinder, gentler Obama administration will disclose secret documents detailing the legal basis for the previous administration’s rationale for supporting torture and warrantless surveillance.

The memos are being sought from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the White House’s legal adviser. The Bush administration had refused the ACLU‘s bid to obtain the documents via a Freedom of Information Act request.

But last week, President Barack Obama announced his administration would roll back the secrecy that surrounded the Bush Administration, and called on government agencies to err on the side of openness and release information whenever possible.

“Releasing the memos would allow the public to better understand the legal basis for the Bush administration’s national security policies; to better understand the role that the OLC played in developing, justifying and advocating those policies; and to participate more meaningfully in the ongoing debate about national security, civil liberties and human rights,” the ACLU wrote the Office of Legal Counsel on Wednesday.

The public disclosure of the documents could spread sunshine on whether Bush administration officials should be held legally accountable for their opinions, including those justifying the form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding. And the request comes as the Obama administration heads to court to respond to a civil lawsuit brought by Jose Padilla, who was suspected of plotting to set off a “dirty bomb.”

Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to head the OLC, wrote in Slate last year that such documentation should be released to the public.

The ProPublica website lists a host of secret Bush administration legal opinions justifying the Bush administration’s positions on detainee treatment and warrantless surveillance adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The Justice Department was not immediately prepared to comment.

Investigate US torture and prosecute those responsible

0

Considerable efforts are being made in various quarters to cover up the record of US torture and prevent the prosecution of military and Central Intelligence Agency torturers and those higher up who ordered them to carry out their crimes.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reportedly holding up approval of Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, until he promises not to prosecute any former Bush administration officials for their part in approving torture.

Not that the incoming Obama regime needs much encouragement along those lines. The new administration has made a series of cosmetic changes that will in no serious way alter the brutal course of US policy in regard to the “war on terror” and the treatment of detainees. The eventual closing down of the Guantánamo internment camp and illegal CIA prisons, as well as the official requirement that CIA and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual’s prohibitions on torture, will resolve nothing.

The ideological and political framework–with its accompanying network of lies and justifications–for wars of aggression and attacks on democratic rights remains intact.

Obama’s aim is to repair some of the damage done to America’s standing as a result of the Bush administration’s policy of abuse and torture carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and a gulag of secret detention sites, without changing the essence of US foreign policy, the drive toward global hegemony, and the illegal and violent methods employed in the implementation of that policy.

The new president has made clear his administration has no plans to prosecute the perpetrators, whose transgressions, in any case, were carried out with the full knowledge and approval of leading Democrats in Congress. “I don’t believe anybody is above the law,” Obama told the media. “On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” This is, for all intents and purposes, a preemptive pardon for torturers.

It is critical, however, that just such an investigation into US torture and associated illegal practices be carried out, and the guilty parties, up to the highest levels of the Defense and State departments and the White House, be prosecuted.

To pretend, as supporters of Obama and the liberal media are now doing, that these criminal policies can be halted without an exhaustive examination of how they were ordered and carried out–and by whom–is a grotesque fraud.

This is a political and moral issue. The aim is not to exact revenge–although those responsible should pay a heavy legal price–but to expose and discredit the policies that have led to war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and threaten even greater crimes and disasters in the future. The American military-intelligence apparatus, the greatest instrument of terror and violence on earth, needs to be uprooted and dismantled. A first step is the careful recording and public exposure of its many crimes.

Bush officials remain confident that they will not be called to account for their actions. They can certainly hold over the heads of the Democrats their own complicity. The Wall Street Journal did just that January 6 in a commentary entitled “What Congress Knew About ‘Torture.'”

The Journal comment points out that leading Democrats–including representatives Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman and senators Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham–were briefed more than 30 times, beginning in the spring of 2002, on the “CIA’s covert antiterror interrogation programs” and its methods, “including waterboarding and other aggressive techniques.”

The article continues: “After September 2006, when President Bush publicly acknowledged the program, the interrogation briefings were opened to the full committees. If Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding. And if Democrats thought it was illegal or really found the CIA’s activities so heinous, one of them could have made a whistle-blowing floor statement under the protection of the Constitution’s speech and debate clause.”

The complicity of the Democrats and the liberal media continues. True to form, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has written a piece justifying the cover-up of the Bush administration’s illegal activities.

In keeping with the current motif of Americans’ supposed collective guilt for the economic crisis and everything else done by the government and the ruling elite, Cohen sums up the theme of the piece in his headline, “Torture? Prosecute Us, Too.” He argues that in “the very different country called Sept. 11, 2001” there was widespread support for brutal measures. George W. Bush enjoyed “an approval rating of 92 percent, which meant that almost no one thought he was on the wrong course.”

As always, the assertion of “collective guilt” is used to shield those who are really guilty.

Asserting that “questions about the viability of torture were very much in the air,” Cohen points to the support for torture among fellow liberals, including attorney Alan Dershowitz (who “was suggesting the creation of torture warrants–permission from a court to, in effect, break some bones”) and Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter.

“The conventional wisdom,” writes Cohen, “that torture never works–so counterintuitive as to be an absurdity–was not yet doctrine. Neither for that matter was the belief that the coming war in Iraq was a moral and practical absurdity. Congress overwhelmingly voted for war and the American people overwhelmingly supported it.”

This, of course, is a further libel. In the first place, Bush was installed in 2000 by the US Supreme Court, not elected, after failing to win the popular vote. Moreover, a massive number of Americans opposed the looming Iraq invasion and protested in the hundreds of thousands in mid-February 2003. Millions of others were highly skeptical about the government’s claims. Under the mistaken impression that the Democratic Party would do something to stop the war, the American people elected a majority of Democrats to Congress in 2006 and voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Even if one were to accept the premise that most of the population backed the initial attack on Iraq, that would amount, above all, to an indictment of the American media, including Cohen, who supported the drive to war and uncritically transmitted the lies of the White House and Pentagon. Famously, Cohen swallowed whole the falsifications passed off at the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell on February 5, 2003 about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, declaring the presentation to be “bone-chilling in its detail.”

Having played his own filthy role in making all the subsequent tragedy possible, Cohen now holds the American people responsible for everything he condoned and legitimized.

“We tortured. So says the incoming attorney general, Eric Holder. We tortured. So says the person in charge of deciding such matters at Guantanamo.”

No, “we” didn’t. On orders from the White House, the US military and CIA tortured, with the approval of Cohen and the political-media establishment.

“What are we going to do about it?,” asks the Post journalist. After first asserting the need to find out how the government came to torture and abuse, otherwise “we will not know how to ensure that the future doesn’t wind up looking much like the past,” the columnist proceeds to endorse the rationale that led to the criminal practices.

“At the same time, we have to be respectful of those who were in that Sept. 11 frame of mind … and who, in any case, were doing what the nation and its leaders wanted. It is imperative that our intelligence agents not have to fear that a sincere effort will result in their being hauled before some congressional committee or a grand jury.”

Precisely the argument of the Wall Street Journal and the ultra-right.

David Walsh

Amy Goodman: Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail

0

Karl Rove recently described George W. Bush as a book lover, writing, “There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one.” There will be many histories written about the Bush administration. What will they use for source material? The Bush White House was sued for losing e-mails, and for skirting laws intended to protect public records. A federal judge ordered White House computers scoured for e-mails just days before Bush left office. Three hundred million e-mails reportedly went to the National Archives, but 23 million e-mails remain “lost.” Vice President Dick Cheney left office in a wheelchair due to a back injury suffered when moving boxes out of his office. He has not only hobbled a nation in his attempt to sequester information–he hobbled himself. Cheney also won court approval to decide which of his records remain private.

Barack Obama was questioned by George Stephanopoulos about the possibility of prosecuting Bush administration officials. Obama said: “We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions and so forth. … I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. … [W]hat we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

Legal writer Karen Greenberg notes in Mother Jones magazine, “The list of potential legal breaches is, of course, enormous; by one count, the administration has broken 269 laws, both domestic and international.”

Torture, wiretapping and “extraordinary rendition”–these are serious crimes that have been alleged. President Obama now has, more than anyone else, the power to investigate.

John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has just subpoenaed Karl Rove while investigating the politicization of the Justice Department and the political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Rove previously invoked executive privilege to avoid congressional subpoenas. Conyers said in a press release: “I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court. … Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who blocked impeachment hearings, is at least now calling for an investigation. She told Fox News: “I think that we have to learn from the past, and we cannot let the politicizing of the–for example, the Justice Department–to go unreviewed. … I want to see the truth come forth.”

Why not take it a step further?

Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who led the charge in Congress for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, has called for “the establishment of a National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which will have the power to compel testimony and gather official documents to reveal to the American people not only the underlying deception which has divided us, but in that process of truth-seeking set our nation on a path of reconciliation.”

Millions have served time in U.S. prisons for crimes that fall far short of those attributed to the Bush administration. Some criminals, it seems, are like banks judged too big to fail: too big to jail, too powerful to prosecute. What if we apply President Obama’s legal theory to the small guys? Why look back? Crimes, large or small, can be forgiven, in the spirit of unity. But few would endorse letting muggers, rapists or armed robbers of convenience stores off scot-free. So why the different treatment for those potentially guilty of torture, widespread illegal spying and leading a nation into wars that have killed untold numbers?

Which brings us back to George Bush and books. Ray Bradbury’s novel “Fahrenheit 451” is one of the titles in the National Endowment for the Arts’ “The Big Read.” This ambitious program is “designed to restore reading to the center of American culture.” Cities, towns, even entire states choose a book and encourage everyone to read it. In “Fahrenheit 451” (the temperature at which paper spontaneously combusts), books are outlawed. Firemen don’t put out fires, they start them, burning down houses that contain books. Bradbury said: “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” The secretive Bush administration is out of power; the transparency-proclaiming Obama administration is in. But transparency is useful only when accompanied by accountability.

Without thorough, aggressive, public investigations of the full spectrum of crimes alleged of the Bush administration, there will be no accountability, and the complete record of this chapter of U.S. history will never be written.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
 
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.

© 2009 Amy Goodman

Iran moves to hold war crimes tribunal

0

The Iranian cabinet introduces a bill to take action on individuals accused of war crimes amid a seeming ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

The cabinet of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid out details of the bill on Sunday, discussing methods to track down and prosecute individuals accused of committing or issuing the order for war crimes.

Under the newly-introduced bill, launching a military offensive, killing civilians, employment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), laying a siege to civilians and military personnel and imposing food shortages on them are regarded as war crimes.

Individuals charged with committing or ordering such crimes, depending on the extent of their involvement, would be sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison by an Iranian court or would face execution.

Should the bill receive Iran’s Majlis (parliament) vote of approval, the country’s legislative assembly would then task penal institutions with prosecution of the accused.

Under international law, war crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war” including murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps, the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the killing of hostages, the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity.

The International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being in 2002 to take legal action against war crimes committed on or after that date.

However, countries like the United States and Israel have so far refused to sign the treaty which created the court and therefore do not permit The Hague to have jurisdiction over their citizens.

While Israel cannot be tried in the International Court of Justice, any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention can try to prosecute individuals who took part in the Gaza operation as culpable of war crimes.

The move by Iran’s cabinet comes as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed Sunday to protect any Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes in the Gaza Strip from prosecution overseas.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting, Olmert said, “The commanders and soldiers that were sent on the task in Gaza should know that they are safe from any tribunal and that the State of Israel will assist them in this issue and protect them as they protected us with their bodies during the military operation in Gaza.”

The use of controversial chemical white phosphorous shells as well as indiscriminate firing during the offensive in the densely-populated coastal sliver are among accusations the Israeli military is facing.

According to Health officials in the embattled Gaza Strip, 23 days of intense Israeli military operation left more than 1,330 Palestinians dead and some 5,450 others wounded.

Following the shelling of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters with phosphorus munitions in Gaza, UN officials called for independent probes into whether war crimes were committed during the Israeli offensive.

PressTV

Britain ordered to release Iraq war cabinet minutes

0

LONDON – Records of British cabinet discussions over the legality of invading Iraq, held in the buildup to war in 2003, must be released to the public, a tribunal ruled on Tuesday.

 

Publication of the documents could embarrass Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose predecessor Tony Blair was accused by critics of glossing over lawyers’ initial reservations about launching the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Brown’s office said it was considering its response to the ruling, made by a tribunal which decides on requests for documents under freedom of information laws.

 

The tribunal said it was in the public interest to release minutes of the cabinet discussions.

 

The documents from two cabinet meetings in March 2003 may reveal whether ministers were aware of an apparent change of mind over the invasion’s legality made by the government’s then senior legal officer, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

 

Previously released documents have shown that Goldsmith had cast doubt on the legal grounds of war on March 7, days before Blair ordered British troops in.

 

Ten days later, when Britain had failed to get a new United Nations resolution authorizing an invasion, Goldsmith gave the cabinet and parliament short written advice that war was legal – and mentioned no doubts.

 

Blair denied Goldsmith had bowed under political pressure but opposition parties accused the then prime minister of deceit.

 

“The release of these minutes could be critical in how history views this decision,” said Edward Davey, a spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrat party.

 

“The Labour government has put a wall of secrecy over the years since 2003 to prevent the full facts coming out,” he told BBC television.

 

Both the Liberal Democrats and the opposition Conservatives have called for a full inquiry into the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which the government has resisted as long as British troops remain in Iraq.

 

Britain has said it will withdraw almost all its remaining troops from Iraq by the end of July.

 

The minutes of cabinet meetings would normally be kept secret for 30 years.

 

Britain’s information commissioner ruled last February that the government should release the documents.

 

The government appealed against this ruling but on Tuesday the tribunal upheld the commissioner’s decision.

 

The government has until shortly before the end of February to decide whether to challenge the ruling in the High Court.

BBC Appeal Bias: Perhaps BBC Head Mark Thompson not as unbiased as he claims

0

By Initiatrix 

‘BBC Humanitarian appeal’

As fresh and recent an oxymoron as you could hope for.

At least, the BBC used to air Humanitarian Appeals, only now it appears that they are just too controversial and might upset ‘public confidence in the BBC’s impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story’.

Most odd, as previously the BBC have aired DEC appeals for The Sudan, The Congo, Rwanda, Kosovo and many others in the past 46 years and never mentioned this before.

Mark Thomson, acting Head of the British Broadcasting Corporation, however has clamped down on letting the British Public, his wage-payers, make their own decision on whether they would consider an appeal for a broken and desperate people as ‘impartial’.

Even under the combined pressure of over 100 MP’s, many Archbishops and other clergy speaking out against the move, he remains unmoved.

Even minor insurgent activity from the Most Honourable Tony Benn, who broke into his interview on BBC Radio 4, and during a television appearance on Saturday to read out the Post Office Box address to send donations to the DEC has left the leader of the BBC unmoved, even while his staff disagree with his stance.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/activism/bb…d-appeal/5147/

Perhaps being really impartial is the point.

In fact, so impartial, that Mr. Mark Thomson has failed to mention his visit to Israel in November 2005, where he held “peace talks” with Ariel Sharon over alleged anti-Israeli bias in the BBC which were widely held by Israelis as “evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intended to build bridges with the country’s political class.”

An source at the BBC said Mr. Thompson, whose wife, Jane Blumberg, is Jewish, “has a far greater regard for the Israeli cause than some of his predecessors”, according to an article in the Independent Newspaper of 29th November 2005.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe…on-517400.html

According to the article, sources at the BBC “also suspect that it heralds a “softening” to the corporation’s unofficial editorial line on the Middle East” and that “Understandably, an official BBC spokesman was anxious to downplay talk of an exclusively pro-Israeli charm offensive.”

I bet he was “anxious”.

Of course, Mr. Mark Thompson couldn’t possibly be biased.

He works for the BBC.

Or does the BBC work for him?

*

Meanwhile, the Disasters Emergency Commission really does need your help to get aid to the suffering civilians of the Gaza strip, so I would beg you to go to their website and donate whatever you can to help your fellow human beings.

http://www.dec.org.uk/index.html

*Perhaps an investigation is in order.

 

 

Public urged to return BBC licences

7

By ADRIAN ROBERTS

THE Stop the War coalition urged the public to return their BBC TV licences on Monday in protest at the corporation’s refusal to broadcast an emergency appeal for Gaza.

The call came as the Rupert Murdoch-owned Sky News announced that it was joining the BBC in refusing to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) appeal.

The broadcaster said in a statement that it had informed the DEC, an umbrella organisation for 13 humanitarian aid agencies, of its decision.

The decision comes after BBC director-general Mark Thompson defended the corporation’s decision not to broadcast the appeal in spite of more than 10,000 complaints.

He claimed that the BBC was “passionate” about defending its impartiality.

However, Stop the War Coalition spokesman Andrew Burgin pointed out that the fact that other channels including Channel 4, ITV and Channel 5 were showing the appeal showed how isolated and extreme the BBC was on this issue.

“Sky’s decision is just as disgraceful as the BBC’s,” he said.

“Sky has a history of anti-union activity and its broadcasting headquarters will also be subject to protests later in the week.”

He added: “We are also asking local Stop the War groups outside London, which have a BBC office in their area, to organise similar licence return events, notifying the local media beforehand.”

Muslim youth organisation Ramadhan Foundation chief executive Mohammed Shafiq urged the BBC and Sky to reconsider their decision.

“I am disgusted at the BBC’s decision not to show the DEC charity appeal for Gaza. There can be no justification for this deeply concerning position and we urge the BBC to reconsider,” he said.

The BBC is also facing a growing revolt from its own journalists over its decision not to broadcast the aid appeal.

BBC staff have said that they have been told they face the sack if they speak out on the issue and corporation journalists will vote on Tuesday on a resolution put forward by the National Union of Journalists condemning the move.

The NUJ and fellow broadcasting union BECTU both passed motions over the weekend condemning the BBC’s decision.

NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear and his counterpart at BECTU Gerry Morrissey also sent a letter to BBC director-general Mark Thompson on Monday asking him to review it.

Q&A: ‘Gaza Will Take Years to Recover’

0

Gaza will need years to recover from the devastating Israeli assault, says Katharina Ritz, head of mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Israel’s 22-day assault left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead, and decimated much of the coastal territory’s infrastructure.

Mel Frykberg interviews KATHARINA RITZ of the ICRC

Excerpts from the interview:

IPS: How long do you think it will take for Gaza to be rehabilitated?

Katharina Ritz: Gaza will take several years at the very least to recover from the Israeli military campaign. This is the best case scenario, assuming that the border crossings are opened permanently and all the necessary aid and help is allowed in unhindered.

IPS: How will the reconstruction take place, and what will this involve?

KR: There will be several stages. The initial shortages of electricity, water, food and medicine can be met, and the sewage and water systems repaired within weeks if sufficient quantities of spare parts, fuel and humanitarian aid are allowed in.

There are enough Gazans with the expertise and experience to deal with these issues.

IPS: What about repairing the damaged infrastructure?

KR: Rebuilding all the damaged and destroyed homes will obviously take several months, assuming the Israelis permit the importation of the necessary construction material, which they prevented from entering the territory even before the military operation.

But before the reconstruction can even commence it is essential for the remaining Israeli ordnances left over from the war to be cleared away to ensure the safety of the population.

IPS: The economy too is in dire straits. Was this problematic even before the Israeli operation?

KR: Yes, the next stage will require the rehabilitation of the crippled economy, and this could take several years.

Prior to the Israeli assault, the economy was barely functioning. To operate even on a basic level again, substantial investment and rehabilitation of the agricultural and private sectors is imperative.

Israel and Egypt, supported by the international community, enforced an economic blockade on the Gaza strip following Hamas’s take-over in June 2007. Only a bare minimum of humanitarian aid has been allowed in sporadically since then.

IPS: What is the final step to the coastal territory’s rehabilitation.

KR: The final question which will have to be addressed in the long term is the psychological scars, and the trauma which the civilian population has been subjected to.

IPS: The Israeli government has claimed that there is no humanitarian crisis on the ground and that sufficient aid is reaching Gaza. Do you agree with this?

KR: There is still a serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza despite the temporary openings of some of the border crossings.

After three weeks of being trapped and unable to access basic services, Gaza’s population cannot overcome problems in three days of ceasefire. However, the rapid withdrawal of the IDF has allowed aid to begin flowing in and the humanitarian relief effort to get under way.

IPS: How much aid is getting in and how much is needed?

KR: Under normal conditions approximately 400 trucks of aid per day are necessary to meet the essential needs of Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants, half of whom are refugees. While Israel and Egypt have allowed aid trucks in, at present the number is still insufficient to meet everyday requirements, let alone the increased demand following the war.

IPS: Have you seen any improvements since the ceasefire?

KR: What has improved with the cessation of the shelling and shooting is the ability of Gazans to move freely around to access humanitarian relief points for food and other emergency aid.

International aid has also been flooding in through Egypt’s Rafah crossing in the south, including tonnes of medical and food aid, ambulances, medicines and medical teams.

IPS: What is the ICRC doing on the ground to help meet the needs of Gazans?

KR: During the first days of the ceasefire the ICRC delivered emergency supplies such as plastic sheeting for covering up roofs and windows in the cold winter weather. Ten thousand of the 50,000 Palestinians that fled their homes and sought shelter with the UN are still homeless due to their homes being destroyed or damaged.

Our next emergency delivery will be food and hygiene kits. But Gazans also desperately need everyday essentials such as light bulbs, baby milk formula and diapers which are not supplied in emergency kits.

Stores have run low on everyday items, and there is a shortage of cash to purchase the supplies that remain.

IPS: Are the Palestinian authorities in Gaza able to join the reconstruction effort?

KR: Water trucks operated by the Palestinian water authority and the civil community are bringing in drinking water as an emergency stop-gap until the electricity and water infrastructure is repaired.

Due to the extensive damage done to the electricity grid from the aerial bombing, water wells and water pipes are unable to pump water to homes. Fuel shortages have restricted the ability of emergency generators to operate water and sewage plants as a standby coping mechanism.

Even before Israel’s military operation, Tel Aviv’s economic embargo prevented the entry of most spare parts, and the inability to repair the damaged infrastructure forced these plants to operate at minimum capacity.

IPS: What are some of the problems that the ICRC is trying to overcome?

KR: The threat of the outbreak of disease due to contaminated water is still a concern as raw sewage is flowing through the streets of parts of Gaza.

An embankment of a main sewage treatment dam in the Zeitoun area of Gaza city collapsed during the fighting, causing sewage to flow into agricultural fields. This was exacerbated by rotting animal carcasses and the corpses of Gazans buried underneath rubble.

Emergency teams have started repairs to the sewage and water treatment plants. Our contractor has managed to isolate this dam and is repairing the embankment.

For over a year Gaza’s Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU) has been forced to pump tonnes of untreated sewage into the sea, which filtered back into the underground water table, contaminating drinking supplies.

IPS: Is the ICRC keeping tabs of the aid that Israel is allowing into the territory?

KR: We will be monitoring whether sufficient spare parts and fuel will be allowed in by the Israeli authorities in the following weeks. If they are not, we will intervene.

IPS: Will sufficient humanitarian aid alleviate the suffering ultimately?

KR: All the humanitarian aid in the world will not alleviate the human suffering if a political resolution to the conflict is not found.

We will never work for the BBC again – actors and directors in Gaza protest

0

ACTORS and directors have warned the BBC they will not work for the corporation again if it does not broadcast the Gaza charity appeal.
In a letter written to Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director-general, the actors Tam Dean Burn and Pauline Goldsmith, and the directors Peter Mullan and Alison Peebles, said they were “appalled” by the refusal to show the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) appeal.

Their ultimatum came as the satellite broadcaster Sky also decided yesterday it would not screen the DEC film. Like the BBC, it said it wanted to protect the impartiality of its news reports.

Gaza is in the grip of a humanitarian crisis, with its 1.5 million population urgently needing food, water, medicine and shelter, after Israel’s three-week assault.

The BBC said yesterday it had received about 15,000 complaints about its decision not to screen the appeal for the DEC, which represents several charities.

A sit-in protest has been staged at the BBC Scotland headquarters in Glasgow, with some demonstrators setting fire to their TV licences, while a line of police officers guarded the entrance to Broadcasting House in London.

The open letter to the BBC, written a day after the Oscar nominee Samantha Morton threatened to boycott the corporation, reads: “We, the undersigned actors and directors, like millions of others, are absolutely appalled at the decision by the BBC to refuse to broadcast the DEC appeal for Gaza.

“We therefore are taking what action we can in protest at this decision by stating, like our fellow actor Samantha Morton, we will never work for the BBC again unless this disgraceful decision is reversed. We will urge others from our profession and beyond to do likewise.

“We will also not pay our TV licence fee in protest and encourage others to do likewise. It is time for the people of Britain to take a stand on this issue by demanding the BBC reverse this decision and by supporting the call from Palestinian civil society for a complete economic, academic and cultural boycott of Israel until it ends its pitiless violence against the long-suffering people of Gaza and the whole of Palestine.”

The decision not to broadcast the appeal has also attracted a chorus of condemnation. The Charity Commission said it was “very disappointed” with both Sky and the BBC. Dame Suzi Leather, its chairwoman, said: “Emergency appeals of this nature rely on publicity to ensure they are well supported by the public, and without the funds that result from that publicity, the work of the member aid agencies of the DEC could be severely hampered.”

The Labour peer Baroness Uddin, the first Muslim woman in the House of Lords, told Mr Thompson yesterday that the BBC’s decision had been a “gross misjudgment”. She said: “We should all be demanding that BBC governors intervene in this matter and reconsider its position.”

Angus Robertson, MP, the SNP’s Westminster leader and a former international affairs reporter with the BBC, said: “With every day that passes, the BBC’s defiance becomes more and more ridiculous.”

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, also criticised the corporation, saying the money the appeal was raising was for those who were hungry, sick, wounded or in need of shelter.

Avi Shlaim, the professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, said Sky and BBC management were behaving in a “cowardly” way.

Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a UK Muslim youth organisation, also urged the broadcasters to reconsider.

Judith Robertson, who chairs DEC Scotland, has called for Scots to donate to the Gaza appeal: “Clearly, the DEC is disappointed that the BBC has decided not to broadcast the appeal film. However, what matters most is that the public make a donation.”

– Donate to the DEC Gaza Crisis Appeal at www.dec.org.uk, by calling 0370 60 60 900, or at any Oxfam, Red Cross, Save the Children or Islamic Relief shop, high-street bank or post office.

Boris Johnson stands by ‘trigger happy’ remarks that angered Ian Blair

1

By Danny Brierley

THE Mayor today refused to apologise for calling police marksmen “trigger-happy” after the comments were revealed in an acrimonious exchange of letters with former Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.

Boris Johnson made the remark about the officers who killed Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes on the Tube during a radio debate in the run-up to last year’s mayoral election.

Details of the robust exchange between the two were revealed for the first time following a Freedom of Information request and show the level of hostility that existed long before Sir Ian’s departure from his role as Britain’s top policeman.

Mr Johnson started the row when he told the BBC’s World at One programme: “I think the real reason Jean Charles de Menezes got killed in the Stockwell Tube was not just because the police were too trigger happy, although I think you could argue that they were…”

Infuriated by what he saw as “outrageous” and “offensive” remarks, Sir Ian fired off the first missive and demanded a retraction. The Met chief, who resigned after claiming he had lost Mr Johnson’s support, wrote: “I am writing to you to say that I consider your comments that it could be argued that MPS officers are ‘trigger happy’ to be outrageous.

“I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that you withdraw your remarks.”

But the war of words over the shooting which occurred in the wake of the 2005 London Tube bombings was exacerbated by Mr Johnson’s riposte.

His letter read: “You seem to want me to withdraw the use of the word ‘trigger happy’ in respect of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. I have absolutely no intention of doing so.

“It is hard to think of any other description of a catastrophe in which a completely innocent man ends up with seven bullets in his head.”

Sir Ian replied again on 6 December 2007 to say that he was “very, very surprised” that Mr Johnson stood by his comments, claiming numerous officers considered them “offensive” and had complained to him.

But today a spokesman for the Mayor reiterated his stance. He said: “The Mayor expressed a considered view as a commentator and mayoral candidate. The letter makes it clear that he is not questioning the courage of the officers at the scene.

“He stands by the concerns he raised and believes they are shared by many in London and across the UK.”

Mr Johnson later said the BBC had apologised for cutting off his interview before he had explained himself.

Mr de Menezes was shot on 22 July 2005 at point blank range when armed officers mistook him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

ID cards: protecting the nation or an open door for fraudsters?

1

Stewart Hefferman explores the potential pitfalls of the Government’s national ID card scheme, raising concerns that it may be vulnerable to cloning if more thought isn’t put into its implementation.

Members of the public, the national press and even security experts themselves have largely been opposed to the UK’s national ID card scheme roll-out. The Government is still insisting the scheme will help in its fight against terrorism and improve national security, yet in the run up to its deployment, fundamental flaws are now becoming apparent.

Concerns about civil liberties and exaggerated claims over the scheme’s part in the fight against terrorism aside, what worries me most is this: does it actually do what it says on the tin? Will it really enhance our national security, or just open our back door to the fraudsters?

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s recent announcement about plans for retailers to collect biometric data is downright irresponsible. It seems preposterous to put public data into the hands of a third party when data loss is as commonplace as it is today. It’s clear now that the Government has intended to link the ID card scheme into its other services. I’ve been concerned about such an extension of ID card use since they were very first announced. Unfortunately, there’s no question this makes the scheme vulnerable to abuse.

 

Addressing the impersonation issue

 

The big concern with ID verification is impersonation and, unfortunately, the Government’s ID card scheme doesn’t go anywhere near far enough in addressing this problem. To add insult to injury, linking the National Identity Register (NIR) into a variety of different databases, all accessible by various Government employees, further exacerbates the problem.

The two main weaknesses are, firstly, an over-reliance on biometric security and, second, the preference for centralised data storage. Together, these leave the ID card system vulnerable to cloning. Biometric technology, however, is not a silver bullet.

Biometrics alone do not suffice to prevent fraud. Despite strong encryption, the Dutch biometric passports were cracked soon after launching. The supposedly ‘fake proof’ British e-passports were cloned within minutes only to be passed as genuine by passport reader software used by the UN agency that sets standards for e-passports, despite using pictures of Osama Bin Laden and a suicide bomber!

 

Stronger verification technology

 

The fingerprint biometric security systems currently used in the TWIC programme failed to properly authorise one in 50 enrolees’ credentials. Clearly, stronger verification technology needs to be in place.

What’s needed if the ID card scheme is to work is a belt-and-braces approach. Storing the encrypted biometric data on the card would make it impossible for even the most sophisticated fraudster to manipulate. Even authorised personnel — and, therefore, any successful hackers or corrupt employees — would only be able to view binary code, and not the finger, iris or facial recognition data itself. They would also be unable to determine how the encryption algorithm operated, and thus couldn’t clone the card.

There’s no doubt that the way the information is stored and structured needs to be carefully implemented.

Storing the data centrally was always a civil liberties concern. I always wondered why on earth the UK Government needed individual information to be stored on both the card and a central database. It’s not necessary to store the data centrally. Other countries such as France and Italy have stipulated that biometric information be stored only on the cards themselves. This way, that data is still within the possession of the individual. So, it was only necessary if they were planning to extend the usage of the cards in future. It’s now clear to all of us that was the intention all along.

More importantly, storing this data centrally and then linking it into a variety of databases is a security concern. From a security point of view, central storage makes the most sense in an online world but, if you’re also storing data on the cards themselves, that invalidates the security argument.

 

Audit trail is an essential

 

If the data must be stored on a central database, then biometric data needs to be kept separately from any other personal data in order to make it difficult for hackers to link the information needed to steal someone’s identity or clone a card. Back-end systems need to enable an audit trail of those personnel who have accessed individual records on those back-end systems.

It’s not yet safe to say that a 100% secure solution exists — suggesting that you have one is an open invitation for hackers to have a go. All we can do is minimise the risk as much as possible. In that respect, the UK Government’s scheme still has some way to go.

In itself, that begs the question as to whether the Government has already sown the seeds of the scheme’s disaster?

 

Stewart Hefferman is chief operating officer at TSSI Systems

From Fuel Cell to Jail Cell

0

Or how we learned to stop encouraging scientific innovators and start prosecuting them. 

The DCExaminer.com reports

Critics who contend federal prosecutors too often go far beyond common sense and the law in enforcing bureaucratic gobbledygook, especially on environmental matters, could list as Example One the strange case of Krister Evertson, aka federal prisoner number 15003-006.

 

Evertson is spending 21 months in the Sheridan, Oregon, federal prison for an environmental “crime” in which no environmental harm occurred and during the commissioning of which he was trying to find a way to help the environment.

Evertson had no history of legal problems, and a long history of charitable service – especially in teaching sign language to deaf young people, a talent he learned while coping with a severe stutter that partially lingers to this day. He is described in federal court documents as a “good-natured, kind, gentle person.”

Now 54, Evertson has been a science wiz since grade school, and won the Kailua Intermediate School science fair in Hawaii for research into making bio-chemical fuel cells using coconut juice.

Ever since then, he has dreamed of developing an inexpensive, mass-use fuel cell that could be used to generate power without polluting the air. His enthusiasm for the project is such that Evertson will gladly talk at length, providing scientific explanations, with citations, of why his cell will work to produce “clean energy” if only a few kinks can be worked out.

And it seems nobody doubts his basic science, only the practicality of making it available for widespread use by the general public.

Yet Evertson was convicted after being charged by federal prosecutors for allegedly violating obscure regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency by “abandoning” semi-hazardous waste that actually had been meticulously saved, sealed and stored with a friend.

“This is how we reward innovators in America?” asked senior legal policy analyst Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation, his inflection turning the statement into a question. “They wind up in jail?…. This isn’t the way regulation is supposed to work.”

Among Grossman’s assignments at the conservative Washington think tank is working with former Attorney General Edwin A Meese on the foundation’s Over-criminalization Project.

The project was initiated by Meese, who heads Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, to oppose the growing trend in government and the legal community in which trivial conduct is punished as a crime.

Evertson’s story has become a favorite illustration in Meese’s efforts. It is a tale that must be told in two parts, both of which ended in court rooms, which you will find here and here. And go here for additional background on groups from across the political spectrum in the legal community who are uniting to do something about over-criminalization.

Thanks to Andrew Grossman

UN official: Enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes

0

By David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster

Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak told CNN’s Rick Sanchez that the US has an “obligation” to investigate whether Bush administration officials ordered torture, adding that he believes that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“We have clear evidence,” he said. “In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, ‘Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.’ So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture.”

Asked during an interview with Germany’s ZDF television on Jan. 20, Nowak said: “I think the evidence is on the table.”

At issue, however, is whether “American law will recognize these forms of torture.”

A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.

It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.

The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.

Disabled Cannabis Campaigner Says New Laws Contravene Human Rights

0

By Carl Brown

A DISABLED man who is challenging a prosecution for growing cannabis has slammed the Government for reclassifying the drug as class B.

Edwin Stratton, suffers from hypersensitivity caused by coeliac disease, and is often in pain.

He says he finds cannabis relieves his symptoms more effectively than prescription drugs and is currently challenging a prosecution for growing the drug in the High Court.

He claims current laws contravene Article 14 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination.

This week new laws reclassifying cannabis as a class B drug came into effect.

This means the maximum prison term for possessing cannabis has risen from two to five years.

Mr Stratton, 43, of Leyton High Road, said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is “out of touch” with the public.

He said: “All the expert opinion is on other side of the argument to the Government.

“The u-turn is based, I think, on trying to appeal to a reactionary population, but I don’t think there is a core of prohibitionists in middle England anymore.”

Mr Stratton, who played drums in heavy metal band One Minute Silence, said prohibiting drugs drives them underground, makes them less safe and puts them into the hands of criminals.

He said: “The best way to make drugs safer is to put them where they can be seen.”

Mr Stratton rejected the claim that cannabis is stronger now than it used to be – but said prohibiting cannabis leads to stronger strains of the drug being produced.

He said: “It makes a lot more sense for people to grow one ounce of stronger cannabis, rather than a higher quantity of weaker cannabis, because there is less risk.

“Because of prohibition people also have to grow their plants indoors, using hydroponics, which again makes it stronger.

“Prohibition is doomed to fail.”

The Government says it decided to upgrade the drug because of fears about it simpact on mental health.

The Conservatives said the Government’s decision to reverse its polic showed the downgrading of cannabis had been a mistake, while the Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the reclassification would be ineffective.

Mr Stratton is due to appear at Waltham Forest Magistrates Court on February 19.

25-years on from a UK government-ordered union ban

4

By Shane 

I am reminded by the Stronger Unions website that today marks the 25th anniversary of the banning of trade unions at the Governments’ intelligence gathering centre GCHQ in Cheltenham.

The denial of a basic human right to GCHQ workers — 14 of them were sacked because of their refusal to resign their union membership — and the “enemy within” language deployed by the government, led to a fierce campaign from trade unions and civil libertarians. The incoming Labour government eventually repealed the ban in 1997.

Where did Amnesty stand on this back in 1984? I don’t know, but maybe the written history of Amnesty-trade union relations, which we have commissioned to be published this year as part of our celebrations, will shed some light.

What I’m pretty sure of is that the decades of co-operation and solidarity in the years since the ban means that if an abuse of that sort happened again, we’d be out there adding our voices in protest. We understand loud-and-clear that the right to form and join trade unions free of harassment and intimidation is a fundamental human right, and if it’s worth fighting for in Iran , in Colombia and in Zimbabwe, it’s certainly worth defending here at home.

In a future dispute of this sort, if someone with the talent of Brian Finch were to make a painting of the demonstration, I would expect to see plenty of Amnesty Workers Rights = Human Rights placards!

BBC staff protest over decision not to show Gaza aid appeal

4

By Leigh Holmwood

The BBC is facing a growing revolt from its own journalists over its decision not to broadcast the Gaza humanitarian aid appeal, with sources reporting “widespread disgust” within its newsrooms.

BBC staff have said they have been told they face the sack if they speak out on the issue and MediaGuardian.co.uk understands that corporation journalists will tomorrow vote on a resolution put forward by the National Union of Journalists condemning the move.

Sources have said there was “fury” at the BBC News morning meeting today about the decision, with news editors saying they had not been consulted on the move to not show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, which is to be broadcast tonight on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five.

The NUJ and fellow broadcasting union Bectu both passed motions over the weekend condemning the BBC’s decision. NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear and his counterpart at Bectu, Gerry Morrissey, will also today send a letter to BBC director general Mark Thompson asking him to review it.

Tomorrow the main NUJ chapel at BBC Television Centre will also meet, with staff expected to condemn the decision.

“Feelings are running extremely high and there is widespread disgust at the BBC’s top management,” one BBC News source said. “There is widespread anger and frustration at the BBC’s refusal to allow people to speak out about it.”

 

An NUJ source added: “It is the BBC’s decision and we respect the independence of that, but we think they have got it wrong and should review it.”

Thompson has said the corporation will not screen the DEC appeal because it could harm the BBC’s impartiality on the Gaza conflict.

BBC management have said they will not change their mind on the issue and were backed by Sky News today when the satellite broadcaster also said it would not air the film.

 

The two-minute appeal is currently being edited by ITN and will be shown on ITV1 tonight before the main news at about 6.25pm, before being broadcast on the other channels.

Sources within the BBC have questioned whether its internal Balen report into its Middle East coverage, which the corporation has refused to publish, has influenced its decision on the DEC appeal. An appeal to the House of Lords to force the BBC to publish the report is currently ongoing.

Are We Civilized Enough to Hold Our Leaders Accountable for War Crimes?

0

The World Is Watching

By John W. Dean 

Remarkably, the confirmation of President Obama’s Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, is being held up by Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, who apparently is unhappy that Holder might actually investigate and prosecute Bush Administration officials who engaged in torture. Aside from this repugnant new Republican embrace of torture (which might be a winning issue for the lunatic fringe of the party and a nice way to further marginalize the GOP), any effort to protect Bush officials from legal responsibility for war crimes, in the long run, will not work.

It is difficult to believe that Eric Holder would agree not to enforce the law, like his recent Republican predecessors. Indeed, if he were to do so, President Obama should withdraw his nomination. But as MSNBC “Countdown” anchor Keith Olbermann stated earlier this week, even if the Obama Administration for whatever reason does not investigate and prosecute these crimes, this still does not mean that the Bush Administration officials who were involved in torture are going to get a pass.

With few exceptions, the discussion about what the Obama Administration will do regarding the torture of detainees during the Bush years has been framed as a domestic matter, and the fate of those involved in torturing has been largely viewed as a question of whether the Department of Justice will take action. In fact, not only is the world watching what the Obama Administration does regarding Bush’s torturers, but other countries are very likely to take action if the United States fails to do so.

Bush’s Torturers Have Serious Jeopardy

Philippe Sands, a Queen’s Counsel at Matrix Chambers and Professor of International law at University College London, has assembled a powerful indictment of the key Bush Administration people involved in torture in his book Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. He explains the legal exposure of people like former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney’s counsel and later chief of staff David Addington, former Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo, the former Department of Defense general counsel Jim Haynes, and others for their involvement in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and CIA secret prisons.

After reading Sands’s book and, more recently, listening to his comments on Terry Gross’s NPR show “Fresh Air,” on January 7, 2009 I realized how closely the rest of the world is following the actions of these former officials, and was reminded that these actions appear to constitute not merely violations of American law, but also, and very literally, crimes against humanity — for which the world is ready to hold them responsible.

Here is what Professor Sands told Terry Gross on NPR: “In talking to prosecutors around the world, as I have done, they all recognize the very real political difficulties of taking on someone who has been Vice President of the United States, or President of the United States, or Secretary of Defense of the United States. But those arguments melt away as you go a little down the chain. And I don’t think the same arguments would apply in relation to the man, for example, who was Vice President Cheney’s general counsel, at the time the decisions were taken, David Addington … I think he faces a very real risk of, you know, investigation for complicity in an act that amounts to torture … ” Later, referring to “international investigations,” he added that Addington (and others) were at “serious risk of being investigated.”

These are remarkable statements from a very well-informed man. Because we have a common publisher, I was able to contact him in London, and pose a few questions. I find his book, statements and responses to my questions chilling.

Q & A With Professor Philippe Sands

The following is my email exchange with Professor Sands:

John W. Dean: When talking to Ms. Gross you said you were not calling for such international investigations because we all need more facts. Given the fact that Judge Susan Crawford has now made clear that torture occurred, do you — and others with your expertise and background — have sufficient information to call for other countries to take action if the Obama Administration fails to act?

Philippe Sands: Last week’s intervention by Susan Crawford, confirming that torture occurred at Guantanamo, is highly significant (as I explain in a piece I wrote with Dahlia Lithwick: “The Turning Point: How the Susan Crawford interview changes everything we know about torture”). The evidence as to torture, with all that implies for domestic and foreign criminal investigation, is compelling. Domestic and foreign investigators already have ample evidence to commence investigation, if so requested or on their own account, even if the whole picture is not yet available. That has implications for the potential exposure of different individuals, depending on the nature and extent of their involvement in acts that have elements of a criminal conspiracy to subvert the law.

JD: If yes, can you share what you and others might do, and when?

PS: I am in the process of completing the epilogue to my book Torture Team, which will be published in May 2009. That will set out, in detail, what I learned when I made a return visit to the European judge and prosecutor with whom I met in the summer of 2007, as described in the book. Watch this space.

JD: If no, what would it take for those like you to call for all countries with potential jurisdiction to take action?

PS: More than 140 countries may potentially exercise jurisdiction over former members of the Bush Administration for violations of the 1984 Torture Convention and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including the standards reflected in their Common Article 3. Whether they do so, and how they might do so, turns on a range of factors, including their domestic procedural rules. In the United Kingdom, one criminal investigation is already underway, in relation to the alleged treatment of Binyam Mohammed, a Guantanamo detainee who is a British resident. I doubt it will be the last. That said, having set out the relevant facts in one case [in my book], to the best of my abilities, I feel it will now be for others to take this forward as they consider appropriate.

JD: Also, when talking to Ms. Gross you said that you did not think that David Addington and others involved in torture were likely to be travelling outside the United States. Do you know for a fact that any country might take action? Have you discussed this with any prosecutors who could do so?

PS: This will be addressed in the epilogue to Torture Team.

JD: Do you believe that a failure of the Obama Administration to investigate, and if necessary, prosecute, those involved in torture would make them legally complicit in the torture undertaken by the Bush Administration?

PS: No, although it may give rise to violations by the United States of its obligations under the Torture Convention. In the past few days there have been a series of significant statements: that of Susan Crawford, of former Vice President Cheney’s confirming that he approved the use of waterboarding, and by the new Attorney General Eric Holder that he considers waterboarding to be torture. On the basis of these and other statements it is difficult to see how the obligations under Articles 7(1) and (2) of the Torture Convention do not cut in: these require the US to “submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution”. What happens thereafter is a matter for the prosecutor, who may decide that, in accordance with applicable standards (“authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State”) and the facts of the case, including the prospects for a successful prosecution, that proceeding to actual prosecution is not justified.

JD: Finally, you mentioned the case proceeding in the UK regarding possible torture of a British national. Is it possible that even an American ally like Great Britain could seek extradition, and undertake prosecution, of U.S. officials like Addington and Yoo for facilitating the torture of a citizen of Great Britain — if the U.S. fails to act?

PS: It is possible. The more likely scenario, however, is that which occurred in Senator Pinochet’s case: the unwitting traveller sets foot in the wrong country at the wrong time.

What Will The Obama Administration Do?

As all who have followed this issue know, President Obama hedged after he was elected as to what he may or may not do. So too did his Attorney General nominee. After Eric Holder declared waterboarding to be unlawful, no one on the Senate Judiciary Committee truly followed up as to what he was going to do, but it appears they are going to now press him on that point.

My question is how can the Obama Administration not investigate, and, if appropriate, prosecute given the world is watching, because if they do not, other may do so? How could there be “change we can believe in” if the new administration harbors war criminals — which is the way that Philippe Sands and the rest of the world, familiar with the facts which have surfaced even without an investigation, view those who facilitated or engaged in torture?

One would think that people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Gonzales, Yoo, Haynes and others, who claim to have done nothing wrong, would call for investigations to clear themselves if they really believed that to be the case. Only they, however, seem to believe in their innocence — the entire gutless and cowardly group of them, who have shamed themselves and the nation by committing crimes against humanity in the name of the United States.

We must all hope that the Obama Administration does the right thing, rather than forcing another country to clean up the mess and seek to erase the dangerous precedent these people have created for our country. A first clue may come when Holder resumes testifying.

Obama approves missile strikes in Pakistan

3

On the fourth day of Barack Obama’s presidency, he approved missiles strikes in Pakistan.

Déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say, begging the question why more strikes if America voted for change? But this was the news in the UK’s Guardian, President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area. “Barak Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

“Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the ‘war on terror’ policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.”

I guess he had to get his feet wet with blood to show the right he was no wuss on terror, something for everybody. But to say this act is impulsive and poorly thought out is an understatement given that he was consulted by US commanders. That’s it? What about the Congress, the people who voted for him? What about the longstanding suspicion Osama is dead of the deadly kidney disease he was treated for as early as August 2000 in a hospital in Dubai, where he was reputed to have met with his CIA handler, by then CIA station-chief Robert Baer, according to Baer’s his book, Sleeping With the Devil.

What about the highly thought of notion that Bin Laden was a patsy as were the Saudi hijackers and that that the strike on 9/11 was a false-flag operation to turn the West against the Muslim world in its New World Order hegemonic moronic quest for power? What’s more, if Bin Laden was so important, why was he taken off the FBI’s most wanted list awhile ago and George Bush said Osama was of no longer of interest to him.

And now the Guardian reports, “The US believes they [Al-Qaeda] are hiding in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and made 30 strikes last year in which more than 200 people were killed. In the election, Obama hinted at increased operations in Pakistan, saying he thought Bush had made a mistake in switching to Iraq before completing the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Ah, and attacking Pakistan villages and killing villagers pell-mell will make it all right. Not.

And where is Obama’s backroom political advisor, Zbigniew Bzrezinsky, to remind everyone that he and the CIA set up Al-Qaeda (actually a file-name on Bin Laden’s laptop, meaning “the base”). Zbig and the Company financed, recruited, trained and armed Al Qaida to fight a jihad against the atheist Russians who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979, unsettling the US, which already considered the Middle East terrain a sphere of oil interest.

And, as expected, “The US marine corp commander said yesterday that his 22,000 troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan. Gen James Conway said ‘the time is right’ to leave Iraq now the war had become largely nation-building rather than the pitched fighting in which the corps excelled; he wanted the marines in Afghanistan, especially in the south where insurgents, and the Taliban and al-Qaida, benefit from both a nearby safe haven in Pakistan and a booming trade in narcotics.”

Well, Conway got the first half right that his 22,000 troops should be redeployed from Iraq. But not from a no-win conflict with Pakistan and Afghanistan, which conflict will serve to unify Muslim and Middle Eastern bad feelings and resources towards the US. The troops should be redeployed home, to America, to relieve them of the incredible burden they have been carrying and the numerous over-deployments and the massive incidence of brain injuries not to mention 4,000 plus deaths. What rabbit-hole did Obama stumble down, and so fast?

Only two days earlier George McGovern, former South Dakota Senator and Democratic nominee for president in 1972, wrote in an editorial in the Washington Post, and directed at President Obama, Calling a Time Out, “As you settle into the Oval Office, Mr. President, may I offer a suggestion? Please do not try to put Afghanistan aright with the U.S. military. To send our troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan would be a near-perfect example of going from the frying pan into the fire. There is reason to believe some of our top military commanders privately share this view. And so does a broad and growing swath of your party and your supporters.

“True, the United States is the world’s greatest power — but so was the British Empire a century ago when it tried to pacify the warlords and tribes of Afghanistan, only to be forced out after excruciating losses. For that matter, the Soviet Union was also a superpower when it poured some 100,000 troops into Afghanistan in 1979. They limped home, broken and defeated, a decade later, having helped pave the way for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“It is logical to conclude that our massive military dominance and supposedly good motives should let us work our will in Afghanistan. But logic does not always prevail in South Asia. With belligerent Afghan warlords sitting atop each mountain glowering at one another, the one factor that could unite them is the invasion of their country by a foreign power, whether British, Russian or American.” This I’m sure went from McGovern’s mouth to God’s ear, bypassing Obama’s formidable ears.

McGovern, like a solid uncle, pointed out to Obama that he believed military power wasn’t really the answer to terrorism, but rather the Middle East’s resentment of US policies, the occupation in Iraq, backing repressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and, by gosh, our support of Israel (sorry, Mr. Emanuel and AIPAC). These factors, McGovern pointed out were the drivers of the terrorist impulse against the US and would be better resolved by concluding our military presence “throughout the arc of conflict,” which includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Caspian Sea Basin, et al.

He also prudently advised that we need to close down the “imposing US military bases in this section of the globe, which do so little to expand our security and so much to stoke local resentment.” He reminded Obama again of the British failed efforts over Iraq, and even how our own “13 little colonies drove the mighty British Empire from American soil.” He reminded President Obama of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz estimating the total coast of Iraq as more than $3 trillion, and how it has weakened our economy, the armed forces and made our national debt soar. He pointed out to Obama how we’re teetering on the abyss here, and the last thing we need is another costly war.

He also said that like President Obama he didn’t oppose all wars. “I risked my life in World War II to protect our country against genuine danger,” wrote McGovern. “But it is the memory of my fellow airmen being shot out of the sky on all sides of me in a war we had to fight that makes me cautious about sending our youth into needless conflicts that weaken us at home and abroad, and may even weaken us in the eyes of God.” So, like Obama, McGovern is not just a former fighting man but a religious man as well.

He went on to a suggest something that was true change: “a five-year time-out on war — unless, of course, there is a genuine threat to the nation.” He proposed that during that time we could work with the UN World Food Program and overseas churches, synagogues, mosques and volunteer agencies to provide a nutritious lunch every day for every school-age child in Afghanistan and other poor countries. He also mentioned we could add to these efforts nutritional packages for low-income pregnant and nursing mothers and their infants, birth through five, as we do in the US via WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman, Infants and Children. That said, ask yourself, don’t these ideas seem more in line with the kinds of solutions Obama talked about all through his campaign?

McGovern closed, “Is this proposal pie-in-the-sky? I don’t think so. It’s food in the stomachs of hungry kids. I would draw them to school and enable them to learn and grow into better citizens. It would cost a small fraction of warfare’s cost, but it might well be a stronger antidote to terrorism. There will always be time for another war. But hunger can’t wait.” Those are tough lines to follow, but worth a try for our own people as well as those of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It’s also interesting to remember as well that McGovern ran against Nixon, who sought a second term as president, after Nixon and his war criminal buddy Henry Kissinger sabotaged Johnson’s initial successes at a peace with the North Vietnamese in 1968. Additionally, George Wallace had also entered that 1972 race as an independent and could have possibly split the conservative Nixon vote, which would have given McGovern a good chance at victory.

Unfortunately, an assassination attempt on Wallace by another classic “lone gunman,” fair-haired 21-year old Arthur Bremer, effectively left Wallace paralyzed for life and wheeled out of the race. And, of course, the Vietnam War continued to its official end in 1973, with 58,000 Americans killed and some 2 million Vietnamese as well. So, what do we learn from this, Mr. Obama, that Mr. McGovern, war hero and private citizen knows so well?

Shall it be, as the Guardian story pointed out another flight to madness, “Obama has warned that he is prepared to bomb inside Pakistan if he gets relevant intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. He had also said he would act against militants along the border if the Pakistan government failed to.”

In fact, the US missiles were fired by the latest and not so greatest unmanned Predator drones, which hang in the sky gathering intelligence through surveillance and, when commanded and directed by remote control, launch attacks. How truly lovely this sounds, as the Dow dances into oblivion.

The Guardian also adds this piece of idiocy: “The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.” Let me remind the Guardian, President Obama’s mandate was peace, change, reconstruction of the economy, not the continued destruction of Pakistan and us.

The 65 million Americans who voted for Obama take no pride in reports like this, “The first attack yesterday was on the village of Zharki, in Waziristan; three missiles destroyed two houses and killed 10 people. One villager told Reuters by phone that of nine bodies pulled from the rubble of one house, six were its owner and his relatives; Reuters added that intelligence officials said some foreign militants were also killed. A second attack hours later also in Warizistan killed eight people.”

This is why we rid ourselves of Bush, Cheney and their pack of killers. And this is why the American people and the world are now railing against the brutal overreactions of the Israeli military against Gaza, another issue President Obama was supposed to address to calm passions in the Middle East. But maybe he’s saving that for another day.

Nevertheless, the Guardian reports that, “The Pakistan government publicly expressed hope that the arrival of Obama would see a halt to such strikes, which stir up hostility from Pakistanis towards the government; in private, the government may be more relaxed about such attacks.” I wish them luck given what we’ve all seen so far of the US’s ability to tear a nation into pieces, including its own.

The Guardian concludes, “There is a lot of nervousness in the new administration about the fragility of Pakistan, particularly as it has nuclear weapons, but it also sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as being linked. In the face of Taliban resurgence, there is despair in Washington over the leadership of the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, and there will not be much disappointment if he is replaced in elections later this year.”

Ah well, didn’t the administration know about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they struck? It’s old news even for the slowest among us. What’s more, their despair should be that we put the puppet Karzai there in the first place, a former employee of the infamous California oil company, Unocal, to watch the would-be pipelines to be built through Afghanistan from the Caspian Basin and through Pakistan to the Indian ocean. Argh!

On a final déjà vu all over again, the Guardian laments, “But Washington insists on seeing as one of its biggest problems the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida to maintain havens in Pakistan. Obama on Thursday announced he was making veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke a special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke by phone to the Pakistan president, Asif Ali Zardari.” I’m sure Mr. Holbrooke will be able to confuse the situation even more, not to mention Mrs. Clinton by telephone.

It’s all really unbelievable! As a friend of my 19-year old son commented without the bat of an eye, “The more things change, the more they say the same.” Such prescience! This kid’s got a chance to make it in this Brave New Old World Order. I’m not sure about the rest of us. Maybe it’s just an Obama-aberration. Maybe it’s welcome to the future.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. read his new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Obama to order review of state’s emissions bid

0

By Zachary Coile, Robert Selna

President Obama, in his first major environmental act since taking office, will order the Environmental Protection Agency today to move swiftly on a request by California and other states to set the nation’s toughest vehicle emissions standards.

Obama plans to make the announcement at a White House ceremony, according to congressional sources briefed on the plan. The move signals a sharp break with the Bush administration, which rejected California’s request to enforce its rules limiting greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

While Obama’s order only requires the EPA to reconsider California’s request, all sides expect the agency will approve it. His new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, must finish a formal review before making the decision, but environmentalists were already cheering the likely outcome.

“These are monumental decisions that will have an immediate impact in reducing global warming pollution in the United States,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Just days into office, President Obama is showing America and the world that he will lead our country in a bold new direction to protect the environment and fight global warming.”

Obama’s presidential directive could ultimately transform the entire U.S. auto fleet. If the EPA approves California’s request for a waiver to enforce its rules, any state can opt for either the federal or the state’s emissions standards. Thirteen states have adopted California’s rules, covering about half the nation’s population, and a half-dozen more, including Florida, are considering doing so. Automakers probably would be forced to sell more fuel efficient cars and trucks in every showroom nationwide.

California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has lobbied Obama to approve the state’s request, called his expected announcement “more than welcome news.”

“An immediate EPA review of the waiver decision shows respect for California and the 18 other states … who are waiting for the green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles,” Boxer said. “When the waiver is signed, it will be a signal to Detroit that a huge market awaits them if they do the right thing and produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible.”

The auto industry opposes California’s rules and has fought a long-running legal battle to block the standards. Automakers have warned of the perils of creating a patchwork of vehicle emissions rules and have lobbied Congress instead for a single national standard.

California’s rules would require vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2016. The transportation sector is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at about 38 percent of total emissions.

The state’s regulations are much more stringent than even the higher fuel economy standards passed by Congress and signed by Bush in 2007, which requires vehicles to reach an average fuel economy of 31.5 miles per gallon by 2015. The state’s rules require automakers to meet a fleetwide average of 36 miles per gallon by 2016.

Obama’s directive is also expected to force the Transportation Department to complete interim fuel economy standards to implement the 2007 law, which the Bush administration chose not to do. The goal is to speed the shift to more efficient vehicles, and the new rules would be issued by March so automakers would have time to update their fleet for the 2011 model year.

The East Room announcement is expected to be attended by Jackson, top EPA and Transportation Department officials and environmentalists, among others, Capitol Hill sources said.

Obama’s decision is a victory for California leaders, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, who wrote letters last week urging the president to take action. Schwarzenegger’s spokesman, Aaron McLear, said Sunday night that the governor was “withholding comment until the president has something to say.”

California’s landmark law limiting greenhouse gas emissions was written by former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County) and passed by the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2002. It was supposed to go into effect starting in the 2009 model year. One thorny issue the EPA may decide is in which model year California’s rules would now take effect to give automakers enough time to transition.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who was in the Assembly when the law was passed, said Obama’s announcement “represents the beginning of a very different and much more positive relationship between California and the federal government.”

“California did not get a whole lot of attention in the past eight years,” Steinberg said. “This is an important signal that things will be different.”

Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative for the Environmental Defense Fund, said Obama’s move also suggests that the new president rejected the automakers’ assertions that California’s rules would hurt the industry and the economy.

“This is a tremendous out-of-the-gate move by the new president and shows that he is taking a fresh look at environmental and energy policy from the perspective of sound science,” Walker said. “It also shows that he understands the strong nexus between economic stimulus and environmental protection.”

BBC ‘open to Gaza appeal rethink’?

1

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has said it is open to reconsidering its earlier decision not to telecast a charity appeal for funds for Palestinians in Gaza.“We never say never and clearly, if the DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) came to us with another request when things have calmed down and we didn’t have the same worries about the controversial nature of this, we would look at it again in that light,” Caroline Thompson told Al Jazeera on Sunday.

The DEC is made up of charities including the British Red Cross and Oxfam and its request for telecasting an appeal for funds was turned down by the BBC.

In explaining its decision, the BBC said the telecast might compromise its impartiality.

In a blog post on the broadcaster’s website, Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, wrote: “Gaza remains a major ongoing news story, in which humanitarian issues … are both at the heart of the story and contentious.

“It is sometimes not a comfortable place to be, but we have a duty to ensure that nothing risks undermining our impartiality. It is to protect that impartiality that we have made this difficult decision.”

Growing criticism

The chief operating officer of the BBC, under fire for its refusal to air the appeal, said a reversal of the decision was possible if another request to air the appeal was made.

The BBC’s refusal to broadcast the appeal has shocked and suprised many.

Steven James, an organiser for the UK-based Medical Aid for Palestinians organisation, told Al Jazeera: “This is about helping women, children and civilians caught up in the situation, in a time when they really need aid.

“Quite frankly, we are astonished at the BBC.”

Pressure on the BBC to air the appeal has mounted, with the broadcaster receiving more than 10,000 complaints via email.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has also waded into the row.

“My feeling is that the BBC should broadcast an appeal,” Rowan Williams, the Anglican leader, said on Sunday.

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and the second most senior Anglican clergyman, added that the row is not about impartiality, but
humanity.

“This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief,” Sentamu said.

“By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and foresaken impartiality.”

More than 50 members of the British parliament have also signed a motion condemning the move.

The MPs backed a parliamentary motion saying that they were “astonished” by the BBC’s move and called its explanations “unconvincing and incoherent”.

The decision drew fierce criticism from Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, while thousands of people protested against the BBC’s stance in central London on Saturday.

Al Jazeera and agencies

Israeli PM Promises to Shield Troops From War Crime Trials

0

The BBC reports: “Any Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes in the Gaza Strip will be given state protection from prosecution overseas, the country’s PM has said.” At issue is Israel’s use of white phosphorous, a chemical agent that is not permitted in densely populated areas because it sticks to and severely burns human tissue.

BBC:

In Israel, Prime Minister Olmert told a weekly cabinet meeting that soldiers who had put their lives on the line for their country need not fear prosecution for war crimes overseas.

“The commanders and soldiers that were sent on the task in Gaza should know that they are safe from any tribunal and that the State of Israel will assist them in this issue and protect them as they protected us with their bodies during the military operation in Gaza,” he said.

Israel’s military tactics have come under intense scrutiny as evidence has emerged of the high numbers of Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza.

Read more

Copyright © 2009 Truthdig

Score Another for Obama: He Lifts Global Gag Order

0

By Matthew Rothschild

Barack Obama on Friday made good on his promise to lift the heinous global gag rule that George Bush had imposed on his own first day in office.

The global gag rule deprived many overseas health clinics of crucial U.S. funding because they provided reproductive services or engaged in health care advocacy that the Bush Administration and its rabid rightwing base objected to.

As a result, these clinics–which serve as a lifeline to impoverished women all over the Third World–had to cut their services, see fewer patients, or close down.

“Today, President Obama has taken a tremendous step in righting the wrongs perpetrated against women around the world by the Bush Administration,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Unsafe abortion kills nearly 70,000 women around the world each year. The gag rule prevented women’s health organizations that received U.S. funds from advocacy against restrictive laws that lead to these deaths.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights added that the global gag rule “had a devastating impact on health care providers and women in nearly sixty countries.”

It hailed Obama’s decision, which he made by executive order, as “a victory for providers and nongovernmental organizations and for the advancement of free speech and civil engagement.”

NARAL was equally grateful to Obama, and urged people to support his move, since “anti-choice groups are bombarding the White House with messages and running vicious ads on TV and online.”

You can find out more by going to ProChoiceAmerica.org and reproductiverights.org.

Obama, in his first few days, is demonstrating the power of the Presidency to make progressive change by executive order.

He should use that power to the fullest extent.

Paul Stott on Anarchism in the U.K.

2

Via I Intend To Escape … And Come Back

The last three episodes of Ian Bone’s interviews on Resonance FM, in the “Anarchism in the UK” series, are now available to download. 

“The interviews include Andy from Freedom Press on the redevelopment at the Whitechapel book store, Sandy from Liberty & Solidarity on a new anarchist grouping, and my good self. My 11th January conversation with Ian managed to ramble through Class War, the royal family, the rise of the far-right, the dangers of Islamism – oh and meeting dubious ladies in Kings Cross pubs.”

— Paul Stott

You can download it here

There are 3 audio files in the download, all are well worth listening to however the 11th Jan file contains the interview with Paul Stott.
UPDATE: You can now stream the show here without downloading, thanks to anarchistinterviews.podomatic.com

President Obama should call off the medical marijuana raids

4

By J.D. Tuccille

Asked about medical marijuana on the campaign trail in New Hampshire just a year and a half ago, then-Senator Barack Obama said, “I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” Admittedly, he’s been on the job just a few days, but now-President Obama’s administration has just overseen its first medical marijuana raid. It’s time for him to live up to his promise and call off the dogs.

 

It’s not right to blame the new White House team for the raid in South Lake Tahoe, California. Drug Enforcement Administration officials are still hold-overs from the old administration, with the priorities of the Bush White House. So when the DEA stormed into Holistic Solutions and stole money and marijuana, they were following an old game plan — not necessarily the new one.

So consider this a test. Did Barack Obama mean what he said about pulling the federal government out of the business of kicking in doors and hauling people to jail for using marijuana to treat medical problems? The ball is in your court, Mr. President.

Asking the new president to live up to his promises on medical marijuana is hardly radical. No, radical would be to ask him to respect people’s right to consume whatever substances they please, to produce those substances, to buy them from willing sellers, and to sell them to eager customers. Radical would be to demand that he recognize that people should be free to do whatever they want so long as they don’t violate the equal rights of others.

In other words, whatever is peaceful.

Asking the president to live up to his own promise on medical marijuana isn’t radical at all. It’s just a matter of pointing out that we want to see him walk the walk after talking the talk.

President Obama will be off to a great start if he quickly reins in the DEA and offers credible assurances that this raid will be the last such raid on his watch. If he doesn’t … Well, that will say an awful lot about what we can expect from this administration.

As for whether what we get is enough … Well, some of us think it’s long past time to make a few radical demands.

Government tries to convince the public that their data is safe

0

Overseer wanted for controversial £4.7 billion UK national identity cards scheme

By creating a watchdog post, the Home Office hopes to reassure the public that their data is safe

By Leo King

The government has advertised for an independent commissioner to oversee its controversial £4.7 billion national identity cards scheme.

The post has been advertised in the Sunday Times, and states the requirements that the candidate has “extensive experience” of working in the public and private sector, with a strong leadership record and “breadth of vision”.

Since its inception, the identity cards scheme has been met with some vehement opposition, as people questioned the necessity of creating such a large database of people’s sensitive information.

Downing Street has always argued the scheme would help protect the country against terrorists as well as limiting illegal immigration.

By creating a watchdog post, the Home Office hopes to reassure the public that their data is safe and that their human rights are not being infringed.

The commissioner, who will take home a six-figure annual salary, will act to oversee how the Identity and Passport Service stores and uses data. The initial term is for three years and will begin this summer.

Jacqui Smith, home secretary said: “I understand that people want strong oversight of the National Identity Scheme, and I agree that the security or integrity of the scheme should never be taken for granted.”

Nevertheless the appointment comes some way into the scheme – the government has been planning it for several years, and began issuing the cards to foreign nationals last November, and during this year they will be issued to airport workers.

The ID cards will be issued on a voluntary basis to young people next year, and by 2011 the scheme will “enrol people at high volumes”.

Noam Chomsky Speaks About President Obama

0

The following is a Press TV interview with respected American author, political analyst and world-renowned linguist, Professor Noam Chomsky.

By Press TV

January 24, 2009 — -Press TV: Professor Chomsky, we better start with Pakistan. The White House not commenting on the killings of people [in cross-border drone attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan]. Richard Holbrooke, someone whom you’ve written about in the context of Yugoslavia, is the man [President Barack] Obama has chosen to solve the situation.

Chomsky: Well, it was pretty clear that Obama would accept the Bush doctrine that the United States can bomb Pakistan freely, and there have been many case which are quite serious.

There has been for example a great deal of chaos and fighting in Bajaur province, which is a adjacent to Afghanistan and tribal leaders- others there- have traced it to the bombing of a madrassa school which killed 80 to 95 people, which I don’t think was even reported in the United states, it was reported in the Pakistani press of course.

The author of the article reporting it, a well-known nuclear physicist, Pervez Hoodbhoy pointed out at the time that this kind of massacre will of course engender terror and reactions, which will even threaten the state of Pakistan. And that has been what is happening. We are now seeing more of it.

The first message of the Pakistani government to General [David] Petraeus, the American General when he took command of the region was that they did not want any more bombings in Pakistan.

Actually, the first message to the new Obama administration by President [Hamid] Karzai of Afghanistan was the same, that he wanted no more bombings. He also said that he wants a timetable for the withdrawal of the foreign troops, US and other troops, from Afghanistan. That was of course just ignored.

Press TV: And these three foreign envoys, well the third one has not been announced yet perhaps, but some people are expressing optimism about George Mitchell’s position as Middle East envoy.

Richard Holbrooke, which have looked at. We have talked to the former Bosnian foreign minister here, who seemed to imply that he may even have had a role in the say so for the Srebrenica massacre, and of course, Dennis Ross is being talked about as an envoy for Iran.

Chomsky: well Holbrooke has a pretty awful record, not so much Yugoslavia, but earlier. For example, In the Indonesian atrocities in eastern Timor, where he was the official in charge, and evaded to stop the US support for them, and all together it’s a very spotty record.

George Mitchell is, of the various appointments that have been made, he is the most decent let’s say. He has a pretty decent record. He achieved something in Northern Ireland, but of course, in that case there was an objective.

The objective was that the British would put an end to the resort to violence in response to IRA terror and would attend to the legitimate grievances that were the source of the terror. He did manage that, Britain did pay attention to the grievances, and the terror stopped- so that was successful.

But there is no such outcome sketched in the Middle East, specially the Israel-Palestine problem. I mean, there is a solution, a straightforward solution very similar to the British one. Israel could stop its US-backed crimes in the occupied territories and then presumably the reaction to them would stop. But that’s not on the agenda.

In fact, President Obama just had a press conference, which was quite interesting in that respect. He praised the parabolic peace initiative, the Saudi initiative endorsed by the Arab League, and said it had constructive elements. It called for the normalization of relation with Israel, and he called on the Arab states to proceed with those “constructive elements,” namely the normalization of relations.

But that is a gross falsification of the Arab League initiative. The Arab League initiative called for accepting a two-state settlement on the international border, which has been a long-standing international consensus and said if that can be achieved then Arab states can normalize relations with Israel.

Well, Obama skipped the first part, the crucial part, the core of the resolution, because that imposes an obligation on the United States. The United States has stood alone for over thirty years in blocking this international consensus, by now it has totally isolated the US and Israel.

Europe and now a lot of other countries have accepted it. Hamas has accepted it for years, the Palestinian Authority of course, the Arab League now for many years [have accepted it]. The US and Israel block it, not just in words, but they are blocking it in actions constantly, (this is) happening every day in the occupied territories and also in the siege of Gaza and other atrocities.

So when he skips that it is purposeful. That entails that the US is not going to join the world in seeking to implement a diplomatic settlement, and if that is the case, Mitchell’s mission is vacuous.

Press TV: Is there a contradiction in that George Mitchell of course did speak to members of the Sinn Féin, their military wing of course of the IRA.

At the same time, well on this channel [Press TV] we have been covering the Gaza conflict, its headquarters were bombed, and now we are being told that Israeli soldiers will not give their names, and the names of people are not being released for fear of prosecution.

And yet, some were saying that Obama did say that the border should be opened. Should we see any change in policy there?

Chomsky: He did say that, but he did not mention the fact that it was in the context of a lot other demands. And Israel will also say, sure the borders should be opened but he still refuses to speak to the elected government (i.e. Hamas), quite different from Mitchell in Northern Ireland.

It means Palestinians will have to be punished for voting in a free election, the way the US did not want them to, and he endorsed the Condoleezza Rice-Tzipi Livni agreement to close the Egyptian-Gaza order, which is quite an act of imperial arrogance.

It is not their border, and in fact, Egypt strongly objected to that. But Obama continued. He says we have to make sure that no arms are smuggled through the tunnels into the Gaza Strip. But he said nothing about the vast dispatch of far more lethal arms to Israel.

In fact, right in the middle of the Gaza attack, December 31, the Pentagon announced that it was commissioning a German ship to send 3,000 tons of war material to Israel. That did not work out, because the government of Greece prevented it but it was supposed to go through Greece but it could all go through somewhere else. This is right in the middle of the attack on Gaza.

Actually there were very little reporting, very few inquiries. The Pentagon responded in an interesting way. They said, well this material won’t be used for the attack on Gaza, in fact they knew that Israel had plans to stop the attack right before the inauguration, so that Obama would not have to say anything about it.

But the Pentagon said that this material is being used for pre-positioning for US forces. In other words, this has been going for a long time, but this is extending and reinforcing the role of Israel as a US military base on the edge of the major oil producing regions of the world. If they are ever asked why they are doing it, they will say for defense or stability, but it is just a base for further aggressive action.

Press TV: Robert Gates and Admiral [Mike] Mullen have been talking about the 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is just one of the options, a slight difference from what Obama has been saying in the campaign. And, Hillary Clinton famously said she was prepared to obliterate all of Iran and kill 70 million citizens. On Iraq and Iran what do you see as changes?

Chomsky: What happened in Iraq is extremely interesting and important. The few correspondents with real experience any whom know something have understood it. Patrick Cockburn, Jonathan Steele and one or two others.

What has happened is that there was a remarkable campaign of non-violent resistance in Iraq, which compelled the United States, step-by-step, to back away from its programs and its goals. They compelled the US occupying forces to allow an election, which the US did not want and tried to evade in all sorts of ways.

Then they went on from there to force the United States to accept at least formally a status of forces agreement, which if the Obama administration lives up to it, will abandon most of the US war aims. It will eliminate the huge permanent military bases that the US has built in Iraq. It will mean the US will not control decisions over how the oil resources will be accessed and used. And in fact just every war aim is gone.

Of course there is a question of whether the US will live up to it and what you are reporting is among the serious indications that they are trying to evade living up to it. But what happened there is really significant, and a real credit to the people of Iraq, who have suffered miserably. I mean, the country has been absolutely destroyed, but they did manage to get the US to back away formally from its major war aims.

In the case of Iran, Obama’s statements have not been as inflammatory as Clinton’s, but they amount to pretty much the same thing. He said all options are open. Well, what does all options mean? Presumably that includes nuclear war, you know, that is an option.

There is no indication that he is willing to take the steps, say, that the American population wants. An overwhelming majority of the American population for years has been in favor, has agreed with the Non-Aligned Movement, that Iran should have the rights granted to the signers of the non-proliferation treaty, in fact to develop nuclear energy.

It should not have the right to develop nuclear weapons, and more interestingly about the same percentages, about 75 to 80%, call for the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the region, which would include Iran, Israel, and any US forces deployment there, within all kinds of verifications and so on.

That could eliminate probably one of the major sources of the conflict. There is no indication that the Obama administration has any thought of doing anything about this.

Press TV: Just finally Professor Chomsky, the US economy, of course where you are -that is dominating the news and the lives all Americans and arguably the people around the world- and this 825 billion dollar package. How do you think the Obama people are going to handle this?

Chomsky: Nobody really knows. I mean, what is happening with the economy is not well understood. It is based on extremely opaque financial manipulations, which are quite hard to decode. I mean, the general process is understood, but whether the $800 billion, or probably larger government stimulus, will overcome this crisis, is not known.

The first $350 billion have already been spent- that is the so-called part bailout but that went into the pockets of banks. They were supposed to start lending freely, but they just decided not to do it. They would rather enrich themselves, restore their own capital, and take over other banks- mergers and acquisition and so on.

Whether the next stimulus will have an effect depends very much on how it is handled, whether it is monitored, so that it is used for constructive purposes. [It relies] also on factors that are just not known, like how deep this crisis is going to be.

It is a worldwide crisis and it is very serious. It is suddenly striking that the ways that Western countries are approaching the crisis is exactly the same as the model that they enforce on the Third World when there is a crisis.

So when Indonesia has a crisis, Argentina and everyone else, they are supposed to raise interest rates very high and privatize the economy, and cut down on public spending, measures like that. In the West, it is the exact opposite: lower interest rates to zero, move towards nationalization if necessary, pour money into the economy, have huge debts.

That is exactly the opposite of how the Third World is supposed to pay off its debts, and that this seems to pass without comment is remarkable. These measures for the West are ones that might get the economy moving again, while it has been a disaster for others.

ZHD/HGH/HAR

Banning Torture is Not Enough

0

By Jordan Paust | JURIST 

JURIST Contributing Editor Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says that President Barack Obama should follow up his executive order banning torture and inhumane interrogation by fulfilling treaty-based and customary international legal obligations to either initiate prosecution of or to extradite all persons – including high US officials – reasonably accused of having previously authorized, ordered, abetted, or perpetrated torture and other war crimes and/or crimes against humanity….

On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order on Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, mandating that all U.S. interrogations of persons comply, at a minimum, with the requirements under treaty-based and customary international law reflected in common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and, therefore, that all persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” The Order lists among its purposes the need “to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody and of United States personnel who are detained in armed conflicts, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”

Additionally, the Executive Order assures that all interrogations of any individual “in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict,” will be conducted in accordance with the 2006 U.S. Army Field Manual on intelligence collection. The Field Manual also requires that common Article 3 will provide a minimum standard for treatment of human beings. Importantly, the military manual – the product of what finally became a successful opposition by military lawyers to use of illegal interrogation tactics – lists specific tactics that must never be used, such as waterboarding, use of extreme cold (e.g., the cold-cell), use of dogs, and stripping persons naked and hooding, all tactics of torture, cruel and inhumane treatment that were authorized by President Bush for use during his admitted “program” of “tough” interrogation and secret detention or forced disappearance (which is itself a crime against humanity and war crime) and as part of the well-documented “common, unifying” plan to deny Geneva law protections and to use and attempt to justify serial and cascading criminality in the form of coercive interrogation. In fact, last summer it was disclosed that such tactics had been addressed and expressly and/or tacitly approved and facilitated during several meetings of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee in the White House during 2002 and 2003 that were attended by Dick Cheney, his lawyer David Addington, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, John Ashcroft, and others who facilitated their approval and use, including John Yoo. Several lawyers even made a trip to Guantanamo in September 2002 to discuss use of SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape] tactics and some saw how they were being used against detainees being held in secret detention.

In this regard, President Obama’s Order states: “Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order.” It would serve transparency and our democratic values to declassify all such directives, orders, and regulations with lawful interrogation tactics and assessments thereof blacked-out if need be, thus leaving for the public eye the unlawful tactics that had been authorized and abetted (since they are unlawful and should never be used again), most of which are known publicly anyway.

What President Obama has done is necessary to reassure the world that there is a new U.S. commitment to the rule of law, reaffirm that no one is above the law, and reclaim U.S. respect and integrity. Importantly, what the President has done is necessary under the United States Constitution. Our Constitution requires nothing less than that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and it has been known since the Founding that such laws include treaty-based and customary international law, such as common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, every relevant judicial opinion since the beginning of the United States has recognized that the President and all within the Executive branch are bound by the laws of war, a point famously reaffirmed by President Lincoln’s Attorney General in 1865 while addressing the need to prosecute war crimes and the lack of congressional power to limit the reach of the laws of war. International laws that President Obama must faithfully execute during an armed conflict include common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as well as all other treaty-based and customary laws of war, the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which also prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in all circumstances, including in times of relative peace), and related customary international laws. President Obama’s executive order to replace unlawful authorizations and orders during the Bush Administration with the requirement that such laws be faithfully executed by all U.S. nationals and certain other persons covered by the Order is the constitutionally proper and necessary response.

What should ultimately follow is presidential execution of treaty-based and customary international legal obligations to either initiate prosecution of or to extradite all persons who are reasonably accused of having authorized, ordered, abetted, or perpetrated war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. For example, Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Civilian Convention expressly and unavoidably requires that all Parties “search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, … grave breaches [of the Convention] and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts” for “effective penal sanctions” or, “if it prefers, … hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party.” The obligation is absolute and applies with respect to alleged perpetrators of any status. As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States must either initiate prosecution or extradite to another state or, today, render an accused to the International Criminal Court. “Grave breaches” of the Convention include “torture or inhuman treatment” and transfer of a non-prisoner of war from occupied territory. Similarly, Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention Against Torture expressly and unavoidably requires that a Party to the treaty “under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed … [for example, torture or “complicity or participation in torture”] is found, shall … if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.” There are no other alternatives.

As documented in a recent draft law review article on “The Absolute Prohibition of Torture and Necessary and Appropriate Sanctions,” [to be posted soon on SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1331159] ultimately President Obama can restore the rule of law, bring an end to seven years of impunity, and restore American honor, integrity, and respect only by adherence to the express and unavoidable constitutional duty of the President of the United States to faithfully execute the laws, including relevant international laws requiring prosecution or extradition of criminal accused. It is not a decision for committees, politics, and compromises, but of law. It is not a decision that may be comfortable, but it is one that President Obama must make at this defining moment in our history that follows well-known serial and cascading criminality never before authorized by a President and Vice President. It is a decision that must be made by President Obama as he begins to define his legacy.

Jordan J. Paust is the Mike & Teresa Baker Law Center Professor at the University of Houston, a former U.S. Army JAG officer and member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General’s School. His book, Beyond the Law: The Bush Administration’s Unlawful Responses in the “War” on Terror, was published by Cambridge University Press.

Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza

0

After weeks of denying that it used white phosphorus in the heavily populated Gaza Strip, Israel finally admitted yesterday that the weapon was deployed in its offensive.

The army’s use of white phosphorus — which makes a distinctive shellburst of dozens of smoke trails — was reported first by The Times on January 5, when it was strenuously denied by the army. Now, in the face of mounting evidence and international outcry, Israel has been forced to backtrack on that initial denial. “Yes, phosphorus was used but not in any illegal manner,” Yigal Palmor, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, told The Times. “Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.”

The incident in question is thought to be the firing of phosphorus shells at a UN school in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip on January 17. The weapon is legal if used as a smokescreen in battle but it is banned from deployment in civilian areas. Pictures of the attack show Palestinian medics fleeing as blobs of burning phosphorus rain down on the compound.

A senior army official also admitted that shells containing phosphorus had been used in Gaza but said that they were used to provide a smokescreen.

The Ministry of Defence gave lawyers the task before the attack of investigating the legal consequences of deploying white phosphorus — commonly stocked in Nato arsenals and used by US and British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan — inside the Gaza Strip, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, and one of the most densely populated places in the world.

“From what I know, at least one month before it was used a legal team had been consulted on the implications,” an Israeli defence official said. He added that Israel was surprised about the public outcry. “Everyone knew we were using it, and everyone else uses it. We didn’t think it would get this much attention,” he said.

Because Israel is not a signatory to the treaty that created the International Court of Justice in The Hague, it cannot be tried there. Any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, however, can try to prosecute individuals who took part in the Gaza operation as culpable of war crimes.

Despite a denial when The Times first reported the use of white phosphorus, an army spokeswoman said yesterday that the military had never tried to cover up its deployment. “There was never any denial from the beginning,” she said.

– President Sarkozy of France ordered the deployment of a frigate to international waters off Gaza to patrol against arms smuggling into the territory. Preventative measures against arms trafficking are one of Israel’s demands for a peace deal with Hamas. The warship will conduct surveillance with Egypt and Israel, the French presidency said.

CHANGING TUNE

January 5 The Times reports that telltale smoke has appeared from areas of shelling. Israel denies using phosphorus

January 8 The Times reports photographic evidence showing stockpiles of white phosphorus (WP) shells. Israel Defence Forces spokesman says: “This is what we call a quiet shell — it has no explosives and no white phosphorus”

January 12 The Times reports that more than 50 phosphorus burns victims are taken into Nasser Hospital. An Israeli military spokesman “categorically” denies the use of white phosphorus

January 15 Remnants of white phosphorus shells are found in western Gaza. The IDF refuses to comment on specific weaponry but insists ammunition is “within the scope of international law”

January 16 The United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters are hit with phosphorus munitions. The Israeli military continues to deny its use

January 21 Avital Leibovich, Israel’s military spokeswoman, admits white phosphorus munitions were employed in a manner “according to international law”

January 23 Israel says it is launching an investigation into white phosphorus munitions, which hit a UN school on January 17. “Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF is holding an investigation concerning one specific unit and one incident” Source: Times database

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.

The war profiteers

SOLOMON HUGHES on the MP making money from the ‘war on terror.’

DAVID Miliband said that the war on terror was an error, but some people don’t regret it.

Private security companies like Group 4 made a mint. Now, it wants to spread its good fortune – this month, Group 4 Security gave a £50,000 position to former Labour minister John Reid as an “adviser.”

Reid fits in this part-time job when he isn’t too busy representing the good people of Airdrie and Shotts as their Member of Parliament.

Group 4 has plenty of reasons to want access to the contact book of a former home and defence secretary – the firm now supplies the armed guards looking after British officials in Iraq and Afghanistan while locking up prisoners, asylum-seekers and “terror suspects” in Britain, so Reid is worth every one of the five million pennies that they are giving the man.

Reid was once a Communist Party member, but abandoned Marxism in favour of new Labour. This is odd, because his career seems to illustrate the crudest and most determinist kind of Marxism.

For years, Marxists have been grappling with the subtle and sophisticated ways in which the capitalist class dominates society, but Group 4 opted for a very unsubtle approach – the capitalists just hired Labour’s representative.

Reid hasn’t always hawked his brawn for the money men. Back in 1992, Reid signed a House of Commons motion calling on Sir Norman Fowler to resign from the board of Group 4. The motion said that the House “regrets that the right honourable Member for Sutton Coldfield (Norman Fowler), chairman of the Conservative Party, has not seen fit to resign his directorship of another Group 4 company, Group 4 Securitas, and urges him to do so.”

It added: “The government should suspend all further moves to privatisation within the criminal justice system.”

Reid’s call for Fowler to resign from Group 4 and for the government to shun the firm came after the company let a number of prisoners escape from their vans on the way to court.

Whizz forward a decade and a half and Reid, having demanded that Fowler abandon Group 4, has himself taken a job with the firm. In the meantime, Conservative and Labour governments have not stopped their “privatisation of the criminal justice system,” they have expanded it.

Group 4 has men with truncheons in Britain and men carrying guns in Iraq.

Nor has the firm become any less accident-prone. Group 4 Security prefers to be called G4S because, in ad people’s language, the brand is tarnished.

Group 4 was even described as a “national laughing stock” by the government’s own lawyers in court in 2003 after a riot at an immigration detention centre that it ran which was later burned to the ground. Things haven’t improved since.

Reid himself sent the firm to new frontiers, where the firm ran new fiascos. When Reid was home secretary, the Law Lords told him that just labelling foreigners “terror suspects” didn’t mean that he could lock them up without trial.

Reid turned to Group 4 for help. It cobbled together something called “control orders,” a house arrest for these “terror suspects” administered by Group 4 and other private firms.

Control orders were simultaneously too draconian and too lax – prisoners, including vulnerable men who had been tortured in their home countries, were tagged and monitored by Group 4.

Those who stuck by the rules were pushed to the edge of mental illness by the isolation of the strict house arrest. At the same time, Group 4 allowed another prisoner to simply disappear. This may have been embarrassing for the firm and for Reid, but they manfully hid their red faces and entered into a new relationship when Reid left government.

Group 4 has risen thanks to the crudest economic determinism – Reid, who authorised the signing of cheques for Group 4 as a minister, ends up getting cheques from the firm.

Reid is not alone. A small squad of politicians worked to get Group 4 where it is today.

First, Tory chairman Fowler helped the firm get into the prisons business in the 1990s. Group 4 tightened its grip on British jails last year when it took over rival private prisons firm GSL.

It bought GSL from an investment company called Englefield Capital, which employs another Labour ex-minister, former defence secretary George Robertson, as an adviser.

Group 4 then broke into the international mercenary trade by buying a company called Armor Group, whose armed men guard British officials in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up until this, Armor Group’s chairman had been another top politician – leading Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind.

Twenty years ago, the idea that a private company would run our jails and wars would have looked like science fiction. By hiring politicians, the “security industry” made it a reality.

You can read about this in my book War On Terror, Inc, available from all good booksellers.

Rubbing the wrong bits

WE ALL like a bit of stimulation now and then, but is Gordon Brown rubbing the wrong parts?

The banking crisis shows that a decade of Labour’s economic policy was wrong. Building an economy on financial services was a mistake. The government should have used the boom to broaden our economic base.

Now, as banks threaten to drag the system down, Brown is chucking more and more of our cash in their hole. But the banks are refusing to lend. So, let the government use the banks that it owns as public utilities, lending where credit is needed, and let the others go to the wall.

Don’t throw massive sums into the banks, use the money instead for direct investment in public works.

Two facts highlight Brown’s timidity in clinging to crumbling free-market values.

In the 1970s, Labour premier Harold Wilson set up a bank from scratch, the Girobank, which made banking available to ordinary people for the first time. Brown actually owns two banks, but won’t even give them as much social direction as the old Girobank.

While Brown is reluctantly nationalising banks, Peter Mandelson is trying to privatise the Post Office, which was used to launch Wilson’s Girobank in the first place.

Airplot: Help Greenpeace swing the vote on Heathrow‏

0

On Wednesday there will be a vote in parliament on a third runway at Heathrow. Ahead of this vote we urgently need your help to put pressure on Labour MPs to vote with their conscience and say NO to a third runway. We already have the support of the LibDems and Tory MPs.

Send a letter to the 57 Labour MPs who have opposed Heathrow expansion.

The government is treating us as if we’re stupid. They’re asking all of us to reduce our energy consumption while they build another runway at Heathrow. I think it’s the most egregious piece of hypocrisy I’ve seen in a long time.

But 57 Labour MPs signed an Early Day Motion against airport expansion last autumn and now we need those same MPs to vote against a third runway in parliament on Wednesday.

This won’t be a binding vote, but cross party opposition to the runway will put enormous pressure on the government. It will certainly be a big blow to the government’s insane plans to expand Heathrow.

Please take a couple of minutes today to send a letter that will go to all 57 MPs who have opposed Heathrow expansion and ask them to stick to their principles at the vote next Wednesday.

I joined the campaign because I want to stand in the way of airport expansion. There are now more than 30,000 of us and more are joining everyday. This is the first opportunity to show the government we’re not going to let this runway go ahead. But we also need to get a lot more people involved. Once you have emailed the MPs, please pass this email to your friends, family and colleagues and ask them to do the same.

Thank you for joining with me to stop airport expansion, together we will make sure this runway doesn’t go ahead.

Emma Thompson
Friday 23rd January 2009

BBC claims itself ‘unbiased’ for refusing Gaza Aid Appeal for Save the Children

2
International opinion of the British Broadcasting Corporation is set to plummet over their refusal to air a short appeal for the British umbrella aid group, the Disasters Emergency Commission ( DEC ).

The indefensible claim led to a knock on effect of other media outlets also refusing to air Gaza appeals, notably Sky News and ITN.

The Disasters Emergency Commission is an umbrella organisation, created in 1963 to help administer and co-ordinate multiple charities funds and aid, so that they could be better targeted to those who are most in need.

The BBC claim that they don’t wish to risk public opinion regarding their impartiality. A spokesperson said today: “The decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC’s impartiality in the context of (a) news story.”

The BBC reneged on a 46 year old agreement dating back to 1963 in which they agreed to be part of the DEC’s ‘Rapid Response Network’, giving airtime to help them fundraise for emergency appeals.

The DEC consists of 13 member Aid agencies which include Save the Children, Help The Aged, Christian Aid, British Red Cross and Oxfam. It is believed that they are probably “not impressed at the inhumanity” of the BBC’s decision.

The BBC have been roundly criticised for many years for their bias and lack of criticism of their controllers, the British Government, who removed the top brass of the BBC under Thatcher’s conservative government during the 1980’s, accusing it of ‘liberal bias’, better known as ‘not following government propaganda’.
http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/as…bcthatcher.php

Recently it was noted that callers to BBC Radio and also posters on the BBC website’s ‘Have Your Say’ were not allowed their say as most pro-Palestinian posts and calls were screened or moderated out.
http://www.thelondondailynews.com/bl…za-p-2099.html

Meanwhile, a comparison of today’s news shows how unbiased they still are:

BBC: “Israel defends use of phosphorus”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid…st/7846970.stm

The Times report: “Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new…cle5575070.ece

The BBC have agreed to continue to use license payers fees to increase CEO’s wages, pay large sums of money for talentless presenters with speech impediments, while making sure that their drama output, like the recent “Little Dorrit” and the recent remake of “Survivors” continue to be under-funded, badly produced and contain no real acting ability or reason for existence.

*

Meanwhile, the Disasters Emergency Commission really does need your help to get aid to the suffering civilians of the Gaza strip, so I would beg you to go to their website and donate whatever you can to help your fellow human beings.

http://www.dec.org.uk/index.html

*

It’s time that there was serious civil disobedience to refuse to pay BBC license fees just to be fed government propaganda and lies.

©Initiatrix 2009

Stop Guantanamo terror trials, says Obama

1

Newly-installed President Barack Obama wasted no time in getting down to business today after his administration requested a halt to controversial military trials at Guantanamo Bay.

Hours after his historic inauguration as the first black president of the United States, Mr Obama appeared to quickly honour his vow to act over the terror-suspect holding camp in Cuba.

He has previously said he will close Guantanamo, home to widely criticised war-crimes trials created by former President George Bush and Congress in 2006.

The suspension request came from the US Department of Defence, which said it was seeking a 120-day halt to the war crimes trials at the camp pending a review by Mr Obama.

It was announced as the new president danced the night away with his wife at a series of inaugural balls, and as his new team put the brakes on all pending regulations that the Bush regime tried to push through in its last days. That order went out shortly after Mr Obama’s inauguration yesterday, in a memorandum signed by new White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Aides had previously suggested that the new Commander-in-Chief would immediately launch into the job, with a raft of policy announcements expected by the end of the week.

The 47-year-old former senator was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States in front of vast crowds of people in Washington yesterday, with millions more glued to TV coverage around the world.

During his inaugural speech in Washington, Mr Obama alluded to the task before him.

In an address which impressed rather than wowed, given its speaker’s known oratory skills, the president vowed to address the challenges that faced America, a county in “the midst of crisis”, he said.

Laying out the problems, Mr Obama said the country had a “badly weakened” economy and was at war against “a far-reaching network of violence and hatred”.

He said: “The challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.

“But know this, America — they will be met.”

Mr Obama invoked the spirit of America’s pioneers during the 20-minute address.

It was, he said, “the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things” who had carried the country “up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom”.

“Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life.

He spoke in front of a Washington audience, estimated to be more than a million people. Many, many more were listening around the world to the new president’s words.

Mr Obama appeared to acknowledge that work needed to be done to improve America’s tarnished image overseas.

As such he pledged to seek “a new way forward” with the Muslim world based on “mutual interest and mutual respect”.

He said he would “begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan”.

How he intends to achieve this is likely to be high up his agenda as he comes to grips with the job ahead of him.

Today he is due to meet high-ranking military officials to discuss the Iraq war, a senior aide said.

Mr Obama is also expected to assemble a team to look at ways of moving forward the stalled Middle East peace process. He recently told USA Today that he would address the issue on “Day One” of his presidency.

An announcement on the actual closure of Guantanamo Bay and a reversal of George Bush’s overseas abortion policy have also been put forward as early contenders for policy actions.

The US military currently has charges pending against 21 men at Guantanamo and officials have said they intended to charge dozens more.

Pre-trial hearings in two cases — the trial of five men charged in the 9/11 attacks and Omar Khadr, a Canadian accused of killing a US soldier in Afghanistan — were due to take place this week.

But before setting to work on the nuts and bolts of running a country, Mr Obama will first attend a national prayer service in Washington.

The Rev Dr Sharon Watkins will deliver the sermon at the multi-faith event – the first woman to do so at the traditional inauguration event.

WalesOnline

Holder OK with FBI Searches of Bookstore, Library Records

0

At confirmation hearing attorney general nominee voices support for Patriot Act provision authorizing secret FBI searches of reading records.

President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general has endorsed an extension of the law that allows federal agents to demand Americans’ library and bookstore records as part of terrorism probes, dismaying a national group of independent booksellers.

 

Eric Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he supports renewing a section of the USA Patriot Act that allows FBI agents investigating international terrorism or espionage to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores. If not renewed by Congress, the provision will expire at the end of 2009.

The searches must be authorized by a court that meets secretly and has approved the government’s requests in nearly all cases, according to congressional reports. The target of the search does not have to be suspected of terrorism or any other crime. A permanent gag order that accompanies each search prohibits the business or library from telling anyone about it.

Holder said he realizes the provision has been controversial and he will seek more information from department staff before making a final decision, if confirmed as attorney general. He didn’t elaborate on his support for the law, but said at another point in the hearing that his top priority would be to protect Americans from terrorism, using “every available tactic … within the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”

“I was disappointed” that Holder supports the bookstore and library searches, “although maybe not entirely surprised,” Chris Finan, spokesman for the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said Friday.

The provision Holder wants Congress to renew, known as Section 215, “gives the government far too much power to conduct fishing expeditions in the records of bookstore customers and library patrons,” Finan said. “We never expected that the change of administration would mean we had any less of a fight on our hands.”

Finan said the Justice Department has told Congress that it conducted only 42 searches nationwide from 2004 through 2007, the last year covered by congressional reports. The law does not require the department to describe the targets of the searches, and Finan said no breakdowns on bookstore or library searches are available because of the gag orders.

Organizations of librarians and booksellers have denounced the law as an assault on reader privacy. Some libraries have posted signs warning patrons that their records are subject to government inspection, and many librarians now destroy files on borrowers who have returned their books.

Opponents of the Patriot Act provision have lobbied Congress to require that agents seeking such records obtain grand jury subpoenas, based on evidence of wrongdoing, and defend them before a judge if the record-keeper objected. So far, their efforts have failed.

Finan said the American Booksellers Association, which represents 2,000 independent bookstores, and allied groups of librarians, publishers and writers will instead try to soften the law along the lines of legislation that Obama supported in the Senate last year.

Carried by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the bill would have allowed agents to obtain records of customers and library patrons only if they were actually suspected of terrorism, and would have authorized court challenges by keepers of the records.

Israeli military says complete withdrawal from Gaza “out of the question”

0

By Julie Hyland 

Israel continued to withdraw some of its troops from the Gaza Strip Tuesday, in moves timed to coincide with the inauguration of US President-elect Barack Obama.

Announcing an end to Operation Cast Lead early Sunday morning, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had said his government intended to remove its forces “at the greatest possible speed.” The Israeli army has confirmed, however, that a “complete withdrawal is out of the question” at this time.

A senior defence official stated Tuesday, “We are reducing the number of troops in the Gaza Strip, but the troops outside that territory remain on the alert so they can react rapidly if necessary.” Later unconfirmed reports said the Israeli navy had fired into Gaza in what was described as a “deterrent measure” and that a Palestinian was shot and wounded by Israeli gunfire near the Kissufim border crossing. No further details were available at the time of this writing.

An estimated 1,300 Palestinians were killed in Israel’s 22-day offensive and more than 5,000 injured.

The number of Palestinians dead and wounded is expected to rise as efforts begin to clear the rubble. As United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon began a tour of Gaza, journalists finally allowed access to parts of the territory reported massive damage.

“Entire neighbourhoods have disappeared,” the BBC reported. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics said at least 4,100 homes have been totally destroyed and 17,000 others damaged. About 1,500 factories and workshops, 20 mosques, 31 security installations and 10 water or sewage pipes were also damaged, it added.

An estimated 50,800 people are homeless and 100,000 people have been displaced. Some 400,000 people are without running water and electricity is available for less than 12 hours a day.

The UN said that 50 of its facilities had been damaged and 21 medical facilities. Speaking in front of the ruins of the UN food warehouse destroyed by Israel’s bombardment, Ban described the attack as “outrageous” and reiterated his call for a full investigation into the assault and “to make those people responsible accountable.”

Statements supplied by Gaza residents to the human rights group B’Tselem told how the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) mowed down civilians attempting to surrender. According to one account, four members of the A-Najar family from the village of Khuza’a, east of Khan Yunis, were killed when they obeyed instructions from the IDF to evacuate their home. As they left in groups of two, waving white flags, soldiers opened fire, killing the family members.

There is further evidence of Israel’s use of white phosphorus, illegal in heavily populated areas. The Guardian ran film footage shot by the International Solidarity Movement in Khoza’a, in the south of the Gaza Strip, showing clumps of the chemical burning on the ground.

Christopher Cobb-Smith, a weapons expert for Amnesty International, said they have found “streets and alleyways littered with evidence, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army.” Hospital doctors reported treating many casualties with terrible burns consistent with phosphorus.

John Ging, director of the UN relief agency UNRWA, said it was now vital to get basic supplies, such as food, medicine and fuel, into the territory. “We have a big recovery operation ahead of us, reconstruction–none of it will be possible of course, on any scale, until we get crossing points open.”

Israel has allowed just 143 aid trucks into Gaza and has ruled out lifting its blockade for the foreseeable future. UN agencies have been told that they must “prove that material could not be used for arms, according to diplomats, that money would go directly to local contractors, and that Hamas would not be able to take credit for anything,” the Times of London reported.

EU and UN urge support for Abbas

Writing in the Guardian, Alastair Crooke, former security adviser to the European Union, complained of a “messy, ambiguous ‘end'” to hostilities.

The unilateral character of the ceasefire means Israel is beholden to little. Tel Aviv remains opposed to any discussions on the future of Gaza and the Palestinian people that involve Hamas. It is even regarded as having sidelined Egypt, the Arab state which had done the most to facilitate Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Egyptian Foreign Ministry official Hossam Zaki told the Jerusalem Post of his country’s disappointment that its mediation efforts were effectively bypassed by Israel. “We expected the Israeli side to behave in a different way,” he said. Israel’s declaration of a ceasefire was not taken “in consultation with Egypt, meaning that it did not choose to abide by the terms that we were able to negotiate with the Palestinians,” he complained.

The sole agreement concluded by Israel was with Washington–the memorandum of understanding agreed jointly on Friday, committing the US to provide greater information-sharing, technical assistance and the use of other “assets” to prevent arms entering Gaza.

While Israel is claiming victory, there is concern over the broader ramifications of its actions for the whole region. Throughout the three weeks of conflict, the Arab League was unable to agree on a unified stance on the offensive in Gaza, further discrediting it amongst the Arab masses.

It was, in part, an effort to shore up the credentials of more overtly pro-Western regimes which they fear have been dangerously undermined by the Israeli action that saw the heads of Europe’s major powers gather in Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday.

The leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and Turkey attended the summit, hosted by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where they called for the opening of border crossings, pledged humanitarian assistance to rebuild Gaza and promised to aid in policing its borders.

In addition to boosting Mubarak in the face of popular hostility for his refusal to open Egypt’s borders with Gaza to fleeing refugees, the Financial Times said the summit “also provided an opportunity to try to shore up the credibility of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (PA),” who addressed the gathering.

To this end, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Union’s external relations commissioner, emphasised that any aid was conditional on Gaza being ruled by leaders acceptable to the EU. While she did not explicitly rule out Hamas, she suggested strongly that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority must retake control of the territory.

Similarly, at an economic summit of the Arab League in Kuwait on Tuesday, Ban urged the 17 heads of state to rally “under the leadership of President Abbas.”

Concerns over “internationalising” the ceasefire

Israel has also ruled out any aid to Gaza while Hamas remains in power, and is said to be considering passing responsibility for reconstruction to the World Bank, UNRWA or the PA. “We are trying to figure out ways to reconstruct Gaza without Hamas,” an Israeli official said.

But behind apparent agreement vis-a-vis Hamas is the potential for future conflict going far beyond Israel/Palestine.

Egypt and Jordan were the only Arab countries in attendance at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference on Sunday. And a closed-door session at the Arab Economic Summit on Tuesday failed to reach a common agreement on the ceasefire or even the setting up of an expected Gaza reconstruction fund. Kuwait’s official news agency KUNA blamed “the uncompromising stances taken by some countries,” while others spoke of the League fracturing between a “Doha-Syria axis” and an alliance led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Israel and the US were also absent from the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting. Subsequently Israel dismissed French proposals made at the gathering for an international conference “to create a Palestinian state.”

“France and Egypt have been pushing the idea of an international conference for years, but it is not going anywhere,” a senior Israeli diplomatic official, speaking anonymously, said.

Adding to concerns were the comments made by Charles Heyman, editor of Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. The Associated Press reported that Heyman had “been told by people with knowledge of the discussions that officials in Brussels are talking behind the scenes about the possibility of deploying an EU naval force to keep arms shipments out of Gaza.”

While technically possible, “it is a very difficult task,” Heyman said. “This is one of those desperate jobs where both sides will probably hate them for it.” The main danger for any EU force, he continued, “would be a breakdown in communications with the Israeli Navy.”

“They will have to work out between them very effective rules of engagement and lines of command or it could go drastically wrong,” he added.

Time to Get to Work

0

By Robert Scheer 

So, let’s now heed the words of our new president and set aside childish things. Presumably that includes the $450 worth of designer Obama T-shirts that I got in return for a campaign contribution made two days before the election in a sudden panic that he yet might lose. That battle has been won, and the sight of the disgraced Dick Cheney being wheeled off the stage of history as Obama recommitted America to the vision of the Founders, who, “faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man,” was nothing short of thrilling.

Tuesday was welcome theater, as profound as it gets, particularly in the unity of race demonstrated so visibly to ourselves as well as the rest of the world. In that sense the presidency of Barack Obama will always be marked as an enormous winner, even when things, as he predicted, at times go wrong. But today, as Obama has declared, begins a new era of responsibility and accountability, and it is time for this columnist to get back to work.

My concern is with the nation’s two most serious flashpoints–the economic bailout and the war in Afghanistan–and on both the early actions of the Obama team have been far from reassuring. Instead of signaling a sharp break from the failures of the Bush administration in these two areas, the early indication from Obama is more of the same.

“Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some,” he said. But why then has he backed a bailout program that rewards the greediest of bankers while ignoring struggling homeowners?

“Accountability for the Troubled Asset Relief Program” is the title of the second report of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), which Congress created to monitor the disbursement of $700 billion in bailout funds. That report concludes: “The panel still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money.”

This is because of what the panel of experts called “significant gaps in Treasury’s monitoring of taxpayer money e.g. asking financial institutions to account for what they have done with taxpayer funds.” As the panel noted: “For Treasury to take no steps to use any of this money to alleviate the foreclosure crisis raises questions about whether Treasury has complied with Congress’s intent that Treasury develop a ‘plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners.’ ” Yet Obama successfully lobbied for a quick payout of the second installment.

Obamaniacs should take to their crackberries to demand that something be done for homeowners before the last dollar of TARP evaporates. As Obama said in his inauguration speech, “a nation cannot prosper long when it only favors the prosperous,” but that is what the bailout, which Treasury secretary nominee Timothy Geithner helped craft, has been all about.

On the foreign policy front, similar vigilance is called for, particularly regarding the determination of the new administration to sink deeper into what surely is a quagmire in Afghanistan. Obama already has committed to a major increase in U.S. troops on the battle front, where our main role has been to prop up the enormously corrupt and ineffectual government in Kabul. The only justification for entering even more aggressively into the civil war in that country is the simplistic identification of the Taliban with the remnants of Osama bin Laden’s gang. The drawing of that link was never accurate: The Taliban is an outgrowth of an indigenous movement, originally stocked with CIA arms and cash, and even when bin Laden had the support of the Afghan group he was getting most of his money from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which along with Pakistan made up the nations that granted the Taliban diplomatic recognition. Why make the Taliban our permanent enemy while coddling the state players who sponsored it?

In language that echoed the hysteria of the Bush-era neoconservatives, Obama stated on Tuesday, “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” Nope, as Obama has acknowledged on other occasions, it’s far more complex than that. Yesterday’s enemy can be tomorrow’s ally, as demonstrated by the fact that our economic solvency is now in the hands of the Chinese Communist government that was once our most feared enemy.

The good news is that we have a big-brain president. The question is: Will he use it? I will not deny that I shed some tears watching the inauguration. It was mostly wonderful, incredibly so, but now in the morning after, and as Obama requested, it’s responsibility that we should be looking for.

Take the banks from the bosses

1

No more public money without public control

As economic recession tears into Britain, millions of us spend our nights fearing for the future. More than half of all workers are worried that they might be on the dole by the end of the year.

Despite this, Gordon Brown has made it clear that working people are not his priority.

The government will not be offering us any chances to have our debts cleared. Instead it is the bankers who are again to benefit from Brown’s charity.

This week the government offered guarantees of up to £200 billion to lenders who think their debts will not be repaid.

Brown hopes this will encourage the banks to lend more money to people and businesses.

But there are no guarantees that his plan will work. Even as the government announced its plans the largely state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland lost 70 percent of its value.

Brown’s latest handout follows last year’s £287 billion cash injection — the “radical” action that was supposed to put an end to the banking crisis. Yet even after receiving such sums, the banks continued to refuse to lend on the scale the government had hoped for.

Bank bosses insist that they must be allowed to run “their” businesses without interference, even as they suck up more public money.

Yet this will lead to a deepening of the crisis. Instead, Brown should replace the directors of all the banks that have taken public money with representatives who are accountable to the public.

At the very least the government could insist on an end to the threat of home repossession and debt collectors. Doing so would mean we get ­something in return for billions of pounds of our money.

Source http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16938

VIDEO: Bailout Bait & Switch

0

If there was ever proof that the federal government and the banking industry are working to protect the interest of each other, here it is. First the 2005 pro-banking bankruptcy “overhaul”, not this. Granted, there was some well-meaning intent behind this bailout of the banking system, there was also obviously some scheming behind the scenes which allowed for some fine-printing & insertion of “loopholes.”
 

Noam Chomsky On Gaza

0

Chomsky: Undermining Gaza

By Sameer Dossani “Foreign Policy In Focus — January 16, 2009

Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco

DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S. officials claim that the current assault on Gaza is to put an end to the flow of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. But many observers claim that if that were really the case, Israel would have made much more of an effort to renew the ceasefire agreement that expired in December, which had all but stopped the rocket fire. In your opinion, what are the real motivations behind the current Israeli action?

CHOMSKY: There’s a theme that goes way back to the origins of Zionism. And it’s a very rational theme: “Let’s delay negotiations and diplomacy as long as possible, and meanwhile we’ll ‘build facts on the ground.'” So Israel will create the basis for what some eventual agreement will ratify, but the more they create, the more they construct, the better the agreement will be for their purposes. Those purposes are essentially to take over everything of value in the former Palestine and to undermine what’s left of the indigenous population.

I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United States is that it resonates very well with American history. How did the United States get established? The themes are similar.

There are many examples of this theme being played out throughout Israel’s history, and the current situation is another case. They have a very clear program. Rational hawks like Ariel Sharon realized that it’s crazy to keep 8,000 settlers using one-third of the land and much of the scarce supplies in Gaza, protected by a large part of the Israeli army while the rest of the society around them is just rotting. So it’s best to take them out and send them to the West Bank. That’s the place that they really care about and want.

What was called a “disengagement” in September 2005 was actually a transfer. They were perfectly frank and open about it. In fact, they extended settlement building programs in the West Bank at the very same time that they were withdrawing a few thousand people from Gaza. So Gaza should be turned into a cage, a prison basically, with Israel attacking it at will, and meanwhile in the West Bank we’ll take what we want. There was nothing secret about it.

Ehud Olmert was in the United States in May 2006 a couple of months after the withdrawal. He simply announced to a joint session of Congress and to rousing applause, that the historic right of Jews to the entire land of Israel is beyond question. He announced what he called his convergence program, which is just a version of the traditional program; it goes back to the Allon plan of 1967. Israel would essentially annex valuable land and resources near the green line (the 1967 border). That land is now behind the wall that Israel built in the West Bank, which is an annexation wall. That means the arable land, the main water resources, the pleasant suburbs around Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and the hills and so on. They’ll take over the Jordan valley, which is about a third of the West Bank, where they’ve been settling since the late 60s. Then they’ll drive a couple of super highways through the whole territory – there’s one to the east of Jerusalem to the town of Ma’aleh Adumim which was built mostly in the 1990s, during the Oslo years. It was built essentially to bisect the West Bank and are two others up north that includes Ariel and Kedumim and other towns which pretty much bisect what’s left. They’ll set up check points and all sorts of means of harassment in the other areas and the population that’s left will be essentially cantonized and unable to live a decent life and if they want to leave, great. Or else they will be picturesque figures for tourists – you know somebody leading a goat up a hill in the distance – and meanwhile Israelis, including settlers, will drive around on “Israeli only” super highways. Palestinians can make do with some little road somewhere where you’re falling into a ditch if it’s raining. That’s the goal. And it’s explicit. You can’t accuse them of deception because it’s explicit. And it’s cheered here.

DOSSANI: In terms of U.S. support, last week the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a cease fire. Is this a change, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. did not veto the resolution, but rather abstained, allowing it to be passed?

CHOMSKY: Right after the 1967 war, the Security Council had strong resolutions condemning Israel’s move to expand and take over Jerusalem. Israel just ignored them. Because the U.S. pats them on the head and says “go ahead and violate them.” There’s a whole series of resolutions from then up until today, condemning the settlements, which as Israel knew and as everyone agreed were in violation of the Geneva conventions. The United States either vetoes the resolutions or sometimes votes for them, but with a wink saying, “go ahead anyway, and we’ll pay for it and give you the military support for it.” It’s a consistent pattern. During the Oslo years, for example, settlement construction increased steadily, in violation of what the Oslo agreement was theoretically supposed to lead to. In fact the peak year of settlement was Clinton’s last year, 2000. And it continued again afterward. It’s open and explicit.

To get back to the question of motivation, they have sufficient military control over the West Bank to terrorize the population into passivity. Now that control is enhanced by the collaborationist forces that the U.S., Jordan, and Egypt have trained in order to subdue the population. In fact if you take a look at the press the last couple of weeks, if there’s a demonstration in the West Bank in support of Gaza, the Fatah security forces crush it. That’s what they’re there for. Fatah by now is more or less functioning as Israel’s police force in the West Bank. But the West Bank is only part of the occupied Palestinian territories. The other part is Gaza, and no one doubts that they form a unit. And there still is resistance in Gaza, those rockets. So yes, they want to stamp that out too, then there will be no resistance at all and they can continue to do what they want to do without interference, meanwhile delaying diplomacy as much as possible and “building the facts” the way they want to. Again this goes back to the origins of Zionism. It varies of course depending on circumstances, but the fundamental policy is the same and perfectly understandable. If you want to take over a country where the population doesn’t want you, I mean, how else can you do it? How was this country conquered?

DOSSANI: What you describe is a tragedy.

CHOMSKY: It’s a tragedy which is made right here. The press won’t talk about it and even scholarship, for the most part, won’t talk about it but the fact of the matter is that there has been a political settlement on the table, on the agenda for 30 years. Namely a two-state settlement on the international borders with maybe some mutual modification of the border. That’s been there officially since 1976 when there was a Security Council resolution proposed by the major Arab states and supported by the (Palestinan Liberation Organization) PLO, pretty much in those terms. The United States vetoed it so it’s therefore out of history and it’s continued almost without change since then.

There was in fact one significant modification. In the last month of Clinton’s term, January 2001 there were negotiations, which the U.S. authorized, but didn’t participate in, between Israel and the Palestinians and they came very close to agreement.

DOSSANI: The Taba negotiations?

Yes, the Taba negotiations. The two sides came very close to agreement. They were called off by Israel. But that was the one week in over 30 years when the United States and Israel abandoned their rejectionist position. It’s a real tribute to the media and other commentators that they can keep this quiet. The U.S. and Israel are alone in this. The international consensus includes virtually everyone. It includes the Arab League which has gone beyond that position and called for the normalization of relations, it includes Hamas. Every time you see Hamas in the newspapers, it says “Iranian-backed Hamas which wants to destroy Israel.” Try to find a phrase that says “democratically elected Hamas which is calling for a two-state settlement” and has been for years. Well, yeah, that’s a good propaganda system. Even in the U.S. press they’ve occasionally allowed op-eds by Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniya and others saying, yes we want a two-state settlement on the international border like everyone else.

DOSSANI: When did Hamas adopt that position?

CHOMSKY That’s their official position taken by Haniya, the elected leader, and Khalid Mesh’al, their political leader who’s in exile in Syria, he’s written the same thing. And it’s over and over again. There’s no question about it but the West doesn’t want to hear it. So therefore it’s Hamas which is committed to the destruction of Israel.

In a sense they are, but if you went to a Native American reservation in the United States, I’m sure many would like to see the destruction of the United States. If you went to Mexico and took a poll, I’m sure they don’t recognize the right of the United States to exist sitting on half of Mexico, land conquered in war. And that’s true all over the world. But they’re willing to accept a political settlement. Israel isn’t willing to accept it and the United States isn’t willing to accept it. And they’re the lone hold-outs. Since it’s the United States that pretty much runs the world, it’s blocked.

Here it’s always presented as though the United States must become more engaged; it’s an honest broker; Bush’s problem was that he neglected the issue. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the United States has been very much engaged, and engaged in blocking a political settlement and giving the material and ideological and diplomatic support for the expansion programs, which are just criminal programs. The world court unanimously, including the American justice, agreed that any transfer of population into the Occupied Territories is a violation of a fundamental international law, the Geneva Conventions. And Israel agrees. In fact even their courts agree, they just sort of sneak around it in various devious ways. So there’s no question about this. It’s just sort of accepted in the United States that we’re an outlaw state. Law doesn’t apply to us. That’s why it’s never discussed.

Sameer Dossani, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, is the director of 50 Years is Enough and blogs at shirinandsameer.blogspot.com

Gaza film shows white phosphorus from alleged Israeli attack

0

Palestinians try to put out burning chemical banned as a weapon under United Nations convention

The Guardian has obtained vivid footage of the effect of white phosphorus allegedly used by Israel during a bomb attack on Gaza last week.

The film was made by Fida Qishta, a camerawoman working for the International Solidarity Movement, a non-governmental organisation operating in Gaza. It was shot on Wednesday 14 January in Khoza’a, east of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip.

It shows clumps of the burning chemical on the ground as locals try to put it out by covering it with dust, mud and grass. The chemical, which locals describe as phosphorus, fails to go out and continues to burn through the debris piled upon it. As they kick it about, it subdivides into smaller lumps and continues to burn.

Evidence of white phosphorus in Gaza Link to this video  

The use of white phosphorus as a weapon — as opposed to its use as an obscurant and infrared blocking smoke screen — is banned by the United Nation’s third convention on conventional weapons, which covers the use of incendiary devices. Though Israel is not a signatory to the convention, its military manuals reflect the restrictions on its use in that convention.

A second film reveals the impact of the white phosphorus on the human body. A 15-year-old boy is shown in a Gaza hospital receiving treatment for burns to his back and right arm which a doctor explains were caused by the chemical, which appears to have eaten into his flesh in several places.

Link to this video

Lying on his hospital bed, the boy tells how he was sitting with his family in their four-storey house when an Israeli bomb hit, killing his sister with shrapnel.

His testimony follows an earlier film by Qishta which contains graphic descriptions of attacks by Israeli forces in the same area.

Amnesty International said today that Israel has committed a war crime by using phosphorous over Gaza’s densely populated residential neighbourhoods. The human rights organisation also said they had fresh evidence of its use.

“Yesterday, we saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army,” said Christopher Cobb-Smith, a weapons expert who is in Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty International fact-finding team. “White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield. It is highly incendiary, air burst and its spread effect is such that it that should never be used on civilian areas.”

guardian.co.uk

Alleged 9/11 planners declare their guilt

3

 

Two alleged orchestrators of the 2001 attacks on America casually declared their guilt yesterday in a messy and perhaps final session of the Guantanamo war crimes court.

 

 

This week’s military hearings could be the last at Guantanamo – President-elect Barack Obama has said he would close the offshore prison and many expect him to suspend the military tribunals and order new trials in the United States.

Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the terrorist attacks, were unapologetic about their roles.

“We did what we did; we’re proud of Sept. 11,” announced Binalshibh, who has said he wants to plead guilty to charges that could put him to death. The judge must first determine if he is mentally competent to stand trial.

Mohammed shrugged off the potential death sentence for the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We are doing jihad for the cause of God,” he said.

AP

After the Party, Obama Has One Long To-Do List

1

NEW YORK – As an estimated two million celebrants converge on the U.S. capital for the inauguration festivities of President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday, the mood among human rights groups and some religious leaders is somewhat more sombre.

They are calling on Obama to use his first hundred days in office to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and repudiate the policies of President George W. Bush on an array of issues ranging from detainee torture and rendition to warrantless wiretapping and signing statements. 

But with the nation facing the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, it is unclear whether human rights will become the top priority of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress.

Nonetheless, such leading organisations as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, and Human Rights First are demanding that the president-elect take the lead in effecting speedy action.

[Kenneth Roth, executive director of HRW said, "Barack Obama must seize back the US leadership in global human rights squandered by outgoing President George Bush in Guantanamo Bay and other scandals."(AFP/File/Mandel Ngan)]Human Rights Watch (HRW) wants the Obama administration to close the CIA’s secret detention centres permanently, apply to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the rules used by the U.S. military to prevent coercive interrogation, close the Guantanamo detention centre, repatriate or prosecute all detainees, and ensure that prosecutions are conducted in regular courts, not the “substandard” military commissions.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of HRW said, “Barack Obama must seize back the US leadership in global human rights squandered by outgoing President George Bush in Guantanamo Bay and other scandals.”

Last week, the group issued a 564-page report on the state of human rights around the world. It charged that governments opposing basic rights, including those in Russia and China, had rushed to fill a vacuum left by the United States.

It blamed Bush’s “abandonment of long-held principles, including opposition to torture, in the U.S. war against Islamist militants,” but said Obama “could repair the damage once he takes office on Jan. 20”.

“There is an enormous need for the Obama administration to redeem America’s reputation,” Roth added.

At the same time, a coalition of equally prominent groups issued a similar “Human Rights Call to Action” at a summit in Washington last week. It demanded that the Obama administration put an end to “torture, arbitrary detention, and extraordinary rendition, including closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay and rejecting preventive detention models; ending surveillance abuses, attacks on dissent, and targeting of immigrant groups and other communities of color; and ensuring human rights, civil rights and civil liberties.”

The summit included the American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Constitution Project, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Torture Abolition Survivors Support Coalition, the US Human Rights Network, and Witness Against Torture

Similar demands are being made by a number of religious leaders and organisations.

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) is urging Obama to issue an executive order ending torture as one of his first official acts in office. A letter to the president-elect, signed by close to three dozen prominent religious leaders representing the country’s diverse faith traditions, said, “Such a step will help the United States to regain the moral high ground and restore our credibility within the international community at this critical time.”

NRCAT also joined a number of other groups in calling for “an investigation of torture policies and practices since 9/11.” Rev. Richard L. Killmer, its executive director, told IPS, “In order to create safeguards to make sure that torture does not happen again, it is important to understand what happened. NRCAT supports an independent non-partisan committee of inquiry with subpoena power and sufficient funding to do a thorough investigation and issue a comprehensive report.”

He added, “I think about my seven grandchildren. I can imagine that some day they will say that the United States used to torture, but we don’t do that anymore. The challenge for our nation is to develop sufficient safeguards so that we don’t torture anymore. We need to understand what happen so that those safeguards can be created.”

Another group of prominent religious leaders presented the Obama administration with what it called a “Come Let Us Reason Together” Agenda. As part of a multi-issue declaration, the group asserted that “The use of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment against prisoners is immoral, unwise, and un-American.”

Leaders of the group represent such organisations as Third Way, Public Religion Research, Evangelicals for Human Rights, Evangelicals for Social Action, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and Faith in Public Life.

As these organisations went public with their demands, pressure appeared to be growing for a comprehensive independent investigation of human rights abuses allegedly committed by the Bush administration. But when ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos pressed Obama about it on the television programme “This Week”, Obama said he was “still evaluating” the situation but added, “My orientation is going to be moving forward.”

However, on Obama’s transition website, Change.gov, the top-rated publicly-submitted question asked the incoming president whether he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate “the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping.”

Other powerful players are taking the view that questions about the Bush administration’s torture policies are so serious they can be answered only by a bipartisan, in-depth investigation. Among them is Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who introduced a bill to establish a blue-ribbon commission to investigate Bush’s alleged abuse of executive war powers and civil liberties. The commission would be similar to the panel that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001.

The pressure on the Obama team escalated last week when a senior Bush administration official admitted that Guantanamo interrogators and guards had tortured one of the detainees, Mohammed al Qahtani, a Saudi national accused of planning to take part in the Sep. 11 attacks.

The official, Susan Crawford, a retired judge who oversees the military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay inmates, told The Washington Post, “We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.

According to press reports, Qahtani had proved impervious to standard military interrogation in 2002 when former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorised special methods to break his will.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described the admission as “stunning” but said the Bush administration was still planning, on its final full day in office, to prosecute other detainees who had been tortured.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have said that the United States does not torture. But Cheney has admitted publicly that a technique known as waterboarding – which simulates drowning – was administered to three detainees.

Bush Administration officials, including the president, vice president, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey, do not acknowledge that waterboarding constitutes torture. But Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, unequivocally declared, “waterboarding is torture”.

The significance of the phrase “The First Hundred Days” stems from the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who took office during the Great Depression. In 1933, he called Congress back from a recess to hold a special emergency session, during which more than 15 bills – the heart of FDR’s New Deal – were passed and signed into law. The hundred day mantra has been the gold standard for U.S. presidents ever since.

 

MPs can strike a blow for freedom and privacy

0

With the approval of parliament, our government is planning to hold more information about us than ever before. It wants a national identity database of every UK citizen, identity cards for many UK residents, DNA records kept for millions of innocent people, and records kept of emails sent (although not their contents), web-pages visited and phone calls made. In arguing that these measures are needed for the protection of society, they assure us that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.

It has now emerged that the government has drawn up proposals to exclude MPs’ expenses from the Freedom of Information Act (Leaders, 17 January). This despite the fact that the existing law has exposed irregularities in how MPs are using their expenses. This double standard is concerning in and of itself. That it is happening during an economic downturn when we are all being expected to tighten our belts is nothing short of outrageous. That it happens 18 months after Gordon Brown launched his premiership by announcing that parliament should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act is deeply worrying.

MPs will have an opportunity to pass or block the Freedom of Information Order this week. If they pass it, they will do the reputation of parliament tremendous harm. We urge them to see sense and block this regressive measure.

Peter Facey Unlock Democracy, Maurice Frankel Campaign for Freedom of Information, Matthew Elliott TaxPayers’ Alliance, Roger Smith Justice, Phil Booth NO2ID, Anthony Barnett OurKingdom, Neil O’Brien Policy Exchange, Guido Fawkes Order-Order.com, Louise Christian, Stuart Weir Democratic Audit, Sunny Hundal Liberal Conspiracy, Pete Myers EnougthsEnougth.org, Neal Lawson Compass,Simon Davies Privacy International, Henry Porter, Ken Ritchie Electoral Reform Society, Barry White Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, John Kampfner Index on Censorship, Prof AC Grayling, Prof David Miller SpinWatch, Nick Mole PAN UK, Tony Curzon Price Open Democracy, John Jackson

Cyberspace wars

0

By JAMES EAGLE

WHILE bombs and bullets have been raining down on Gaza, a different kind of warfare has been conducted in cyberspace – and it’s nowhere near as one-sided as Israel’s assault on a defenceless civilian population.

The Stop the War Coalition’s website is the most high-profile British casualty of a conflict that extends far beyond the boundaries of Israel and Palestine to include NATO and US military websites, Facebook and any number of sites judged to be “pro-Hamas.”

In the past couple of weeks, Stop the War’s site has been hit by multiple denial-of-service (DoS) attacks and vandalised by what the coalition says were “professional” hackers. John Pilger’s site has also been attacked, according to Stop the War.

A group of Israeli students calling themselves Help Israel Win help-israel-win.tk has published a software tool to carry out DoS attacks. It’s been downloaded by thousands of people, even though Help Israel Win’s own site has been hit repeatedly by DoS attacks and even though the software is dangerously similar to that used by spammers and other shady cyber-criminals to create “botnets” of PCs which have been enslaved without the owner’s knowledge.

Hackers using the logo of the Jewish Internet Defence Force, which denies involvement saying that it does not break the law and merely campaigns against online anti-semitism, have attacked pro-Palestinian Facebook groups.

And Israeli military forces reportedly hacked into a Hamas-run TV station tinyurl.com/8bnd9g.

On the other side of the conflict, hackers broke into and defaced websites belonging to the US army’s military district of Washington, Washington’s homeland security HQ and the NATO parliamentary assembly. At time of writing, a week after the attacks, the first two of those were offline again.

The pro-Palestinian side is rather less powerless in cyberspace than the real world and supporters in other countries are more able to act. US security consultant Bruce Jenkins reports tinyurl.com/8pbsjl that “hacker groups from Iran, Lebanon, Morocco and Turkey” are weighing in against Israel.

This kind of international involvement is a clue to the appeal of cyber-warfare during crises like the Gaza assault. Hacking is mostly ineffective at silencing the other side, except where it stops groups from, say, organising an emergency protest at short notice.

But, like sit-ins and street protests, it gives people around the world and in Gaza itself a sense that they’re not so powerless – that they’re part of something bigger which can win in the long run. So, ineffective maybe, but certainly not useless.

How Stop the War became a victim

THE Stop the War website www.stopwar.org.uk has had a torrid time of it since hackers broke in on January 9.

Stop the War techie Adie Cousins says that he’s been “run ragged” by the continual battle to keep the site online in the face of what he calls a “serious” hacking group.

Indeed, when I spoke to him on Saturday evening after the London Gaza protest, he confided that it was “the first few hours I’ve been away from it in a week.” The site crashed yet again the moment he turned his back on it.

Most of the problems, Cousins believes, are probably caused by denial-of-service (DoS) attacks or the patched-up site struggling to cope with a surge of popular interest in Gaza.

DoS, a common cyber-warfare technique which is illegal in this country, involves swamping a site with so much traffic that it can’t cope and collapses under the load. It’s often done by creating a “botnet” of tens or even hundreds of thousands of computers infected with malicious software that allow them to be controlled remotely.

But Stop the War’s troubles all stem from the January 9 hacking attack, in which the culprits not only changed data to stop the site from being displayed but also left malicious code on the server which is proving very difficult to eradicate.

It’s this, along with the manner in which the hackers probably broke in, which leads Cousins to believe that the attackers have “money or serious resources or incredibly talented people working for them.”

The site runs on Joomla (www.joomla.org), a piece of open-source software which Cousins reckons is very solid, with “no known security vulnerabilities” in the version Stop the War is using.

The vandals probably got in using a technique called SQL injection, which involves tricking a website into running malicious code when it’s expecting you to enter an email address or something similar (www.unixwiz.net/techtips/sql-injection.html.

It’s commonly used by hackers against the unwary but shouldn’t have been easy to do against the Stop the War site. Cousins says that “we have taken all the basic precautions to prevent that. Whatever mechanism they’ve used is not something that’s common.”

The attackers have, he says, managed to leave behind a bit of code which repeatedly changes the administrator password in an attempt to “deny us the possibility of updating the site,” which means he has to keep a constant eye on it and regularly change the password back.

Unfortunately, Stop the War almost certainly won’t be able to trace the attackers. Their identity isn’t known, only their IP address, which is easy to fake. Indeed, there’s no evidence that zionists are to blame except for the timing of the attack.

On the plus side, though, Cousins reports that several security experts have volunteered to help Stop the War track down the problem and take steps to prevent a repeat.

“Out of this, we will become much stronger online than we have been in the past. So it’s definitely backfired.”

Hemp Could Be The Plastic Of Tomorrow

0

Plastic was one of the great innovations of the 20th century, but German scientists believe a new invention, liquid wood, could soon supplant the chemical in terms of everyday usefulness.

 

Though it has proven to be extremely useful in the modern world, plastic still has a number of negative selling points. It is non-biodegradable and can contain carcinogens and other toxic substances that can cause cancer.

 

It is also based on petroleum, a non-renewable resource that will soon be harder to come by. Increases in the price of crude oil leads to parallel rises in the price of plastics.

 

But there is a new chemical invention that could do away with these long-standing concerns.

 

Norbert Eisenreich, a senior researcher and deputy of directors at the Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology (ICT) in Pfinztal, Germany, said his team of scientists have come up with a substance that could replace plastic: Arboform — basically, liquid wood.

 

It is derived from wood pulp-based lignin and can be mixed with a number of other materials to create a strong, non-toxic alternative to petroleum-based plastics, Eisenreich said, as reported by DPA news agency.

 

Paper by-product

 

This begs the question: What exactly is liquid wood?

 

“The cellulose industry separates wood into its three main components — lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose,” ICT team leader Emilia Regina Inone-Kauffmann told DPA.

 

“The lignin is not needed in papermaking, however. Our colleagues mix that lignin with fine natural fibers made of wood, hemp or flax and natural additives such as wax. From this, they produce plastic granulate that can be melted and injection-moulded.”

 

The final product can resemble highly polished wood or have a more matted finish and look like the plastic used in most household items.

 

Reduced sulphur content

 

Car parts and other durable items made of this bio-plastic already exist, but the chemical hadn’t been suitable for household use until now, due to the high content of sulphurous substances used in separating the lignin from the cell fibers. 

 

The German researchers were able to reduce the sulphur content in Arborform by about 90 percent, making it much safer for use in everyday items.

 

Bolstering Arboform’s environmental credentials, Eisenreich’s team also discovered that the substance was highly recyclable.

 

“To find that out, we produced components, broke them up into small pieces, and re-processed the broken pieces — 10 times in all. We did not detect any change in the material properties of the low-sulphur bio-plastic, so that means it can be recycled,” said Inone-Kauffmann.

 

Israeli firing phosphorous after ceasefire

2

Israel has shelled Gaza with white phosphorus after it called for a unilateral ceasefire, in an obvious violation of its own declaration.

A Press TV correspondent on the ground in Gaza reported the event soon after the ceasefire the ceasefire was supposedly in afffect.
Earlier today, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Tel Aviv will observe a ‘unilateral ceasefire’ at 2:00 a.m. local time (0000 GMT) after pounding Gaza non-stop for 22 consecutive days.

However, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum responded that, Israel must stop all its aggression, completely withdraw from the Gaza Strip, lift the blockade, and open the border crossings.

Hamas also declared that it will not accept the presence of a single Israeli soldier in Gaza.

Israel later said that the troops will not leave Gaza and failed to address the issue of open border crossings in its ceasefire declaration.

Around 1,200 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 6,000 others have been wounded in the beleaguered Gaza strip since December 27.

SG/HAR

Impeachment investigation ahead for Bush and Cheney?

1

by Martha R Gore | Examiner.com

It came as no surprise that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers began talking about impeachement hearing against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on January 14, 2009. If such hearings come about, according to Conyers, it would be a means of reaffirming constitutional principals.

Many Bush critics think that Conyers put off an impeachment battle during the last two years because of concerns that it might have political repercussions that might have kept the Democrats from winning the larger congressional majorities and the presidency during the 2008 elections.

In a forward to a 487-page report entitled, “Reining in the Imperial Presidency, Conyers quotes Richard Nixon’s famous rationalization of presidential misdeeds, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” He maintains that this has been the Bush Administration approach to power.

The report which was released on January 13, 2009 documents what Conyers cited as Bush’s excessive claims of executive power and illegal acts. It calls for a blue-ribbon commission and independent criminal probes. According to Conyers, the stated goal of the investigation is “to restore the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system….” It would cover allegations of torture, “extraordinary rendition”, warrentless domestic surveillance, leaking the CIA identity of Valeria Plame Wilson, and the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

There is no evidence so far that Obama will recommend that his Justice Department launch a criminal probe of Bush’s administration past practices. However, politics make strange bedfellows and he might yet be convinced by Conyers and circumstances.

Pentagon cleared of propaganda violations

0

An internal investigation has cleared the Pentagon of violating a ban on domestic propaganda by using retired military officers to comment positively about the war in Iraq in the US media.

In a report posted on its website, the Pentagon’s inspector general said “we found the evidence insufficient to conclude that RMA (retired military analysts) outreach activities were improper”.

The report said the controversy, which erupted in April following an expose in the New York Times, warranted no further investigation.

The Times found that the Pentagon laid on special briefings and conference calls for the retired officers, many of whom then repeated the talking points as military experts on television news shows.

It also found that many of the media analysts also worked as consultants or served on the boards of defence contracting companies, but that those ties often went undisclosed to the public.

US law bars government agencies from using funds for domestic propaganda, but the inspector general’s report said the definition of propaganda was unclear.

The report said historically it had been interpreted to mean publicity for the sake of self aggrandisement, partisanship, or covert communications, and that by those standards the evidence did not show a violation of the ban.

“Further, we found insufficient basis to conclude that (the office of the assistant secretary of defence for public affairs) conceived of or undertook a disciplined effort to assemble a contingent of influential RMAs who could be depended on to comment favourably on DoD (Department of Defence) programs,” it said.

It said the Pentagon invited retired military analysts to 121 meetings, 16 Pentagon briefings, 105 conference calls and nine trips – four to Iraq and five to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“We determined that those activities were conducted in accordance with DoD policies and regulations,” it said.

It said some 70 retired military officers were involved with the program at one time of another.

One, retired general Barry McCaffrey, was not invited back after he criticised the war effort, the report said. Another was blocked from attending, possibly because of a dispute with an unnamed senior military officer, it said.

It said it found no instances where retired officers with ties to military contractors “used information obtained as a result of the … outreach program to achieve a competitive advantage for their company”.

“Of the 70 RMAs that we examined, we found that 20 (29 per cent) had some type of corporate association,” it said.

Federal Court Upholds Wiretap Law

1

By CBS, HT truthout

Warrantless eavesdropping on international communication within bounds of the law, appeals court rules.

Washington – A U.S. Foreign Intelligence court released a ruling Thursday upholding the right of the president and Congress to wiretap private international phone conversations and intercept e-mail messages without a court-issued warrant.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Appeals Court released an unclassified version of an August 2008 ruling that seems to validate President George W. Bush’s claim that the government can act without court orders in gathering foreign intelligence.

The Bush administration came under heated criticism three years ago when a National Security Agency’s program for warrantless eavesdropping was revealed. In 2007, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which authorized the executive branch to eavesdrop on international communication without court orders. The ruling released Thursday dealt with that law.

An unnamed telecommunications company challenged the constitutionality of the Protect America Act law last year, but the FISA court ruled that Congress acted within its authority when it passed the law.

When it was originally enacted, the Protect America Act was a temporary measure, granting President Bush the wide range of intelligence gathering tools for six months, to be used for foreign intelligence gathering related to the war on terrorism. After Democrats initially blocked the law’s renewal in early 2008, Congress approved a slightly modified version in June.

While the court released the once-secret opinion, Attorney General-designate Eric Holder was answering questions about the legality of the nation’s controversial warrantless surveillance programs during his Senate confirmation hearing.

“Holder, for his part, pledged to do a ‘damage assessment’ review of this policy and practice on behalf of the Justice Department. The juxtaposition between the two simultaneous events – like two ships crossing in the night – was striking,” writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

During his time in the Senate, President-elect Barack Obama endorsed the latest version of the current administration’s surveillance policy. That means that Holder now must gingerly evaluate how the warrantless program came about, whether it is working to its fullest extent, whether and to what extent it reaches too far in infringing constitutional privacy rights, and what can be done if it does.

On Thursday morning, Holder was clear in telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that he believes the president has power within Article II of the Constitution (like the power to eavesdrop) that the Congress may not take away, writes Cohen.

Is the Army lying about friendly fire deaths?

0

The military claims fratricides in Iraq and Afghanistan are down 90 percent from previous wars — but experts call the figures suspect.

By Mark Benjamin

New statistics obtained by Salon depict a spectacularly low number of U.S. Army deaths from friendly fire in the current conflict in Iraq, a mere fraction of historical rates. According to data released to Salon by the Army’s Combat Readiness/Safety Center, only 24 of the 3,059 U.S. Army soldiers killed in Iraq since the invasion in 2003 died by fratricide.
 

That is a rate of .78 percent, less than one-tenth of almost every estimate from previous conflicts stretching back to World War II, despite six years of combat in Iraq, often in confusing urban terrain, using intense U.S. firepower. Army officials gave Salon similar statistics for Afghanistan: six out of 484 dead, or a rate of 1.24 percent. By comparison, the Army’s own estimates of the friendly fire rates for every war from World War II to Desert Storm are between 10 and 14 percent, except for a low of 6 percent during the invasion of Panama. During the last U.S. conflict in Iraq, 1991’s Operation Desert Storm, fratricide killed 35 of 298 U.S. service members, or a rate of nearly 12 percent, according to a 1992 report by the Center for Army Lessons Learned.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said improved technology and better leadership and training contributed to the low fratricide rates in the current Iraq war. Some observers, however, called the new data fishy. “That is almost impossible,” said Geoffrey Wawro, director of the University of North Texas’ Military History Center, who closely followed the Army’s coverup of football star Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire in April 2004. Wawro says that technology and training can help minimize the friendly fire rate, but “still, the fog of war is such that it has to be higher than .7 percent.”

The retired Army colonel and West Point graduate Andrew Bacevich, now a history professor at Boston University and a prominent Iraq war critic, was just as emphatic.

“To say we have suddenly stopped all these problems that have been a part of warfare since the beginning of time? I don’t believe it … To claim that this Army is somehow uniquely disciplined in that regard? It is a great army, but they are still human beings. They are still scared shitless.”

Those unusually small numbers, along with anecdotal reports from soldiers and a string of coverup allegations, raise the possibility that the Army has routinely swept fratricide incidents under the rug in Iraq and Afghanistan. Salon detailed just such a case last fall, in which battle video and testimony from soldiers contradicted the official version of events. Army casualty officers, therefore, might have provided incorrect information to an unknown number of parents about the death of their son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Army might also have missed a similar number of opportunities to learn from friendly fire incidents and avoid knocking on more parents’ doors with the same bad news.

As Bacevich notes, many of the problems that create friendly fire incidents have existed “since the beginning of time.” In an e-mail to Salon, the Army’s Paul Boyce listed the “leading causes of fratricide throughout military history”: “chaos and confusion of warfare; inadequate situational awareness; inadequate employment of, and adherence to, fire control measures; and combat identification failures.”

 

 

Expressed another way, the fog of war and human error cause soldiers to misidentify friends as foes. A more easily quantifiable factor that Boyce does not cite is the collision between different branches of the military or between different units in the same branch. A 1992 Army study says that fratricide is most likely to occur “along shared unit boundaries,” or when different units fight side by side supporting each other. This can mean, as in Grenada in 1983, a Navy jet mistakenly attacking Army troops, or as in the incident first reported last fall in Salon, members of an Army tank unit in Iraq in 2006 allegedly firing on Army infantry.

 

 

The military still employs mixed units, and it cannot eliminate human error or the fog of war. The consistency of the numbers from World War II to Desert Storm 50 years later is remarkable. The Army’s figures for World War II are 12 to 14 percent; for Vietnam, 10 to 14 percent; for Grenada, 13 percent; for Panama, 6 percent; and for Desert Storm, 12 percent. (Figures for Korea were not provided.)

 

 

Those numbers are consistent despite leaps in technology. Though Boyce says that “warfighter training and leadership are the principal determinants,” he says that “technology also contributes to the avoidance of fratricide” in the current conflict. “Fire-control systems sights and computers are far more capable than in the past. Weapons and ammunition are able to achieve high probabilities of hits and kills at greater ranges.” Technological improvements since the first Gulf War have greatly improved the Army’s ability to track friendly forces on the battlefield.

 

 

Yet Wawro notes that technology can also increase the lethality of friendly fire incidents. The extremely powerful weaponry the United States now brings to the battlefield means that “one tiny mistake results in heavy casualties.”

 

 

The Army’s official stats for the current Iraq war suggest that fewer soldiers were killed by fratricide over the past six years than the total number of service members killed by fratricide during Operation Desert Storm, which lasted 42 days. The statistics from Desert Storm come from well-documented events, though it isn’t hard to find Gulf War veterans who claim even those numbers are low.

 

 

Why should numbers from the current Iraq conflict be so different from numbers from the last one? Army officials say that Iraq and Desert Storm don’t provide an apples-to-apples comparison. Desert Storm was a brief, extremely violent conflict fought in the open desert and marked by some costly fratricide mistakes. On Feb. 27, 1991, for example, one group of American tanks opened fire on another already firing at an Iraqi unit, killing six U.S. soldiers and wounding 25.

 

 

Or there is the possibility that something has changed about the way the military reports such incidents. Studies done by both Congress and the military suggest that officers have an incentive to cover up fratricide, which is particularly corrosive to morale.

 

 

 

 

 

According to a study prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment for the House Armed Services Committee in June 1993, after the first Gulf War, a “15 to 20 percent fratricide rate may be the norm, not the exception,” as “past rates of fratricide have been systematically and substantially underestimated.” It notes that the “psychological effects of friendly fire are always greater than from similar, enemy fire.”

 

 

A decade earlier, a 1982 report by Army Lt. Col. Charles Shrader called “Amicide: The Problem of Friendly Fire in Modern Warfare,” which put the friendly fire rate far lower – perhaps as 2 percent – had reached the same conclusion about the temptation to hide friendly fire incidents. “Commanders at various levels,” wrote Shrader, “may be reluctant to report instances of casualties due to friendly fire either because they are afraid of damaging unit or personal reputations, because they have a misplaced concern for the morale of surviving troops or the benefits and honors due the dead and wounded, or simply because of a desire to avoid unprofitable conflicts with the personnel of supporting or adjacent units.”

 

 

The 1992 report from the Center for Army Lessons Learned, cited earlier, says that friendly fire can be “devastating and spread deeply within a unit.” Friendly fire, it says, also results in “loss of confidence in the unit’s leadership.”

 

 

“Nobody wants to talk about this,” says Wawro. “It is a disincentive to recruitment and everything. There is real incentive to cover it up.”

 

 

These latest fratricide statistics from the Army already include incidents initially blamed on the enemy. There was Pat Tillman. Another example was Lt. Kenneth Ballard. The Army told his family he died in Najaf from enemy fire in May 2004. By December of that year, the family was asking for more information. The Army admitted to friendly fire as the culprit in September 2005.

 

 

On Oct. 14 of last year, Salon began a series of stories about the deaths of two infantry soldiers, Pfc. Albert Nelson and Pfc. Roger Suarez-Gonzalez on the rooftop of a building in Ramadi, Iraq on Dec. 4, 2006. Soldiers there said a nearby U.S. tank fired at the building, blowing Suarez off the roof and killing him instantly. Nelson died later that day.

 

 

Salon also released footage from a helmet-mounted camera from that day. The video shows an explosion at that building, soldiers claiming they watched the tank shoot at them and a sergeant attempting to report what he though was a friendly fire incident over a radio. A superior officer then apparently overrules the sergeant. The Army says two enemy mortars landed simultaneously on Nelson and Suarez.

 

 

During several visits to Nelson and Suarez’s old unit at Fort Carson late last year and in interviews since then, scores of veterans from Iraq have described non-lethal friendly fire incidents as surprisingly routine. In the same neighborhood, tanks blast clean through house walls, the air wobbles with hits from massive 2,000-pound bombs dropped from U.S. aircraft, and infantry shoot from dusty house to dusty house. It gets confusing.

 

 

Some soldiers present during the battle on Dec. 4, 2006 say Nelson and Suarez’s death wasn’t the only exchange of friendly fire that day. It was only exceptional because of the firepower involved and the resulting deaths.

 

 

Several expressed anger — but also, some understanding — at the tank that allegedly fired on Nelson and Suarez. The resentment toward the chain of command for the alleged cover-up was unmitigated. “A bunch of guys with fucking rags on their heads weren’t good enough to kill those guys,” one soldier in the building with Nelson and Suarez said about the two men. “I lost more respect for (my platoon sergeant) because we knew he knew.”

 

 

Late last year, Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.) sent letters to the Pentagon requesting a new investigation into Nelson and Suarez’s deaths. In early December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asked his staff to take a new look into the incident.

 

 

The Army has so far declined to open a new investigation, offering only to review any “new specific evidence” about the incident, according to Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

 

 

The Army did conduct an initial investigation into the deaths. Army officials say it included 170 photographs, dozens of interviews and hundreds of pages of ballistic analysis. Since July, Salon has repeatedly requested this material through the Freedom of Information Act, to no avail. So far, the Army has only released a heavily redacted, 10-page summary of that investigation.

 

 

The tragedy of burying friendly fire incidents is that the opportunity to study and prevent future, similar incidents dies along with the truth. The Center for Army Lessons Learned, in fact, studies fratricide events and develops techniques to avoid similar tragedies in the future. “If you make a mistake, you have to learn from it,” explained Ralph Nichols, a senior military analyst at the center who helped craft new Army guidance last September on avoiding fratricide. “If you know what causes it, you can plan and train to avoid it.”

 

 

In early 2007, Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, 18 and Spc. Alan McPeek, 20 took cover on a rooftop in Ramadi during a firefight with insurgents. It was Feb. 2, two months after Nelson and Suarez’s death in the same town. During the battle in February, a tank mistakenly fired on Zimmer and McPeek’s position. McPeek died instantly. Zeimer was blown to the other side of the roof. He died a short time later. The families of the two men were originally told their sons were killed by enemy fire.

 

 

The Army says Nelson and Suarez did not die from friendly tank fire. If the Army is wrong, there is no way of knowing if admitting it would have saved the next two young men just two months later.

 

 

Activists threaten to close Heathrow

0

Activists behind an annual climate change camp today threatened to close down Heathrow in an early sign of direct action aimed at stopping a controversial third runway being built.

Leaders of the annual event will meet later this month to discuss future demonstration, including some which they warned would be aimed at shutting the airport down completely.

The development came as a group calling itself the Climate Suffragettes smashed glass doors at the London offices of the Department for Transport (DfT)in protest at the Government’s go-ahead for Heathrow’s expansion.

One of the activists behind the annual climate camp pledged: “We will be the spanner in the works of third runway construction.”

The group pointed out that at the 2007 camp, which was held near Heathrow, about 2,000 people decided not to shut the airport itself, but target BAA’s offices.

“The Heathrow decision makes the option of shutting down the world’s busiest airport a potential next step in the escalating campaign to stop the runway being built,” said one of the activists.

Sally Wintour, who took part in the 2007 camp, said: “Gordon Brown is prioritising the profit margins of BAA and the aviation industry over the climate and the local community of Sipson.

“We invite anyone in the UK who has lain awake and worried about climate change and their children’s future to come down and join us in using direct action to prevent this ecological and social catastrophe from unfolding.”

Harry Whittaker, an anti-aviation campaigner, said: “Gordon, BAA and the construction companies had better start factoring in how many more millions it is going to cost to build this runway once they have to deal with the daily consequences of direct action.

“This decision flies in the face of popular opinion, and if the political channels to stop it have been unsuccessful, it’s important that people use direct action to prevent this climate disaster.”

A so-called “flashmob” will be held at Heathrow at midday tomorrow by a range of anti-aviation expansion groups and more action is being planned.

The Climate Suffragettes said three women wearing red sashes hurled bricks at the doors of DfT’s Westminster building at 4am.

The bricks were wrapped in notes that read: “No third runway, the Suffra-jets are back,” they said.

They also said they had hurled green paint “to symbolise the greenwash they heard from the Government”.

A spokeswoman for the group, which compares itself with the 20th century campaigners for votes for women, said: “The Government has opened the floodgates for radical action.”

Conservative leader David Cameron today issued a clear warning to industry not to invest money and energy in the proposed third runway at Heathrow, as he reaffirmed his party’s commitment to scrap the project if it won power.

Some observers have suggested that the green light given by Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday represented a guarantee that it would go ahead, as the scheme would be too far advanced by the time of the next election for an incoming Tory administration to halt it.

But Mr Cameron today flatly rejected this assumption, stating: “The third runway is just not going to happen.”

In an interview with The Guardian, he insisted that he did not believe that a Tory Government would be required to pay compensation if it scrapped the scheme.

Copyright © 2009 Newsquest

In farewell speech, Bush insists “war on terror” must continue

0

By Bill Van Auken 

In his final speech from the White House Thursday night, President George W. Bush defended his legacy of war, torture and domestic repression while vowing that the “war on terror,” the ideological mainspring of his administration, must go on.

Speaking just five days before he leaves office, Bush directed his remarks at justifying the criminal record of his eight years as president, while seeking to ensure that the main thrust of his policies will continue after the inauguration next Tuesday of President-elect Barack Obama.

As he has done so often over the past seven years, Bush attempted one last time to wrap himself in the bloody mantle of September 11 and claim that the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington were the driving force behind his administration’s decisions to invade Afghanistan, wage war on Iraq and arrogate to itself the right to torture, kidnap, murder, conduct illegal domestic spying and hold prisoners without charges or trials in US-run concentration camps.

Bush leaves office the most unpopular US president in history. He is hated around the world and reviled by the great majority of the American people not only for the wars of aggression and anti-democratic measures that have been the preoccupation of his administration, but also for his championing of economic policies that served to widen social inequality and pave the way to the eruption of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

An intellectual and moral cipher who was catapulted into the White House thanks to family connections and a stolen election, Bush’s name will be forever associated with the most shameful episodes in modern American history, from the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the abandonment of the people of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, to Wall Street’s plundering of the economy at the expense of millions of Americans’ jobs and homes.

Under these conditions, the tone of the president’s speech was as delusional as its content was dishonest.

Bush cast himself as the principal victim of September 11. “As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11,” he declared. “But I never did. Every morning I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.”

Bush declared that by invading Afghanistan and Iraq he had “taken the fight to the terrorists.” He once again claimed victory in these wars, describing Afghanistan, whose corrupt and isolated regime is unable to exert its rule outside of Kabul, as a “young democracy that is fighting terrorism.” As for Iraq, where America’s intervention has claimed the lives of over 1 million people and turned more than 4 million more into exiles and internal refugees, he claimed credit for forging “an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East … a friend of the United States.”

He also claimed vindication for policies that have created the scaffolding of a police state in America, extolling the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and measures to provide America’s security agencies with “new tools” to prosecute the war on terror. That such “tools” have involved the scrapping of bedrock democratic principles such as habeas corpus and ridden roughshod over constitutional rights against unlawful detention and unreasonable search and seizure was of no concern to the outgoing “commander-in-chief.”

Bush grudgingly acknowledged that there could be “legitimate debate” over the actions taken by his administration, but insisted that such debate could not question the success of his policies. “America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil,” he proclaimed.

The reality is that the tragic events of September 11–and the Bush administration’s failure to prevent them–have never been seriously investigated, much less explained to the American people. Without an explanation of how these attacks–carried out by individuals who in several cases were under CIA surveillance–were allowed to unfold in the first place, it is impossible to claim that measures taken in their aftermath prevented new ones.

Only one thing is certain: The administration seized upon September 11 as its pretext for carrying out two military interventions that had been prepared and planned years before. Their aim was not the eradication of terrorists but rather US domination over Central Asia and the Persian Gulf to seize control of their oil resources and secure a decisive strategic advantage over US capitalism’s principal economic rivals.

Rather than such obvious geo-strategic interests, Bush insisted that the global explosion of American militarism was part of a worldwide struggle between “good and evil,” in which Washington was fulfilling the will of “Almighty God” by “leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.”

As for “evil,” the president proclaimed that “Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.” The remark came as the murderous assault on Gaza, which has killed or wounded over 6,000 Palestinians, the bulk of them civilians, neared the end of its third week. Throughout this campaign, Bush has defended Israel’s war, carried out with US-supplied weapons, uttering not a word of sympathy for its murdered victims.

Bush felt compelled to defend his administration’s massive bailout of Wall Street. “When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them,” he said, referring to the trillions of dollars in public moneys that Washington has placed at the disposal of the major US financial institutions. “All Americans are in this together,” he insisted, providing the standard rhetorical justification for imposing austerity measures on working people in order to salvage the fortunes of the financial elite.

He insisted that the country would return to “the path of growth” and “show the world once again the resilience of America’s free enterprise system,” a rosy forecast belied by a continuous rise in layoffs and fall in manufacturing, sales and every other economic indicator, which together point to a systemic crisis of the capitalist system of a world-historic and revolutionary character.

In the end, however, the speech was one more attempt to terrorize the American people with the supposedly ubiquitous threat of terrorism.

“While our nation is safer than it was seven years ago,” he said, “the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack… We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.”

The implication of this argument is clear. The “global war on terror” must go on, regardless of the change in administrations.

Bush, together with Cheney and other top officials in his administration, deserve by every legal, moral and political standard to be placed on trial for war crimes. Yet he delivered his last ignorant speech with an obvious sense of impunity. He no doubt is confident, and with good reason, that the incoming Democratic administration will not only refuse to pursue any investigation, much less prosecution, of administration officials for their crimes against the country and the Constitution, but will, in the end, maintain the essential framework through which Washington has carried out war abroad and social reaction and repression at home over the past eight years.

Detainee captured at 14 to be freed

0

A US judge has ordered the military to release a Guantanamo Bay detainee who was arrested in Pakistan when he was 14.

Mohamed el-Gharani was one of the first people to be sent to the military prison in Cuba in 2002, where he has been held ever since.

US District Judge Richard Leon ruled that el-Gharani, who is also known as Yousuf and is now 21, is not an enemy combatant and must be released. His lawyer says he was accused of being a member of al Qaida in 1998, when he would have been 11 years old.

El-Gharani, from Chad, was arrested at a mosque in Pakistan by police when he was 14. He was then turned over to US forces.

Judge Leon said el-Gharani should be released from the US prison in Cuba “forthwith”.

The military had accused him of being part of al Qaida, working for the Taliban and fighting American forces in Afghanistan. However, the judge said those accusations were based on testimony from other Guantanamo Bay detainees, which he found unreliable.

El-Gharani listened to the ruling by telephone from Cuba but did not react.

He could be on his way home to his family in a few weeks, lawyer Zackary Katznelson said. “Judge Leon did justice today.”

The government can appeal the decision.

“We’re disappointed by the ruling and will consider our options,” Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

Outrage as Israel bombs UN

1

Aid workers allege use of banned white phosphorus as Hamas security leader dies in bombing raid on house

By Kim Sengupta in Jerusalem 

Israeli tanks thrust deep inside Gaza City last night as ferocious fighting raged in dense residential areas with terrified families fleeing along streets echoing with gunfire, although many others were trapped in their homes.

 

Israeli shelling set fire to the UN headquarters, a hospital, a school and a building used by the media, leading to widespread international protests and renewed calls for a ceasefire in the conflict which has so far cost 1,073 Palestinian and 13 Israeli lives. A senior Hamas leader, the Interior Minister Said Seyyam who was responsible for thousands of security agents, was killed in an Israeli raid which flattened his brother’s home.

Three members of UN staff were injured when three Israeli shells hit the headquarters, setting it on fire. Thousands of tonnes of desperately needed food and humanitarian supplies were destroyed and about 700 refugees given shelter in the building had to be evacuated. UN officials said the shells were white phosphorus, believed to have been responsible for burns suffered by some Palestinian civilians.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, on a peace mission to the region, said: “I conveyed my strong protest and outrage to the Defence Minister and Foreign Minister and demanded a full explanation.”

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, apologised for the shelling but claimed Hamas fighters had opened fire from the centre. “It is absolutely true that we were attacked from that place, but the consequences are very sad and we apologise for it,” he said. “I don’t think it should have happened and I’m very sorry.”

John Ging, the director of operations for the UN relief agency, UNRWA, in Gaza described the Israeli claim about a Hamas presence as “nonsense”. He added: “It’s a total disaster for us.” Mr Ging said the UN had warned the Israelis the compound was in danger from shelling that had begun overnight, and provided them with GPS co-ordinates to prevent an attack.

The Al-Quds hospital was also hit by shellfire when Israeli tanks moved further into the city. A tower housing the Reuters agency and other media outlets was also hit. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said the damage caused to the Al Quds hospital is “completely and utterly unacceptable based on every known standard of international humanitarian law”.

The hospital is in the Tal Hawa district, a packed residential area. Streams of people fled from the fighting, carrying what belongings they could on foot, by car, and, in some cases wheelbarrows after homes were demolished and set ablaze. Mahmud Tejan Hussein drove away with seven members of his family. “Bullets started hitting our house and I decided that we must get away from here. There are Israeli tanks in the area now and we might get blocked off if we wait. But I do not know where we are going to go. We wanted to go to the UN office, but that has been attacked. Wherever we go, the fighting will follow us.”

Musah Mohammed, 36, who stayed at his home in an apartment block, said: “We cannot go out. There is shooting in the street. My mother is ill and she is old; we cannot leave her here. People are shouting to each other from balconies crying that they need help. We have no electricity and very little food and water. We are very afraid; we do not know what will happen next.” It was unclear whether the escalation was a final push before a ceasefire, as peace talks continued yesterday in Cairo where Israel’s chief negotiator Amos Gilad arrived to hear the Hamas response to an Egyptian initiative.

Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister, said a “momentum” was building up on the talks. “Ultimately, we want to see a long-term sustainable quiet in the south, a quiet that’s going to be based on the total absence of all hostile fire from Gaza into Israel, and an internationally supported mechanism that will prevent Hamas from rearming,” he said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Mr Olmert by phone that Washington would sign an agreement on measures to stop Hamas from rearming after a ceasefire. The Egyptian proposals call for an immediate ceasefire, resumption of humanitarian aid, an Israeli pullout and the reopening of the border between Israel and Gaza under international supervision.

Is Reiki Effective?

5

Reiki is a Japanese form of healing that is becoming increasingly popular worldwide. What makes Reiki unique is that it incorporates elements of just about every other alternative healing practices, but does it actually work?

The medical profession has mixed views, but a strong number of doctors have shown support for Reiki, an array of journals have been published on the subject.

Natural standard and Harvard Medical School released a paper on a study done by scientists on reiki and its effects. The studies were carried out on small samples and it was found that:

  • Reiki works on the autonomic nervous system, effecting heart beat rate, blood pressure and/or breathing activity.
  • Reiki can help reduce depression and stress.
  • Reiki can help reduce pain.

The scientists did point out though that all the trials were on a small scale and larger trials were needed before any conclusion could be drawn. Interesting nonetheless.

While there is no evidence of Reiki having a detrimental impact on ones’ health, studies have unexpectedly shown other positives of the treatment. 

Through one of its studies, University of Michigan Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research Center (CAMRC), found that Reiki can be effective for diabetics experiencing nerve problems, especially in the legs. Reiki was applied to relieve some of the pain and numbness experienced by the diabetic patients.

Several studies were carried out using single blind study technique to determine efficacy of reiki treatment. In a study female nursing students were given either real reiki or “mimic reiki” (a placebo form). Tests conducted before and after failed to find any improvement (generally attributed to reiki treatment) in the group which received real reiki.

Hartwell and Brewitt conducted a study on reiki in which a group of chronically ill patients received eleven, weekly, one hour reiki treatment sessions. The patients were not given any other allopathic or complementary medicine or treatment during this period. Tests were conducted to find before/after differences in health. It was observed that all the patients experienced a reduction in pain and an increase in relaxation and mobility.

Reiki Master, Judith Conroy, claims “Anybody can learn Reiki and improve their lives. It can be expensive but thanks to the Internet we can obtain all the information we need at a fraction of the traditional cost.”

“This should open doors for more people to discover and perform this amazing treatment for themselves”. Judith offers an online Reiki course complete with a money back promise for those who don’t feel the benefits. You can view her course here.

 

 

 

UK does not need a nuclear deterrent

0

Nuclear weapons must not be seen to be vital to the secure defence of self-respecting nations

Sir, Recent speeches made by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and the previous Defence Secretary, and the letter from Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, David Owen and George Robertson in The Times on June 30, 2008, have placed the issue of a world free of nuclear weapons firmly on the public agenda. But it is difficult to see how the United Kingdom can exert any leadership and influence on this issue if we insist on a costly successor to Trident that would not only preserve our own nuclear-power status well into the second half of this century but might actively encourage others to believe that nuclear weapons were still, somehow, vital to the secure defence of self-respecting nations.

This is a fallacy which can best be illustrated by analysis of the British so-called independent deterrent. This force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles. While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States.

Should this country ever become subject to some sort of nuclear blackmail – from a terrorist group for example – it must be asked in what way, and against whom, our nuclear weapons could be used, or even threatened, to deter or punish. Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face – particularly international terrorism; and the more you analyse them the more unusable they appear.

The much cited “seat at the top table” no longer has the resonance it once did. Political clout derives much more from economic strength. Even major-player status in the international military scene is more likely to find expression through effective, strategically mobile conventional forces, capable of taking out pinpoint targets, than through the possession of unusable nuclear weapons. Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics. Rather than perpetuating Trident, the case is much stronger for funding our Armed Forces with what they need to meet the commitments actually laid upon them. In the present economic climate it may well prove impossible to afford both.

Field Marshal Lord Bramall
General Lord Ramsbotham
General Sir Hugh Beach
House of Lords, London SW1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com…cle5525682.ece

Judge: Rumsfeld sanctioned torture in Gitmo

0

A top US official has for the first time publicly admitted that a suspect, incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay prison was tortured.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Susan J Crawford, a judge tasked with deciding on whether Guantanamo detainees should be brought to trial, told the newspaper that she decided against prosecuting Saudi national Mohammed al-Qahtani because his interrogation met the legal definition of torture.

Crawford said that the harsh techniques used against al-Qahtani were approved by the then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“A lot of this happened on his watch,” she said.

The paper quoted the judge as saying that al-Qahtani, who allegedly planned to participate in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US but was denied entry into the country, was subjected to prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and exposure to cold that placed him in a “life threatening condition.”

“The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent,” said Crawford, a former inspector general of the Pentagon.

“You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for and coercive. Clearly coercive,” she added.

The report came out amid growing certainty that President-elect Barack Obama will issue an executive order to close the notorious prison camp as one of his first moves.

Obama is under huge pressure from human rights groups to close Guantanamo, but has also conceded that closing it is quite complicated and will take some time.

Get Land For Free And Help Greenpeace Stop Airport Expansion

0

Greenpeace are giving away plots of land to make it more difficult for the government to expand Heathrow airport. To help them sign up here http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/airplot

You’ll be joining beneficial owners who’ve already signed-up including local Labour MP John McDonnell, Tory frontbench spokeswoman Justine Greening, Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer, environmentalist George Monbiot and acclaimed climate scientist and Royal Society Research Fellow Dr Simon Lewis.

There are four legal owners on the deeds: Oscar winning actress Emma Thompson, comedian Alistair McGowan and prospective Tory parliamentary candidate Zac Goldsmith and Greenpeace UK.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/airplot

Israel tells aid ship for Gaza to leave

0

Israeli warships have ordered an Iranian vessel carrying humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza to leave the area, an Iranian aid official was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars News Agency on Wednesday.

Iran, which has condemned the Jewish state for attacking the coastal territory, earlier this week said the aid ship was nearing Gaza but state radio reported on Tuesday it had been stopped by Israel’s navy.

 

Israel has in the past accused Iran of supplying arms to Hamas, the Islamist group which controls Gaza. Tehran says it gives moral, financial and humanitarian support.

 

“It (the Iranian ship) is now 45 miles away from Gaza and an hour ago, again, we received a warning from Israeli warships to leave the region,” the head of Iran’s Red Crescent, Massoud Khatami, was quoted as saying by Fars.

 

“If these warnings continue we will change our route from Gaza to the (Egyptian) port of el-Arish,” he said without giving any detail on the Israeli warning.

 

The ship was carrying 200 tonnes of foodstuff and medicine “for distribution among the blockaded people of Gaza,” state radio has said.

 

Ahmad Navvab, described by Iranian media as the ship’s director on board, on Tuesday said the aid may be delivered via Egypt and the Rafah border crossing if the ship could not reach Gaza. Egypt is the only Arab state bordering Gaza.

 

Iran said last week it had told Egypt it was ready to treat those wounded in Israel’s assault and wanted to set up a field hospital nearby on Egyptian territory. Iran has also said it had landed a plane in Egypt with aid and wanted to send more.

 

Iran does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and does not have full relations with Egypt, the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Iranian hardliners have accused Egypt of not doing enough to help Gaza’s Palestinians. 

Egypt sometimes allows wounded people and medical supplies through its border with Gaza but the Rafah crossing has been closed to ordinary traffic since Hamas seized control there in 2007.

 

(Reporting by Hossein Jaseb and Parisa Hafezi; Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Cheney hints at pardon for President Bush

5

BNN |

With the Bush administration in its final days questions are being asked whether the president will be investigated over a number of concerns.

Thoseconcerns include the legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq; the controversial eavesdropping by the NSA of U.S. citizens; the authorization of the use of torture; and the treatment and processing of detainees at prisons in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

While there are impeachment proceedings underway in the House of Representatives, they have been sidelined by the global financial crisis, and will be overtaken by the end of the Bush presidency on January 20.

There are many however who believe the president and members of his administration should be pursued. Officials in the Department of Defense have reportedly been pressing the Obaaa transition team to take action to demonstrate that justice will be served, and to restore America’s image in the world.

There are others that say it is time to move on, and the healing of the nation from the tumultuous times of the Bush years will be advanced by not opening up old issues.

Barack Obama has given some hope to those that are interested in the former. he has said he will promptly review actions by the Bush administration “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” he has said.

However he has also said, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

Dick Cheney seemingly is one of those that wants to move on as he unexpectedly raised, and drew parallels with, President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon this week, hinting that similar treatment should be afforded President Bush.

On Monday the vice president was asked about some of the issues that have given rise to some of the major concerns, on Sean Hannity’s Radio program.

“Well, let me ask you this, as you look back on the presidency,” said Hannity, “I think the President, through the prism of history, is going to be viewed as a very principled, successful President. And that would include you being Vice President, because I don’t think, I think most people’s memories are short. I think most people have forgotten the mood of the country after 9/11. I think there were many, many decisions that were made, tougher interrogations, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, that have all contributed to making this country safer. We seem to forget all those tough battles, and that was the biggest focus obviously of the administration.”

“Do you believe, as I do, that history will be kind to you guys?” asked Hannity.

“Right,” said Cheney. “No, I do. I think – I had the experience with Jerry Ford. I came in, went to work here the day he got sworn in as President, worked with him throughout his time there. I’ll always remember, of course, what happened when he made the decision to pardon Richard Nixon. And he dropped 30 points in the polls in a week.”

“And at the time a lot of people were outraged about that decision,” said Cheney. “But, in fact, thirty years later we look back on it, and nearly everybody has come around to the point of view that it was exactly the right thing to do. It was a courageous thing to do, because he knew it might well cost him the next election in ’76, but he went ahead and did it anyway because he thought it was right for the country.”

“And I think there are parallels there in terms of George Bush,” said the vice president.

“I think that when people have an opportunity to look back and sort of ignore the emotions of the moment, which tend to dominate now, especially in the mainstream media, and look with some time and be able to pause and reflect on it, that the decisions he has made and the things he has done in terms of liberating fity million people and protecting the country and taking down a big part of the al-Qaeda organization, etc., etc., etc., I think he will be well regarded,” said Cheney.

Fate of Guantánamo Detainees Still Murky

0

By William Fisher |

Human rights groups are hailing reports that President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. But they are urging him to provide details on when and how it will be done and what will happen to those now imprisoned there.

In a teleconference Tuesday with reporters, Caroline Frederickson, the chief legislative representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said closing Gitmo would mean little if detainees were simply moved to some other location. She also said she needed reassurance that the Obama administration would not propose a system of “preventive detention.”

“It is not enough to simply close Guantánamo or even to suspend the military commission trials currently taking place there,” she said. She called on Congress to repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which gave the president authority to detain people, including U.S. citizens, indefinitely without charges or trials.

Deborah Colson of the Law and Security Program of the legal advocacy group Human Rights First (HRF) told IPS that closing Guantánamo will “show the world we are serious about our values.” But, she added, it “will require embracing time-tested procedures for criminal prosecution of suspected terrorists in our federal courts.”

Closing Guantánamo is unlikely to be completed quickly. One official of the Obama transition team reportedly said it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp. However, transition officials have said Obama is committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the George W. Bush administration’s military commissions system for trying detainees.

In addition, the incoming administration has reportedly rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. The Bush administration had insisted that such a measure was necessary to close the Guantánamo camp and bring some of the detainees to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the fate of a number of Gitmo detainees continues to play out in the courts. On Tuesday, the ACLU filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court in Washington, challenging the detention of Mohammed Jawad, who has been held at Guantánamo for more than six years.

Jawad, now about 23 years old, was captured at the age of 16 or 17 and is one of two Guantánamo prisoners the U.S. is prosecuting for acts allegedly committed when they were juveniles. He is accused of throwing a hand grenade at two U.S. service members and their interpreter in Afghanistan.

“It would be a miscarriage of justice for President-elect Obama to continue Mr. Jawad’s unlawful detention in Guantánamo, particularly considering that Mr. Jawad was captured as a teenager and detained based on alleged confessions obtained through torture,” said Hina Shamsi, an ACLU attorney.

“The Bush administration compounded this injustice by using torture-derived evidence to prosecute Mr. Jawad for war crimes in the unconstitutional military commissions. The government’s continued detention and prosecution of Mr. Jawad violates America’s values and the Constitution, as well as this country’s binding obligations under the Geneva Conventions and human rights law,” she said.

In September, the military’s prosecutor resigned from the military commissions because he did not believe he could ethically proceed with the case. He told the court there was “no credible evidence or legal basis” to justify Jawad’s detention and prosecution, and that the commission system’s flaws make it impossible for anyone “to harbor the remotest hope that justice is an achievable goal.”

A month later, Army judge Col. Stephen Henley held that evidence collected while Jawad was in U.S. custody could not be admitted in his trial because it had been obtained under duress. Among various forms of abusive treatment, Jawad was a victim of the military’s so-called “frequent flyer” program, in which detainees at Guantánamo were subjected to sleep deprivation for extended periods of time.

In May 2004, a few months after Jawad tried to commit suicide in his cell, prison officials deprived him of sleep for two weeks by moving him 112 times in 14 days — after having been ordered by their commanding general to discontinue this practice.

The government told the judge that Jawad’s alleged confessions were the centerpiece of its case against him. “The fact that the government persists in trying to use evidence obtained through torture says everything you need to know about the integrity of its case,” said U.S. Air Force Major David J. R. Frakt, who represents Jawad.

The Bush administration is appealing the Guantánamo military judge’s decision to throw out the “tainted” evidence.

In a separate case, the trial of another “child soldier,” Canadian citizen Omar Ahmed Khadr, is scheduled to begin Jan. 26. Khadr was captured by U.S. forces when he was 15, following a four-hour firefight with militants in a village in Afghanistan. He has spent six years in Guantánamo charged with war crimes and providing support to terrorism after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.

But in February of 2008, the Pentagon accidentally released documents that revealed that while Khadr was present during the firefight, there was no evidence that he had thrown the grenade. In fact, military officials had originally reported that another militant had thrown the grenade just before being killed.

HRF’s Deborah Colson told IPS that Obama’s plan to close Gitmo will be further complicated if he “does not make an immediate decision to suspend all military commission proceedings, including the trial of Omar Khadr.” Among the many complications surrounding the closing of Guantánamo is the question of what to do with detainees the U.S. government has cleared for release.

In December 2008, the government attempted to halt the cases of approximately 20 detainees the Defense Department had cleared for transfer out of Guantánamo. A few weeks later, a federal court rejected the government’s action. The ruling, from Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, meant that lawyers for the detainees could go forward with attempting to seek their release from detention.

As recognized by the Supreme Court and by District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina in the case involving 17 Chinese Muslims — known as Uighurs — remaining at Guantánamo, a core facet of the fundamental right of habeas is the ability of a federal court to order release in cases of unlawful detention. Judge Urbina ruled the Uighurs should be released from Guantánamo and admitted into the U.S. The government is appealing that decision.

“An administrative order that says that they are free to go is not relief after seven years of imprisonment,” says Emi MacLean, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “These men need to be released from prison, and this relief is long overdue.”

There are approximately 50-60 detainees at Guantánamo who cannot be sent to their home countries for fear of torture or persecution or because of statelessness. These include the 17 Uighurs from China as well as men from Azerbaijan, Algeria, Libya, Palestine, Russia, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan.

War crimes in Gaza? Let’s look closer to home

1

By Phil Shiner |

As reported this week, there are repeated calls for the UK and the international community to condemn Israel’s disproportionate and, therefore, illegal attacks on the civilian population of Gaza. At the same time, David Miliband urges an effective immediate ceasefire while repeatedly emphasising that the “attacks” from Hamas — which he talks about first — and the “military action” by Israel must stop. So far, this diplomatic language has been completely ineffective: the Israeli assault on Gaza continues unabated. However, if the UK and other EU states in particular, had complied with their international obligations, as clearly set out in the advisory opinion of the international court of justice in July 2004, this crisis could have been nipped in the bud at the outset (as could Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon and Gaza in August 2006).

The ICJ’s opinion on the wall could not be clearer. It identifies 11 international obligations breached by Israel by the construction of the wall and the maintenance of the system flowing from it of gates, permits, and illegal settlements on Palestinian land. These included non-derogable rules on the Palestinian right to self-determination and the prohibition on the acquisition of land by force. The ICJ then identify seven separate obligations for other states — in the context of these non-derogable rules — that include two negative obligations that states must not: one, render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation; and, two, recognise the illegal situation. Negative obligations have a lower threshold than positive ones and the burden on the UK and other EU states to meet these negative international obligations from July 2004 has been a high one.

It is noteworthy that the UK, as one such state, has done nothing effective to meet these obligations, and has, in fact, increased its aid and assistance in Israel since the ICJ’s opinion. These are some examples of its positive encouragement of Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories since July 2004:

– It has massively increased the value of arms-related products licensed to Israel in recent times (a doubling from 2004 to 2005 and a huge increase again with £20m approved in the first quarter of 2008);
– It has resisted all attempts by campaigners that it should apply effective pressure within the EU that the EU-Israel association agreement — of great importance to Israel’s trading figures — should be suspended as the human rights obligations underpinning it have been breached;
– It has continued to invite Israel’s arms companies to exhibit at the biannual Docklands arms fair;
– It has continued to propagate the myth that the Quartet’s roadmap process is the answer to the humanitarian crisis in the OPTs, which has allowed it to resist any positive action.

The UK has breached its international obligations — so clearly set out in the ICJ’s opinion — as have all the other EU states. Real effective pressure could have been applied by these states from July 2004 onwards. There is no doubt that Israel’s trading figures are heavily reliant on the positive agreement with the EU, and that arms-related products from the UK and other EU states are clearly implicated in attacks on civilians from 2004 onwards. This newspaper, for instance, carried an article in July 2006 that identified all the different UK components in an Apache helicopter, and we all know the role played by these aircraft in the present crisis. Handwringing pleas that both sides should enter into a binding ceasefire agreement have had no effect. However, if the UK and other EU states had ceased some, if not all, of their trading activities since 2004, even if only temporarily to make the point, the hand of the international community at the outset of this crisis could have been strong and effective. Israel could have been told it must immediately cease all attacks on civilians in Gaza on pain of:

– An immediate suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement and other trading and arms related activities with EU states;
– A security council resolution under chapter VII of the UN charter obliging all states to follow this lead.

However, once again, the UK government shows that it is willing to publicly flout international law, if the rule of law gets in the way of its political objectives.

Secrecy and the Bush administration

0

Even in its last months, the insulated Bush administration made it harder for the public to access records.

In the litany of violations of public trust and accountability by the Bush administration, a last round of restrictions on access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, hardly ranks with, say, warrantless wiretapping. But it is sadly characteristic of an administration that has insulated itself from scrutiny at every opportunity.

A recent report by ProPublica and the Columbia Journalism Review identified a host of ways in which the administration is making it harder for the public to access records heretofore more readily within reach. The Department of Energy wants to eliminate a rule that allowed it to release documents if it concluded that they would serve the public interest. The Department of Education has expanded its authority to refuse release of materials even after they are redacted to remove students’ names and identifying information. Other agencies are raising fees for processing and copying. The Securities and Exchange Commission wants to charge $70 an hour for processing some requests — not that anyone would want to study the efficacy of regulation and enforcement in the stock market.

From its first months, the Bush administration has encouraged bureaucrats to search for reasons to deny requests for information, directly reversing former Atty. Gen. Janet Reno’s order to government workers during the Clinton years to opt for release whenever permitted by the FOIA. So the latest actions are best seen not as an epiphany by this administration but rather as mop-up after a long, determined effort to shut the public out of government.

The FOIA is an ungainly device for illuminating the workings of government. It forces agencies to spend time and energy reviewing requests, some frivolous or excessive. Still, it gives the public its clearest window into the actions of taxpayer-funded agencies. Curbs on the FOIA thus represent not just inconveniences for journalists and historians but restrictions on the rights of citizens to hold their elected leaders accountable; as such, they compromise a fundamental right of a democratic people. It is fitting, if dismaying, that the Bush administration should be making one last attempt to shield government from those it is intended to serve.

LA Times

Don’t sleepwalk into Big Brother surveillance, schools warned

1

By STEPHEN NAYSMITH |

Schools which employ biometric technologies such as fingerprint patterning to manage libraries or dinner queues should put surveillance and privacy issues on the curriculum, according to university experts.

An analysis submitted by Strathclyde University to a Scottish Government consultation warns that schools should not “uncritically” accept bio- metric identification systems or other surveillance systems.

The authors claim it is not realistic or desirable to halt the development of such technologies.

With society moving towards the use of iris scanning and facial recognition at airports and biometric passports and possible ID cards, pupils need to be prepared for the world we live in.On the other hand, potential security benefits may mean schools could be seen as irresponsible if they don’t adopt such systems, they add.

However, the report concludes: “Schools must prepare pupils for life in the newly emergent surveillance society’, not by uncritically habituating them to surveillance systems used in schools, but by critically engaging them in thought about the way surveillance technologies work in the wider world and the implications of being a surveilled subject’.”

The report is also cautious about the potential response of children to the new technologies and argues schools should be careful, as pupils are likely to regard biometric technologies as “cool” and futuristic and to be uncritically enthusiastic about them.

The idea that schools should engage pupils with the realities and prospects of a surveillance society, the document says, is “premised on a belief that through informed understanding the worst excesses of the over-surveilled, over-controlled society may yet be avoided”.

However, it is not just pupils who appear to be embracing the technology. Companies which provide biometric “solutions” for schools say that 99% of parents back the technology when it is introduced.

Schools spoken to by The Herald bear this out. Renfrewshire Council has installed finger scanners in 12 primary schools after a pilot scheme at Paisley’s Todholm Primary School was judged a success. The headteacher at one, Moorpark Primary in Renfrew, says only three pupils out of a school roll of 127 have opted out – and they are all from the same family.

“I don’t think it’s because of Big Brother’ type fears, but their mum just felt they were too small to be putting their fingers on a scanner,” head Frances Boyd explains.

The Renfrewshire schools are using the system to manage mealtimes, with pupils or parents putting credit in the system which children can then access to pay for their dinner, verifying their identity by scanning their index finger.

The local authority says schools do not keep an image of any pupil’s fingerprint, with a set of points on the finger being used to generate a unique number against which subsequent scans are checked. Along with the system’s manufacturers, they claim it is impossible to “reverse engineer” a print or set of prints from the numbers on the system.

Boyd also cites anonymity as one of the benefits: “We are a school where 30% of pupils have free meals. But with this system no-one knows who those children are – which takes away the stigma.”

Boyd said there used to be a definite stigma attached to school meal tickets, and some secondary pupils would rather not take up school meals than be singled out in this way.

Pupil take-up has been enthusiastic, she says, but there has been no formal attempt to discuss issues such as civil liberties with them. “Work like that would come in through personal and social development lessons. We work on the belief that if children ask a question we will answer it,” she said.

Graham Herbert is headteacher at Lockerbie Academy, where school library cards have been replaced by a finger scan for three years now. He cites an uptake rate of 95% from parents.

“Those whose parents don’t consent can still borrow books in the conventional way,” he adds. “Kids in the main enjoy using it. It is technology and they are growing up in a world where it will be increasingly familiar in airports and banks, for example. Those I’ve spoken to don’t accept the civil liberties argument at all.”

The system has resulted in savings, Herbert claims, particularly through eliminating the problem of lost cards and the costs of replacing them. It has also led to improved rates of book borrowing, particularly amongst boys.

Responding to the Strathclyde University paper, he said: “Whether they debate it in modern studies subjects, I don’t know. I can see where the civil liberties argument comes in with ID cards, but not with this particular system.”

He added that it was important to stress that the system is not fingerprinting in the traditional sense. “People associate that with prison and permanent records, and that can cause an emotional reaction, but that is from people who haven’t found out how the system actually works.”

“Staff use the system too and I haven’t had any teachers approaching me and saying this is an infringement. To me it is no different from showing your passport in an airport.”

Teaching unions have objected, however, and the EIS warned in responding to the government consultation that the issue could turn schools into a civil liberties battleground.

Meanwhile, Geraint Bevan, of No2ID Scotland, the anti-ID card campaign, says there are issues which schools simply haven’t thought through. He added that he didn’t believe the introduction and upkeep of complex computer system would be outweighed by the cost of replacing library cards in the past. “These systems are a waste of money and there are big security issues. It is a fingerprint system, and it is not true to say that you cannot reverse engineer finger-prints from these algorithms.”

“Schools and local authorities should consider what happens if the police want to access their records because a serious crime has been committed. Would they say no, and can they legally? If not, they should be raising that with parents right from the start.”

He said of Strathclyde University’s idea that surveillance should be on the curriculum to help pupils engage with the issue: “That is the best idea I have heard in years. It really does raise important issues that children are going to have to deal with in their future lives.

“They would then be in a much better position to give informed consent, rather than just say: this is a cool toy’. I’d be very interested to see how kids views changed as a result.”

Professor Mike Nellis, one of the authors of the Strathclyde paper said: “Our view was that you can’t just stop this technology being used in schools. But if it is going to happen we said you have to not just have consultations. You have to actually turn it into a topic on the curriculum and talk through thoroughly the technology, privacy and civil liberties issues.”

Prof Nellis is currently working on a project entitled Surveillance and Society in the 21st Century, which will include a particular focus on schools. He argues that discussion of surveillance in schools should also encompass non-biometric measures such as CCTV. The topic will be explored through lectures aimed at secondary pupils, an exhibition at the Glasgow Science Centre and a surveillance symposium in spring and summer this year.

Biometric testing: the way forward?

The Scottish Government has published draft guidelines for local authorities on introducing biometric technologies.
The move comes after schools in Dumfries and Galloway and Renfrewshire installed fingerprint scanning systems for pupils to identify themselves when borrowing books or accessing dinner money.
It isn’t clear how widespread the technology is in Scotland, but it is clearly less advanced than in England, where thousands of children use fingerprint scanners in libraries.
Examples of biometric systems cited by technology firms include finger scans, vein recognition, facial biometrics, gait analysis and speech recognition.
They argue that such systems can improve school security and are easier and more reliable, eliminating the problems caused by lost library cards, dropped dinner money and forgotten passwords.
Civil liberties campaigners suggest the technologies tend to be unnecessary and are part of a creeping surveillance society.
Not all such developments involve biometrics. Two years ago a Doncaster secondary began experimenting with “smart threads” containing radio- frequency ID (RFID) tags embroidered into uniforms. These were used to track pupils as they move around the school.

Canada complicit with Israeli war crimes

0

By Jim Miles |

Canada lives in the unfortunate position of being under the thrall of U.S. media for most its information and cultural relevance. At the same time, its own media, apart from the national broadcast company CBC, is highly centralized under the influence of two media empires (Canwest Global and CTV GlobeMedia) who support the same kind of biased coverage that is provided by the U.S. In sum, Canadians who wish to receive a balanced view of events in the Middle East, Gaza in particular, have to rely on alternate or external media. Canwest Global (Israel Aspers’ media empire) provides nightly updates with little context and “balanced” reporting of showing deaths in Israel from the Qassam rockets as being equally as devastating as the IDF attacks in Gaza.

 

The current Canadian Conservative government under Stephen Harper is very much a shadow of U.S. conservatism: right wing Christian moralism; a hawkish if small military projection to give the world what it needs (whether it asks for it or not); and an unquestioning support of ‘neoliberal’ free trade practices. As such it echoes/mimics/supports the all too familiar U.S. perspective that Israel is the victim and Hamas the perpetrator of events in Gaza.

This leads to a Canadian government position no different than the U.S. government position — Israel is the victim of Hamas terrorist aggression.

In early January, 2009, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Peter Kent said, “The government of Canada has been very clear since the beginning of this crisis that it believes that the Hamas rocketing was responsible for the initial development of this crisis and for the continuing deepening humanitarian tragedy.” When asked about the bombing of UN schools that resulted in the deaths of more than forty civilians Kent replied, “Great responsibility rests with Hamas overall for triggering this incident and by their continued terrorist belligerence….” [1] He added another platitude excusing war crimes, “It is a tragedy and Canada is concerned about the loss of civilian life.” [2]

I would have to challenge Mr. Kent on his lack of knowledge that Israel knew the UN schools contained a civilian refugee population, that Israel had been informed they were refugee centres, and that Israel had dropped leaflets telling the local population to leave their homes or suffer bombing attacks. Attempts by Israel to show photos of insurgents with rockets on the school grounds were quickly proven false.

Combined with his personal lack of knowledge is his personal lack of humanitarian concern and understanding of the overall context of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the ongoing crimes against humanity involved with that.

Kent repeats other lines used by the U.S., Israel and other western governments to defend Israel. The oft-repeated servile response to Israeli actions is the line, “Canada continues to fully support Israel’s right to defend itself.” [1] It is, to sum up the U.S./Canadian view, all Hamas’ fault: “The burden of responsibility is on Hamas to stop its terrorist rocketing of Israel.” There is no recognition of the democratic election of Hamas denied, of the intention to strengthen Fatah militarily against Hamas, there is no recognition of the broader context of Israel as an occupying force that should be subject to the UN Charter of rights, international war law, and international human rights conventions. Israel only recognizes these conventions in the extremely narrow perspective of being attacked by some unreliable and ineffective homemade rockets. The broader context does not exist for its Western audiences.

Kent adds another rhetorical statement that fully demonstrates his ignorance, bias, and his buy-in to the U.S./Israeli viewpoint, “Hamas’s [sic] record is to use civilians — the population and civilian infrastructure — as shields and it would seem quite possible that this is yet another tragic instance.” It is difficult to argue with this kind of ignorance as it is born out of a deep cultural prejudice, a deeper ignorance of the full context of the war, and an acceptance of a falsely stated position conceived under conditions of urban warfare where not just the fighting forces but the whole population is against the occupation of their homeland.

This attitude came to the fore today when the Canadian representative to the UN Human Right’s Council voted against the resolution condemning Israeli actions because it “failed to recognize that Israel had acted to stop rocket attacks on its territory from the Hamas-controlled Gaza,” an ignorant sound bite when the motion clearly “called for an end to “launching of the crude rockets against Israeli civilians that resulted in the loss of 4 civilian lives.” Perhaps what Kent objected to was the continuation that also “noted that Israeli attacks had brought some 900 Palestinian deaths and injured around 4,000.” [3]

Canada is complicit in the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza and the Palestinian territories. I truly cannot understand the government ignorance of the history of the area, the lack of intelligent thought and humanitarian reaction to the mass murder of so many civilians. How can so many people be ignorant of the overall picture in the Middle East and the U.S. position to control the Middle East for resources and containment of China and Russia? How can they be so subservient to the Zionist rhetoric and propaganda against the Palestinians, and at the same time so ignorant of the history of ethnic cleansing and occupation of Palestinian territories? Can they not read? How can they simplify their responses to rhetorical lies of Israel as the victim, denying all the history and context of Israeli aggression in Palestine (recalling also at one time the Irgun and Haganah forces were considered terrorist groups by the British)?

My best answer is that it is a wilful ignorance, one guided by positions that look for explanations suited to the preconceived beliefs of the holder, rather than an intelligent and inquiring intellect that can adapt and change perspectives to new knowledge. More importantly in this case, I would have to say it defies common sense, given that the knowledge is available if one really wanted to know the full history and context of the story. Unfortunately that knowledge of history and the common sense attributes of knowing that the true aggressor has vastly superior weapons systems and has complete control of the territory in all facets are wilfully ignored, as it does not fit the preconceived right wing agenda of the Canadian government.

To reiterate, through wilful ignorance or simply lacking intelligence, Canada is then complicit in the war crimes committed against Palestine.

[1] “Canada blames Hamas for civilian casualties in Gaza” http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iI8qIDCLoK0EPTPEgf4e1rQwEGKw

[2] “Hamas responsible for deadly Gaza attack — Canada”
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06446874

[3] “UN Human Rights Council condemns Israel over Gaza op”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054843.html

Don’t Give the Banks Another $350 Billion

0

By Matt Rothschild |

Why in the world should we be giving the banks another $350 billion?

They caused this financial crisis in the first place.

Then Bush and Paulson just threw billions of dollars at them.

Bush and Paulson didn’t demand a voting share of these banks.

And the banks weren’t required to lend to businesses, though that was the main rationale for the bailout.

Nor were the banks required to refinance mortgages and go easy on foreclosures, though this is what triggered the crisis.

Basically, the banks weren’t required to do anything accept open their wallets.

And afterward, they didn’t even have to tell us, the taxpayers, what they did with the money, which was essentially to hoard it.

Now they deserve $350 billion more?

You’ve got to be kidding.

But that’s what Bush is saying. And he formally asked Congress to OK this second disbursement.

The odd thing is that Obama urged Bush to do so.

Yeah, Obama says he’ll impose a lot more stringent requirements on what the banks do with that money, but if it’s not in the legislation, and the banks get the money anyway, what leverage will he have?

On top of that, we could use this $350 billion in much wiser and more progressive ways–by helping people stay in their homes, for instance.

“We all have a huge stake in stopping this heist,” as Naomi Klein told me a couple of months ago.

Congress shouldn’t be dispensing the $350 billion.

It should be saying, “Stop, thief!”

Asked about WMDs, Bush grins: ‘Things didn’t go according to plan’

0

By John Byrne |


Abu Ghraib a ‘disappointment’


A confident George W. Bush took the podium Monday for what is likely the last press conference of his presidency, fielding a panoply of questions on the economy, President-elect Barack Obama, and what he sees as the failings of his term.

Speaking about the Administration’s claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction — which served as the cornerstone of the president’s justification for war — Bush laughed.

“Things didn’t go according to plan, let’s put it that way,” Bush said with a smile, then a grimace. The WMDs touted by Bush and his advisers were never found. More than 4,000 American troops have died as a result of the invasion; the toll for Iraqi civilians is in the tens of thousands.



“Clearly putting a mission accomplished on an aircraft carrier was a mistake,” he replied when asked what he’d done wrong under his watch.
“Some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.”

“I’ve thought about Katrina,” he added, without identifying particular errors in judgment.

“Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment,” he continued. “Not having weapons of mass destruction was a big disappointment.”

Bush defended his decision in 2007 to send an additional 30,000 American troops to Iraq to knock down violence levels and stabilize life in the country.

“The question is, in the long run, will this democracy survive, and that’s going to be a question for future presidents,” he said.

Bush also refused to answer questions about pardons. Speculation is rife that the president may pardon I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, who was convicted of obstruction of justice in the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame.


This video is from CNN.com, broadcast Jan. 12, 2009.




Download video via RawReplay.com

Secret Documents Show US Aware of Army Killings in 1990s

0

By Constanza Vieira |

Declassified U.S. documents show that the CIA and former U.S. ambassadors were fully aware, as far back as 1990, that the military in Colombia — the third largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel and Egypt — were committing extrajudicial killings as part of “death squad tactics.”

They also knew that senior Colombian officers encouraged a “body count” mentality to demonstrate progress in the fight against left-wing guerrillas. In an undetermined number of cases, the bodies presented as casualties in the counterinsurgency war were actually civilians who had nothing to do with the country’s decades-old armed conflict.

Since at least 1990, U.S. diplomats were reporting a connection between the Colombian security forces and far-right drug-running paramilitary groups, according to the Washington-based National Security Archive (NSA).

In the meantime, the U.S. State Department continued to regularly certify Colombia’s human rights record and to heavily finance its “war on drugs.”

The declassified documents were published Jan. 7 by the NSA, a non-governmental research and archival institution located at the George Washington University that collects, archives and publishes declassified U.S. government documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.

NSA’s Colombia Project identifies and secures the release of documents from secret government archives on U.S. policy in Colombia regarding issues like security assistance, human rights, impunity and counternarcotics programmes.

“These records shed light on a policy — recently examined in a still-undisclosed Colombian Army report — that influenced the behaviour of Colombian military officers for years, leading to extrajudicial executions and collaboration with paramilitary drug traffickers,” says the NSA report released last week.

The secret army report mentioned by the NSA led in late 2008 to the dismissal of 30 army officers and the resignation of Gen. Mario Montoya, the Colombian army chief who long “promoted the idea of using body counts to measure progress against the guerrillas,” writes the author of the NSA report, Michael Evans.

In one of the declassified documents obtained by the NSA, then U.S. Ambassador Myles Frechette complained in 1994 about the “body count mentalities” among Colombian army officers seeking to climb through the ranks.

“Field officers who cannot show track records of aggressive anti-guerrilla activity (wherein the majority of the military’s human rights abuses occur) disadvantage themselves at promotion time,” said Frechette.

Evans, director of the NSA Colombia Project, states in his report that “the documents raise important questions about the historical and legal responsibilities the Army has to come clean about what appears to be a longstanding, institutional incentive to commit murder.”

“But the manner in which the investigation was conducted — in absolute secrecy and with little or no legal consequences for those implicated — raises a number of important questions,” says Evans, who asks “when, if ever, will the Colombian Army divulge the contents of its internal report?”

The question of extrajudicial killings by the army made the international headlines and drew the attention of the United Nations after a scandal broke out in the Colombian media in September 2008 over the bodies of young men reported by the armed forces as dead guerrillas or paramilitaries.

It turned out that the men had gone missing from their homes in slum neighbourhoods on the southside of Bogotá and that their corpses had turned up two or three days later in morgues hundreds of kilometres away.

Since then, scores of cases of “body count” killings by the army, also known as “false positives,” have emerged.

Although the government expressed shock and indignation, evidence soon began to emerge of a pattern that dated back years.

As defence minister under current President Álvaro Uribe, Camilo Ospina, who is now Colombia’s ambassador to the Organisation of American States (OAS), signed a 15-page secret ministerial directive in 2005 that provided for rewards for the capture or killing of leaders of illegal armed groups, for military information and war materiel, and for successful counterdrug actions.

According to the W Radio station, which reported on the secret directive in late October, it could have encouraged extrajudicial killings under a new system, which may include “a mafia of bounty-hunters allied with members of the military.”

But in the view of Iván Cepeda, spokesman for the National Movement of Victims of State Crimes (MOVICE), “this is not about an infiltration of organised crime in the armed forces, nor about people who have broken the law. As the NSA report shows, this is an institutional practice that has been followed for decades.”

The Defence Ministry directive encouraged the phenomenon by creating a system of incentives that rewards “results” in the form of battlefield casualties, “discounting accepted methods and controls and the observance of human rights and international humanitarian law,” he said.

Cepeda also maintained that the activities of far-right death squads and the army’s “body count” killings were connected, and that the military used the paramilitaries to show results.

“The paramilitaries delivered to the army the bodies of people who were supposed members of the guerrillas but who were actually people selectively killed by those (paramilitary) groups,” he told IPS.

When the killings became more and more widespread, the armed forces themselves asked the paramilitaries to hide the remains, to keep the country’s homicide rate from soaring any further, paramilitaries who took part in a demobilisation process negotiated with the right-wing Uribe administration have confessed.

The declassified documents demonstrate “that the U.S. military as well as U.S. diplomats and governments have taken a complacent stance towards this kind of practice,” said Cepeda.

The declassified records are in line with the results of “Colombia nunca más” (Colombia never again), a monumental effort to document human rights abuses carried out by 17 organisations since 1995.

“’Colombia nunca más’ has created a databank on 45,000 (human rights) violations, including around 25,000 extrajudicial executions and 10,000 forced disappearances, committed between 1966 and 1998,” said Cepeda. Colombia’s two insurgent groups emerged in 1964 and the paramilitaries in 1982, although the latter launched a lethal offensive beginning in 1997.

Cepeda told IPS that in the next few months, MOVICE would begin to organise the families of victims of extrajudicial killings, which would culminate in a national meeting to discuss “what routes of documenting the truth and obtaining justice can be followed in an organised manner by the families of the victims of this practice.”

The earliest of the declassified documents obtained by the NSA is a 1990 cable signed by then U.S. Ambassador Thomas McNamara, addressed to the State Department and copied to the Defence Department, the U.S. army Southern Command, and the U.S. embassies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.

The cable, whose subject line reads “human rights in Colombia — widespread allegations of abuses by the army,” cites reports that an army major “personally directed the torture of 11 detainees and their subsequent execution…carried out by cutting of the limbs and heads of the still living victims with a chain saw.”

Referring to the connection between army officers and the paramilitaries, the ambassador stated that many “officers continue to discount virtually all allegations of military abuses as part of a leftist inspired plot to discredit the military as an institution.”

In addition, the cable mentions “strong evidence linking members of the army and police to a number of disappearances and murders which took place earlier this year in Trujillo, Valle de Cauca department.”

McNamara also mentioned “an apparent June 7 incident of extra-judicial executions.”

“The military reported to the press that, on that date, it killed 9 guerrillas in combat in El Ramal, Santander department. The investigation by Instruccion Criminal and the Procuraduria (legal authorities) strongly suggests, however, that the nine were executed by the army and then dressed in military fatigues. A military judge who arrived on the scene apparently realised that there were no bullet holes in the military uniforms to match the wounds in the victims’ bodies, and ordered the uniforms burned,” said the ambassador.

As sources told the ambassador, “all of the victims were part of the same family, and one of them, said by the army to have been a guerrilla, was 87 years old.”

The Promise Of Change, The Rules of The System… And The Real Revolution We Need

2

Revolution |

The hopes for Barack Obama’s presidency are sky-high.

That’s hardly surprising. In a country where not so long ago mobs of angry whites gathered in the North to burn out any Black family that tried to move into their neighborhood, or joined in packs in the South to carry out horrific lynching murders of Black people–and then bragged about it…a Black candidate has won the highest office. In a society where discrimination in education and hiring still keeps the Black unemployment rate more than double that of whites…where on any given day 1 in 9 young Black men are in prison and where a young man with black or brown skin risks being blown away for nothing every time he encounters the police…Barack Obama will soon be sworn in as the chief executive–and commander-in-chief–of that same society.

So today you hear some people say, “It’s a new America.” Others go so far as to call it a “revolution.” And even the more sober say, “Well, it won’t change everything and it might not even change that much…but you gotta admit, something big has happened here.” Even if the long dark night may not be over, some say, the election of Obama gives them hope that the dawn may be breaking.

Well, yes, something big has happened. But what?

Redeeming the
Dream of America?

The widespread feeling that this election signals both a turning point in, and even a reaffirmation of, American history and society is being pumped out first and foremost by Obama himself, who stated in his election-night victory speech, that: “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.”

Now many things certainly are possible in America. It is possible in America for European settlers to commit genocide against the Native American Indians who lived here and to then declare themselves to be builders of a “shining city on a hill” and “the last best hope of mankind.” It is possible in America to kidnap over ten million Africans and hold them and their descendants in slavery for 250 years, exploiting them as the foundation of the great wealth of this country, and then maintaining their descendants in new forms of oppression and super-exploitation, and to simultaneously brag that “the dream of our founders” is based on the principle that “all men are created equal.” It is possible in America to wage and sponsor wars and military coups over the past 150 years that have taken a toll on humanity unmatched by any of the fabled monstrous empires of the past, and to then routinely declare, as Barack Obama did in his speech, that this same country is the world’s great guarantor of “peace and security”– even as he preceded that by assuring anybody who opposed what he called the “new dawn of American leadership” that “we will defeat you.” It is possible in America to subordinate the economies of entire nations to the demands and dictates of U.S. capital; and it is possible to then both super-exploit impoverished people from those countries who then desperately seek work in the U.S. and at the same time to demonize them and scapegoat them as the cause of everyone else’s hard times. It is possible to torture in the name of “safety,” even as you assure the world you don’t.

But apparently, other things are NOT so possible in America. It has NOT been possible in America to actually do away with the structures of white supremacy and the oppression of entire peoples. It has NOT proven possible to cease the wanton and repeated murders of Black, Latino and other people of color by the police–with the most recent instance in Oakland, California, this very month, as police shot a 22-year-old butcher’s apprentice, Oscar Grant III, as he lay face down. It has NOT been possible in America to desist from sending troops, CIA spies, and commandos all over the world–nor has it been possible to avoid things like killing 40 civilians at a wedding party in Afghanistan on the day before the election which installed a man who has promised to send 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to invade that tortured, beleaguered country. It has NOT been possible in America to actually overcome the subjugation of women in every sphere of life, or to end the demonization and systematic discrimination against gay people. It has NOT been possible for America to refrain from the heedless plunder and spoliation of the very planet on which we live. It has NOT been possible in America to overcome the deadening alienation of everyday life for most people, or the despair of seeing your best efforts come to naught for many of those who want to dedicate themselves to making things better.

Clearly, Barack Obama to the contrary, all things are not possible in America–and some very bad and ugly things not only are possible, but seem to be “standard operating procedure” in the USA. So, yes, “change is coming”–but perhaps we’d better ask a little harder what kind of change.

The System Has Rules

The truth is this: even if Barack Obama had the best intentions in the world…even if he was in fact a secret radical, determined to use the system to benefit the people…even if all the reactionaries he has already brought into his administration are merely a clever device he is using to lull the enemy to sleep so he can stealthily revolutionize America…he couldn’t do it.

What has proven to be possible–and what has proven NOT to be possible–has nothing to do with “human nature” or “personal responsibility”…and everything to do with the system that was put in place to ensure “the dreams of our founders.” Now, to say that this is a system is not a curse-word; it just means that there are rules to the game, and if you don’t play by those rules the game stops working. What we need to do is examine those rules, and what they give rise to.

Rule Number One of this system is that nothing happens unless someone can make a profit off it. Where does that profit come from? The capitalist class–the relative handful which owns or controls the means of production (the land, resources, factories, etc.)–extracts that profit from the proletariat–the worldwide class of people which owns nothing but its ability to work, and therefore must work for others to survive. From small children in Pakistan, sewing together soccer balls with their tiny fingers for 20 hours a day….to Mexican peasants driven from their land and risking their lives in the sweltering Arizona desert in a desperate search for work…to the miners who can barely breathe from the coal dust in their lungs…to the people, young and old, haunting the street corners in every city of the world, hoping for work…capitalism can only live, like Dracula, by grinding the blood and flesh and dreams of billions into profit for a handful. This process, repeated billions of times daily, piles up wealth and power at one end, and misery and despair at the other. This is exploitation–and it is the beating heart of the system we live under. And when its own built-in barriers begin to make it more difficult to successfully carry out that exploitation–as is happening today in very sharp forms–those billions who produced that wealth are the ones who are cast aside as garbage, and suffer the worst.

Rule Number Two is that the individual capitalists (or “blocs of capital”) must battle each other for survival. Those capitalists who do not constantly expand run the risk of being driven under by others. Sometimes it takes expression in the kind of drama we see today, where big corporations are collapsing or being bought out. Sometimes it takes the form of horrible wars of slaughter, either between empires, or to further subjugate the oppressed. But the underlying rule is the same: expand or die.

And, oh yes, Rule Number Three: anything that gets in the way of America being the number one empire in the world must be brought to heel, or crushed.

Those basic rules determine what is or is not possible in America. Those are the rules that drive forward and determine the shape of American society. Those are the rules that are either very directly, or ultimately, behind every oppressive institution, and every outrage, in American society.

And those are the rules which Barack Obama must and will play by–and enforce. Every thing that Barack Obama does–how he uses the vast army at his command; who gets put into the nightmarish network of prisons he controls; what kinds of economic programs are put into place, with what kinds of consequences for which classes and groups of people–all this will be decided on those terms.

 And what would happen if Obama did try to change the “rules of the game?” Before very long at all, the game could not continue. And if you should be so foolish as to not immediately return to the rules, those who really control things will have you removed from the game.

Obama’s Real Program

But in point of actual fact, Barack Obama does NOT intend to make any radical change–at least any radical change for the better. He doesn’t even promise it. He talks about “rescuing” the capitalist economic structure. He talks about, and plans on, sending thousands more troops around the world to enforce American domination over other peoples. The carnage in Gaza elicits no criticism from Obama, and there is no doubt whatsoever that he will “honor his commitment to stand by Israel”–in plain talk, to back up and utilize it as the American attack dog in the Middle East, in which every crime it carries out is justified and defended. Obama’s role will be to put a new face on the essential policies that billions of people around the world, and in this country too, came to despise George W. Bush for: the wars for empire based on lies, and the cruel and widespread repression not only within this country but around the world. And to the extent that Obama does change some of Bush’s policies–as he very likely will–this will be either a matter of casting aside things which “haven’t worked” (for imperialism, that is) or maintaining some credibility and support among different sections of the people (here and worldwide) for policies that pertain to more overall needs of empire.

What makes it even more dangerous is precisely Obama’s ability to manipulate the hopes and ideals of those who have hated and opposed the crimes and outrages that have gone on for generations–as well as those who have come, righteously, to hate Bush in particular. All these people yearn to live in a better, a more just and meaningful society. Yes, Obama calls on them to serve something higher than their own narrow self-interest–but they will soon find out that the service to which they are summoned is the reinforcement of the empire, not the liberation of those oppressed by it. Some compare Obama to John F. Kennedy, who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” But all too many forget how JFK then sent those who were inspired by those words to kill and die in a genocidal war for empire in Vietnam, or to otherwise serve the empire. This is NOT a future that you should want–indeed, THIS IS A FUTURE THAT YOU SHOULD RESIST, BEGINNING NOW.

There is a further cruel irony in Obama’s ascendancy. The word has been put out by the powers-that-be that Obama’s victory shows that racism is basically gone in American society. Obama himself refused in his campaign to discuss the ongoing and bitter discrimination and oppression facing Black people in every arena of American life. Instead, he made speeches that excoriated Black youth for a lack of “personal responsibility.” He shrugs off–and in fact covers over–the real structures of white supremacy in this country–again, brought home so sharply just recently in the case of Oscar Grant III. In doing so he sets the victims of white supremacy up to be demonized, imprisoned and even worse when they run up against those still all-too-real facts of American life. This system has no future for the masses of Black youth–what is different now is that the powers-that-be have established someone who did make it out in the highest office of the land to blame and, yes, oppress those youth.

And to those who once knew better but now say that Obama makes them “feel good” about being an American–there is no end of things that are very bad for you in the long run but make you feel good right now. Cocaine, for instance. Coke feels real good, and it makes you think you can do great things. You tell the ones who warn you “don’t worry I know how to handle it” and then you get angry at them for not letting you enjoy the high…and then one day you’re doing shit you never would have believed you could, and you wonder how it happened.

The System in Crisis

So, yes, it is significant–it is very significant–that Obama has become president. But not for the reasons you may think. Those who actually do decide things feel that these are dangerous times for the empire. Their “war on terror” has run into reverses and has lost the support of many people. Yet at the very time this is so, their “need” for empire compels them to carry out even more aggression–from Afghanistan to Iran, from Palestine to Pakistan to who knows where else. They are neck-deep in the worst financial crisis in at least 80 years, with

people facing tremendous hardship and capital itself facing real barriers to expansion. And on top of all this, there is widespread loss of faith in and alienation from the government, and a “crisis of meaning” in people’s lives, and in the society broadly. In these desperate times the rulers of this country have played a “trump card”–they have installed a Black president in a country which has been known for its racism since before Day One. They put a new face on a rotting, if still powerful and vicious and extremely oppressive, system. They intend through this to channel people’s aspirations into a dead-end–a dead-end of serving the very system that grinds up millions and billions, just like them. That is the change Barack Obama represents.

Whether this will work–whether people will be not just fooled but enlisted in an enterprise opposed to the interests of humanity and, in the final analysis, to their own fundamental interests and best aspirations–is far from certain. But all it takes is for you, and millions like you, to keep following along, telling yourself, and others, to “give Obama a chance.” Keep doing that, and the people who run this system will, once again, bludgeon their way through the crisis they face.

But there IS another possible future, a far better one–one we can achieve through making revolution, and continuing to make revolution, until all relations of exploitation, and all the social institutions and ideas that reflect and reinforce those relations, are abolished.

On that note, we’ll close with a point made by our Chairman, Bob Avakian:

To those who say we should “give Obama a chance”–the question is: a chance to do what?

Obama has no problem with this system that causes so much misery and oppression, death and destruction, for so many people throughout the world–he is anxious to take over as head of this system. His problem is that this system is in serious crisis and faces all kinds of heavy challenges.

For those who really want an end to oppression, injustice and unjust war, our problem is this system. Our challenge is to make revolution to get rid of this system and emancipate all of humanity from its horrors.  

PILGER: Disgrace of the silent treatment

3

By refusing to condemn Israeli atrocities, intellectuals in the West are complicit in its crimes, argues JOHN PILGER.

“WHEN the truth is replaced by silence,” the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko said, “the silence is a lie.”

It may appear that the silence on Gaza is broken. The small cocoons of murdered children, wrapped in green, together with boxes containing their dismembered parents, and the cries of grief and rage of everyone in that death camp by the sea can be witnessed on Al-Jazeera and YouTube, even glimpsed on the BBC.

But Russia’s incorrigible poet was not referring to the ephemera we call news. He was asking why those who knew the why never spoke it and so denied it.

Among the Anglo-US intelligentsia, this is especially striking. It is they who hold the keys to the great storehouses of knowledge – the historiographies and archives that lead us to the why.

They know that the horror now raining on Gaza has little to do with Hamas or, absurdly, “Israel’s right to exist.”

They know the opposite to be true – that Palestine’s right to exist was cancelled 61 years ago and that the expulsion and, if necessary, extinction of the indigenous people was planned and executed by the founders of Israel.

They know, for example, that the infamous “Plan D” of 1947-8 resulted in the murderous depopulation of 369 Palestinian towns and villages by the Haganah (Israeli army) and that massacre upon massacre of Palestinian civilians in such places as Deir Yassin, al-Dawayima, Eilaboun, Jish, Ramle and Lydda are referred to in official records as “ethnic cleansing.”

Arriving at a scene of this carnage, David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was asked by a general, Yigal Allon: “What shall we do with the Arabs?” Ben Gurion, reported the Israeli historian Benny Morris, “made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand and said: ‘Expel them’.”

The order to expel an entire population “without attention to age” was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, a future prime minister promoted by the world’s most efficient propaganda as a peacemaker.

The terrible irony of this was addressed only in passing, such as when the Mapam party co-leader Meir Ya’ari noted “how easily” Israel’s leaders spoke of how it was “possible and permissible to take women, children and old men and to fill the road with them because such is the imperative of strategy. And this we say … who remember who used this means against our people during the (second world) war … I am appalled.”

Every subsequent “war” that Israel has waged has had the same objective – the expulsion of the native people and the theft of more and more land. The lie of David and Goliath, of perennial victim, reached its apogee in 1967 when the propaganda became a righteous fury that claimed the Arab states had struck first against Israel.

Since then, mostly Jewish truth-tellers such as Avi Shlaim, Noam Chomsky, Tanya Reinhart, Neve Gordon, Tom Segev, Uri Avnery, Ilan Pappé and Norman Finkelstein have undermined this and other myths and revealed a state shorn of the humane traditions of Judaism, whose unrelenting militarism is the sum of an expansionist, lawless and racist ideology called zionism.

“It seems,” wrote the Israeli historian Pappé on January 2, “that even the most horrendous crimes, such as the genocide in Gaza, are treated as discrete events, unconnected to anything that happened in the past and not associated with any ideology or system … Very much as the apartheid ideology explained the oppressive policies of the South African government, this ideology – in its most consensual and simplistic variety – allowed all the Israeli governments in the past and the present to dehumanise the Palestinians wherever they are and strive to destroy them.

“The means altered from period to period, from location to location, as did the narrative covering up these atrocities. But there is a clear pattern (of genocide).”

In Gaza, the enforced starvation and denial of humanitarian aid, the piracy of life-giving resources such as fuel and water, the denial of medicines, the systematic destruction of infrastructure and killing and maiming of the civilian population, 50 per cent of whom are children, fall within the international standard of the Genocide Convention.

“Is it an irresponsible overstatement,” asked Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and international law authority at Princeton University, “to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalised nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.”

In describing a “holocaust-in-the making,” Falk was alluding to the nazis’ establishment of Jewish ghettos in Poland.

For one month in 1943, the captive Polish Jews, led by Mordechaj Anielewicz, fought off the German army and the SS, but their resistance was finally crushed and the nazis exacted their final revenge. Falk is also a Jew.

Today’s holocaust-in-the-making, which began with Ben Gurion’s Plan D, is in its final stages. The difference today is that it is a joint US-Israeli project.

The F-16 jet fighters, the 250lb “smart” GBU-39 bombs supplied on the eve of the attack on Gaza having been approved by a congress dominated by the Democratic Party, plus the annual $2.4 billion in war-making “aid,” give Washington de facto control.

‘The unreported news is that the death toll in Gaza is the equivalent of 18,000 dead in Britain. Imagine, if you can.’

It beggars belief that president-elect Obama was not informed. Outspoken about Russia’s war in Georgia and the terrorism in Mumbai, Obama has maintained a silence on Palestine that marks his approval, which is to be expected given his obsequiousness to the Tel Aviv regime and its lobbyists during the presidential campaign and his appointment of zionists as his secretary of state and principal Middle East advisers. When Aretha Franklin sings Think, her wonderful 1960s anthem to freedom, at Obama’s inauguration on January 20, I trust that someone with the brave heart of Muntader al-Zaidi, the shoe-thrower, will shout: “Gaza!”

The asymmetry of conquest and terror is clear. Plan D is now Operation Cast Lead, which is the unfinished Operation Justified Vengeance.

This was launched by prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 when, with George W Bush’s approval, he used F-16s against Palestinian towns and villages for the first time.

In that same year, the authoritative Jane’s Foreign Report disclosed that the Blair government had given Israel the “green light” to attack the West Bank after it was shown Israel’s secret designs for a bloodbath. It was typical of new Labour’s enduring complicity in Palestine’s agony.

However, the Israeli plan, reported Jane’s, needed the “trigger” of a suicide bombing which would cause “numerous deaths and injuries (because) the ‘revenge’ factor is crucial.” This would “motivate Israeli soldiers to demolish the Palestinians.”

What alarmed Sharon and the author of the plan, General Shaul Mofaz, then Israeli chief of staff, was a secret agreement between Yasser Arafat and Hamas to ban suicide attacks.

On November 23 2001, Israeli agents assassinated Hamas leader Mahmoud Abu Hanoud and got their “trigger.” The suicide attacks resumed in response to his killing.

Something uncannily similar happened on November 4 last year when Israeli special forces attacked Gaza, killing six people.

Once again, they got their propaganda “trigger,” a ceasefire sustained by the Hamas government, which had imprisoned its violators, was shattered as a result of the Israeli attacks and home-made rockets were fired into what used to be called Palestine before its Arab occupants were “cleansed.”

On December 23, Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire, but Israel’s charade was such that its all-out assault on Gaza had been planned six months earlier, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz.

Behind this sordid game is the Dagan Plan, named after General Meir Dagan, who served with Sharon during his bloody invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Now head of the Israeli intelligence organisation Mossad, Dagan is the author of a “solution” that has brought about the imprisonment of Palestinians behind a ghetto wall snaking across the West Bank and in Gaza, now effectively a concentration camp.

The establishment of a quisling government in Ramallah under Mahmoud Abbas is Dagan’s achievement, together with a hasbara (propaganda) campaign relayed through mostly supine, if intimidated Western media, notably in the US, which says that Hamas is a terrorist organisation devoted to Israel’s destruction and is to “blame” for the massacres and siege of its own people over two generations, since long before its creation.

“We have never had it so good,” said the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Gideon Meir in 2006. “The hasbara effort is a well-oiled machine.”

In fact, Hamas’s real threat is its example as the Arab world’s only democratically elected government, drawing its popularity from its resistance to the Palestinians’ oppressor and tormentor.

This was demonstrated when Hamas foiled a CIA coup in 2007, an event ordained in the Western media as “Hamas’s seizure of power.”

Likewise, Hamas is never described as a government, let alone democratic.

Neither is its proposal of a 10-year truce reported as a historic recognition of the “reality” of Israel and support for a two-state solution with just one condition – that the Israelis obey international law and end their illegal occupation beyond the 1967 borders.

As every annual vote in the UN general assembly demonstrates, most states agree. On January 4, the president of the general assembly, Miguel d’Escoto, described the Israeli attack on Gaza as a “monstrosity.”

When the monstrosity is done and the people of Gaza are even more stricken, the Dagan Plan foresees what Sharon called a “1948-style solution” – the destruction of all Palestinian leadership and authority, followed by mass expulsions into smaller and smaller “cantonments” and, perhaps, finally into Jordan.

This demolition of institutional and educational life in Gaza is designed to produce, wrote British-based Palestinian exile Karma Nabulsi, “a Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed … Look to the Iraq of today: that is what (Sharon) had in store for us and he has nearly achieved it.”

Dr Dahlia Wasfi is a US writer on Iraq and Palestine. She has a Jewish mother and an Iraqi Muslim father. “Holocaust denial is anti-semitic,” she wrote on December 31.

“But I’m not talking about the World War II, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the president of Iran) or Ashkenazi Jews. What I’m referring to is the holocaust we are all witnessing and responsible for in Gaza today and in Palestine over the past 60 years … Since Arabs are semites, US-Israeli policy doesn’t get more anti-semitic than this.”

She quoted Rachel Corrie, the young US citizen who went to Palestine to defend Palestinians and was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer.

“I am in the midst of a genocide,” wrote Corrie, “which I am also indirectly supporting and for which my government is largely responsible.”

Reading the words of both, I am struck by the use of “responsibility.”

Breaking the lie of silence is not an esoteric abstraction but an urgent responsibility that falls to those with the privilege of a platform.

With the BBC cowed, so too is much of journalism, merely allowing vigorous debate within unmovable, invisible boundaries, ever fearful of the smear of anti-semitism.

The unreported news, meanwhile, is that the death toll in Gaza is the equivalent of 18,000 dead in Britain. Imagine, if you can.

Then there are the academics, the deans and teachers and researchers. Why are they silent as they watch a university bombed and hear the Association of University Teachers in Gaza plead for help?

Are British universities now, as Terry Eagleton believes, no more than “intellectual Tescos, churning out a commodity known as graduates rather than greengroceries?”

Then there are the writers. In the dark year of 1939, the Third American Writers’ Congress was held at Carnegie Hall in New York and the likes of Thomas Mann and Albert Einstein sent messages and spoke up to ensure that the lie of silence was broken. By one account, 2,500 jammed the auditorium.

Today, this mighty voice of realism and morality is said to be obsolete. The literary review pages affect an ironic hauteur of irrelevance. False symbolism is all.

As for the readers, their moral and political imagination is to be pacified, not primed. The anti-Muslim Martin Amis expressed this well in Visiting Mrs Nabokov: “The dominance of the self is not a flaw, it is an evolutionary characteristic; it is just how things are.”

If that is how things are, we are diminished as a civilised people. For what happens in Gaza is the defining moment of our time, which either grants war criminals impunity and immunity through our silence, while we contort our own intellect and morality, or it gives us the power to speak out.

For the moment, I prefer my own memory of Gaza – of the people’s courage and resistance and their “luminous humanity,” as Nabulsi put it.

On my last trip there, I was rewarded with a spectacle of Palestinian flags fluttering in unlikely places. It was dusk and children had done this. No-one had told them to do it. They made flagpoles out of sticks tied together and a few of them climbed onto a wall and held the flag between them, some silently, others crying out. They do this every day when they know foreigners are leaving, in the belief that the world will not forget them.

This article appeared in the New Statesman.

Prince Harry made shock racist remarks‏

0

By Robert Jobson and Ryan Sabey, 10/01/2009

PRINCE Harry made shock racist remarks on a video, the News of the World can reveal.

The soldier prince pours shame on the Royal Family as he calls an Asian squaddie “our little Paki friend” and tells another officer cadet jokingly wearing a camouflage veil off duty: “F*** me, you look like a raghead”–an offensive term for an Arab.

Harry, 24, third in line to the throne, also astonishingly mocks the Queen–the Commander- in-Chief of the British Army–while acting out a mobile phone call to her in front of other cadets at a field camp in Cyprus.

They laugh out loud as the disrespectful Prince pretends to get bored talking to his grandmother and dismissively hangs up on her saying: “I’ve got to go, got to go, bye. God Save You… yeah, that’s great.”

He even jokes about the colour of his pubic hair with one soldier in the middle of giving orders.
Last night Clarence House issued an APOLOGY for Harry’s behaviour in the shocking video diary–in which Harry is often behind the camera giving a foul-mouthed running commentary.

His sick remarks will not only have infuriated the Queen but could also increase tensions with Islamic groups in the UK who were outraged that he went to fight and kill Muslims in Afghanistan.
And they will mortify Army chiefs trying to recruit soldiers from Britian’s ethnic minorities.

The film was made in 2006, just a year after Harry was shamed for wearing a Nazi swastika at a fancy dress party and forced to make a grovelling apology.

Flight

It begins as the Prince–about to embark on training as a combat helicopter pilot–joins other cadets gathering at an airport for their flight to Cyprus.

He is behind the camcorder, panning around bored or sleeping comrades waiting for their flight.
As he films one cadet lying on the departure lounge floor, he says: “This is luxury. And here is our first example of possibly how to admin yourself (slang for looking after your kit and keeping yourself in good order) in the terminal awaiting the RAF.”

The camera pans over other snoozing soldiers, with Harry commenting “now that is bad admin, bad admin” before he suddenly stops and zooms in on the face of an unsuspecting Asian cadet yards away.
“Anybody else around here?… Ah, our little Paki friend… Ahmed,” he whispers.

After arriving in Cyprus, Harry is on exercise with his platoon when he makes his second offensive racist comment.

Once again he is behind the camera, filming in the dark.

One of his comrades has put what appears to be some camouflage over his head and as he looks up at the lens Harry says: “It’s Dan the Man… F*** me, you look like a raghead. Look at me. Look at me…. look away.”
The video– obtained by the News of the World–then shows the Prince on manouevres in Cyprus with his comrades. Harry plays on-screen reporter, turning the video on himself as he walks along. Then still a Sandhurst military cadet, he sarcastically mocks the exercise they have been given to do.

“It’s hot, very hot. Let me quickly show you the camp, let me show you the pointless tasks,” he says.
“Maybe not pointless tasks, we have been given by the real Company Sergeant Major, which apparently is all very much worthwhile towards our education in the field.”

The camcorder is passed to another squaddie. A cadet then introduces Harry as “Mr Wales“ and says the prince is “going to attempt to deliver a set of deliberate night attack orders in 30 seconds”.
The camera focuses on the Prince as he sits pretending to finish a call to the Queen.

“I’ve got to go, got to go. Send my love to the corgis. Send my love to the corgis and Grandpa” before making his “God Save You” insult.

Afterwards he pops a cigarette in his mouth before barking orders about an upcoming exercise, saying “we will be wearing smocks, body armour, helmet, and all the usual s**t”. After giving the orders the exercise descends into farce when the Prince, wielding an army knife, asks his men if there are any questions.
One of the squad cheekily remarks: “Are your pubes ginger too?”

Harry replies: “Sorry?”

He is then asked the question again and replies: “Yes, they are” to laughter from the rest.

Highs

Later Harry, wielding the camera again, asks another member of the squad to talk through the exercise they have just done.

He asks for “your ups and downs in the exercise. Highs and lows. Good people, bad people. Good points, bad points.” Off camera, he adds: “How do you feel? Gay? Queer on the side?“

Then Harry asks another cadet: “Anything you want to say? There’s no secrets here. Quickly just tell me what the f ** k is going on?“

The sequence ends with a reference to the hit Channel 4 show Big Brother: “Well that’s all from sandpit heaven in Cyprus. What you’ll next see is probably the diary. Big Brother wants you. Ciao.”
Throughout the film, Harry remarks several times: “All is good in the Empire.”

Other scenes in the video diary show Harry enjoying party nights out with his pals on manouevres.
In one scene the Prince–now on the wagon–mockingly mouths to another soldier “I love you” before kissing him on the cheek and licking his face. On the same night he is seen holding two fingers to his head, implying he wants to shoot himself because he is so bored by the Greek dancers.

Harry’s racist slur came a year after he was widely criticised over the Nazi costume incident.
In January 2005 the Prince, then 20, wore a swastika on a German Afrika Korps uniform to a fancy dress party.

He was forced to issue an apology saying: “I am very sorry if I have caused any offence. It was a poor choice of costume and I apologise.”

But the Prince’s tongue could get him into even deeper trouble this time.

Harry, who was promoted to the rank of Lieutentant after serving in Afghanistan, is in clear breach of British Army regulations. Officers guilty of racism within the Army face ‘major administrative action’ for misconduct and a range of punishments from written censure to being booted out of the service.
In 2004 a report by the Armed Forces Directorate of Operations Capability, found 40 per cent of soldiers said there was racism in the Army and 30 per cent believed racial harassment existed.

Racist

In March 2007 The Ministry of Defence said it would investigate claims of racist behaviour towards black Commonwealth soldiers.

The move came as Belize-born Marlon Clancy announced he was setting up an independent union for 6,000 Commonwealth soldiers in the army to help them deal with racism. Clancy told the BBC he had complained without success about racist bullying and intimidation for the seven years of his British army service. He claimed he was attacked by squaddies dressed as the Ku Klux Klan who called him ‘nigger’.
Forces top brass are stepping up attempts to attract more soldiers from ethnic minorities in the fight against terrorism.

Muslim recruits who understand the languages of southern Afghanistan are highly prized as intelligence officers to interpret Taliban radio chatter.

Staff officers have insisted the Army’s policy must be ’zero tolerance to all forms of discrimination’.
But Harry’s offhand use of the word ’Paki’ shows that among Sandhurst’s officer cadets–the Generals of the future–racist terms are far from taboo. Last September three Army instructors were suspended after an undercover BBC investigation into the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick, N Yorks. During the programme, one recruit was secretly filmed yelling ’Paki’ as he plunged his bayonet into a target dummy.
In 2007, a Jamaican-born soldier, identified only by his first name Wayne, said he faced regular racist abuse from non-commissioned and senior officers.

He claimed the soldiers’ shameful view was: “You’re niggers. You come over here and take all the married quarters and taking up the space… You need to go back to your country.”

(c) NEWS OF THE WORLD

Holocaust in Gaza

0

By Rohini Hensman |

In February 2008, Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai warned that if Hamas continued firing rockets, they would bring upon themselves a ‘bigger shoah,’ the word used by Israelis to refer to the Nazi genocide or holocaust. This statement came in the wake of attacks on Gaza which left 32 Palestinians dead, including eight children, the youngest a six-month-old baby. These regular attacks, combined with a blockade which deprived Palestinians in Gaza of food, fuel, potable water, medicines and educational materials, was the slow-motion shoah which had been taking place up to December 27. The full-scale bombing which began on that date is surely the ‘bigger shoah’ promised by Vilnai, and, according to Israeli reports, it was being planned as long back as February.1

There were demonstrations against the Israeli bombing by outraged protestors throughout the world as the Palestinian death toll climbed to more than 300 in three days, but Palestinians in Gaza felt that the international community were acting as mere spectators to the massacre. They were right. Protest demonstrations are not enough to stop a holocaust. Even less effective are sanctimonious statements by the UN and EU equating one Israeli life to more than a hundred Palestinian lives, which make the outright support for the massacre by George W. Bush almost attractive in its honesty. So what can we do?

Debunking Myths

The first necessity is to debunk myths that have successfully been used to vitiate all previous actions against Israel. Firstly, the myth that the founding of the Zionist state has anything to do with the Nazi genocide. In fact, the project was conceived decades before the Nazi holocaust, and was a straightforward colonial agenda in which European settlers would evict indigenous Third World people from their land and take it over. Gandhi saw this very clearly, which is why he refused to give the Zionists his support when they approached him, despite his sympathy for persecuted Jews.2

The second myth is that criticism of or opposition to the Zionist state of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism, and is an attack on all Jews. This is not true; indeed, Jews are among the most trenchant critics not only of Israeli atrocities, but also of the whole idea of a Zionist state. The notion that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same is shared by anti-Semites and Zionists; the former assume that all Jews are responsible for the crimes of the Zionists, while the latter assume that all condemnation of Zionist crimes constitutes an attack on Jews. These assumptions, equally reprehensible, are simply two sides of the same coin.

The third myth is that there was ever a possibility of a two-state solution. There were two models of settler-colonialism debated by the Zionists. One model, supported by very few, was the South African one, where the indigenous Palestinians, though evicted from their land and herded into Bantustans, would be allowed to remain in the country. The majority view was that the indigenous population should be eliminated, like the indigenous peoples of North America and Australia. To this end, massacres were carried out to terrorise the population into leaving, a process then known as ‘transfer of population’ and now as ‘ethnic cleansing’, and ever since the Nuremburg trials considered to be a crime against humanity.3 Both sides saw Israel as swallowing up the whole of Palestine, and one look at a map of Palestine/Israel today shows that this has now been achieved, with the Apartheid wall carving up the West Bank into ghettos, while the very fact that Israel could blockade the Gaza strip so effectively shows that it, too, is nothing more than a ghetto.

If Israel controls the non-contiguous borders, the coastal waters, the ground water and air space of the proposed ‘Palestinian state’, if the people of Gaza can be starved and bombed simply because they exercised their franchise to elect a government which the Israeli state did not approve of, there could be no clearer proof that Palestinian self-determination is not an option so long as the Zionist regime remains. The struggle, therefore, is not for a separate Palestinian state but, as in Apartheid South Africa, for one democratic state with equal rights for all in the whole of historical Palestine. This would solve the problem of the second-class status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, the need for self-determination for Palestinians in the territories occupied in 1967, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees, all without driving Israeli Jews out of the country. It is the only possible solution.4

The fourth myth is that Israel attacks Palestinians in self-defence. Take the most recent massacre, for example: it is claimed by Israel, and repeated by other politicians and the media, that it was Hamas which broke the ceasefire. Yet a careful scrutiny of ceasefire violations shows that once Hamas defeated Fatah and took control of the Gaza strip, violations from its side dropped almost to zero, until Israel broke the ceasefire by an air attack and ground invasion on November 4. Furthermore, throughout the ceasefire Israel implemented a siege and naval blockade of Gaza, defined as acts of war in international law. So it was Israel which broke the ceasefire in an act of aggression, and the legally elected Hamas government of Palestine which was acting in self-defence.5 This means that in international law, the murder of each one of the over 550 Palestinians killed in the most recent massacre, whether the vast majority of civilians or the small minority of guerrilla fighters, is a crime equivalent to the crime of killing one Israeli civilian.

Indeed, even before the December onslaught, it was clear that what Israel was doing in Gaza amounted to genocide according to the Genocide Convention (1948), reiterated in the Rome Charter of the International Criminal Court (2002), which includes: ‘(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’6 The launching of rockets into Israel by Hamas was, like the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943, a response to impending extermination: a desperate bid for survival. The Zionists’ hostility to anyone standing up for the rights of Palestinians led them in 1948 to murder Count Folke Bernadotte, who had negotiated the release of tens of thousands of prisoners from German concentration camps and was subsequently appointed UN Security Council mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict. More recently, their shameful abuse of Richard Falk, UNHRC Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine (himself an American Jew), who in December 2008 was denied entry, ill-treated and deported, suggests that only pragmatic considerations prevented them from assassinating him too.7

What Needs to be Done?

According to twenty-one human rights activists (including Jews) from South Africa visiting the West Bank in July 2008, the situation in Palestine/Israel was ‘worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality, are worse than the worst period of apartheid;’ ‘What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible — and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible.’8 An international response at least as strong as the response to Apartheid South Africa therefore seems to be appropriate, and this is constituted by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel called for by Palestinian civil society groups on 9 July 2005, to be continued until the apartheid regime is replaced by a democratic one. This includes cultural, academic and sports boycotts, and a consumer boycott of Israeli goods (barcode starting with 729), as well as a boycott of companies investing in, sourcing from, or otherwise supporting Israel, and pressure on them to change their policies. It would also include pressure on governments to break off diplomatic, economic and military ties with Israel, pointing out that these constitute complicity with Israel’s crimes.9

There should be extra pressure on openly collaborationist regimes, like those of Mahmoud Abbas, Hosni Mubarak, and the Arab allies of Israel, which ought to be made to feel that their people will reject them unless they cease their complicity in Israeli crimes. Enormous pressure would also have to be brought to bear on the US, which assists Israel with billions of dollars annually as well as other forms of support. Given the indications that no change in US policy towards Palestine and Israel is planned by Barack Obama’s administration, the pressure should begin immediately, before his inauguration. And pressure from within the US should be augmented by international pressure.

The US economy is in deep crisis, with more than $ 10 trillion of national debt, and the only reason it can keep bankrolling Israel is that the US dollar is treated as world currency and oil sales are denominated in it, so the US has been getting more or less unlimited credit from the rest of the world. Russia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries must be pressurised into supporting the rights of Palestinians by immediately denominating their oil sales in euro, in preparation for moving to roubles in the case of Russia, and a common Gulf currency in the case of the GCC countries. Countries like China and Japan, with their massive US dollar reserves, should make the extension of further credit conditional on the US ceasing to fund Israel as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and countries with smaller dollar reserves should shift their reserves to other currencies. Such a move is required not only by ethical considerations, but also by pragmatic ones: if the credit extended is used to rebuild the US economy, there is a chance that it might be returned, whereas if it is used to fund aggression against Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, it will never be returned. In this campaign, very little individual action is possible, and success would depend on putting collective pressure on governments to boycott the US dollar until the US ceases to engage in and support imperialist aggression. With very few exceptions, governments of the world are complicit in the atrocities being committed in Gaza, just as they were in the crushing of the Warsaw ghetto uprising,See Joseph Massad, ‘The Gaza Ghetto Uprising,’ Electronic Intifada, 4 January 2009. and strong public pressure would be needed to expose, condemn and end their complicity.

The myths enumerated above need to challenged in every forum, along with the more diffuse racism that constitutes their premise. We may disagree with the politics of Hamas, just as we may disagree with the politics of the British Labour Party, but it does not follow that we should condone the slaughter of all leaders and members of Hamas, their families, government employees, and random members of the Palestinian population which elected them to power, any more than we would condone the slaughter of all leaders and members of the Labour Party, their families, government employees, and random members of the British population which elected them to power. The fact that the US and EU cannot see this equivalence demonstrates that they are dominated by the same racism which allowed slavery to flourish and the indigenous peoples of North America and Australia to be exterminated. Where Black people are killing Black people, as in Rwanda, or White people are killing White people, as in Bosnia, there is a chance that the UN may take action, however weak and belated. But where White people are killing Third World peoples, as in Palestine, there is no hope that it will take any action unless citizens of the world put massive pressure on their governments to support a solution which can bring justice and peace to Palestine/Israel. It is good that there have been worldwide protests against the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza, but a ceasefire would be no better than putting a sticking plaster over a festering wound, which will only erupt again sooner or later. The wound cannot heal until the infection has been eliminated by replacing the Apartheid state with a democratic one, and long-term, concerted action is required to achieve that goal.

  1. ‘Israeli minister warns of Palestinian ‘holocaust’, Guardian, 29 February 2008. [↩]
  2. A.K.Ramakrishnan, ‘Mahatma Gandhi Rejected Zionism,’ The Wisdom Fund, 15 August 2001. [↩]
  3. The debates as well as the methods by which the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was achieved are meticulously recorded in Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications, Oxford, 2007. [↩]
  4. See the One Democratic State Group website. [↩]
  5. ‘On Sderot and Ashkelon,’ Jews sans Frontiers, 30 December 2008. [↩]
  6. For this argument see Ilan Pappe, ‘Genocide in Gaza, Ethnic Cleansing In the West Bank,’ Countercurrents, 28 January 2008. [↩]
  7. Stephen Lendman, ‘Obama v. Richard Falk on Israel and Occupied Palestine,’ Countercurrents, 24 December 2008. [↩]
  8. Gideon Levy, ‘Twilight Zone / “Worse than Apartheid”,’ Haaretz, 12 July 2008. [↩]
  9. For details of the BDS campaign, see Global BDS Movement — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions for Palestine. The website of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) also has suggestions for action, including signing a petition in support of UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, who has spoken out to condemn Israeli apartheid and called for boycott, divestment and sanctions. Information about companies linked to Israel can also be found in the Boycott Apartheid Israel leaflet published by the Friends of Al Aqsa. [↩]

Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December

0

“Contrary to Israel’s argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.

The proposal to renew the ceasefire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.

The Hamas officials insisted that Israel not be allowed to close or reduce commercial traffic through border crossings for political purposes, as it had done during the six-month lull, according to the source. They asked Suleiman, who had served as mediator between Israel and Hamas in negotiating the original six-month Gaza ceasefire last spring, to “put pressure” on Israel to take that the ceasefire proposal seriously.

Suleiman said he could not pressure Israel but could only make the suggestion to Israeli officials. It could not be learned, however, whether Israel explicitly rejected the Hamas proposal or simply refused to respond to Egypt.

The readiness of Hamas to return to the ceasefire conditionally in mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and senior adviser to the Carter Centre, who met with Khaled Meshal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor told IPS that Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire that had been in effect up to early November “if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza”.

Pastor said he passed Meshal’s statement on to a “senior official” in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) the day after the meeting with Meshal. According to Pastor, the Israeli official said he would get back to him, but did not.

“There was an alternative to the military approach to stopping the rockets,” said Pastor. He added that Israel is unlikely to have an effective ceasefire in Gaza unless it agrees to lift the siege.”

IPS

FREE GAZA TO ISRAEL: “WE ARE COMING IN ON TUESDAY”

0

Free Gaza Movement |

(Cyprus) Huwaida Arraf, +357 96 723 999 or +357 99 081 767
– huwaida.arraf@gmail.com Questo indirizzo e-mail è protetto dallo spam bot. Abilita Javascript per vederlo.

(Gaza) Ewa Jasiewicz, +972 598 700 497 freelance@mailworks.org Questo indirizzo e-mail è protetto dallo spam bot. Abilita Javascript per vederlo.

(Egypt) Caoimhe Butterly, +20 121 027 072 sahara78@hotmail.co.uk Questo indirizzo e-mail è protetto dallo spam bot. Abilita Javascript per vederlo.

(U.S.) Ramzi Kysia, +1 703 994 5422 rrkysia@yahoo.com Questo indirizzo e-mail è protetto dallo spam bot. Abilita Javascript per vederlo.

(Cyprus, 11 January 2009) – The Free Gaza Movement ship, “SPIRIT OF HUMANITY,” will leave Larnaca Port at 12:00 noon, Monday, 12 January, on an emergency mission to besieged Gaza. The ship will carry desperately needed doctors, journalists, human rights workers, and members of several European parliaments as well as medical supplies. This voyage marks Free Gaza’s second attempt to break through the blockade since Israel began attacking the Gaza Strip on 27 December. Between August and December 2008, the Free Gaza Movement successfully challenged the Israeli blockade five times, landing the first international ships in the port of Gaza since 1967.

The Israeli military violently attacked an earlier attempt by the Free Gaza Movement to send an emergency boat filled with doctors and medical supplies to Gaza. In the early hours of Tuesday, 30 December, the Israeli navy deliberately, repeatedly, and without warning rammed the unarmed ship, the DIGNITY, causing significant structural damage and endangering the lives of its passengers and crew. The ship found safe harbor in Lebanon, and is currently awaiting repairs.

Fouad Ahidar, a member of the Belgian Parliament sailing to Gaza aboard the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, responded to concerns that Israel may attack the unarmed mercy ship by saying, “I have five children that are very worried about me, but I told them, you can sit on your couch and watch these atrocities on the television, or you can choose to take action to make them stop.”

Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip have injured thousands of civilians and killed over 800 people, including scores of women and children. This ongoing Israeli massacre severely and massively violates international humanitarian law defined by the Geneva Conventions, especially the obligations of an Occupying Power and the requirements of the laws of war.

The United Nations has failed to protect the Palestinian civilian population from Israel’s massive violations of international humanitarian law. Israel has closed off Gaza from the international community and demanded that all foreigners leave. But Huwaida Arraf, an organizer with the Free Gaza Movements, stated that, “We cannot just sit by and wait for Israel to decide to stop the killing and open the borders for relief workers to pick up the pieces. We are coming in. There is an urgent need for this mission as Palestinian civilians in Gaza are being terrorized and slaughtered by Israel, and access to humanitarian relief denied to them. When states and the international bodies responsible for taking action to stop such atrocities chose to be impotent, then we–the citizens of the world–must act. Our common humanity demands nothing less.”

Israel has been notified that we are coming. A copy of the notification to the Israeli Authorities is attached.

The media is invited to the Larnaca Port at 10:00am to for final preparations and a press conference before departure.

### WHAT YOU CAN DO

Take Action! CALL the Israeli Government and let them know that the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY is coming to Gaza. DEMAND that Israel immediately STOP slaughtering civilians in Gaza and STOP using violence to prevent human rights and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.

CALL

Mark Regev in the Prime Minister’s office:

+972 2670 5354 or +972 5 0620 3264

– mark.regev@it.pmo.gov.il Questo indirizzo e-mail è protetto dallo spam bot. Abilita Javascript per vederlo.

Shlomo Dror in the Ministry of Defence:

+972 3697 5339 or +972 50629 8148

– mediasar@mod.gov.il Questo indirizzo e-mail è protetto dallo spam bot. Abilita Javascript per vederlo.

Major Liebovitz from the Israeli Navy:

+ 972 5 781 86248

Official Notification of Intent to Enter

January 11, 2009

To: The Israeli Ministry of Defense, Fax: 972-3-697-6717

To: The Israeli Navy

To: The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Fax 972-2-5303367

From: The Free Gaza Movement

This letter serves as a formal notification to you as the Occupying Power and belligerent force in the Gaza Strip that on Monday, January 12 we are navigating the motor vessel, Spirit of Humanity, from the Port of Larnaca to the port of Gaza City. Our vessel will be flying the Greek flag, and, as such, falls under the jurisdiction Greece.
We will be sailing from Cypriot waters into international waters, then directly into the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip without entering or nearing Israeli territorial waters. We expect to arrive at the Gaza Port on Tuesday, January 13, 2009.
We will be carrying urgently needed medical supplies in sealed boxes, cleared by customs at the Larnaca International Airport and the Port of Larnaca. There will be a total of 30 passengers and crew on board, among them members of various European Parliaments and several physicians. Our boat and cargo will also have received security clearance from the Port Authorities in Cyprus before we depart.
As it will be confirmed that neither we, the cargo, any of the boat’s contents, nor the boat itself constitute any threat to the security of Israel or its armed forces, we do not expect any interference with our voyage by Israel’s authorities.
On Tuesday, December 30, an Israeli Navy vessel violently, and without warning, attacked our motor vessel Dignity, disabling the vessel and endangering the lives of the 16 civilians on board. This notice serves as clear notification to you of our approach. Any attack on the motor vessel, Spirit of Humanity, will be premeditated and any harm inflicted on the 30 civilians on board will be considered the result of a deliberate attack on unarmed civilians.
The Steering Committee of the Free Gaza Movement

Contact: Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza Movement, 357 96 723 999

Police at Gaza demo ‘caused stampede’

0

By René Lavanchy |

FURTHER allegations of police brutality at last Saturday’s demonstration against the Gaza violence have emerged, as activists promise to take up complaints with the Metropolitan Police.

A steward told Tribune that children and babies risked being crushed in a “stampede” in an underpass as police baton-charged the demonstrators.

The trouble occurred when a portion of the protesters who had marched uneventfully on Trafalgar Square headed towards the Israeli Embassy, under police supervision.

Tansy Hoskins, a steward and member of organisers Stop the War Coalition, said: “The police sort of sprinted down the tunnel and really laid into people. This obviously led to people turning and stampeding back”.

“There were people with pushchairs, families with children. The police didn’t care about any of this. I was incredibly scared. There was nowhere to go.” The StWC is gathering statements for a complaint.

A police spokesperson said officers made one advance into the crowd using “recognised and proportionate tactics”, and that some protesters had thrown missiles and tried to drag police into the crowd.

Over 100,000 on London’s Gaza demo

0

The London demonstration on 10 January against Israel’s bombing and invasion of Gaza was much bigger than the police estimate of 20,000. The organisers claimed 100,000, and the BBC said 50,000.

Certainly, as a comrade from the Worker-communist Party of Iraq remarked to me on the march, it was much broader than just political-Islamists (or British left groups who follow the political-Islamists): many thousands were there just because they are outraged at the brutality of the Israeli attack.

The official placards, whether from the Muslim Association of Britain and the British Muslim Initiative (offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood), or from the SWP-run Stop The War Coalition, were limited to slogans like “Gaza: stop the massacre”.

The size and the logistics of the demonstration – often crammed into fairly small spaces – made it harder than it would otherwise have been to make an impact with the joint contingent AWL had with the Worker-communist Party of Iraq (UK), the only contingent on the march, as far as I could see, clearly calling for a “two-states” settlement (on our banner) and criticising Hamas.

But there was no hostility from ordinary demonstrators to our leaflets and to our “Two Nations, Two States” pamphlet. It would be wrong to assume from the loud chants that everyone on such demonstrations is closed-mind pro-Hamas.

The loudest voices on the demonstration were pro-Hamas. As an AWL comrade said to me, this is a war demonstration, when what we want is a peace demonstration.

Chants like: “Hey ho, hey ho, Israel has got to go”, and “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free” were common.

The SWP had two people on loud-hailers at the entrance to Speakers’ Corner. One was yelling “Destroy Israel! Destroy capitalism! One solution, revolution! Victory to Hamas! The rockets are getting closer to Tel Aviv!” Just round the corner was the other, yelling “Force Gordon Brown to intervene to stop the bloodshed! Demand he expel the Israeli ambassador!”

Minimax approach! But what a “maximum”!

The Socialist Party also made a big effort for the demonstration. But from all their posters and placards, you would not know that the SP’s formal political position is for “two states”.

They always try to “maximalise” it by saying that it must be a socialist Israel and a socialist Palestine, but, if we were about to force the Israeli troops out of Gaza and the West Bank, would the SP actually say: No, they must stay until both the Israeli and the Palestinian working classes are ready to seize power? In any case, it is a variant of “two states”. But no word of it on the demonstration.

Instead, the line was “Mass struggle needed for liberation”. As if the “liberation” that Hamas fights for (conquering the whole of Palestine for an Islamic state) were uncontentious, and the only issue were Hamas tactics. As if, also, the war that Hamas fights against Israel were “individual terror”, not the war it actually is.

Workers’ Liberty activists will continue to take part in the daily protests at the Israeli embassy in London, and we have called a joint forum with the Worker-communist Party of Iraq (UK) for Thursday 15th to discuss the issues further: details here.

Israeli missiles hit village

0

By Richard Boudreaux and Rushdi abu Alouf |

Reporting from Jerusalem and Khan Yunis, Gaza Strip — Israeli troops and tanks thrust into the Gaza Strip’s densely populated capital from three directions today, drawing Hamas fighters into fierce combat in an offensive expanded by a fresh deployment of army reservists.

The assault on Gaza City coincided with a predawn missile barrage that set 20 homes ablaze in a southern Gaza village. Scores of residents suffered burns and gas inhalation, witnesses said. Doctors who treated the victims said they suspected Israel had fired white phosphorus shells, which can be used to illuminate the nighttime battlefield or to lay down a smoke screen.

Plumes of black smoke rose over Gaza City as Israeli ground forces backed by helicopter gunships inched into neighborhoods on the capital’s southwestern, eastern and northern edges before dawn.

Tall apartment buildings shook from the force of Israeli artillery and airstrikes, and Hamas fighters answered with mortars, automatic rifles and grenades. It was the heaviest fighting since Israel attacked the Palestinian enclave Dec. 27, saying it wanted to halt years of rocket attacks on southern Israeli communities.

Troops withdrew from Gaza City after several hours, leaving it unclear whether Israel’s leaders had ordered an all-out assault on Hamas’ central stronghold. A decision to escalate the offensive would bring in tens of thousands of Israeli reservists, who were called up late last month, into a what would likely be close combat, with sharply higher casualties.

Brig. Gen. Avi Benayahu said today that the army had begun sending some reservists into Gaza but declined to say whether a new phase of the offensive had begun.

On Saturday, Israel’s aircraft scattered leaflets over Gaza City and Rafah and sent automated calls to Palestinian cellphones warning of an escalation in attacks.

“The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] will escalate the operation in the Gaza Strip,” the messages said in Arabic. “The IDF is not working against the people of Gaza but against Hamas and the terrorists only. Stay safe by following our orders.”

The leaflets urged residents not to help Hamas and to stay away from its members.

Also on Saturday, a senior Hamas commander was killed. The army said its ground forces killed Amir Mansi, commander of Hamas’ rocket-launching teams in Gaza City, after spotting him at a launch site there. Hamas confirmed Mansi’s death.

Palestinian militants fired 15 rockets into Israel, wounding three people.

Diplomatic efforts to end the fighting sputtered as Egypt rebuffed a proposal to place international forces along its border to help prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza. Israel says the offensive is aimed at stopping rocket fire from Gaza and will continue until weapons pipelines into the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave are cut off.

Israeli ground forces invaded Gaza on Jan. 3, after eight days of airstrikes, and have moved to the outskirts of cities. Although there was no sign of an advance, the warnings heightened the panic that has gripped Gaza’s 1.5 million people since the offensive began.

On Saturday, scores of families were seen loading mattresses and other belongings into and atop their cars and moving from outlying neighborhoods of Gaza City to places of refuge closer to the center.

In Saturday’s bloodiest incident, seven members of the Abed Rabbo clan were killed in the late-morning shelling of their grocery store in a village just east of the Jabaliya refugee camp.

Ziad Barqouni, an ambulance driver, said neighbors told him that the shelling had come from an Israeli tank several blocks away. Barqouni said he saw an Israeli helicopter firing into the village as he approached.

The Israeli army denied attacking the area at the time.

Twelve other Palestinian civilians were reported killed Saturday.

Palestinian medical officials said this weekend that nearly half of the 830 Gazans killed in the offensive were civilians. Israeli news media said the army estimated that it had killed 300 militants.

Thirteen Israelis have been killed: 10 soldiers, plus three civilians hit in Israel by rocket fire.

Events timeline for National Free Gaza demo

0

Indymedia |

After 14 days of of Israeli state aggression against the people of Palestine 802 people are dead, over 257 of which are children. Across the world there have been militant protests, Saturday 10th January marks the second UK national demonstration in London since the invasion. Over 100,000 people are expected to take part in the action.

19.15
Some protestors are suffering from the effects of minus temperatures, so it was decided to provide personal information to the police. Protestors are being escorted away from the kettle by riot police in different directions, presumably to prevent the protestors regrouping later. One protestor has said it “reminds her of an Israeli checkpoint”. The police horses are leaving now, but there are still hundreds of police vans lining the streets.

19.10
The police are releasing protestors from the kettle one at a time, taking their names, addresses, and photographs through a tunnel of cops. The police have announced that all 1000-2000 protestors in the kettle are suspected of criminal damage. This practice is of dubious legality and protestors are discussing whether to refuse providing personal information.

18.50
Up to 2000 people still reported kettled outside of the Israeli Embassy, a long wait is expected. There are still many people outside of the kettle too.

17.55
The protest is currently split in two halves, with thousands on Kensington High Street where there is a stand-off, and many people still in Hyde Park.

17.40
About between 1000 and 2000 people reported kettled outside of the Israeli embassy. Police on horseback were moving down Kensington Road towards Hyde Park forcing people back.

16.57
Eye-witness saw a Muslim woman with head injuries being stretchered off, and children as young as 10 years old being crushed against barricades after a panic was caused by a charge from the riot police.

16.55
Riot police on foot reported to have fanned out near the Israeli embassy and charged the crowd, forcing them over metal barriers where they were enclosed. People had no where to go and there were many injuries. Two protestors have been spotted being stretchered off in neck braces with what looks like head injuries.

16.52
The police have completely closed off Hyde Park.

16.50
Lines of police horses are now forming. Protestors are forming barricades in front of the horses, whilst a clothing shop has been covered in red paint and about six windows have been broken.

16.45
Starbucks on Kensington High Street has had it’s windows smashed using a police barrier. The shop has now been trashed. Starbucks is owned by Howard Schultz who is a staunch Zionist and supporter of the occupation of Palestine. The police attempted to charge the crowd and managed to partially force their way through to the shop resulting in many injuries. Two unconscious police officers were witnessed being stretchered out of the crowds.

16.44
Outside the Israeli embassy there is a stand-off between protestors and police. Protestors have removed some of the barriers again, and a few missiles have been thrown at the police. Three of four lines of riot cops have walked out from near the Royal Garden Hotel into Kensington High Street. They are letting protestors leave but not towards the Israeli embassy. They may soon attempt to kettle the crowd.

16.25
Activists have carried out a direct action against an occupation supporting beauty products shop in London. Ahava sell Dead Sea beauty products which are produced in illegal West Bank settlements. The shop has been blockaded since 11.00am and is still closed. Three activists locked on with a triangular arm lock, whilst leaflets were handed out and locals and members of the public were engaged regarding the crimes of this enterprise. There has been widespread corporate media interest from Sky News, London Tonight, and Associated Press. The three activists have been arrested on unknown charges, and the cutting team arrived a few minutes ago.

16.10
Hyde Park is surrounded by riot police. There are a large number of police horses and riot vans in the park. This presence has made it difficult to traverse the park causing problems for people attempting to find their coaches.

16.00 LEEDS
In Leeds a demo involving around 600 people marched around the city centre. There were two or three arrests for so called ‘public order’ offences. One police officer was threatening people with ‘Section 3 of the Criminal Act’ which does not exist. At one point a car pulled up with people waving an Israeli flag and taunting the demonstrators. Protestors blocked the car before police moved in.

15.55
The Israeli embassy is now closed off to the public and is lined with riot police in full riot gear and shields. There are unconfirmed reports that some protestors have attempted to access the Israeli embassy from the rear.

15.45
On Kensington High Street the police have put barriers between protestors on the road and the pavement which has caused a crush. The crowd were shouting “shame on you!” at the police who are now wearing riot gear. A man has climbed a lamp post to avoid the crush, and the police are pre-occupied with trying to get him down. Also a smoke bomb was ignited. There are many riot police situated on the side streets of Kensington High Street.

15.30
People throwing shoes and burning placards near Russian embassy, which is close to the Israeli embassy. Cops tried to intervene but had missiles thrown at them by part of the crowd. Riot police turn up later and start beating people who had nothing to do with the earlier shoe throwing, about 7 people were injured including a photographer.

15.20
Confirmed – The crowd outside the embassy pulled apart some of the barriers. They have now been put back again by police, who are now wearing their helmets.

15.10
Near Holland Street, W8, 5 riot vans spotted with another 6 rental vans around the corner. Police are putting on their riot helmets. The crowd is good natured.

13.45
The protest is moving off now.

13.25
It has been announced from the main stage that over 100,000 people are present.

13.10
People have been arriving in Hyde Park for a few hours. There have been some speeches, and there are various stalls for Palestinian liberation groups. There is an anarchist bloc with red and black flags. People are preparing to move off.

15:20 A little earlier parts of the crowd outside the embassy pulled apart some of the barriers. They have now been put back again by police, who are now wearing their helmets

BBC reporter puts numbers in “tens of thousands” – “perhaps up to 50,000”

10.01.2009 16:23

Thought you’d like to know, a BBC reporter outside the Embassy has just said that the police estimate of 12,000 is woefully low and that he’d been watching the march going past the Embassy and puts the figure in the tens of thousands, perhaps up towards 50,000.

tv at home


BBC coverage

10.01.2009 17:06

Really unusual to see the BBC dismiss the police figures, just read this on BBC web site

‘The Metropolitan Police says 12,000 people marched but the BBC estimates the figure could be as high as 50,000’

That must mean there are at least 100, 000 people!

Demo in Leeds today, a fair estimate would be 600 people marched round the city centre, many others presumably having gone to London, two/three arrests for so called ‘public order’ offences. One police officer was threatening people with ‘section 3 of the Criminal act’, I think he had just made it up as he got angry when people asked him what this new law meant. At one point a car pulled up withh people waving an Israeli flag and taunting the demonstrators, charming.
The Police estimate there were 4 people and a cat (probaby).

Hi


in the thick of it.

10.01.2009 21:41

Four shops in total had their windows put through, two starbucks, one v. posh optitions and for good measure a v. posh clothes shop called top gun (wall to wall fur coats) so was good day for everyone.
the police where extremely violent and willingly pushed large crouds of protesters into and over rows of upturned barrier, this is when many injuries occurd. at least four police helmets, 3 riot shields and some other filth apparel was conviscated by the protesters who used it to defend themselves against the pressing riot cops. fireworks where thrown at police and the bastards in uniform where made to dance as they went off. just an onlooker myself, but one with alot of hatred for the police and respect for the actions of the day. as long as people remember to be selective when choosing targets and protect each others backs may the fun continue.

ARA


Kids getting crushed

10.01.2009 21:48

The children getting crushed next to me were younger than 10. People were shouting “Stop” and trying to tell the police that young kids were being crushed, but it seems that with their riot helmets on they didn’t hear. If anyone saw the kids getting crushed and wass reminded of the much worse things happening to kids in Gaza (50% of the population of Gaza being kids or teenagers) it wouldn’t surprise me if they lost their temper.

Citizen Smith


More on human casualties & property damage

10.01.2009 22:08

There must have been loads of injuries as things were getting quite intense, but it was difficult to see what was going on in different parts of the protest. I was down some of the side streets acting as a medic some of the time, reluctant to get kettled. Unfortunately, the mass of people down these streets were baton charged many times, and chased by mounted coppers. I had to treat a couple of people with head wounds; one woman appeared to be having a fit (and was taken off by police medics); and I saw two young women being carried away from the chaos looking very distressed – their friends say they’d been trampled on by police horses.

Meanwhile, I know of a number of riot vans which got partially trashed – tyres were slashed, sidemirrors ripped off. Barriers for our protest pens where dragged apart and used to create barricades and loads of stuff was lobbed at the cops in retaliation.
It was incredible to see that people were angry enough to fight back after being clobbered, and wonderful to listen to ‘Free Palestine!’ and anti-filth slogans echoing down the side streets…

I’m hardly suprised but neverthless disgusted to see the abismal BBC reports. Saw the mainstream media doing a story from a comfortable distance well beyond police lines…

Action medic


Israel accused of using white phosphorus in Gaza

0

Human rights groups have expressed concern that a highly flammable weapon used by Israel could be causing additional casualties among civilians in Gaza.

Al Jazeera’s Tom Ackerman examines the controversy surrounding white phosphorus munitions.

Both Parties Cheerlead Still More Loudly for Israel’s “War”

1

By Glenn Greenwald |

World concern over, and opposition to, the Israeli war in Gaza is rapidly mounting:

International pressure intensified sharply on Israel on Thursday, the 13th day of its Gaza assault, after the United Nations suspended food aid deliveries, the International Committee of the Red Cross accused the Israelis of knowingly blocking assistance to the injured, and a top Vatican official defended comments in which he compared Gaza to a concentration camp.

The Israelis have deliberately made it impossible to know the full extent of the carnage and humanitarian disasters because they continue to prevent journalists from entering Gaza even in the face of a now week-old Israeli Supreme Court order compelling them to do so. According to Palestinian sources, there are now 700 dead Palestinians — at least 200 of them children — and well over 1,000 wounded. Those numbers are not seriously doubted by anyone. By comparison, a total of 10 Israelis have died — 10 — almost all of them by “friendly fire.” The unusually worded Red Cross condemnation of Israel was prompted by its discovery, after finally being allowed into Gaza, of starving Palestinian children laying next to corpses, with ambulances blocked for days by the IDF. Even with the relative “restraint” Israel is excercising (the damage it could cause is obviously much greater), this is not so much of a war as it is a completely one-sided massacre.

As a result, much of the world is urging an end to the war and acting to forge a cease-fire — except the United States.  Here, blind and unequivocal support for the Israeli attack is actually increasing almost as fast as the Palestinian body count piles up. Apparently, it isn’t enough that we supply the very bombs being dropped on the Palestinians and use our U.N. veto power to prevent any U.N. action to stop the war or even to urge its cessation.  The U.S. Congress wants to involve the U.S. further still in Israel’s war.

This afternoon, the Democratic-led U.S. Senate did just that by enacting — via a cowardly voice vote — a completely one-sided, non-binding resolution that expresses unequivocal support for the Israeli war, and heaps all the blame for the conflict on Hamas and none of it on Israel.  Harry Reid — who jointly sponsored the Resolution with GOP Leader Mitch McConnell — proudly proclaimed: “When we pass this resolution, the United States Senate will strengthen our historic bond with the state of Israel.” On its website, AIPAC is already patting the U.S. Senate on its head for “for conveying America’s unequivocal and steadfast support for Israel’s right to self-defense.”

The Senate resolution is here (.pdf). The very similar House version that was circulated earlier today was drafted by Israel-centric House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.). It is here (.pdf), and is expected to pass early next week — undoubtedly with overwhelming bipartisan support. ThinkProgess noted yesterday that Democrats took the lead in drafting the Resolution because they did not want to be “out-hawked by the Republicans,” though it’s hardly unusual for Democrats to march in lockstep with Republicans on Israel more than any other issue.

It’s hard to overstate how one-sided this resolution is. It “expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders.” Why should the U.S. maintain an “unwavering commitment to the welfare” of a foreign country?  It “lays blame both for the breaking of the ‘calm’ and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas.”  It repeatedly mentions the various sins of Hamas — from rockets to suicide attacks — but does not mention a single syllable of criticism for Israel.  In the world of the U.S. Congress, neither the 4-decade occupation of Palestinian land nor the devastating blockade of Gaza nor the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements even exist.  That may not be mentioned.

The Resolution demands that Hamas take multiple steps towards peaceful resolution but demands that Israel do absolutely nothing. It purports to call for a cease-fire in which the Palestinians make all the concessions and Israel makes none. Worst of all — in light of the Red Cross condemnation, yesterday’s slaughter at the U.N. school, and other similar incidents — the Resolution disgustingly praises Israel’s conduct of the war, claiming that “Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with hundreds of trucks carrying humanitarian assistance and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since the current round of fighting began on December 27, 2008.”

This one-sided, ostensibly “pro-Israel” bipartisan inflaming of tensions by the U.S. is nothing new. Long-time Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller, in Newsweek, earlier this week made one of the most startling revelations in some time — that in all the time the U.S. has supposedly been attempting to forge a Middle East peace agreement over the past 25 years, it never once, in any meaningful way, raised with Israeli leaders the damage that comes from Israeli settlements. Specifically, said Miller:  “I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity – including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions – does to the peacemaking process.”

Miller emphasized that by being so blindly supportive even of misguided Israeli actions, “the United States has allowed that special bond to become exclusive in ways that undermine America’s, and Israel’s, national interests.”  The only way the U.S. can play a constructive role in the Middle East, he argues, is if it is even-handed and, most importantly, willing to criticize Israeli actions when they harm American interests (and their own) and pressure them to stop. Matt Yglesias, in a new piece up at The American Prospect, makes much the same point.

Yet here we have, yet again, exactly the opposite behavior — equally from both parties.  At exactly the time that worldwide horror over this war is at its peak, the Democratic-led Congress steps up to announce to the world:  “this is our war, too; we support whatever Israel does absolutely and without reservations.”  We thus make Israel’s wars our wars; its enemies our enemies; its intractable disputes our disputes; and the hostility and anger it generates our own. And we embolden Israel to continue further. 

Given that we endlessly hear from our political establishment that the first and most important obligation of our leaders is to “keep us safe” — that’s the justification for everything from torture to presidential lawbreaking — what possible legitimate rationale is there for the U.S. Congress to act in unison to involve itself in Israel’s war so emphatically, and to thereby re-direct the anger over Israeli actions even further towards the U.S. and American citizens? How are U.S. interests even remotely advanced by insinuating ourselves this way?  As Juan Cole recounted this week:

In 1996, Israeli jets bombed a UN building where civilians had taken refuge at Cana/ Qana in south Lebanon, killing 102 persons; in the place where Jesus is said to have made water into wine, Israeli bombs wrought a different sort of transformation. In the distant, picturesque port of Hamburg, a young graduate student studying traditional architecture of Aleppo saw footage like this on the news [graphic]. He was consumed with anguish and the desire for revenge. As soon as operation Grapes of Wrath had begun the week before, he had written out a martyrdom will, indicating his willingness to die avenging the victims, killed in that operation–with airplanes and bombs that were a free gift from the United States. His name was Muhammad Atta. Five years later he piloted American Airlines 11 into the World Trade Center. . . .

On Tuesday, the Israeli military shelled a United Nations school to which terrified Gazans had fled for refuge, killing at least 42 persons and wounding 55, virtually all of them civilians, and many of them children. The Palestinian death toll rose to 660.

You wonder if someone somewhere is writing out a will today.

The U.S. does enough on its own to make itself the target of worldwide anger.  Why must it take on Israel’s battles as well?

The fact that this is a non-binding resolution makes it worse, not better.  It achieves nothing other than rubbing in the world’s face — including the Muslim world — that this is not just an Israeli attack on Palestinians but an American attack as well. As BooMan put it in explaining that virtually no mainstream U.S. politician would dare oppose this Resolution: “This, then, creates the false impression that there is near unanimity of support for whatever it is that Israel wants to do. And let me frank about this . . . sending such a message does more to put Americans at risk than it does it protect Israelis.”

TPM’s Elana Schor today wrote:  “We’re looking into whether any senator was bold enough to decline to co-sponsor the measure.”  It will be a surprise if there were any. Many members of Congress — with some noble exceptions — still remain pitifully afraid that the likes of David “Axis of Evil” Frum will accuse them of being anti-Semitic if they dare oppose Israeli actions, even in the name of U.S. interests, while others continue to be supportive of any war or proposed war waged on Muslims or Arabs — regardless of the rationale for the war or its severity. 

Whatever the motives, for America to blindly support Israel’s self-destructive and unjustified behavior does not serve Israeli interests and — most importantly — does not serve America’s.  Blind support isn’t “friendship,” nor is enabling someone else’s destructive behavior. It’s subservience. And few things are as harmful or as unjust as the cowardly, lockstep behavior of both major American political parties when it comes to Israel. 

UPDATE: Since the Israeli attack on Gaza began, the advocacy of J Street — the new Jewish-American organization designed to break AIPAC’s monopoly on speaking for American Jews — has been superb. They have gone much further than any Jewish group that is taken seriously by the establishment, continuously expressing opposition to the Israeli offensive and infuriating those who want to maintain a neoconservative stranglehold over speaking for American Jews.  Earlier today, I asked them for their position on the Senate Resolution and, just now, this is what they sent me:

Since the first days of the crisis in Gaza, J Street has consistently called for strong American leadership to reach a ceasefire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets aimed at Israel, institutes an effective mechanism to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza, and lifts the blockade of Gaza. Since J Street’s founding, we have consistently advocated for active American diplomacy to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We support Congressional action that endorses these aims.

That statement — by design, I would guess — is unclear in the extreme.  It seems intended to imply — without actually stating — support for the Congressional Resolutions. They say they “support Congressional action that endorses these aims,” but — conspicuously — they don’t actually say whether the Resolution passed by the Senate and to be passed by the House does so. It’s hard to see how either of the two Resolutions could be deemed to do so, given that neither even mentions, for instance, a lifting of the blockade of Gaza.  But that’s the statement J Street issued.

On a related note, MediaBloodHound has the details on the very interesting story of how AP caused to vanish into thin air the tough questioning by its reporter of the U.S. State Department regarding Gaza.

Copyright ©2009 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Report: Israel Forced Civilians Into Single House, Repeatedly Bombed It

0

Israeli ground troops ordered around 110 Palestinian civilians into a single home in Gaza City’s Zeitun neighborhood and ordered them to stay indoors on Sunday. On Monday morning, Israeli forces repeatedly shelled the building, killing at least 30 of the civilians inside. It then refused to allow ambulances to retrieve the dead and dying people for days.

This was the report released by the United Nations today based on eyewitness accounts from the survivors, and just the latest in an ever growing list of Israeli attacks on the civilian population of Gaza. Over the first two weeks of the Israeli attack, at least 800 people have been killed, and another 3,300 have been wounded. The vast majority of the strip has been without electricity since then, and a growing percentage are without clean water and dependent on intermittent humanitarian aid shipments for other basic necessities.

Israel has refused to comment on the latest allegations, but the United States defending the growing civilian toll, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that in such a densely populated area it is really hard for Israel to avoid what it has been doing, which is killing scores of civilians on a near daily basis. Though Rice attributed the civilian toll to Hamas using them as human shields, there was one again no indication that these civilians, though directly attacked, were anywhere near any Hamas targets.

compiled by Jason Ditz

Should the Torturers Go on Trial?

1

By William Pfaff |

The impending end of the Bush administration and the inauguration of Barack Obama, expected to repudiate the illegalities and human-rights abuses of his predecessor, pose the enormous and explosive question of what to do about those responsible for what are regarded by a significant part of the public in the Western democracies, not to speak of the United States, as war crimes.

Obama signifies a new start in the United States, and an opportunity for renewal and rendering justice. But new starts do not wipe the slate of history, as has become clear in recent years by the proliferation of memorials and ceremonies intended as apologies for histories of crimes and persecutions that can never be undone. A new American administration’s new start means a new structure of legislation to augment and correct what already has been done and to change the norms of public life.

In today’s case, a fundamental distinction must be drawn between political and foreign-policy issues up for debate in national elections, and now before the Obama government, and the Bush record of acts of international illegality, including what generally are thought to be war crimes, such as torture. There will be no war-crimes trial for George W. Bush or Richard Cheney. There will be investigations into many aspects of the two Bush terms.

These inevitably will from the start be turned into political battles between Democrats and Republicans, obscuring all else on the national scene short of military catastrophe (unfortunately, not entirely unlikely in 2009).

In a thoughtful examination of the war crimes issue in the Jan. 15 New York Review, David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center concludes that for national foreclosure, there has to be a formal accounting and determination of responsibility for the criminal policies of the Bush government, made by an independent and bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, possessing subpoena power, security clearance and access to all requested documents. This commission should be mandated by the president or Congress (or both).

This is highly to be desired, but in my opinion impossible. It would be prevented, undermined or discredited by partisan pressures.

There will be many NGO and activist-group demands for trials.

There may well be indictments of individual Bush administration officials by foreign courts, acting on the principle of “universal jurisdiction” and the Gen. Pinochet precedent. This already has happened in Italy (in absentia) in the case of a number of named CIA agents, charged with the kidnapping and torture of a Muslim radical resident there.

These agents will not be handed over by Washington, and no foreign government is likely to try to enforce such a conviction, although the more notorious figures of the Bush administration would do well to be cautious in their holiday travels.

On the other hand, I would think both the good sense of the new administration, and the American popular sense of justice, would preclude any further throwing of ordinary soldiers to prosecutorial wolves, as in the ignoble case of the West Virginia reservists tried in the Abu Ghraib affair, made to take the rap for the highest officials in the American government–a disgusting and dishonorable affair.

So what can be done? There are two purposes to be served.

The first is to hold those responsible for war crimes to account, which I think unlikely (at least in this American political generation). Their punishment will have to be left to the historians (or perhaps to a future American Dante, capable of recreating Guantanamo as an Inferno for American politicians).

The second purpose that must be served is deterrence. On that, I have a proposal.

The most effective way to prevent future war crimes is not to threaten elected leaders with punishment that probably will not be imposed. It is to convince civilian and military officials at all levels of government that if they commit or participate in war crimes, as clearly defined in international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, even under orders of their superiors, the serious possibility will exist that (in another administration?) they will be appropriately punished.

I would have President Obama solemnly recall to the members of the military services, and all other agencies of government, that acts violating the principles internationally agreed as a result of the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945-1946, and acts proscribed in the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Universal Code of Military Justice, are war crimes, and orders by senior officers to commit these acts are illegal orders.

Obviously, few individual soldiers, officers or officials will find themselves in a position to defy such illegal orders. But if they do not formally decline such orders, or fail to voice their protest when being compelled under duress to execute those orders, they should understand that this may eventually result in their trial. The punishment may be severe, or at a minimum their offense will be noted in their career personnel records, effectively terminating their professional careers in government.

One cannot multiply heroes. One can discourage a great many people in all ranks of government from condoning, acquiescing in, or joining torture teams, or otherwise accepting duty or condoning policies likely at worst to put them in prison, or at least end their careers.

I would at the same time have President Obama announce presidential honors for the military lawyers and CIA or Justice Department officials who defied or protested the illegal policies and actions of the Bush government.

William Pfaff’s Web site is www.williampfaff.com.

The Dying Days of the Guantánamo Trials

0

With less than two weeks until the Bush administration leaves office, Andy Worthington, author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison, reports on developments – or the lack of them – during the last month in the Military Commissions, the much-criticized trial system for “terror suspects” that was conceived by Vice President Dick Cheney and his close advisers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

By Andy Worthington |

Since the last blowout at Guantánamo on December 8, when dozens of reporters and relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks watched as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and his alleged co-conspirators tried – and failed – to plead guilty so that they could die martyr’s deaths, few observers have witnessed the Commissions go through the motions in the Bush administration’s last days, like a preprogrammed machine, unaware that major changes are afoot, or, less charitably, like a decapitated chicken on its last round of the farmyard.

“We serve the sitting president and will continue to do so until the president-elect is inaugurated, at which time we will implement whatever policies are enacted by the next president,” Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, explained last month.

An ignoble history

The Military Commissions have rarely attracted the media attention that a novel, flagship program to try “terror suspects” should have attracted, even though the administration has persistently tried to sell Guantánamo as a place full of the world’s toughest terrorists, rather than what it really is: a place where a few dozen members of a small, fanatical and deeply secretive terror network have been vastly outnumbered by Taliban foot soldiers, recruited to fight an inter-Muslim civil war in Afghanistan that began long before 9/11 and had no connection to al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, or completely innocent men, sold for bounty payments by the United States’ opportunistic allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The rot was there from the beginning, as military defense lawyers, appointed by the government, realized to their horror that the Military Commissions were designed to secure convictions and to facilitate the use of evidence obtained through torture. The entire system should have died in June 2006, when the Supreme Court ruled it illegal, but when Congress revived the monster that fall, its new-found legitimacy was soon punctured when the first prisoner to face a trial, the Australian David Hicks, was repatriated in May 2007 following a plea bargain negotiated by Vice President Dick Cheney as a political favor to his ailing ally, Prime Minister John Howard.

Such cynicism has always been readily apparent when it comes to releasing prisoners from the general population, but for the first trial by Military Commission to be undermined in such a manner appeared to take hypocrisy to a new level, even though a trial, had it proceeded, would have been hard-pushed to present Hicks as a terrorist. Hyperbole of this kind was possible in the early days of the “War on Terror,” when the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh received a 20-year sentence, but as John Howard found to his chagrin, by 2007 the public was less willing to indulge such hyperbole. As I discovered while writing The Guantánamo Files, far from being caught on the battlefield, Hicks was actually betrayed by an Afghan van driver as he fled northern Afghanistan, trying in vain to hide his blue eyes and blond hair, and was then brutalized mercilessly in US hands.

In the last seven months, as the Bush administration sought to construct a “War on Terror” legacy that would not consist solely of hubris and ridicule, the pressure on the Commissions to press ahead with trials intensified. To a small degree, the ploy was successful. The arraignment and pre-trial hearings of KSM et al. attracted widespread attention in June, September and December, and the trial of Salim Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden, also drew a flurry of interest in the summer – although this was largely mitigated when Hamdan received an extraordinarily lenient sentence (freeing him by the end of the year), which effectively destroyed Guantánamo’s rationale.

There was further bad news in September, when, as a result of his crusading pro-prosecution bias, the Commissions’ legal adviser, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, was sacked after being disqualified by three military judges, and Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a prosecutor and a previously staunch supporter of the regime, resigned after seeking advice from a Jesuit peace activist, and left cursing the administration for its deliberate suppression of evidence vital to the defense in the case of the Afghan prisoner Mohamed Jawad. Although Jawad was accused of a grenade attack on a jeep containing US soldiers, it transpired that he was a juvenile when seized, was drugged at the time of the attack by the insurgents who had tricked him into being recruited, and had been tortured in Afghan custody until he confessed. One of Vandeveld’s discoveries was that two other men, neither of whom is held at Guantánamo, had also confessed to the attack.

However, while these stories were widely reported – and there was also sporadic interest in the baleful saga of the Canadian Omar Khadr, the other juvenile facing a trial by Military Commission – the media as a whole (with the valiant exceptions of the Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg, the Toronto Star’s Michelle Shephard and Jane Sutton of Reuters) showed little appetite for covering the cases of the other 16 prisoners put forward for trial. This ability to find almost anything else more newsworthy was aptly demonstrated on the eve of the Presidential election when a prisoner named Ali Hamza al-Bahlul received a life sentence – ostensibly to be served in Guantánamo in total isolation – after a one-sided show trial in which, under the Commissions’ deeply flawed rules, he had been allowed to mount no defense whatsoever.

Derailing the cases of Mohamed Jawad and Omar Khadr

Just two days after the last appearance of the KSM circus, when most of the reporters had gone home, Army Col. Stephen Henley, the judge in Mohamed Jawad’s case, “indefinitely delayed” Jawad’s trial, as Jane Sutton explained. The trial had been scheduled to begin on January 5, but Henley gave the prosecution an unspecified amount of time to work out how to appeal his earlier decision to exclude the confession obtained by the Afghan authorities shortly after Jawad’s capture in Kabul in December 2002, because it was “obtained through death threats that constituted torture,” and another confession, which he made to US interrogators the following day, because that too was the “fruit of that torture.” Whether the prosecution can come up with any further evidence is doubtful. As Lt. Col. Vandeveld explained in November, Jawad’s confession to Afghan officials was “among the most important evidence for his upcoming war crimes trial.” Vandeveld added, “To me, the case is not only eviscerated, it is now impossible to prosecute with any credibility.”

Two days later, on December 12, there was a further shock in the case of Omar Khadr. Although the US government has always claimed that Khadr was responsible for throwing a grenade that killed US Sgt. Christopher Speer during the firefight that led to Khadr’s capture in Afghanistan in July 2002, it was revealed in November 2007 – just 36 hours before Khadr’s trial was supposed to begin – that a previously undisclosed “US government employee,” who was an eye-witness to the gunfight, had “potentially exculpatory evidence” proving that another man was alive at the time, and that this other man may have thrown the grenade.

At another pre-trial hearing in March last year, Khadr’s military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, revealed that the report of the circumstances that led to Khadr’s capture, written by an officer identified only as “Lt. Col. W.,” had been altered after the event to implicate Khadr, and on December 12 another witness, identified only as “Soldier No. 2,” produced further evidence indicating that Khadr could not have thrown the grenade, explaining, as Michelle Shephard described it, that the teenager “was buried under rubble from a collapsed roof before he was captured.”

In a motion submitted by Khadr’s lawyers, the soldier explained that he “thought he was standing on a ‘trap door’ because the ground did not seem solid.” He then “bent down to move the brush away to see what was beneath him and discovered that he was standing on a person; and that Mr. Khadr appeared to be ‘acting dead.’” Speaking to reporters, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler explained that photographs taken at the scene, which were not shown to observers of the trial proceedings, “show a pile of rubble from the collapsed roof, and then show the debris moved aside to reveal Khadr lying facedown in the dirt,” which “make it abundantly clear Omar Khadr could not have thrown the hand grenade that killed 1st Sgt. Speer.”

A new chief judge

As prosecutors vowed to press ahead with Khadr’s trial on January 26, brushing off the defense team’s perennial cry that juveniles should not be prosecuted for war crimes, and apparently secure that they have other evidence of Khadr making and planting roadside bombs in Afghanistan which will prove that he “knowingly” carried out crimes, the next example of the Commissions’ blinkered view of reality came on December 15, when the Pentagon announced that Army Col. James Pohl, who had presided over the courts martial of several soldiers in the Abu Ghraib scandal, had been appointed as the new chief judge.

Pohl replaced Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann (whose retirement plans had enabled KSM to mock him for his lack of commitment in September), and had already established himself as an independent-minded judge at Guantánamo. As Carol Rosenberg explained, in March, he “sternly informed” prosecutors in the case of Ahmed al-Darbi, a Saudi seized in Azerbaijan and accused of “plotting a never-realized attack on an unnamed ship in the Strait of Hormuz,” that defense lawyers “should have easy access to their clients.” Lawyers for the 33-year old father of two maintain that al-Darbi was tortured in US custody and that the government’s allegations are reliant on 119 self-incriminating statements.

Col. Pohl also refused to endorse a request from prison commanders to approve violent “Forced Cell Extractions” when prisoners refused to come to the courtroom, and on his first day in his new job, at a pre-trial hearing for al-Darbi, allowed the Saudi to make an appeal to Barack Obama. “Waving a copy of an American Civil Liberties Union poster with a pensive Obama and his campaign’s closure pledge on it,” as Rosenberg explained, al-Darbi said, “I hope this location will be closed as he promised. He will earn back the legitimacy the United States has lost as a world leader.”

This was the last hearing before the eve of Barack Obama’s inauguration, when final pre-trial hearings are supposed to begin in Omar Khadr’s case, and a mental competency hearing is scheduled for alleged 9/11 co-conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh, but although Col. Pohl acknowledged that he was “aware that on Jan. 20 there will be a new commander-in-chief, which may or may not impact on these proceedings,” he advised everyone connected with the Commissions to stay focused “unless and until a competent authority tells us not to.”

While this was a fair warning, Col. Pohl’s awareness of political realities was not reflected elsewhere in the Pentagon, nor, I suspect, in the Office of the Vice President, where, as I explained in my article in October that also looked at the sacking of Brig. Gen. Hartmann and the resignation of Lt. Col. Vandeveld, the architects of the Commissions – Dick Cheney and his chief of staff David Addington – seem determined to continue playing out their deranged fantasies until the moment they leave office.

A new prisoner is charged: the story of Tarek El-Sawah

On December 16, just as three Bosnian Algerians flew home from Guantánamo, after Judge Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, threw their cases out of his habeas court for lack of evidence, the Pentagon announced that another Bosnian prisoner, Tarek El-Sawah (aka Tariq al-Sawah), a 51-year old originally from Egypt, was the 27th prisoner to be put forward for trial by Military Commission. The Pentagon also reinstated the charges (PDF) against the Sudanese prisoner Noor Uthman Muhammed, allegedly the deputy emir of the Khaldan training camp, which had been dropped in October.

In El-Sawah’s charge sheet (PDF), in which he was charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism, it was alleged that, between October 2000 and November 2001, he had trained at al-Farouq (the main training camp for Arabs in the years before the 9/11 attacks), had taught “the fundamentals of how to use explosives to members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and others,” and had “developed and successfully tested a remote controlled limpet mine for use against US warships” at the Tarnak farms training camp, which he had undertaken “at the direction of a member of al-Qaeda’s Shura Council.” It was also alleged that he had written a 400-page manual on bomb-making, and had fought against US and coalition forces in the Tora Bora mountains, until he was wounded and captured.

How much truth there is to these charges is difficult to ascertain. El-Sawah was certainly a militant, but in 2004, at his only appearance before a tribunal at Guantánamo, there was no mention of the bomb-making manual or the limpet mine, and he insisted that both his military commitment – and the training he briefly gave to others in August 2001 – was directed exclusively at the Northern Alliance.

El-Sawah explained that he had traveled to Bosnia as an aid worker in 1992, had married a Bosnian woman and had only gone to Afghanistan to see if it was suitable place to take his family. Once there, however, he clearly succumbed to the most virulent Taliban propaganda against Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, who was assassinated by al-Qaeda agents on September 9, 2001. He told his tribunal, “One time in a jihad, Massoud killed about 10,000 Muslims in an hour.” Reiterating that it was his intention solely to support those who were being oppressed by the Northern Alliance, he said, “There are no rules in the United States to prevent it if you want to fight for religion. There are no rules to direct me not to defend people.” He also pointed out that he went to Afghanistan to fight the Northern Alliance before 9/11, when it was no business of the Americans, and asked, “If Massoud and Dostum are American allies, they were not an alliance before September 11th, were they?”

El-Sawah also denied an allegation that he had admitted being a member of al-Qaeda, denied an allegation that he met Osama bin Laden, saying that he saw him once at a meeting of about 250 people, but had no opportunity to actually meet him, and also denied an allegation that he had engaged in hostilities against the United States. In a comment that cut to the heart of what was essentially a proxy war, fought by Afghans with US air support, he said, “There was no fighting against Americans. If there were any American soldiers saying they were fighting in Afghanistan, bring them here to me and show the evidence.”

He also explained that he was sold for money, telling his tribunal, “because the Americans offered $5,000 to anyone who captured us, they [the Northern Alliance] were fighting us and they kept us alive to get the $5,000,” and gave a poignant description of his departure from Jalalabad into the Tora Bora mountains, in which he emphasized that the war in Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban had triggered an exodus of all kinds of people, not just al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. “We left everything,” he said. “We were moving through mountains and caves; there were hundreds of families, children, women and people were climbing through the mountains. What were we to do? Some people were escaping from other fronts, near Jalalabad and Kabul. There were too many people there.”

Charges referred in the case of torture victim Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri

The administration’s final gesture, before the Christmas break, was for Susan Crawford, the Commissions’ “Convening Authority” – and a close friend of both Dick Cheney and David Addington – to confirm the charges that were filed last July against Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri. A Saudi, and one of 14 “high-value detainees” transferred to Guantánamo from secret CIA prisons in September 2006, al-Nashiri, who was seized in the United Arab Emirates in November 2002, was charged for his alleged role in the attacks on the USS The Sullivans and the USS Cole in 2000, and the French tanker Limburg in 2002.

Al-Nashiri faces the death penalty if convicted, although his trial, should it proceed, will undoubtedly be complicated by the fact that he is one of three “high-value detainees” whom CIA director Michael Hayden admitted last February had been subjected to waterboarding in secret CIA custody. In his tribunal at Guantánamo in 2007, al-Nashiri made a point of mentioning that he had made up false confessions after being tortured. “From the time I was arrested five years ago,” he said, “they have been torturing me. It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way. I just said those things to make the people happy. They were very happy when I told them those things.”

Charges dropped against Abdul Ghani, a minor Afghan insurgent

On the same day that the charges against al-Nashiri were confirmed, there was better news for Abdul Ghani, an Afghan prisoner put forward for trial at the end of July. Without providing any explanation, Susan Crawford dismissed the charges “without prejudice,” which meant, as the Pentagon explained, “that the government has the option of charging Ghani at a later date,” but it would surely be better for the 36-year old to sent back to Afghanistan instead, where the Afghan authorities can work out if he actually constitutes a threat.

At best a minor Afghan insurgent, Ghani was charged with firing rockets at US forces, planting “land mines and other explosive devices on more than one occasion for use against US and coalition forces,” attacking Afghan soldiers, and “accept[ing] monetary payments, including payment from al-Qaeda and others known and unknown, to commit attacks on US forces and bases.” As I wrote at the time, however, “Apart from the inclusion of the magic words ‘al-Qaeda,’ there was nothing in Abdul Ghani’s charge sheet to indicate that he should find himself in the same trial system as those accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the African embassy bombings of 1998 or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, or even, in fact, that he should have been sent to Guantánamo at all.”

Time for change

With less than two weeks until Dick Cheney and David Addington are obliged to leave the White House, when a new broom will also no doubt sweep the corridors of the Pentagon, it remains possible that the architects of the Commissions will indulge in a final round of last-minute tinkering, hoping that their failed experiment will live on, but for the rest of us, Barack Obama’s inauguration cannot come soon enough, nor, indeed, can the fulfillment of a promise that he made in August 2007:

As President, I will close Guantánamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists … The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example to the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

U.S. Weaponry Facilitates Killings in Gaza

0

By Thalif Deen |

IPS – Israel’s two-week military onslaught has resulted in the deaths of over 700 people, including more than 300 civilians, mostly victims of U.S. weaponry.

The devastating Israeli firepower, unleashed largely on Palestinian civilians in Gaza during two weeks of fighting, is the product of advanced U.S. military technology.

The U.S. weapons systems used by the Israelis — including F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles and a wide array of munitions — have been provided by Washington mostly as outright military grants.

The administration of President George W. Bush alone has provided over 21 billion dollars in U.S. security assistance over the last eight years, including 19 billion dollars in direct military aid as freebies.

“Israel’s intervention in the Gaza Strip has been fueled largely by U.S. supplied weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars,” says a background briefing released Thursday by the Arms and Security Initiative of the New York-based New America Foundation.

“The Bush administration has been unwilling to use its considerable influence — as Israel’s major military and political backer — to dissuade the government in Tel Aviv from its pattern of claiming self-defence while perpetrating collective punishment, human rights violations and undertaking massively disproportionate attacks that harm and kill civilians,” Frida Berrigan, senior programme associate at the New America Foundation, told IPS.

Besides military aid, the United States has contracted more than 22 billion dollars in arms sales to Israel in 2008 alone, including a proposed deal for 75 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, nine C-130J-30 military transport aircraft and four combat ships.

“So, when Israeli forces engage in combat in Gaza or the West Bank, they are more often than not using U.S.-designed systems that were either made in the United States or produced under licence in Israel,” says the New America Foundation.

The two-week military onslaught has resulted in the deaths of over 700 Palestinians, including more than 300 civilians, mostly victims of U.S. weaponry.

In comparison, the Israeli death toll is about seven soldiers and four civilians, primarily due to “friendly fire”, or victims of rocket attacks by Hamas.

Mouin Rabbani, contributing editor at the Washington-based Middle East Report, says the intimacy of the U.S.-Israeli military relationship, and the frequency with which Israel launches wars, means that the Israeli military also performs the function of testing newly-developed weapons systems in actual warfare, which is of value to both Israel and the United States.

“Twice over, in fact, because less effective versions of these same weapons systems are subsequently sold at hugely inflated prices to Arab states, which effectively subsidises the U.S. weapons industry and U.S. military grants to Israel,” he told IPS.

Tracing historical links, Rabbani said Israel replaced South Vietnam as the primary recipient of U.S. foreign military aid in the 1970s and has maintained that status ever since.

With consistently fewer exceptions over the years, he pointed out, Israel has the run of the U.S. arsenal, particularly with regard to obtaining new and advanced weapons that are not sold (or, as in the present case, given) to non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) allies.

He said that Israel is also permitted to participate in various U.S. weapons development programmes, meaning that in addition to weapons deliveries it benefits enormously from the transfer of military technologies.

“Israel also has access to various U.S. intelligence programmes and data, and the list goes on for quite some length,” Rabbani added.

Last week, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat of Ohio) wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointing out that Israel’s use of U.S. weapons in Gaza may constitute a violation of the requirements of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) of 1976.

The AECA outlines the conditions under which countries may use U.S. weapons systems, primarily for “internal security” or “legitimate self defence”.

The letter says that Israeli forces have used U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter planes and Apache helicopters “to precede and to support ongoing ground actions such as the one in which 40 Palestinians were killed while taking shelter in a U.N. facility.”

“Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable,” he added.

Berrigan said that with the onslaught about to enter its third week, hundreds of Gazans killed and wounded, 10 Israelis killed and more wounded, Hamas continuing to launch rocket attacks and a grave danger that the conflict will widen to include Lebanon, President-elect Barack Obama “will step into a bed of molten hot quicksand on Jan. 20.”

“It will be difficult for the new administration to turn the tide of U.S.-Israeli relations and challenge Israeli exceptionalism, but it is urgently necessary,” she added.

Rabbani pointed out that given the level of U.S. military assistance to Israel, the deployment of these weapons in the current onslaught against the Gaza Strip, and U.S. political support for Israel during this crisis, Palestinians could be forgiven for insisting the U.S. shares direct responsibility.

“While I would by no means dismiss the issue of U.S. military transfers to Israel in their various forms and dimensions, the key issue is nevertheless the impunity with which these are used,” he added.

It is this impunity, rather than the weapons transfers in and of themselves, that accounts for Israel’s ability to sow widespread death and destruction throughout the Gaza Strip at will.

Asked if there would a change in policy under an Obama administration, Rabbani said: “I don’t see any indication that things are set to change once Obama takes office”.

He has attempted to wrap his silence in a cloak of decorum and statesmanship, “claiming he was left with no choice because he is not yet president, then — in view of his constant pronouncements since Nov. 4 regarding the financial meltdown — rather too cleverly in my view elaborated that this only applies to foreign policy.”

“So we are supposed to believe that if instead 600 Israelis had been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers in the space of 10 days, or Russia had decided to suddenly advance on Tbilisi, you could still hear a pin drop in Washington? Unlikely.”

Credit:Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

UN human rights chief accuses Israel of war crimes

0

Official calls for investigation into Zeitoun shelling that killed up to 30 in one house as Israelis dismiss ‘unworkable’ ceasefire

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem |

The United Nations‘ most senior human rights official said last night that the Israeli military may have committed war crimes in Gaza. The warning came as Israeli troops pressed on with the deadly offensive in defiance of a UN security council resolution calling for a ceasefire.

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, has called for “credible, independent and transparent” investigations into possible violations of humanitarian law, and singled out an incident this week in Zeitoun, south-east of Gaza City, where up to 30 Palestinians in one house were killed by Israeli shelling.

Pillay, a former international criminal court judge from South Africa, told the BBC the incident “appears to have all the elements of war crimes”.

The accusation came as Israel kept up its two-week-old air and ground offensive in Gaza and dismissed as “unworkable” the UN security council resolution which had called for “an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire”.

Protests against the offensive were held across the world yesterday just as diplomacy to halt the conflict appeared to falter.

With the Palestinian casualty toll rising to around 800 dead, including 265 children, and more than 3,000 injured, fresh evidence emerged yesterday of the killings in Zeitoun. It was “one of the gravest incidents” since Israel’s offensive began two weeks ago, the UN office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs said yesterday.

“There is an international obligation on the part of soldiers in their position to protect civilians, not to kill civilians indiscriminately in the first place, and when they do, to make sure that they help the wounded,” Pillay told Reuters. “In this particular case these children were helpless and the soldiers were close by,” she added.

An Israeli military spokeswoman, Avital Leibovich, said the incident was still being examined. “We don’t warn people to go to other buildings, this is not something we do,” she said. “We don’t know this case, we don’t know that we attacked it.”

Despite the intense bombardment, militants in Gaza fired at least 30 rockets into southern Israel yesterday. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, told al-Jazeera TV: “This resolution doesn’t mean that the war is over. We call on Palestinian fighters to mobilise and be ready to face the offensive, and we urge the Arab masses to carry on with their angry protests.”

Israeli officials said they could not be expected to halt their military operation while the rockets continued and said they first wanted an end to the rocket fire and a “mechanism” to prevent Hamas rearming in future.

“The whole idea that Israel will unilaterally stop protecting our people when Hamas is sending rockets into our cities to kill our people is not a reasonable request of Israel,” said Mark Regev, spokesman for prime minister Ehud Olmert. Israel wanted security for its people in southern Israel, he said, and dismissed suggestions his military might seek to topple Hamas, saying they were “not in the regime-change business”.

Israeli public opinion still strongly favours the war. One poll of Jewish Israelis yesterday, by the War and Peace Index, said 90% of the population supported continuing the operation until Israel achieved all its goals.

Olmert held a meeting of his security cabinet, and on the agenda was discussion about whether to intensify the offensive by launching a fresh stage of attacks in which Israeli troops would invade the major urban areas of Gaza as more reservists were called up. There was no word on the outcome.

So far 13 Israelis have been killed in this conflict, of whom three were civilians.

Another 23 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military yesterday. Seven from one family, including an infant, died when Israeli jets bombed a five-storey building in Beit Lahiya, in northern Gaza. There was heavy aerial bombing and artillery fire across the territory.

More than 20,000 Gazans have fled their homes in the north of the strip and thousands more in the south. In some cases Israeli troops have told them to leave, or dropped leaflets warning them to evacuate their homes. Some are even dividing their families between different addresses for fear of losing them all in a single air strike.

“Many people are leaving their homes and moving to the centre of the cities,” said Abdel Karim Ashour, 53, who works with a local aid agency, the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee. He, his wife and their four children fled their house on the coastal road in northern Gaza on the third day of the conflict. He sent the four children to stay with his brother while he and his wife are staying at a friend’s house. “We were in an area of heavy shelling, so we left and I divided the family to try to reduce the victims if we face any trouble. We try and keep in touch by telephone but there are problems with the network,” he said. “We’re just hoping for a ceasefire. If the fighting goes on there will be more victims.”

Bush rewards his hired guns

1

By JAMES TWEEDIE 

THE White House revealed on Tuesday that US President George W Bush will reward partners in war crime Tony Blair, John Howard and Alvaro Uribe with the Presidential Medal of Freedom next week.

Spokeswoman Dana Perino announced that, in possibly the last act by the lame-duck president, former British prime minister Mr Blair will receive the prestigious award next Tuesday.

He will be joined by former Australian prime minister Mr Howard, whom Mr Bush once described as his “sheriff” in south-east Asia, and Colombian Premier Mr Uribe, under whose watch over 600 trade unionists have been assassinated and thousands of innocent civilians murdered and “disappeared” by the Colombian army and paramilitaries.

The prestigious award is the highest civilian honour in the US, alongside the Congressional Gold Medal, which Mr Blair was given in 2003.

Ms Perino explained that Mr Bush was rewarding the trio “for their efforts to promote democracy, human rights and peace abroad.”

She added: “Their efforts to bring hope and freedom to people around the globe have made their nations, America and the world community a safer and more secure world.”

But peace and human rights campaigners dismissed this warped line of reasoning. Respect MP George Galloway said: “What a grisly trio that is. It is a medal of dishonour.

“It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. Bush and Blair have made the world more dangerous than it has ever been.”

Justice for Colombia secretary Liam Craig-Best pointed out that “Bush is showing utter contempt for the people of Colombia by awarding this medal to Uribe.

“It must be particularly galling for the hundreds of political prisoners in Colombia’s jails that the man responsible is receiving a ‘medal of freedom’.”

Stop the War Coalition convener Lindsey German stormed: “This is going to be one of the last acts of George Bush and it tells you everything you need to know about his presidency.

“Blair and Bush’s support for the war crimes in Gaza is just the latest in their criminal record and millions of people around the world would think it was more fitting to see Blair in handcuffs than receiving a medal.”

Left Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn added: “Nothing could be more appropriate than the most unpopular president in history presenting a medal to Tony Blair.

“Bush has started an illegal war in Iraq aided and abetted by Tony Blair. Blair was then made the West’s representative in Palestine and has done nothing to protect the Palestinian people from attacks.”

Mr Blair, who is currently the Middle East peace envoy for the so-called Quartet of the US, EU, Russia and the UN, urged the new US administration of president-elect Barack Obama to focus on the Middle East peace process on Tuesday, saying that the issue was “absolutely central” to global security and that “we have to grip it and sort it.”

But he declared that there could be no end to Israel’s brutal blitzkrieg until the “smuggling” of arms and money to the Hamas government in Gaza ceased and resistance to Israeli aggression was stamped out.

But Mr Galloway retorted: “This is absolute rubbish. The arms that the resistance have were taken from the security forces of Mahmoud Abbas and were given to them by Britain and the US in the hope that they would use them against Hamas.”

And the winners are:

BLAIR, ANTHONY
Supported the war against Afghanistan, costing tens of thousands of lives.
Backed the illegal invasion of Iraq, costing over a million lives so far.
Complicit in the Israeli assault on Gaza, in which over 500 people have died.

HOWARD, JOHN
Backed the illegal invasion of Iraq, costing over a million lives so far.
Passed raft of repressive anti-union legislation on behalf of big business.
Responsible for racist laws leading to brutal treatment of refugees.

URIBE, ALVARO
Presided over the deaths of more than 600 trade unionists since election in 2002.
Accused of close links to notorious paramilitaries and drug traffickers.
Caused diplomatic crisis by bombing rebel camp in neighbouring Ecuador.

EU and US said to favour elections over human rights

1

Listing countries where elections have been mixed with violence and repression, Human Rights Watch said western powers, especially the United States and European Union, have accepted elections in countries that don’t respect human rights, for political reasons and benefit.

The group said the west has continued to prop up fragile democracies, or those that purport to be, such as Kenya, where waves of killings have followed a disputed election, and Pakistan, where elections are coming up after the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. The group also said that countries including Bahrain, Jordan, Nigeria, Russia and Thailand have taken on the belief that elections are equal to democracy. In its annual report, the group said that Washington, Brussels and European capitals “play along” with the notion that a country can have democracy simply by holding elections. “It’s now easy for autocrats to get away with mounting a sham democracy,” said Kenneth Roth, the group’s executive director. “That’s because too many Western governments insist on elections and leave it at that.” “They don’t press governments on the key human rights issues that make democracy function – a free press, peaceful assembly, and a functioning civil society that can really challenge power,” Roth said. The report said grave human rights abuses have fueled humanitarian crises in Somalia and the Ogaden region in Eastern Ethiopia, where millions of people are suffering.

The report documented manipulations of elections. It said Chad, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Uzbekistan committed “outright fraud,” while governments controlled the electoral machinery in Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Malaysia, Thailand and Zimbabwe. Belarus, Egypt, Cuba, Iran and Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories blocked or discouraged opposition candidates. Russia and Tunisia were cited for stifling the media, and China and Pakistan undermined the rule of law, the report said. “Many of these tactics are illegal under domestic and international law, but rarely do outside powers call governments to account for it,” the report said.

“Established democracies are often unwilling to do so for fear of losing access to resources or commercial opportunities, or because of the perceived requirements of fighting terrorism.” “It seems Washington and European governments will accept even the most dubious election so long as the ‘victor’ is a strategic or commercial ally,” it said. In Kenya, rival political sides halted talks over disputed elections and vicious ethnic clashes after the killing of an opposition legislator, but said they would keep talking while would keep killing each other.

The country remained tense and volatile and violence continued to reign while political parties have battled for more than a month over who won the presidential elections. Nasser Ega-Musa, a United Nations spokesman, said both parties had “a general desire to continue the negotiations and a willingness not to be distracted and derailed,” by the shooting death of David Too.

The human rights report also said China has clamped down on the media as it is preparing to hold the Summer Olympics Games in August. Foreign journalists who were given the right to interview Chinese have been harassed, detained or intimidated to prevent them from doing reports on the country’s poor human rights records. It said the construction boom to prepare for the Olympic Games has involved an estimated one million construction workers under harsh and unsafe labour conditions, but that trade with China is more important to the US and the EU than human rights.

Rallies to protest Gaza bombing

11

Tens of thousands of protesters are due to voice their anger at the Gaza bombing blitz in a series of rallies across the UK.

Up to 20,000 people – including the singer Annie Lennox and Respect MP George Galloway – are expected to march along the Embankment in London before walking to Trafalgar Square to call for an immediate end to the Israeli attacks.

The demonstration is the biggest of at least 18 organised across the country.

Former model Bianca Jagger and singer Lennox have backed the protests, calling on American President-elect Barack Obama to speak up against the bombardment.

Other rallies will take place at Blytheswood Square, Glasgow; Bedford Square, Exeter; Princes Street, Edinburgh; Bristol city centre; Bold Street, Liverpool; Norwich Forum; Portsmouth’s Guildhall Square; Queen Victoria Square, Hull; Tunbridge Wells town centre; Leeds Art Gallery; All Saints Park, Manchester; Grey’s Monument, Newcastle; Castle Square, Swansea; St Sampson’s Square, York; Morrisons, Caernarfon; Bradford city centre; and Sheffield town hall.

Former mayor of London Ken Livingstone and comedian Alexei Sayle also added their support to the campaign to end the violence.

Speaking at a press conference in central London, Ms Jagger said: “I would like to make an appeal to President-elect Obama to speak up.

“People throughout the world were hopeful when he was elected and we must appeal to him to ask for the immediate cessation of the bombardment of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip.”

Lennox spoke of her shock at watching scenes of the bombing on television. She said: “A few days after Christmas I came downstairs, put the television on, and saw smoke pyres coming from buildings and I was shocked to the core because I was thinking as a mother and as a human being.”

Comedian Sayle said he was speaking out because it was important for Jewish voices to be heard. He said: “I want to feel proud of Israel, I want to be proud of my people but I am ashamed.”

Guantanamo intake unacceptable, says Malcolm Turnbull

0

KEVIN Rudd should immediately reverse a decision to allow former Guantanamo Bay inmates to resettle in Australia, the Opposition said today.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard has confirmed that Australia, along with a number of other countries, has been approached to consider resettling detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

“Any determination for an individual to come to Australia would be made on a case-by-case basis,” she said.

“For anyone to be accepted they would have to meet Australia’s strict legal requirement and go through normal rigorous assessment processes.”

But Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull said on Macquarie Radio the situation was unacceptable.

“It’s only in this morning’s report in The Australian that the Rudd government has made clear that it will accept these inmates of Guantanamo Bay,” he said.

“One of the things that is most troubling … is whether the Government would do so, accept former inmates from Guantanamo Bay, without disclosing that they have done so.

“This is why we need Mr Rudd to immediately and categorically reverse this decision to accept inmates of Guantanamo Bay for resettlement in Australia.”

Mr Turnbull said the inmates could arrive in Australia as refugees through existing migration processes.

“They cannot be accepted on the basis that they go into custody, because they haven’t committed any crime under Australian law,” he said.

“So what (Mr Rudd) has agreed to, with the Americans, is to accept Guantanamo Bay inmates for resettlement in Australia in our community as migrants and that is completely and utterly unacceptable to the Australian people and it’s certainly unacceptable to the Coalition.”

Source

An Israeli War Crimes Tribunal

2

By Francis A. Boyle

The United Nations General Assembly must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a “subsidiary organ” under U.N. Charter Article 22. The ICTI would be organized along the lines of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the Security Council.

The purpose of the ICTI would be to investigate and prosecute Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine–just as the ICTY did for the victims of international crimes committed by Serbia and the Milosevic Regime throughout the Balkans.

The establishment of ICTI would provide some small degree of justice to the victims of Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine–just as the ICTY has done in the Balkans. Furthermore, the establishment of ICTI by the U.N. General Assembly would serve as a deterrent effect upon Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, Defense Minister Barak , Chief of Staff Ashkenazi and Israel’s other top generals that they will be prosecuted for their further infliction of international crimes upon the Lebanese and the Palestinians.

Without such a deterrent, Israel might be emboldened to attack Syria with the full support of the Likhudnik Bush Jr. Neoconservatives, who have always viewed Syria as “low-hanging fruit” ready to be taken out by means of their joint aggression. If Israel attacks Syria as it did when it invaded Lebanon in 1982, Iran has vowed to come to Syria’s defense.

And of course Israel and the Bush Jr administration very much want a pretext to attack Iran. This scenario could readily degenerate into World War III

For the U.N. General Assembly to establish ICTI could stop the further development of this momentum towards a regional if not global catastrophe.

Amy Goodman: Voices of Resistance Sing On

0

Strong voices for peace have left us this year, people who used their art for social change, often at a high personal price.

Odetta was a legendary folk singer of the civil rights movement.

Considered the “Queen of American Folk Music,” Odetta introduced audiences worldwide to African-American folk, blues and gospel music.

New Year’s Eve was her birthday. She would have been 78. When Rosa Parks was asked which songs meant the most to her, she replied, “All of the songs Odetta sings.”

Odetta sang “Oh, Freedom,” an African-American slave spiritual, at the 1963 March on Washington. Early on, she attracted the interest of Harry Belafonte and Pete Seeger. Her voice, her talent with the guitar and the natural style in which she maintained her hair–later to be dubbed “afro”–set her as an icon of the civil rights movement. She told an interviewer in 2003:

“When I first started, I would sing these prison songs … it got to a point where doing the music actually healed me … it was music from those who went before. The music gave them strength, and the music gave us strength to carry it on.”

She inspired Bernice Johnson Reagon, an early member of the SNCC (the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) Freedom Singers. She had been suspended from college in Albany, Ga., for civil rights protests, then went on to Spelman College, where historian Howard Zinn and his wife, Roz, took her to folk music concerts by Joan Baez and Odetta.

Reagon recalls the first time she heard Odetta:

“In Georgia, where I grew up in the country, the roads were built by chain-gang labor. I knew the sound, because as the men worked, they sang. But I never thought I’d hear it coming from a concert stage … when she sang prison songs or work songs. … She was just what I needed to begin my life as a freedom fighter and as a Freedom Singer.”

Reagon later went on to found the women’s a cappella group Sweet Honey in the Rock.

Another great liberation singer we lost this year was Miriam Makeba of South Africa, known as “Mama Afrika.” She sang against apartheid, then went into exile for decades. Belafonte helped her, too, gain recognition.

In 1968, she married SNCC-leader-turned-Black-Panther Stokely Carmichael, for which she was blacklisted in the U.S. until the 1980s.

Soon after her death, I asked the Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu about Makeba. The South African archbishop smiled: “Her singing, her voice, helped many people to know a little bit more about the vicious apartheid system. She was just a tremendous human being, a great loss to us and to Africa.”

Also blacklisted in 1968 was singer and actress Eartha Kitt, who died at age 81 on Christmas Day. In 1968, she was invited to a celebrity luncheon at the White House by Lady Bird Johnson, who asked Kitt about urban poverty. Kitt replied: “You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed. They rebel in the street. They don’t want to go to school because they’re going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam.” The first lady reportedly burst into tears. For years afterward, Kitt performed almost exclusively overseas and was investigated by the FBI and CIA.

Born out of the Deep South and South Africa, these women’s voices sang out, from concert halls to protest rallies. Another voice we just lost sang out from the written page. Harold Pinter died on Christmas Eve in London. Though too sick to travel to Stockholm to collect his Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he sent a video address: “The majority of politicians … are interested not in truth but in power. … To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance. … What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies.” Pinter was referring to U.S. policy from Guantanamo to Iraq.

As these icons are laid to rest, their voices continue to inspire millions. Barack Obama will soon take the reins of the most powerful nation on Earth, promising change. But it will now take the actions of those millions, heeding these echoes of the past and transforming them into their own voices, to effect real change.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
 
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.

© 2008 Amy Goodman

Private firm may track all email and calls

5

By Alan Travis and Richard Norton-Taylor |

The private sector will be asked to manage and run a communications database that will keep track of everyone’s calls, emails, texts and internet use under a key option contained in a consultation paper to be published next month by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary.

A cabinet decision to put the management of the multibillion pound database of all UK communications traffic into private hands would be accompanied by tougher legal safeguards to guarantee against leaks and accidental data losses.

But in his strongest criticism yet of the superdatabase, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, who has firsthand experience of working with intelligence and law enforcement agencies, told the Guardian such assurances would prove worthless in the long run and warned it would prove a “hellhouse” of personal private information.

“Authorisations for access might be written into statute. The most senior ministers and officials might be designated as scrutineers. But none of this means anything,” said Macdonald. “All history tells us that reassurances like these are worthless in the long run. In the first security crisis the locks would loosen.”

The home secretary postponed the introduction of legislation to set up the superdatabase in October and instead said she would publish a consultation paper in the new year setting out the proposal and the safeguards needed to protect civil liberties. She has emphasised that communications data, which gives the police the identity and location of the caller, texter or web surfer but not the content, has been used as important evidence in 95% of serious crime cases and almost all security service operations since 2004 including the Soham and 21/7 bombing cases.

Until now most communications traffic data has been held by phone companies and internet service providers for billing purposes but the growth of broadband phone services, chatrooms and anonymous online identities mean that is no longer the case.

The Home Office’s interception modernisation programme, which is working on the superdatabase proposal, argues that it is no longer good enough for communications companies to be left to retrieve such data when requested by the police and intelligence services. A Home Office spokeswoman said last night the changes were needed so law enforcement agencies could maintain their ability to tackle serious crime and terrorism.

Senior Whitehall officials responsible for planning for a new database say there is a significant difference between having access to “communications data” – names and addresses of emails or telephone numbers, for example – and the actual contents of the communications. “We have been very clear that there are no plans for a database containing any content of emails, texts or conversations,” the spokeswoman said.

External estimates of the cost of the superdatabase have been put as high as £12bn, twice the cost of the ID cards scheme, and the consultation paper, to be published towards the end of next month, will include an option of putting it into the hands of the private sector in an effort to cut costs. But such a decision is likely to fuel civil liberties concerns over data losses and leaks. Macdonald, who left his post as DPP in October, told the Guardian: “The tendency of the state to seek ever more powers of surveillance over its citizens may be driven by protective zeal. But the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. We must avoid surrendering our freedom as autonomous human beings to such an ugly future. We should make judgments that are compatible with our status as free people.”

Maintaining the capacity to intercept suspicious communications was critical in an increasingly complex world, he said. “It is a process which can save lives and bring criminals to justice. But no other country is considering such a drastic step. This database would be an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information,” he said. “It would be a complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail. No government of any colour is to be trusted with such a roadmap to our souls.”

The moment there was a security crisis the temptation for more commonplace access would be irresistible, he said.

Other critics of the plan point to the problems of keeping the database secure, both from the point of view of the technology and of deliberate leaks. The problem would be compounded if private companies manage the system. “If there is a breach of security in that database it would be utterly devastating,” one said.

Why You Should Delete Your MySpace Account

12

Today I am deleting all the content from my Myspace account and leaving only this notice. I’ve been inspired by the Franklin Street Statement and Identi.ca and I realize that a free/libre/open source internet is still possible, but it will require us to stop supporting corporate websites such as myspace. Here are some good reasons to delete your Myspace page, and support alternatives not run by corporations.

1. I’m tired of being free labor for the Fox corporation. The right wing Fox news corporation owns myspace, and I’m not going to support them any longer by giving them my content, my writing and images and information about who my friends are, for free. I don’t support war, the way the Fox corporation has, and I don’t want to provide them with more money to spread more pro-war propaganda. According to their license, Myspace has full rights to use my content things like advertisements for Myspace.

2. I actually care about my friends, and don’t want to screw them over my making them a “friend” on Myspace. By using myspace, I’m forcing my friends to sign up for a corporate owned, ad ridden, heteronormative web service if they want to stay in touch with me. The way that we don’t want to delete our accounts because we want to stay in touch with friends or fans of our bands just shows how dependent we already are on Myspace’s corporate controlled environment. We’re forced into a compulsory relationship we don’t want because we want to “keep in touch” with our friends?

3. I’m tired up updating so many websites because Myspace refuses to be interoperable with other websites. Myspace and sites like it do not allow you to download your data or automatically send it to other social networking sites because they want to force you into the jail of their website. Why? Why don’t we demand open social networking standards and the ability to download our own content?

4. I have a good Free/Libre/Open Source alternative, my own blog. You can read about what I’m up to at http://technotrannyslut.com , free of ads for bad movies and music, free of binary gender choices and heteronormative options for your relationships. Sites like Identi.ca provide ethical, non-corporate controlled alternatives to sites like Twitter. You can keep up with my status on Identi.ca, and sign up for your own microblog, here: http://identi.ca/djlotu5 Help create a well known list of alternatives like Identi.ca/Twitter , Opensim/Secondlife, if you now of any, by posting a comment here:

Actually, even better than deleting your account, just delete all the content and post a notice like this one.

This is just the beginning, I’m planning on getting off of Facebook and other web services as well, and I hope you do too. We can have an internet that is Free/Libre/Open Source, but only if we stop supporting the corporate, locked down options we’ve been using all of these years. As these services become more a part of our lives and get into our phones and our everyday communications, it is critical that we fight for our freedom. The Free/Libre/Open Source movement needs to expand from just writing software, into creating networks of servers and services, like Indymedia has done for so many years. Software alone is not enough in a networked service ecology, where servers, cables, wireless networks, infrastructure that we all control is essential if we want freedom. I hope to see you back on the Free/Libre/Open Source internet. Bye.

Via techno tranny slut

Government considers Wales as ID card guinea pigs

0

By Hywel Trewyn

CALLS to put Welsh on new ID cards are at last to be considered by the Government.

The U-turn follows pressure from language campaigners who say it would be an insult if English-only cards were issued in Wales.

The Welsh Language Board yesterday welcomed an announcement that UK Border Agency officials will at least review the idea of producing bilingual cards available for Wales.

It is a reversal on policy from earlier this year, when the Home Office said it had “no intention to include Welsh on identity cards”, arguing the language “was not an official language of the EU.”

But the WLB has always argued including Welsh on cards issued in Wales was essential — the same as for driving licences and passports.

And they are sending a clear message to the Government that Welsh people would see it as an insult if a Welsh option was excluded from the cards, which will eventually be distributed to every British citizen.

WLB chair Meri Huws said: “If the Welsh language does not appear on Identity Cards, I don’t believe they will reflect the true identity of the people of Wales, and their linguistic identity in particular.

“Therefore it is essential that all ID cards issued in Wales are fully bilingual, as is the case with driving licences.

“I welcome the fact that the Home Office is now considering how to include the language on cards issued in the future, and look forward to hearing a statement on this issue soon.”

And the WLB stance was supported by Caernarfon Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams: “The first drafts of the proposed ID cards had the Union Jack on them. This would have been wholly unacceptable to people living in Wales. I understand now there’s not going to be the Union flag.”

Mr Williams has tabled a number of questions asking the Government what steps have they taken to provide bilingual ID cards in Wales and the rest of the UK and for Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy about which steps he has taken to guarantee that Welsh will be on the cards.

Now, following a consultation period, it seems there is a glimmer of hope that they will be bilingual.

A UK Border Agency spokesperson said: “There will be no Welsh headings on the first wave of identity cards to be issued to workers in critical locations in Manchester and London City airports. International Civil Aviation Organisation rules state that travel documents must have headings written in English and French.

“As we roll out ID cards across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we will review the inclusion of Welsh on the cards.”

A previous linguistic battle was won after the census was forced to include a Welsh tick box for Welsh people.

The first identity cards were distributed to foreign residents living in the UK last month and will then be distributed to the general population of the UK in stages, dependent upon status, over the next three years.

People working in “sensitive” jobs like at airport employees will be given the cards first, then young people who want them from 2010 and from 2011 they will be available to everyone.

1978: Labour opposed ID cards to curb illegal immigration

0

By

The comments were in a draft statement due to be given to the Commons by Merlyn Rees, the Home Secretary, who wrote that the introduction of identity cards “would require major changes in practices and powers reaching far beyond immigration control”.

He added: “In the past such changes have been contemplated only in war: the Government does not believe they could be justified on immigration grounds alone.”

The comments were later edited out of the final speech he delivered to the House, as a struggling Labour Government tried to resist the calls from Opposition leader Margaret Thatcher for more draconian measures to tackle illegal immigration.

In a secret discussion between Prime Minister Callaghan and the Whips on March 8 1978, a Downing Street aide wrote: “It was claimed that many Asian immigrants were very frightened.

“There was bitter opposition to the tactics adopted by Mrs Thatcher… and that resentment should be exploited by the Government.”

Ministers stuck by their pledge not to introduce quotas on immigration as they did not want the “objectionable” measure of requiring everyone to carry identification papers.

The confidential Government documents also discussed ways to expose “the fraudulent nature of Mrs Thatcher’s approach”, although a personal note written by Mr Callaghan warned that the Government’s response to Select Committee recommendations was too lacklustre.

He said: “We seemed to be accepting few recommendations — mostly ones to do nothing.”

US, Japanese Researchers Mix Samples of 1918 Flu Pandemic to Recreate Deadly Code

1

Lori Price

Researchers recreate 1918 flu pandemic virus —Why? And, why is no one *asking* why? 29 Dec 2008 Researchers have found out what made the 1918 flu pandemic so deadly — a group of three genes that lets the virus invade the lungs and cause pneumonia. They mixed samples of the 1918 influenza strain with modern seasonal flu viruses to find the three genes and said their study might help in the development of new flu drugs. The discovery, published in Tuesday’s issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could also point to mutations that might turn ordinary flu into a dangerous pandemic strain. Most flu experts agree that a pandemic of influenza will almost certainly strike again. No one knows when [the US unleashes it] or what strain it will be but one big suspect now is the H5N1 avian influenza virus.

US and Japanese researchers crack flu pandemic’s deadly code 30 Dec 2008 The genetic code that made the 1918 killer flu so deadly has finally been cracked, claim US and Japanese researchers, who say their discovery may lead to new drugs able to keep foment future outbreaks in check. By experimenting with genetic material recovered from preserved lung tissues of three victims of the so-called Spanish influenza, a team led by virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka claims the virus landed a lethal one-two punch. First, it disrupted normal immune reactions, as previously known. But then it infected its victims’ lungs with deadly consequences. Ordinary flu bugs infect just the nose and throat.

  • Unrest caused by bad economy may require military action, report says —‘Pervasive public health emergencies’ may require call on military 29 Dec 2008 A U.S. Army War College report warns an economic crisis in the United States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the military to restore order.
  • Flu watchdog lab planned 29 Dec 2008 ‘The idea is to strengthen our surveillance against the dreaded bird flu and be ready with a disease control plan if it strikes.’
  • Jakarta ends stand-off on bird flu vaccines —Indonesia’s health minister accused the US of trying to use bird flu samples to create a biological weapon. 24 Feb 2008
  • Scientists Recreate 1918 Flu and See Parallels to Bird Flu –In 2005, U.S. Army scientists reconstructed Spanish flu virus by extracting genetic fragments from the bodies of victims exhumed from the Alaskan permafrost. 18 Jan 2007
  • KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M 24 Jan 2006 KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co., said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency.
  • Rumsfeld’s growing stake in Tamiflu –Defense Secretary, ex-chairman of flu treatment rights holder, sees portfolio value growing. 31 Oct 2005 The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the globe, but it’s proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy that’s now the most-sought after drug in the world. Rumsfeld served as Gilead (Research)’s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001, and he still holds a Gilead stake valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to federal financial disclosures filed by Rumsfeld.
  • Killer flu recreated in the lab 07 Oct 2004 Scientists have shown that tiny changes to modern flu viruses could render them as deadly as the 1918 strain which killed millions. A US team added two genes from a sample of the 1918 virus to a modern strain known to have no effect on mice.

Fisk: Leaders Lie, Civilians Die, and Lessons of History are Ignored

1

The Independent – We’ve got so used to the carnage of the Middle East that we don’t care any more — providing we don’t offend the Israelis. It’s not clear how many of the Gaza dead are civilians, but the response of the Bush administration, not to mention the pusillanimous reaction of Gordon Brown, reaffirm for Arabs what they have known for decades: however they struggle against their antagonists, the West will take Israel’s side. As usual, the bloodbath was the fault of the Arabs — who, as we all know, only understand force.

Ever since 1948, we’ve been hearing this balderdash from the Israelis — just as Arab nationalists and then Arab Islamists have been peddling their own lies: that the Zionist “death wagon” will be overthrown, that all Jerusalem will be “liberated”. And always Mr Bush Snr or Mr Clinton or Mr Bush Jnr or Mr Blair or Mr Brown have called upon both sides to exercise “restraint” — as if the Palestinians and the Israelis both have F-18s and Merkava tanks and field artillery. Hamas’s home-made rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years, but a day-long blitz by Israeli aircraft that kills almost 300 Palestinians is just par for the course.

The blood-splattering has its own routine. Yes, Hamas provoked Israel’s anger, just as Israel provoked Hamas’s anger, which was provoked by Israel, which was provoked by Hamas, which … See what I mean? Hamas fires rockets at Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, Hamas fires more rockets and Israel bombs again and … Got it? And we demand security for Israel — rightly — but overlook this massive and utterly disproportionate slaughter by Israel. It was Madeleine Albright who once said that Israel was “under siege” — as if Palestinian tanks were in the streets of Tel Aviv.

By last night, the exchange rate stood at 296 Palestinians dead for one dead Israeli. Back in 2006, it was 10 Lebanese dead for one Israeli dead. This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since — the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War? It’s obscene, a gruesome game — which Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, unconsciously admitted when he spoke this weekend to Fox TV. “Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game,” Barak said.

Exactly. Only the “rules” of the game don’t change. This is a further slippage on the Arab-Israeli exchanges, a percentage slide more awesome than Wall Street’s crashing shares, though of not much interest in the US which — let us remember — made the F-18s and the Hellfire missiles which the Bush administration pleads with Israel to use sparingly.

Quite a lot of the dead this weekend appear to have been Hamas members, but what is it supposed to solve? Is Hamas going to say: “Wow, this blitz is awesome — we’d better recognise the state of Israel, fall in line with the Palestinian Authority, lay down our weapons and pray we are taken prisoner and locked up indefinitely and support a new American ‘peace process’ in the Middle East!” Is that what the Israelis and the Americans and Gordon Brown think Hamas is going to do?

Yes, let’s remember Hamas’s cynicism, the cynicism of all armed Islamist groups. Their need for Muslim martyrs is as crucial to them as Israel’s need to create them. The lesson Israel thinks it is teaching — come to heel or we will crush you — is not the lesson Hamas is learning. Hamas needs violence to emphasise the oppression of the Palestinians — and relies on Israel to provide it. A few rockets into Israel and Israel obliges.

Not a whimper from Tony Blair, the peace envoy to the Middle East who’s never been to Gaza in his current incarnation. Not a bloody word.

We hear the usual Israeli line. General Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli army’s “research and assessment division” announced that “no country in the world would allow its citizens to be made the target of rocket attacks without taking vigorous steps to defend them”. Quite so. But when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not. Because the world would have seen it as criminal behaviour. We didn’t want to lower ourselves to the IRA’s level.

Yes, Israel deserves security. But these bloodbaths will not bring it. Not since 1948 have air raids protected Israel. Israel has bombed Lebanon thousands of times since 1975 and not one has eliminated “terrorism”. So what was the reaction last night? The Israelis threaten ground attacks. Hamas waits for another battle. Our Western politicians crouch in their funk holes. And somewhere to the east — in a cave? a basement? on a mountainside? — a well-known man in a turban smiles.

The Qassam rockets myths

7

leninology.blogspot.com 

I warned you months ago: the magic word is ‘Sderot’. Any amount of barbarism can be justified by the frankly risible rocket attacks on southern Israel. The Israeli propaganda line, repeated with dogged fanaticism by its apologists everywhere, is that Israel performed an immense act of goodness in withdrawing its colonies from Gaza, and the native ingrates actually responded by sending a spray of Qassam rockets aloft in celebration. To add insult to injury, the bleeders even used former ‘settlement’ buildings to launch the rockets from. Such beliefs have to be encouraged to justify such outrageous proposals as the levelling of Gaza. Before this gets out of hand and people start using the rockets to justify some sort of “holocaust”, let us at least bear the facts in mind for a while.

The Qassam rockets were being used as one component of an array of military tactics deployed by Gazan groups before the pull-out, the Gush Katif colonies being the prominent target. This was a response to a wave of violence and expulsions in which, for example, 13,350 residents of Rafah had their homes and life belongings destroyed in the year preceding the withdrawal, courtesy of Israeli tanks and Caterpillar bulldozers. Parts of Gaza came to resemble Grozny. The Israelis frequently attacked ambulances, at one point using the argument that UNRWA had allowed Qassam rockets to be loaded on board one such vehicle (this turned out to be a lie, but it is still repeated on many a media outlet and website). The vast majority of casualties from their use date back to the period of formal colonialism. After the withdrawal, the rate at which these were used diminished dramatically. Their use has spiked in response to serial atrocities against Palestinians, such as the slaughter of the Ghaliya family on the Gaza beach, (in which Hamas broke an eighteen month unilateral ceasefire).

There were few such rockets fired during the six-month ceasefire, even though Israel didn’t respect its terms, but their use was increased again as Israel broke the truce on November 4th (burn that date into your brain and remember it next time someone tells you that those nasty Hamas thugs wouldn’t renew the ceasefire). Now, there are legitimate arguments about both the efficacy and ethics of using such weapons. To my mind, they have very little going for them as a tactic of resistance. But the apparently widespread belief that Qassam rockets are the vindictive and jubilant response of sneering Palestinian jihadists to Israeli mushiness is not justified by any evidence. In fact, if the aim were truly to end Qassam rocket fire, the logical option would to be engage in a unilateral ceasefire and invite Hamas to enter into a process of dialogue. But that brings us to another myth, the myth of Hamas rejectionism, which is for another post.

What Will Obama Do About Cannabis?

7

By NORM KENT

He picked for Vice President one of the major architects of the Drug War.

He picked for Chief of Staff one of the chief opponents of medical marijuana.

He is talking about picking for the Drug Czar spot a conservative candidate who has been a congressional leader fighting drug reform.

He has promised to put an end to raids on medical dispensaries in California, but he has not said he will broadly support the Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment which would let states decide the issue.

He has moved from once supporting marijuana decriminalization to publishing comments that he cannot overuse ‘political capital’ on the issue.

He has now appointed for Attorney General a candidate who has a long history of opposing drug policy reforms and who has in court supported mandatory minimum sentencing and civil forfeiture.

Allen St. Pierre, the Executive Director of NORML, summed it up best about Mr. Obama’s appointments thus far: “So Far, Not So Good:” His thought-provoking article appears on the NORML.com website at its blog.

From summarizing why the selection of Joe Biden as Vice President caused him ‘digestive tumult’ to tracing Rahm Emanuel’s anti-drug policies for the past decade, the article captures a snapshot of what was routine politics as usual for the players soon to be in power.

When it comes to our 44th President, some of his positions on marijuana were once encouraging. But as Mr. Obama has moved towards the national limelight, there is a new found frustration for reformers. It seems the President to be is moving from the left to the middle. And as Loudon Wainwright once wrote in a popular song, the only things you see in the middle of the road are dead skunks and yellow lines. Still, I am not alarmed yet. It is way too early, and there is still room and reason for optimism.

Commencing your administration in the face of a national economic crisis at home while American soldiers are at war abroad can focus your priorities on other issues outside the need for weed. We have seen what happened to Bill Clinton when he tried, too early in his administration, to advance the cause of gay rights by banning discrimination against homosexuals in the military. He started a firestorm which burnt up valuable first months of his presidency.

We do know this though, and it is a challenging start. Rather decisively, on the official administration website, at www.change.gov, the following statement appears:  President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

What can we then expect of Mr. Obama once he becomes President?

I think there are many encouraging things.

First, in his past he has acknowledged the broad failures of the drug war, declaring in 2004 that it was an “utter failure” which needs to be rethought.

Second, as an African-American in an urban community, few people will be as sensitive as Mr. Obama to the exhaustive legal toll this drug war exacts on minority communities. The arrests come quicker, the prosecutions are more frequent, and the sentences are longer. Drug arrests have been tools to deny poor people driver’s licenses, scholarships and federal welfare benefits, causing innocuous conduct to endure catastrophic consequences for otherwise decent people.

Third, the President is ‘with it’. His telling comments to a group of students when asked whether he ‘inhaled’ marijuana were “Of course, I thought that was the whole purpose.”

Those remarks are a reflection of the candor and commitment of Mr. Obama to address the issue in a new light. He did not play a game of Clintonian holier-than-thou cover-up. With the same self-deprecating qualities that he shared with the nation when he called himself a ‘mutt,’ Mr. Obama implied in tone and substance that marijuana may not be as bad as we have been hearing from the government for too many decades.

Last week, the website Change.gov asked the public to provide them with a list of the top public policy questions facing America. Visitors to the site were then asked to vote on which questions should take priority for the incoming administration.

After receiving nearly 100,000 total votes on more than 10,000 separate public policy issues, the most widely voted on question for Obama is:

“Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.”

Maybe Rahm Emanuel has turned a corner as well. Rahm is politically smart if nothing else, so I hope that he’ll follow his boss’ lead in the area of criminal justice reforms. Also, to his credit, after voting years against Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment in 2007, as member of Congress from Illinois, Rahm voted in favor of holding back federal funding from law enforcement (read DEA) to raid or harass medical marijuana cultivators and dispensaries.

I know I have been unsuccessful in getting my own liberal Congresswoman from South Florida, Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, to even support this effort. Maybe Mr. Emanuel will influence her and dozens of others. It will take leadership from the oval office. That can only happen when the people in office are looked upon as enlightened reformers rather than being weak on crime.

Politically, I know such polls as the one the administration inaugurated here are instrumental in turning mindsets. If we can show politicians that it is ‘safe’ to support drug reform, even popular, we can suddenly find them on our side. To their credit, outstanding philanthropists like Peter Lewis and George Soros have been national leaders in helping bring public opinion out of the closet. These are men whose voices may be heard by the new administration. And I am here for them too if they need me. My number is listed. So too is Barney Frank, the influential Massachusetts congressman who has long supported decriminalization legislation.

The truth is that people who support decriminalization have always been a silent majority afraid to speak out. But give them a secret ballot box, and in state after state, you see massive support for medical marijuana and a more enlightened approach to marijuana reform. Perhaps the President, in his own unique disarming way, can lead a new path. He has surrounded himself with educated leaders who also have been willing to speak candidly in favor of decriminalization including new Cabinet nominee Bill Richardson.

We do not need a new Drug Czar, either. This is America. Czars are for Russia. What we need is the appointment of an educator, a scientist, a doctor, a constitutional rights lawyer to pave the way to a new era of drug enlightenment.

At the last NORML Board of Directors meeting, one issue we raised was one many of us within the drug reform movement can support. It has been three decades since the Shafer Commission released its national study on marijuana, which Nixon immediately trashed. Perhaps a new Blue Ribbon Commission, with decades more research behind it, and years of medical marijuana evidence, can look into new recommendations for the 21st century.

On one hand, such a Presidential panel would buy time for the new administration to get settled in with more pressing priorities. But it would also give drug reformers a national platform to address so many issues that have been, forgive me, cultivated- since the Shafer Commission, from forfeiture laws to raids on dispensaries, from the THC content of marijuana to medicinal initiatives. It is time to look again at marijuana with a scholarly and clinical eye instead of with SWAT teams and law enforcement raids.

Correspondingly, it is also time for the national drug reform organizations to speak with a singular voice and work together for a common purpose. There needs to be a unity of purpose, and leaders from the Marijuana Policy Project, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, and a host of other respected reform organizations, too many to mention here, should hold their own meeting to develop a common theme with a collective initiative. We need to work together to send a message that is enlightened and progressive, convincing legislators and the executive branch that we are responsible and right..

The drug reform movement needs to act in a way that President-elect Obama has asked all of us to move towards: not to be tied to the politics of the past and the way things have always been done, but to engage hope by broadening our constituency and reaching out to others. Within the drug reform movement, fratricide must come to an end. We must bury the hatchet on our own rivalries, and move forward with a common purpose. We defeat ourselves by ourselves when we do not.

Our cause is just, and our goals have always been righteous. We may have only ourselves to blame if we cannot achieve now what we have fought so long for. I would say our time is now, but I thought that in 1976 when the Attorney General of the United States, then Ramsey Clark, said we should see an end to unjust marijuana laws before the end of the decade. I think we are overdue. Together, let us do better than we have already done.

We have a President who is willing to listen, a Congress that is willing to learn, and a public that is salivating for a better solution.

Norm Kent is a criminal defense lawyer from Fort Lauderdale who serves on the Board of Directors for NORML www.norml.com He can be reached at Norm@normkent.com, and his law office website is www.normkent.com

Chávez: Capitalists Have Manipulated the Message of Christ to Exploit the Poor

3

By Venezolana de Televisión

“The Kingdom of Heaven is not a kingdom or life in the clouds. Either it exists here or else it exists nowhere,” President Chávez issued a wake-up call during the last Sunday program of 2008. “It’s on earth, and that is why Christ came here and was born among the poor, in the manger.”

The head of state in Venezuela noted that the capitalist system throughout its history has distorted Jesus’s message to the poor about the Kingdom of Heaven, with the sole purpose of exploiting the impoverished majorities in favor of the minorities who enjoy the wealth of the world.

The Christ child was born on earth, poor and human, to fight and make this planet truly the kingdom of heaven, of equality and justice, not to be poor in life and to win glory in the afterlife, Comandante Chávez said during the last Aló Presidente broadcast of the year, speaking from El Valle where he inaugurated a new People’s Clinic.

“The message of Christ, who said the Kingdom of Heaven is that of the poor, has been very often manipulated. In this way they have for centuries manipulated the poor of the world, to make them quietly accept exploitation.”

“Christ was born to call on us to create, here on earth, the Kingdom of Love,” Chávez explained, adding that this kingdom has no other name than socialism.

The president reminded the audience that socialism comes from what is social, as capitalism proceeds from capital.

“Socialism is the doctrine, science, of development of what is social. Capitalism is the immoral art, science, and technology of development of capital or growth of capital — (for capitalism) what matters is that even while people die of hunger capitalists accumulate capital.”

The president stressed that therein lies the key to understanding the confrontation that began again, in which Venezuela has become the center of the battle between socialists and capitalists, “between people becoming more politically conscious every day and those who exploited them forever.” He said that that is why the issue of the constitutional amendment is of vital importance as it will allow Venezuela to go farther on the socialist path, the truly human and democratic path, for the happiness of the Venezuelan people.

To conclude the last Aló Presidente of the year, the president wished the best for Venezuelan families, urging them to enjoy Christmas and New Year’s Eve with love, moderation, and simplicity so they can continue in 2009 the work of making Venezuela a great nation of justice and equality.

Cheney Admits He ‘Signed Off’ on Waterboarding of Three Guantanamo Prisoners

6

Author’s note: Cheney’s admission during an interview with the Washington Times this week about his role in approving the waterboarding of three Guantanamo detainees and the so-called “enhanced interrogation” of 33 prisoners was, disturbingly, not covered at all by the mainstream media.

By Jason Leopold – www.pubrecord.org

Vice President Dick Cheney, in another stunning admission during his campaign to burnish the Bush administration’s legacy, said he personally authorized the “enhanced interrogations” of 33 suspected terrorist detainees and approved the waterboarding of three so-called “high-value” prisoners.

“I signed off on it; others did, as well, too,” Cheney said about the waterboarding, a practice of simulated drowning done by strapping a person to a board, covering the face with a cloth and then pouring water over it, a torture technique dating back at least to the Spanish Inquisition. The victim feels as if he is drowning.

Cheney identified the three waterboarded detainees as al-Qaeda figures Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and al Nashiri. “That’s it, those three guys,” Cheney said in an interview with the right-wing Washington Times.

Other detainees at secret CIA prisons and at Guantanamo Bay were subjected to harsh treatment, including being stripped naked, forced into painful stress positions, placed in extremes of heat or cold and prevented from sleeping — actions that international human rights organizations, and previously the U.S. government, have denounced as torture and illegal abuse.

“I thought that it was absolutely the right thing to do,” Cheney said of what he called the “enhanced interrogation” of the detainees. “I thought the [administration’s] legal opinions that were rendered [endorsing the harsh treatment] were sound. I think the techniques were reasonable in terms of what they [the CIA interrogators] were asking to be able to do. And I think it produced the desired result.”

Cheney also took issue with the notion that waterboarding was torture.

“Was it torture? I don’t believe it was torture,” Cheney said. “The CIA handled itself, I think, very appropriately. They came to us in the administration, talked to me, talked to others in the administration, about what they felt they needed to do in order to obtain the intelligence that we believe these people were in possession of.”

Other experts, including some military and intelligence interrogators, have disputed Cheney’s claims of success in extracting reliable information through waterboarding and other harsh techniques. Much of the confessed information turned out to be dubious or incorrect.

The First Case

Zubaydah was the first “war on terror” detainee to be subjected to the Bush administration’s waterboarding, according to Pentagon and Justice Department documents, news reports and several books written about the Bush administration’s interrogation methods.

However, according to author Ron Suskind who interviewed CIA and other insiders, Abu Zubaydah was not the “high-value detainee” that the Bush administration had claimed. Rather, Zubaydah was a minor player in the al-Qaeda organization, handling travel for associates and their families, Suskind wrote in his book The One Percent Doctrine.

Nevertheless, Suskind said President George W. Bush became obsessed with Zubaydah and the information he might have about pending terrorist plots against the United States.

“Bush was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,” Suskind wrote. Bush questioned one CIA briefer, “Do some of these harsh methods really work?”

Abu Zubaydah’s captors soon discovered that their prisoner was mentally ill and knew nothing about terrorist operations or impending plots. That realization was “echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President,” Suskind wrote.

But Bush did not want to “lose face” because he had stated Zubaydah’s importance publicly, according to Suskind.

Zubaydah was strapped to a waterboard and, fearing imminent death, he spoke about a wide range of plots against a number of U.S. targets, such as shopping malls, the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. Yet, Suskind wrote, Zubaydah’s information under duress was judged not credible.

Still, that did not stop “thousands of uniformed men and women [who] raced in a panic to each … target,” Suskind wrote. “The United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.”

Cheney Unapologetic

Last week, in an interview with ABC News, Cheney was unapologetic about the waterboarding and other harsh techniques used against the detainees. But Cheney’s matter-of-fact response to the Washington Times‘ questions on Monday provided the most detailed look yet at the administration’s highly classified interrogation program.

In the interview, Cheney defended the interrogation program by claiming the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) drafted legal memorandums stating Bush had the authority to suspend the Geneva Convention and order harsh interrogations of prisoners in the “war on terror.”

But the memos were written after Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other high-ranking Cabinet officials known as the Principals Committee met in July 2002 to discuss specific interrogation techniques – including the outlawed technique of waterboarding – to be used against “war on terror” detainees.

The OLC attorneys fashioned the legal arguments that then gave legal cover for the interrogation strategies that the White House wanted to carry out.

The Aug. 1, 2002, opinion, widely referred to as the “Torture Memo,” was written by Jay Bybee, an assistant attorney general at the OLC, and John Yoo, Bybee’s deputy. It was addressed to Gonzales and stated that unless the amount of pain administered to a detainee during an interrogation results in injury “such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions” than the technique could not be defined as torture.

Additionally, the memo said CIA interrogators would not be prosecuted for violating anti-torture laws as long as they acted in “good faith” while using brutal techniques to obtain information from suspected terrorists.

“To validate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering,” the memo said. “Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture.”

The memo was drafted the same month Abu Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding.

Jack Goldsmith, who succeeded Bybee as head of the OLC in October 2003, quickly determined that the Aug. 1, 2002, memo was “sloppily written” and “legally flawed” and withdrew it.

Administration critics also have noted that actions are not made legal simply by having friendly lawyers give favorable opinions.

“You can’t just suddenly change something that is illegal into something that is legal by having a lawyer write an opinion that saying it’s legal,” said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee whose panel spent two years investigating the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, said Cheney used the Justice Department to “twist” the law “and in some cases ignored it altogether, in order to permit interrogators to use barbaric methods that the U.S. once prosecuted as war crimes.”

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “there must be consequences for [these] illegal activities.” He added, “A special prosecutor should be appointed. To do otherwise is to send a message of impunity that will only embolden future administrations to again engage in serious violations of the law.”

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is close to wrapping up a formal investigation to determine whether agency attorneys, including Yoo and Bybee, provided the White House with poor legal advice when they drafted the legal opinions.

The waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, Al Nashiri and Kalid Sheikh Mohammed was videotaped, but those records were destroyed in November 2005 after the Washington Post published a story that exposed the CIA’s use of so-called “black site” prisons overseas to interrogate terror suspects.

John Durham, an assistant attorney general in Connecticut, was appointed special counsel earlier this year to investigate the destruction of that videotape as well as destroyed film on other interrogations.

Despite the torture criticism, Cheney said he has no regrets about the interrogation methods that he signed off on, claiming they were “directly responsible for the fact that we’ve been able to avoid or defeat further attacks against the homeland for seven and a half years.”

Cheney added, “I feel very good about what we did. I think it was the right thing to do. If I was faced with those circumstances again, I’d do exactly the same thing.”

Cheney’s remarks to the Washington Times were part of a two-week media blitz that has sought to highlight the Bush administration’s “accomplishments.”

The White House has published two lengthy reports, “Highlights of Accomplishments and Results of the Administration of George W. Bush,” and “100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record” in an attempt to change the emerging historical consensus about a failed presidency.

However, Cheney’s blasé responses to questions about torture have instead fed growing demands for a criminal investigation against Cheney and other Bush administration officials.

Once High-Flying Developers Now Looking for Federal Aid

0

By Phil Mattera

Opponents of the auto industry bailout, who warned that it would prompt other business sectors to ask for similar consideration, are probably feeling vindicated. Only days after the Bush Administration did an end run around Senate Republicans and agreed to provide a Detroit rescue package using bank bailout funds, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that commercial real estate developers are seeking their own federal assistance package. They are warning that, without such aid, thousands of office complexes, shopping centers, hotels and the like could join the country’s foreclosure tsunami.

There’s one major difference between the auto industry and commercial real estate that justifies a bailout for one and not the other: the number and quality of jobs at stake. The Big Three provide hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs (too well-paying according to certain Southern Senators) that have helped workers achieve a middle-class standard of living. Real estate developers, by contrast, are primarily responsible for substandard retail and janitorial positions. While the Service Employees International Union has helped improve wages and benefits for some building services workers, most of those jobs don’t take people far out of poverty. While it would be a shame for janitors and clerks to lose their jobs, preserving those positions does not have the same urgency as saving the estimated 1.2 million direct and indirect jobs linked to the Big Three.

Rather than bailing out their employers, it would make more sense to use federal funds to help retail and janitorial workers find better jobs elsewhere in the economy. In the speculative boom of recent years, the real estate business built far too many office buildings and shopping centers, and many of those properties will probably not survive the current shakeout. While there is a strong case that the country needs a domestic auto industry, it is much harder to argue that every commercial property needs to be kept in operation.

And if Congress does decide it is necessary to prevent a commercial real estate meltdown, it should keep in mind that these same developers now looking for aid have repeatedly pressured local governments for property tax abatements and other subsidies. A report I wrote last year (with two colleagues) on the big mall owner General Growth Properties, which is now struggling to survive, found that the company had received more than $200 million in such subsidies and another $9 million in savings as a result of aggressive filing of property tax assessment appeals. Previous (unpublished) research I did on the country’s largest mall operator, Simon Properties, found $380 million in subsidies and savings from assessment appeals. In both cases, the data come from an examination of only a portion of the malls owned by the company. Also remember that Wal-Mart used a gimmick called captive real estate investment trusts to avoid paying an estimated $2.3 billion in state taxes.

Perhaps Congress should require developers to use part of any bailout to repay the subsidies they received from local governments that are now facing dire fiscal conditions.

But even that would not provide a compelling case for a commercial real estate bailout. In a country that still hasn’t devised a comprehensive plan for stopping home foreclosures, we shouldn’t be worrying about saving the owners of superfluous office towers and big box stores.

The West police who have criminal records

0

Serving police officers in the West have criminal records for offences including assault, drink driving and fraud a Freedom of Information inquiry has revealed.

Wiltshire (no more than five), West Mercia (10) and Dorset police (nine) confirmed that between them more than 20 serving officers have criminal records including for public order offences, a domestic dispute and taking a vehicle without consent.

The Gloucestershire, Avon and Somerset and Gwent forces declined to state how many serving officers had criminal convictions under regulations in the Act that exempts investigation into a question if it is likely to cost too much money.

However all forces, apart from Wiltshire Constabulary, released information on the numbers of officers who have been sacked or forced to resign because of a criminal conviction since September 2003.

Dorset Police revealed that nine officers on its force have criminal records but that none of its officers has been dismissed.Gloucestershire police confirmed that they had to dismiss one officer for breaking the law while Avon and Somerset confirmed three officers had been dismissed or were asked to resign.

Gwent police revealed that two officers had been dismissed in the five year period, while West Mercia police, who cover Hereford and Worcester, said one officer had been dismissed and two had been required to resign from the force due to criminal convictions.

Hereford’s Liberal Democrat MP Paul Keetch said: “I am glad that West Mercia Police have been so open and honest about the situation and I am surprised that other police forces have not been so forthcoming.

“One would have thought the Home Office gave guidelines on this issue.

“I would presume that the Chief Constable would be aware of the circumstances and offences of any convicted officers and would ensure that these officers would not be involved in any operational activity in those areas or associated with anything relating to their crime.”

Paul West, ACPO lead for the Professional Standards Working Group and Chief Constable West Mercia, said: “The police service expects good conduct and probity from its officers and staff at all times.

“Where wrongdoing is alleged, police officers are investigated and action taken as appropriate to each case.

“It should be remembered that there are just over 140,000 police officers in the country, the overwhelming majority of whom serve the public with dedication under sometimes difficult circumstances.

“In common with a large majority of British employees, police staff members are subject to the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, while police officers are subject to the Police and Misconduct Regulations set by Government.

“Where an officer has committed misconduct, which can include a criminal offence, a range of disciplinary actions can be taken by a police force, including a reprimand, fine, reduction in rank or dismissal.

“The force concerned will take action depending on a range of factors including the severity of the offence and its impact on an officer’s ability to carry out their duties.

Source

Zimbabwe police won’t free activists

0

By Jonathan Clayton

POLICE in Zimbabwe defied a High Court order for the release to hospital of a leading human rights activist and eight other opposition campaigners, taking them off to an undisclosed location yesterday.

“I have just received information they were taken by a red vehicle under armed police escort,” said Beatrice Mtetwa, the group’s lawyer, who often appears for opponents of the Mugabe regime. “The police haven’t complied with the order … I doubt if they will comply.”

On Wednesday, Jestina Mukoko and the eight activists were charged in court with recruiting or attempting to recruit people, including a police officer, to plot the overthrow of President Robert Mugabe. It was the first time most of the accused had been seen since they were seized three weeks ago by armed men saying they were police.

In court, judge Yunus Omarjee surprised observers by ordering the release of Ms Mukoko, her co-accused and 23 other detainees on the grounds their detention was illegal. The judge ordered that they be taken to a Harare hospital until their next court appearance, on Monday.

A lawyer for the opposition activists, Alec Muchadehama, said all nine had been taken to Chikurubi maximum-security prison on the outskirts of Harare. However, it was impossible to verify this.

Ms Mukoko, a former newsreader who heads the Zimbabwe Peace Project, was arrested at gunpoint in Harare on December 3. Her whereabouts have been unknown since then. The whereabouts of two members of her staff who were arrested the next day are also unknown.

One lawyer said the judge had taken his decision because some of the group were tortured. A two-year-old child is with her mother among those held, and was taken to court on Wednesday.

Prosecution lawyer Florence Ziyambi told the court of the alleged plot and said the accused faced charges related to “recruiting for banditry”.

The Herald newspaper reported a police statement that one of the defendants had tried to recruit a police constable to undergo military training in Botswana, one of the African countries opposed to Mugabe, as part of a plot to overthrow the regime.

The newspaper, which expresses the views of the ruling party leaders, said the training would have been used to depose Mugage and his officials and install a government led by Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change.

As diplomatic pressure on Mugabe, 84, has increased, his regime has made claims about the anti-government terrorist campaign and has accused Botswana of harbouring and supporting opposition-aligned rebels.

The Southern African Development Community has dismissed the allegations.

Annah Moyo, a Johannesburg-based Zimbabwean human rights lawyer, said Mugabe might use the charges against Ms Mukoko and others to declare a state of emergency and withdraw from power-sharing talks. “They’re trying to come up with confessions from these activists … that they have been trying to overthrow the Zimbabwean Government,” she said. “This is an indication of a government that is desperate to hold on to power.”

The power-sharing deal followed elections last March and June the opposition said were rigged but floundered after Mugabe declined to share any of the powerful ministries.

Irene Petras, of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, said Ms Mukoko and the others arrested had “fundamental rights and freedoms which are being violated with impunity”. Members of the lawyers’ group took to the streets of Harare last week, carrying banners protesting against other alleged abductions. But the regime, battling a cholera outbreak that has left more than 1100 people dead, appears unprepared to tolerate dissent.

The US and Britain say Mugabe must go, and neighbouring South Africa, which for years has sought to protect him from international condemnation, has indicated its patience is running out. In a Christmas message, Jacob Zuma, leader of the governing African National Congress, described the situation in Zimbabwe as “utterly untenable”.

Iraqi Journalist Who Threw Shoes at Bush Was Tortured in Jail, His Brother Says

0

BAGHDAD – The television reporter who threw his shoes at President Bush was burned by a cigarette in the hours after his arrest on Dec. 14 and was beaten so badly by Iraqi security personnel that one of his teeth was knocked out, the reporter’s brother said Sunday after a visit to the jail.

The reporter, Muntader al-Zaidi, 29, has been jailed since hurling his shoes at Mr. Bush during a news conference here last week. Mr. Zaidi has not been formally charged, but he faces up to seven years in prison if convicted of the crime of aggression against a foreign leader during an official visit.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki did not return phone calls seeking comment on Sunday about the allegations, but the Maliki government previously denied that Mr. Zaidi had been mistreated while in custody.

It was Mr. Maliki’s security detail that detained Mr. Zaidi after he hurled his shoes. Mr. Zaidi was seen being beaten before he was pulled from the room where the news conference by Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki was held.

On Sunday before the torture allegations were made public, Mr. Maliki said that he had received a letter from Mr. Zaidi saying that a terrorist had persuaded him to throw the shoes.

“A person urged him to commit this act, and this person is known to us as a person who beheads people,” Mr. Maliki said, without divulging the person’s name.

Mr. Zaidi’s family has maintained that he was acting out of his own frustration with the American invasion.

The visit by one of Mr. Zaidi’s brothers was the first by either a relative or a lawyer that the reporter had been allowed since being jailed. He has not been seen publicly since his arrest.

During an interview broadcast Sunday on Al Baghdadia, the Cairo-based satellite television network for which Mr. Zaidi works, his brother Uday, 33, said that Mr. Zaidi had been stripped to his underwear before being placed in a cell and tortured during the 24-hour period after his arrest.

“He told me he was sleeping on the floor of the cell when a very large man came in and dumped cold water on him and began hitting him with a thick cable,” Uday al-Zaidi said in the TV interview.

He said his brother had told him that he was brutally beaten by several men and burned on his right ear by a cigarette. Uday al-Zaidi said that on Sunday his brother had bruises on his face, stitches on the bridge of his nose and swelling in his legs, arms and hands.

His jailers had periodically demanded that he state in a videotaped confession that he had been ordered to commit the act by enemies of the prime minister, Uday al-Zaidi said his brother had told him.

Uday al-Zaidi said his brother had said: “After the torture and the cold-water shower, I told them to bring me a blank sheet of paper and I would sign it, and they could write whatever they wanted. I am ready to say I am a terrorist or whatever you want.”

But Muntader al-Zaidi told his brother that the men had stopped beating him and did not force him to write or sign anything. The journalist said that a letter to the prime minister written by him from jail expressing regret for the attack had not been coerced, his brother said. It was unclear if this was the same letter Mr. Maliki referred to.

Uday al-Zaidi said his brother told him that he had bought the shoes – used – at a market in Cairo.

Meanwhile, leaders of the blocs in Parliament reached consensus on Sunday on a resolution that would allow troops from Britain, Australia and other countries to operate on Iraqi soil after the end of the year.

The resolution grants the Iraqi government the authority to set the terms for the presence of those troops, as long as they are to be out of Iraq by the end of July, said Taha Diraa, a lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a leading Shiite party.

Parliament is scheduled to vote on the resolution on Monday.

Iraqi lawmakers are also considering whether to strip Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, of his position. Lawmakers said that Mr. Mashhadani was considered a histrionic man who was often brusque with those with whom he disagreed, and that he had insulted members of Parliament on Wednesday at a rowdy session dealing with the bill governing foreign troops.

If the vote passes, Mr. Mashhadani will keep his seat in Parliament but lose the speaker’s post. It is one of the most prominent positions in the Iraqi government now held by a Sunni.

 

Reporting was contributed by Campbell Robertson, Mohammed Hussein, Atheer Kakan and Suadad al-Salhy.

 

We don’t need to “Rescue” this system

0

Revolution | Millions of people in the U.S., the wealthiest country in the world, are homeless. People’s need for shelter and other facilities does not determine what actually gets built. Instead, if more profit can be extracted by building luxury condos than by constructing good basic housing for masses of people, then it is luxury condos that get built. This is because different blocs of capital must either expand or die, and their expansion depends on the highest possible profit. This basic law of capital determines what gets produced, how, and for whom.

Should we rescue this?

One in six children on this planet are child laborers. Many of these children are owned outright as slaves. Despite laws against child labor, capitalists are driven to maximize profit and to gain competitive advantage over other capitalists by exploiting, and robbing the youth from approximately 250 million children around the world. 

Should we rescue this?

Under global capitalism, third world countries have been incorporated into the global capitalist economy. Farmers produce food for export based on what’s most profitable. Crops like corn, sugar, and wheat are now often produced for biofuels in advanced capitalist countries instead of for feeding people. Yet over a billion people on this planet suffer from hunger. In Haiti, food prices have risen by over 40 percent. People eat mudcakes, and dig through garbage dumps looking for food to survive, while mangoes and coffee are mass produced for export.

Should we rescue this?

In every sphere of society–from health care to education to culture to the environment and beyond–the capitalist system acts as a fetter on humanity. Capital twists and bends these arenas of human concern and endeavor to the rule of profit over all, to the requirement that capital continually expand itself…or die. As a result people suffer terribly and their lives are stunted in every dimension-–that is, when they are not outright blown away in some brutal war for empire, or snuffed out by some murdering enforcer for this capitalist system.

Should we rescue this?

NO! WE SHOULD GET RID OF IT!

There is tremendous productive power in the technology, resources and knowledge of the people of this planet. The basis exists to provide a decent life for all right now, and to lay the basis for a common abundance in the future for all of humanity, as part of the all-round transformation of society. But capitalism can only harness those productive powers if they can be used to expand capital; and labor can only be utilized within relations of exploitation for profit. Trapped within the confines and requirements of capitalism, people suffer from the kinds of horrors outlined on this page even in “normal times.” Now with two wars being carried out by U.S. imperialism, and many more raging elsewhere on the planet. . . and with a major economic crisis just beginning to be felt in every corner of the globe.…the monstrosity of this stands out all the more sharply.

But none of this is necessary! Humanity can embark on the road of eliminating the division into classes, uprooting the oppressive institutions and relations that grow out of and reinforce those divisions, and transforming people’s thinking. This is the road of communist revolution. The first step on that road is shattering the rule of capital through revolution. Such a revolution actually took place in the Soviet Union (Russia and other countries), and in China — and when revolution ruled those countries, the people were able to create amazing new societies that transformed everything, and met the basic needs of the people in a way never before seen. 

This first stage of revolution was defeated by the remaining strength of imperialism, together with the new capitalist forces which arose within the new-born socialist societies. Today there are no socialist states. But Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP, USA, has developed a new framework of understanding to blaze the trail for the next stage of revolution. Avakian has analyzed the lessons of the previous stage of revolution, studying both the achievements and the criticisms, from various quarters, and has developed a new synthesis of communist scientific theory. He has built on, and carried forward, the contributions of previous revolutionary communist thinkers, and gone further.

 

WE DON’T NEED TO “RESCUE” THIS CAPITALIST SYSTEM.
WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS SYSTEM.

WE NEED REVOLUTION!

Obama on Weed

20

“The war on drugs has been an utter failure. (W)e need to rethink and decriminalize our (nation’s) marijuana laws.”

-Barack Obama, January 2004 (Watch the video here.)

“I inhaled frequently, that was the point.”

-Barack Obama, November 2006 (Watch the video here.)

Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”

A: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”

-Statement from Change.gov, the official website of President-Elect Obama, December 15, 2008

Okay, count me among those disappointed, but hardly surprised to see that Change.gov — the official website of the incoming Obama administration — answered the above question, which finished first out of over 7,000 public policy questions submitted to the website, in the most curt and dismissive way possible.

That said, as StoptheDrugWar.org’s Scott Morgan writes, Obama’s brevity is, in fact, quite telling.

As frustrating and insulting as it is to witness an important matter brushed casually to the side without explanation, Obama’s answer actually says a lot. It says that he couldn’t think of even one sentence to explain his position. Within the vast framework of totally paranoid anti-pot propaganda, Obama couldn’t find a single argument he wanted to associate himself with. That’s why he simply said “No. Next question.”

All of this highlights the well-known fact that Obama agrees that our marijuana laws are deeply flawed. He’s said so, and has back-pedaled recently for purely political reasons. If Obama’s transition team tried to give an accurate description of his position on marijuana reform it would look like this:

Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?” S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama will not use his political capital to advance the legalization of marijuana. While he agrees that arresting adults for marijuana possession is a poor use of law enforcement resources, he believes that the issue remains too controversial to do anything about it.

In fact, Obama essentially said as much earlier this year when asked about the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

 

 

 

Obama: “When it comes to medical marijuana, my attitude is if it is an issue of doctors prescribing marijuana, I think that should be appropriate. Whether I want to use a whole lot of political capital on (this) issue; the likelihood of that being real high on my priority list is not likely.” (Watch the video here.)

So then, disappointed as we are, how should we proceed?

Answer: Just as we have been.

To be fair to President-Elect Obama, he never pledged to legalize marijuana. Quite the contrary, during his Presidential campaign he backtracked from his previous comments supporting pot decriminalization, and he even went so far as to pick one of the chief architects of the modern drug war to be his Vice President. In short, to believe that the Obama team would have responded to the legalization question any other way was idealistic at best, and foolish at worst.

But that hardly means that we activists should write off the next four years.

In November, editors at the website Alternet.org asked me to draft “a progressive agenda for Obama” regarding marijuana policy. At that time, I listed several realistic, practical actions Obama could take to substantially reform America’s antiquated and punitive pot laws. (Note, legalizing marijuana by Executive Order was not on my wish list.)

These actions include:

1. As President, Obama must uphold his campaign promise to “not use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws” that legalize the medical use of cannabis. (Watch the video here.)

2. Obama can appoint leaders to the US Department of Justice, DEA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy who possess professional backgrounds in public health, addiction and treatment rather than in law enforcement.

3. Obama can support the autonomy and health of Washington D.C. voters by encouraging Congress to lift the so-called “Barr amendment” (passed by Congress in 1998 and reinstated every year since then), which prohibits the District of Columbia from implementing a 1998 voter-approved ballot initiative legalizing the use of marijuana by authorized patients.

4. Obama can call for the creation of a bipartisan Presidential commission to review the budgetary, social and health costs associated with federal marijuana prohibition, and to make progressive recommendations for future policy changes.

Ultimately, of course, it’s Congress, not the president, who is responsible for crafting America’s oppressive federal anti-drug strategies. Moreover, it is clear that in the coming years this battle will continue to primarily be fought — and won — on the state level, not in Washington D.C.

That’s not to say that we should not continue to keep the pressure on Obama by continuing to post questions to websites like Change.gov. (My suggestion for the next round of voting How about: “On Election Day, over 3 million voters decided to legalize the medical use of cannabis in Michigan, making it the 13th state to enact laws allowing the legal medical use of marijuana. While campaigning, you pledged: ‘What I’m not going to be doing is spend Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws on this issue.’ As President, will you and your Attorney General uphold this promise not to target and prosecute patients and providers who are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws?“)

However, we must always remember that it will be the actions of tens of thousands — not the actions of just one man — that will ultimately bring an end to America’s vindictive and senseless war on cannabis consumers.

Now let’s get back to work!

Iraqi shoe thrower vows never to apologize to Bush, family says

7

Shoe-throwing journalist Muntather Zaidi told his family he would never apologize to President Bush for hurling his footwear at the American leader, even if he is chopped into pieces, his brother said after visiting him for the first time Sunday.

Muntather has become an unlikely hero to America’s critics for lobbing his shoes at Bush a week ago during the president’s surprise trip to Baghdad. His actions have been praised by religious leaders, ordinary people and governments hostile to the United States and even prompted marriage offers.

Muntather, from the Cairo-based satellite channel Baghdadiya, has been locked away and kept out of the public eye since last Sunday. The Iraqi government announced earlier in the week that Muntather had written to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki requesting forgiveness for attacking Bush. But Muntather’s brother Uday challenged the government’s assertions after the family’s first visit with the shoe-thrower.

” ‘Muntather said that he was forced to apologize to Maliki and he will never, never apologize to Bush even if they cut him into small pieces,’ ” Uday told The Times after his visit with his brother.

Uday said his brother had lost a tooth and his nose had required stitches because of the beatings he had suffered in custody.

“There were multiple bruises all over his body. There were cigarette burns behind his ears. He was beaten with metal rods. His eyes were swollen. They have assigned two medical doctors … to provide him with treatment in order to hide the evidence of torture,” Uday said

A judge investigating the case told the Associated Press on Friday that Muntather showed signs of having been beaten in custody.

According to his brother, Muntather had no regrets for attempting to hit Bush at a joint press conference with Maliki. He said Muntather told him: ” ‘I do not regret what I did. If I went back in time, I would do the same thing.’ ”

Uday said his brother wanted the world to know that he threw the shoe not for money, fame or an ulterior motive and had been ready to die. ” ‘I thought I was going to be shot immediately as I saw the bodyguards with the guns standing there, but I really did not care. I was prepared for anything because I did this for my country,’ ” Uday said his brother told him.

Meeting with Iraqi reporters on Saturday, Maliki criticized Muntather for giving the world a “bad image” of Iraq and harming the reputation of its journalists. Even so, Maliki said he made sure the journalist had a pillow, clean sheets and clothing his first night in captivity. He vowed the courts would decide Muntather’s fate. Before speaking, he listened to Iraqi reporters condemn Muntather’s behavior.

— Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker in Baghdad

Londoners protest against ‘Police Brutality and State Terrorism’

0

A call for world-wide solidarity actions against state terrorism had come from those occupying the Polytechnic University in Athens, who linked their struggle to that of others around the world, “zero tolerance and repressive terrorism, wage slavery, poverty and social exclusion, exploitation, oppression and social control are not constrained by borders but neither is the struggle for freedom.”

The demonstration in London also remembered the ‘Massacre of 19th December’ 2000, eight years ago, when Turkish troops killed 29 political prisoners and wounded many more. The soldiers went into 20 prisons to end non-violent protests against the transfer to new F-type prisons in which prisoners are kept either in total isolation or in isolated cells housing three prisoners. Many of the prisoners are tortured and these isolated cells have increased the abuses. A further 122 political prisoners died in the hunger strike protest that followed against these prisons.

After an hour the demonstration dispersed quietly. There is a solidarity meeting tomorrow, Sunday 21 Dec, at 3pm at the Refugee Workers Cultural Associaiton , Unit C1, 3-19 Victorian Grove, Stoke Newington, N16, where the guest speaker will be Christos Giovanopoulos of KOE – Communist Organisation of Greece.

A few more pictures from the event shortly on My London Diary,  http://mylondondiary.co.uk/2008/dec.htm

 

Hunger mounts in the US

1
By Tom Eley  

 

As the economic crisis deepens, its human toll is becoming more evident. A new survey of food charities in the United States has revealed a dramatic increase in hunger. Feeding America, the largest hunger-relief organization in the US, says that a growing number of families face difficulties in securing adequate nutrition. Meanwhile food banks have proven ill-equipped to meet the increased demand caused by layoffs and increased food costs, and many have collapsed or have restricted the allotments of food they make.

In a nationwide survey of 160 local food assistance programs, with operations covering virtually every county in the US, Feeding America found that there has been a 30 percent increase in requests for emergency food assistance, and that every food bank has seen an increase in demand for food relief. An opinion poll commissioned by the organization and released simultaneously found that a growing number of low-income families lack sufficient nutrition.

In a chilling statement on social conditions in the US, 72 percent of surveyed food charities said that they are unable to meet the current demands of local communities for assistance. In most cases, the charities have responded by offering smaller distributions to the hungry, and some have been forced to close down.

This is taking place in every region of the country. To cite a few examples, the Food Bank of New York City reported that organizations under its direction “have regularly reported over the past year that their shelves are bare and that they have had to turn people away due to their lack of food.” The Cleveland Foodbank reported that the crisis “is moving at a pace so fast that our staff cannot catch a breath.” The Food Bank of Corpus Christi, Texas, said that “our agencies are seeing such a drastic increase in new clients that they are having a hard time getting the money to acquire the food we need,” while “other agencies are burning out and we are seeing a number of agencies closing their doors.” Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee reported that its agencies have asked that it not refer new clients “because they are running out of food.”

In its survey of households, Feeding America found that nearly two thirds of low-income households–defined as having an income at less than 200 percent of the official poverty level–said that within the past year “their food didn’t last and they could not afford to buy more.” Forty percent “ate less than they felt they should,” and 36 percent “cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there wasn’t enough money for food.” A large majority of low-income respondents, 70 percent, said that they are reducing food spending, while 62 percent said they make multiple shopping trips for food “because they didn’t have enough money to buy everything at one time.” In New York City, in 2008, nearly 40 percent of all households said that they had faced difficulties in procuring sufficient food for their families, a sharp increase over figures from 2007.

Hunger is affecting ever-wider sections of the working class, including two-parent households and the gainfully employed. The survey of food banks found user increases of 99.4 percent among “first-time” users, 74 percent among unemployed workers, 59 percent of those with jobs, and 48 percent among families with children seeking assistance.

“When you hear someone say, ‘I never thought that I would have to come to the pantry to get food,’ or to have someone say, ‘I used to donate to the pantry and now I am using it,’ that’s when you realize how tough things are,” a representative of the Community Food Banks of South Dakota said.

A food charity in Bloomington, Indiana, reported that a food bank in what it called “a higher income per capita” area saw an increase from 60 visits per month last year to 700 this year. A food bank in Long Island, New York, said that it has witnessed “increased need among middle class people making between $40,000-$70,000, who are recently unemployed, having health problems, having difficulties managing mortgage payments, and going to pantries and soup kitchens for emergency food assistance.” A survey of New York City households found that even among the college-educated, 36 percent faced hardship in 2008 in buying needed food, an increase from 11 percent in 2003. A food assistance program in California reported that it is “seeing people coming to us who have never been a part of our system and who never thought that they would need food assistance.”

“We are in a national crisis,” said Vicki Escarra, the president and CEO of Feeding America. “We have some food banks reporting as high as a 65 percent increase in need. There are record numbers of new men, women and children, who never thought they would need food assistance.”

Financial hardship forces many families to choose among necessities such as food, health care, and home heating. The survey of households revealed that 40 percent of low-income families had, in the past year, been forced to choose between eating and paying for utilities.

The economic crisis is at the root of the growth in hunger. Upwards of 90 percent of food banks attribute the increase in hunger to rising food prices and unemployment. Sixty percent also cite fuel costs, and 52 percent listed the inadequacy of state food stamp programs as a cause.

A press release by Feeding America calls on Congress “to pass economic recovery legislation that will offer desperately needed relief to both low-income Americans and the nation’s food banks, as the recent surge in unemployment has pushed millions to the brink of hunger.”

Estimates on the size of the “economic stimulus” package that President-elect Barack Obama will put in place have ranged from $400 billion to $900 billion. Democrats have hedged their bets, moreover, by asserting that its passage will depend upon minority Republican support. But whatever its final size and content, Obama’s “stimulus” will prove woefully inadequate in the face of the deepest social crisis since the Great Depression. The sums being discussed represent a small fraction of the more than $8 trillion that has already been doled out to the largest financial institutions.

Meanwhile, in the 2009 Federal Budget, only $62 billion has been appropriated for all food assistance programs, including food stamps and school lunches, which for many children provide the only substantial meal of the day.

More than 9 percent of all US households now rely on food stamps, the Supplemental Food Assistance Program, to help meet dietary needs. This is a sharp increase from 2001, when 6 percent used food stamps. But indications are that this number will rise sharply. A number of states, including Oregon and Washington in the Pacific Northwest, have seen record requests for food assistance. Food stamps function as vouchers that can be redeemed at grocery stores. Generally, they may be exchanged only for the cheapest items in stock, and only for staples such as milk, meat, and bread.

The program will not meet the level of hunger provoked by the crisis. In the Feeding America survey of households, one third of food stamp recipients said “their benefits only lasted for two weeks or less.” Bureaucratic hurdles prevent a large number of eligible families from receiving aid. Undocumented immigrants, as well as immigrants who have been in the country legally for less than five years, are not eligible. Assistance is pegged to 130 percent of the official poverty level, meaning that large numbers of the so-called “working poor” are ineligible, including many of those surveyed by Feeding America.

Though they paint a grim portrait, the Feeding America surveys on hunger offer only a glimpse of the level of social misery to come. Significantly, the surveys were conducted at the end of November. Since then, layoffs have mounted precipitously.

Cheney Throws Down Gauntlet, Defies Prosecution for War Crimes

0

Commondreams 

Dick Cheney has publicly confessed to ordering war crimes. Asked about waterboarding in an ABC News interview, Cheney replied, “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared.” He also said he still believes waterboarding was an appropriate method to use on terrorism suspects. CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed that the agency waterboarded three Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003.

U.S. courts have long held that waterboarding, where water is poured into someone’s nose and mouth until he nearly drowns, constitutes torture. Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

Under the doctrine of command responsibility, enshrined in U.S. law, commanders all the way up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief can be held liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.

Why is Cheney so sanguine about admitting he is a war criminal? Because he’s confident that either President Bush will preemptively pardon him or President-elect Obama won’t prosecute him.

Both of those courses of action would be illegal.

First, a president cannot immunize himself or his subordinates for committing crimes that he himself authorized. On February 7, 2002, Bush signed a memo erroneously stating that the Geneva Conventions, which require humane treatment, did not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But the Supreme Court made clear that Geneva protects all prisoners. Bush also admitted that he approved of high level meetings where waterboarding was authorized by Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey says there’s no need for Bush to issue blanket pardons since there is no evidence that anyone developed the policies “for any reason other than to protect the security in the country and in the belief that he or she was doing something lawful.” But noble motives are not defenses to the commission of crimes.

Lt. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, said, “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Second, the Constitution requires President Obama to faithfully execute the laws. That means prosecuting lawbreakers. When the United States ratified the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, thereby making them part of U.S. law, we agreed to prosecute those who violate their prohibitions.

The bipartisan December 11 report of the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that “senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”

Lawyers who wrote the memos that purported to immunize government officials from war crimes liability include John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales. There is precedent in our law for holding lawyers criminally liable for participating in a common plan to violate the law.

Committee chairman Senator Carl Levin told Rachel Maddow that you cannot legalize what’s illegal by having a lawyer write an opinion.

The committee’s report also found that “Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there.” Those techniques migrated to Iraq and Afghanistan, where prisoners in U.S. custody were also tortured.

Pardons or failures to prosecute the officials who planned and authorized torture would also be immoral. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”

During the campaign, Obama promised to promptly review actions by Bush officials to determine whether “genuine crimes” were committed. He said, “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” but “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

Two Obama advisors told the Associated Press that “there’s little-if any – chance that the incoming president’s Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.”

When he takes office, Obama should order his new attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute those who ordered and authorized the commission of war crimes.

Obama has promised to bring real change. This must be legal and moral change, where those at the highest levels of government are held accountable for their heinous crimes. The new president should move swiftly to set an important precedent that you can’t authorize war crimes and get away with it.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and co-author of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd), which will be published this winter by PoliPointPress. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com (The views expressed in this article are solely those of the writer; she is not acting on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild or Thomas Jefferson School of Law)

One Missing Word Sowed the Seeds of Catastrophe

0

By Robert Fisk

Editor’s note: This article was originally printed in The Independent.

A nit-picker this week. And given the fact that we’re all remembering human rights, the Palestinians come to mind since they have precious few of them, and the Israelis because they have the luxury of a lot of them.

And Lord Blair, since he’ll be communing with God next week, might also reflect that he still–to his shame–hasn’t visited Gaza. But the nit-picking has got to be our old friend United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This, you’ll recall, was supposed to be the resolution that would guide all future peace efforts in the Middle East; Oslo was supposed to have been founded on it and all sorts of other processes and summits and road maps.

It was passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.

Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories–because the word “all” is missing and since the definite article “the” is missing before the word “territories”, its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives up and which bits it keeps.

Hence Israel can say it gave up Sinai in accordance with 242 but is going to keep East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank for its settlers. Golan depends on negotiations with Syria. And Gaza? Well, 242 doesn’t say anything about imprisoning one and a half million civilians because they voted for the wrong people. No one in 1967 dreamed that the Israeli-Arab conflict would still be in ferocious progress 41 years later. And as an Independent reader pointed out a couple of years ago, the Security Council clearly never intended the absence of a definite article to give Israel an excuse to stay in the West Bank. Alas, our reader was wrong.

I’ve been going back through my files on 242 and discovered a most elucidating paper by John McHugo, who was a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University. He points out that pro-Israeli lawyers have been saying for some years that “Resolution 242 unanimously called for withdrawal from ‘territories’ rather than withdrawal from ‘all the territories’. Its choice of words was deliberate … they signify that withdrawal is required from some but not all the territories”.

McHugo is, so far as I know, the only man to re-examine the actual UN debates on 242 and they make very unhappy reading. The French and Spanish versions of the text actually use the definite article. But the Brits–apparently following a bit of strong-arm tactics from the Americans–did not use “the”. Lord Caradon, our man at the UN, insisted on putting in the phrase about the “inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war” in order to stop the Israelis claiming that they could cherry-pick which lands to return and which to hand on to. Britain accepted Jordan’s rule over the West Bank–the PLO were still shunned as super-terrorists at the time–but it did no good. Abba Eban, Israel’s man on the East River, did his best to persuade Caradon to delete both “the” and the bit about the inadmissability of territory through war. He won the first battle, but not the second.

That great American statesman George Ball was to recount how, when the Arabs negotiated over 242 in early November of 1967–at the Waldorf Astoria (these guys knew how to pick the swankiest hotels for political betrayal)–the US ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, told King Hussein that America “could not guarantee that everything would be returned by Israel”. The Arabs distrusted Goldberg because he was known to be pro-Zionist, but Hussein was much comforted when US Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured him in Washington that the US “did not approve of Israeli retention of the West Bank”. Hussein was further encouraged when he met President Johnson who told him that Israeli withdrawal might take place in “six months”. Goldberg further boosted his confidence. “Don’t worry. They’re on board,” he said of the Israelis. Ho ho.

It’s intriguing to note that several other nations at the UN were troubled by the absence of “the”. The Indian delegate, for example, pointed out that the resolution referred to “all the territories–I repeat, all the territories–occupied by Israel … ” while the Soviet Union (which knew all about occupying other people’s countries) stated that “we understand the decision to mean the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab states and seized by Israel … ”. President Johnson rebuffed the Soviets and bluntly refused to put the word “all” in the resolution. Bulgaria, not surprisingly, said much the same as the Soviets. Brazil expressed reservations–rightly so–about “the clarity of the wording”. The Argentinians “would have preferred a clearer text”. In other words, the future tragedy was spotted at the time. But we did nothing. The Americans had stitched it up and the Brits went along with it. The Arabs were not happy but foolishly–and typically–relied on Caradon’s assurances that “all” the territories was what 242 meant, even if it didn’t say so. Israel still fought hard to get rid of the “inadmissability” bit, even when it had got “the” out.

Ye gods! Talk about sowing the seeds of future catastrophe. Well, Colin Powell, when he was George W Bush’s secretary of state, gutlessly told US diplomats to call the West Bank “disputed” rather than “occupied”–which suited the Israelis just fine although, as McHugo pointed out, the Israelis might like to consider what would happen if the Arabs talked about those bits of Israel which were not included in the original UN partition plan as “disputed” as well. Besides, George W’s infamous letter to Ariel Sharon, saying he could, in effect, keep large bits of the West Bank, set the seal on Johnson’s deception.

McHugo mischievously adds that a mandatory warning in a city that says “dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park” clearly means that “all” dogs and “all” ponds are intended. These days, of course, we use walls to keep dogs out. Palestinians, too.

Deterring Torture Through the Law

0

By Coleen Rowley and Ray McGovern

“First, let’s kill all the lawyers” may have made sense in that Shakespearian scene, but there is a far simpler solution to the legal ambiguities regarding what to do now about the torture approved by President George W. Bush. We suggest this variant: First, let’s have the lawyers review their notes from Criminal Justice 101.

The professor whom Coleen Rowley had for that course at the University of Iowa was the consummate curmudgeon. He kept repeating himself. It is now clear why. The old fellow hammered home the basic purposes of the criminal justice system and the various kinds and degrees of criminal intent. For Rowley, 24 years as a FBI special agent and attorney helped make it all real.

Eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration have served to make the matter of criminal intent the first essay question on the final exam for Criminal Justice 101, so to speak. But obfuscation (much of it deliberate) reigns; worst of all, it impedes the important task of seeking accountability for those responsible for torture.

Criminal intent comes in essentially three kinds: No one needs much help understanding the “deliberate-premeditated-cold blooded” first-degree intent, because that’s the stuff of the movies–the perfect murder scheme or elaborate plot to pull off the heist of the century. “Second-degree intent” is also easy to grasp. It is the usual label for what prompts people to commit unplanned crimes in the heat of passion, for example.

It was to that third type of guilty intent–”recklessness”–that the old law professor devoted most emphasis, using his favorite “Russian Roulette” hypothetical to distinguish it from the first two types and from mere negligence. His words still ring: “One cannot simply put a gun on a table knowing there is a bullet in the cylinder, spin the cylinder, point it at a person, pull the trigger and then say (when it goes off), ‘It’s not my fault, because I was hoping it would spin to one of the empty chambers.'”

The First and Third Degrees

The evidence on the Bush administration’s torture decisions, which is becoming more abundant and damning as the weeks go by, rules out second-degree intent; i. e., unplanned crimes in the heat of passion. These decisions were much more deliberate. As the saying goes, after 9/11 “everything changed.” With virtually no opposition, the president was allowed to declare the country in a “war on terror” and consider himself above the law.

Indeed, after his address to the nation on the very evening of 9/11, Bush assembled his top aides in the White House bunker and set a lawless path from the start. One of the aides present, Richard Clarke, has written in his memoir, Against All Enemies, that the president insisted: “[W]e are at war…Nothing else matters…Any barriers in your way, they’re gone…I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.”

A bipartisan report released on Dec. 15, Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, highlights in its “First Conclusion” the fact that on Feb. 7, 2002 the president issued a written determination that the Geneva protections for POWs did not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees; and that following that determination, techniques like water boarding were authorized for use in interrogation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that such detainees could not be exempted from the protections of Geneva, despite efforts to “redefine the law to create the appearance of legality” for aggressive techniques, as the recent Senate report puts it.

Sounds Premeditated, No?

Administration apologists, from Rush Limbaugh to Attorney General Michael Mukasey claim that none of those who approved or conducted torture had guilty intent, but were only trying to protect national security. (That’s right–the same Mukasey who professes not to know whether water boarding is torture.)

Mukasey’s sophistry calls to mind the disingenuous argument of other administration lawyers that one could apply harsh interrogation techniques to a detainee, as long as your intent is not to inflict pain but rather to obtain information. Not to mention the pithy hint provided by a CIA attorney: “If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong.”

Add to this mix the remarkable guidance of Justice Department counsel, Jay Bybee (now a federal judge), quoted in the Senate report:

“Violent acts aren’t necessarily torture; if you do torture, you probably have a defense; and even if you don’t have a defense, the torture law doesn’t apply if you act under the color of presidential authority.”

Clearly, the so-called “rotten apples” sat atop the proverbial barrel, as the Senate report demonstrates time and time again. If you’d like still more proof of premeditation and you missed Vice President Dick Cheney Monday on ABC TV bragging about his role in facilitating water boarding, please read the transcript.

Cheney’s was the familiar above-the-law attitude, a reprise on his contemptuous “So?”–in this case meaning, “So what are you going to do about it?” With Cheney admitting to his key role in water boarding, Mukasey is no doubt relieved that during his confirmation hearing he obeyed White House instructions to stonewall all attempts to get him to concede what the whole world knows–that water boarding is torture.

Indeed, the law is not in question. Water boarding was wrong during the Spanish Inquisition and during the Spanish-American war in the Philippines. It was illegal during WW-II. Americans as well as Japanese have been convicted and severely punished for it.

Recklessness

For those, who despite the above prefer to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding first-degree intent, should know that the third type of guilty intent, recklessness, also applies–in spades.

For example, Cheney’s lawyer, David Addington, and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales dissed the hapless former Gen. Colin Powell, who as secretary of state wrote to the White House in January 2002:

“A determination that Geneva does not apply could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries.”

A pity Powell did not have the courage of his convictions, for he now has reason to be concerned about an eventual conviction of a different kind. Beneath the circumlocution quoted above is his clear appreciation that, if he did not fight against what was clearly in the cards, torture was likely to sully the Army and the nation to both of which he owed so much.

“Could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries,” writes Powell. Could introduce, say, reckless Russian roulette. In his interview with ABC, Cheney put the old law professor’s hypothetical smoking gun right out there on the table.

Deterrence

A widespread lack of understanding regarding the purposes served by the criminal justice system–and the penal system–is a major obstacle to even entertaining the thought of prosecuting administration officials for torture. All too many pundits are claiming that the country should simply move on and just close the book on this painful chapter–and that to do otherwise would simply be to try to extract vengeance.

But it is not about vengeance. The key goal here is deterrence–the final and most important goal of our criminal justice and penal systems in such circumstances.

At this point, the emphasis needs to be on establishing the facts–not punishment. Priority must be given to determining how our country ended up torturing people. Just as Cheney has termed water boarding a “no brainer,” it is equally a “no brainer” that we must focus now on his self-admitted role, as well as the revelations in the Senate report and other evidence that has come to light. An independent prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald would not need a lot of time to establish the facts.

Our country’s values and the immorality of torture are important considerations. And the law, of course, is also key–or should be. Seldom have we seen it more cynically twisted and abused. But here is something else that must be thrust into public consciousness–the reality that, TV hero Jack Bauer’s mythical exploits aside, torture never can be counted upon to yield reliable information.

THAT is the quintessential “no brainer.” For, as the head of U.S. Army intelligence, Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, asserted on September 6, 2006: “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.”

Stop Torture Now

Let us have no backsliding. Barack Obama must order an abrupt halt to torture, as he has promised–and preferably on January 20, right after he is sworn in as president. A timely report from an independent prosecutor would surely be helpful in buttressing and justifying that order.

Before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s released a summary of its report on Dec. 11, and before Cheney threw down the gauntlet four days later, what seemed to make the most sense was the more gradual approach proposed by the insightful lawyer/writer, Scott Horton (see December issue of Harper’s). Horton calls for the appointment of a commission peopled by men and women of unimpeachable integrity, in order to “provide a comprehensive narrative, setting out in detail how U.S. torture policy came to be formed and identifying the key actors and the decisions they made.”

An excellent approach. And this, of course, is where the penal factors and deterrence would come very much to the fore.

It is important to point out that the independent prosecutor and the commission approaches are in no way mutually exclusive. If both can be done expeditiously, both should be approved. What Horton may not have anticipated is that, in releasing the shatteringly candid results of their Senate committee’s two-year investigation, Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have named names, jump-starting–and hopefully shortening–deeper investigation.

It may be a hopeful sign of the times that on Dec. 18, even the editors of the New York Times lifted their heads out of the sand long enough to endorse the importance of doing what is necessary to deter crimes like torture:

“Unless the nation and its leaders know precisely what went wrong in the last seven years, it will be impossible to fix it and make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.”

—————————————–

Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She came to national attention in June 2002, when she testified before Congress about serious lapses before 9/11 that helped account for the failure to prevent the attacks. She now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and on balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation.

Ray McGovern, a former Army infantry/intelligence officer, and then a CIA analyst for 27 years, now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. Both authors are members of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Students criticise ID cards

1

ID cards for foreign students have been opposed by the University of Nottingham Students’ Union.

All new international students and those renewing visas now have to register for the compulsory ID cards, since Government legislation was introduced last month.

Those applicable will have to travel to one of six centres around the country to be fingerprinted and then have their details placed on the National Identity Register.

The University of Nottingham has the third highest number of international students and the second highest number of non-EU international students in the UK.

The university also has two overseas campuses in China and Malaysia and many students at these campuses spend part of their studies in Nottingham.Nsikan Edung, President of the University of Nottingham Students’ Union, said: “These measures are haphazard, discriminatory and are an affront on civil liberties.

“We are proud of our culturally diverse student population at Nottingham and are wary of the long-term negative effects this will have, including the implications for students from our overseas campuses who might want to spend part of their studies in the UK.”

A University of Nottingham spokesperson said: “The Points-Based System which includes the introduction of identity cards for international students is UK government policy.

“As such we are obliged to adhere to it in order for the university to continue to educate international students.

“The university will be doing all it can to minimise the impact on students and it is likely that the vast majority will not notice any difference under the new system, unless they are absent for a significant period of time or miss key milestones such as exams or the submission of coursework.”

ID authentication cards rolled out in Sheffield

0

The Home Office has claimed that businesses in Sheffield can now be reassured that employees from overseas are working for them legally, due to the introduction of identity verification cards.

Foreign nationals will now be able to record their biometric data and be issued with an ID authentication card in order to prove their identity should they need to do so for work purposes.

Identity verification details such as fingerprints and digital photographs will be entered into a database as part of the government’s National Identity Scheme.

Visiting the former steel city yesterday (December 17th) to open the UK Border Agency’s Vulcan House building, home secretary Jacqui Smith commented: “ID cards will give employers a secure way of checking a migrant’s right to work and study in the UK and help people prove they are who they say are.

“The points system will ensure that only those we need – and no more – can come here to work.”

According to a Home Office statement identity verification fraud costs the UK £1.7 billion a year.

Why We Must Prosecute Bush and His Administration for War Crimes

6

By Mike Ferner

During the rush to get the Nuremberg Tribunals underway, the Soviet delegation wanted the tribunal’s historic decisions to have legitimacy only for the Nazis. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, serving as the chief prosecutor for the Allies, strong-armed the Soviets until the very beginning of the tribunal before changing their mind.

In his opening statement Jackson very purposely stipulated, “Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”

Can there be a better reason for prosecuting George Bush and his administration for war crimes than those words from the chief prosecutor of the Nazis, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, with the full support of the U.S. government? Robert Jackson’s words and the values this nation claims to stand for provide sufficient moral basis for putting Bush and Cheney, their underlings who implemented their policies and the perverted legal minds who justified them all in the dock. If those are not sufficient reasons, there is a long list of binding law and treaties – written in black and white in surprisingly plain English.

Bush imagined, and his attorneys advised, that he could simply wave aside these laws with “they don’t apply.” Imagine how a judge would treat even a simple traffic court defendant who brazenly stated the law was only a quaint notion, just “words on paper?”

Masses of people and an embarrassingly small number of their elected representatives in this country read the law for themselves and demanded otherwise, only to be silenced by the Guardians of Reality in the corporate news media.

But it’s all there, where it has been for 220 years, the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” Article II, section 4, and in the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18USC §2441). They provide the authority to make additional treaties legally binding – no matter how much former White House lawyers David Addington and John Yoo may object.

Those additional treaties include among others, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg rulings, the Laws and Customs of War on Land and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314. To give just a snapshot of how serious these laws are, consider this portion of 18 USC 2441 which defines a war crime as “a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…” The guilty can be “fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.”

Here, Justice Jackson answers another question about war crimes – who bears the greater responsibility: those who committed barbaric acts in the field or those who created the conditions for barbarism?

The case as presented by the United States will be concerned with the brains and authority back of all the crimes. These defendants were men of a station and rank that does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions, of this terrible war.

And yet it is not just because Bush violated the Constitution and federal law that he and his lieutenants must be prosecuted.

At Nuremberg, the foremost crime identified was starting a “war of aggression,” later codified by U.N. Resolution 3314, Art. 5, as “a crime against international peace.” Launching a war of aggression, as Hitler did against Poland, is considered so monstrous that the nation responsible can then be charged with “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity,” spelled out in detail in the Geneva Conventions. As Tom Paine said long before the U.N. formalized the definition of aggression, “He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of Hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.

A small sampling of the contagion of Hell let loose by Bush includes illegally invading a sovereign state, using banned weapons such as white phosphorous and napalm, bombing hospitals and civilian infrastructure, withholding aid and medical supplies, terrorizing and knowingly killing civilians, torturing prisoners, killing a million people and displacing four million more in Iraq alone.

Following World War II, humanity resolved that wars do more than spark a series of loathsome, individual crimes. Leaders responsible for a war actually commit crimes against the entirety of humanity. They inflict harm on every human being, something that must be put right before humanity can be restored.

There is a final reason why we must prosecute Bush and Co. It is not what some argue, although they point to a serious danger: that Bush trashed the law and usurped powers, encouraging future presidents to expand where he left off. Such reasons are about George Bush and those who hold the office after him, but in the final analysis this is about us.

We are complicit in the horrors of this administration. We can claim neither ignorance nor innocence. We are complicit by the very fact that we are citizens of the United States, more so because we paid for the war, and even more so for this reason. Listen to a village sheik I met in Iraq describe it better than I ever could.

I met this man in a small farming village one afternoon in early 2004. He described how he and a dozen others were swept up in a raid by the U.S. Army and detained on a bare patch of ground surrounded by concertina wire. They had no shelter and but six blankets. They dug a hole with their hands for a toilet. They had to beg for water until one time it rained for three days straight and they remained on that open ground. He somehow found the graciousness to say he understood there was a difference between the American people and our government. Then through his tears he added, “But you say you live in a democracy. How can this be happening to us?”

Do we? Whether or not we bring our own government officials to justice for their crimes will determine the answer.

Proletarian: December 08/January 2009 issue

0

Cuba special: 50 years of revolution
New Year’s Day 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the triumphant day on which the Cuban people ousted the military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, so ridding themselves of the shackles of capitalism and setting out on the road toward socialism.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=456

Economic crisis: no escape under capitalism
Bourgeois economic science offers little by way of solutions to the current crisis, not because bourgeois economists are unintelligent, but because their outlook is hemmed in by their belief in the immortality of the capitalist system of production.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=457

Obama’s victory and its significance
Obama’s victory provides a fertile terrain for the realisation to grow amongst the most oppressed sections of American society that their oppression is primarily class oppression, not just race oppression.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=458

:: WORLD ::

Editorial: Mumbai terror attacks
The main thing that gives the Pakistani army the power that it has hitherto exercised is confrontation with India. Any improvement of relations between India and Pakistan spells death for the army’s pre-eminent role in Pakistan.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=459

Thieves fall out: crisis exacerbates inter-imperialist contradictions
The world financial crisis is putting ever greater strain upon relations between the major imperialist powers. It seems that the louder they talk about coordinating their efforts to stem the flow of fresh disasters, the more poisoned their relations become.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=464

Congo: still struggling for independence
Genocidal war has raged in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) since the 1998 US-backed invasion by the forces of Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi. At the last estimate, the war has claimed a staggering 5.4 million lives.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=469

:: BRITAIN ::

Industry matters: chickens home to roost
Defending the rights of migrant workers is central to defending the working class as a whole. For unions still to be turning over their members’ subs to Labour, which abroad is conducting genocidal wars and at home is inciting hatred against ‘foreign’ workers, dishonours and debilitates the whole working class.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=460

Education update
Boost for segregated schools and SATs scrapped for 14-year-olds.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=461

:: HISTORY ::

Uphold the banner of October!
The CPGB-ML celebrated the 91st anniversary of the October Revolution in Southall on Saturday 8 November with a packed meeting and inspiring speeches, supplemented by many solidarity messages from representatives of socialist countries in Britain. Watch speeches on video or read the highlights.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=462

Celebrating the 100th birthday of Enver Hoxha
Architect of socialist Albania, anti-revisionist fighter, and one of the great Marxist-Leninist heroes of the 20th century.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=465

:: CULTURE ::

Book: Strange Liberators
The world addressed by Gregory Elich in one in which the ‘liberal’ imperialists ‘liberate’ the long-suffering people of the world from the tyrannies of independence, nationalised economy, employment, education, food security and, not infrequently, life itself..
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=467

:: THEORY ::

The dictatorship of the proletariat
What kind of state will the workers need after the socialist revolution?
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=466

:: REPORTS AND LETTERS ::

CPGB-ML meets Vietnamese Party delegation
Comrade Tran, of the Vietnamese Communist Party’s Central Committee, explained the changes that have been taking place in Vietnam and the challenges still to be overcome.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=463

Letter: Fight for communism
Across the world, people are resisting the tyranny of capitalism and making a stand for their human rights: the right to a job, a home, education, health care and culture; the right to be heard.
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=468

Iraqi shoe thrower prompts racist rant from Bill O’Reilly

2

First he says that the shoe thrower is evidence of the ingratitude, “violence” and “irrational thinking” in the “Arab world”, before going to on discuss the “danger from the Muslim world” and whether torture is the right way to go about dealing with it. Note also the graphic shown at the beginning and end of the segment of the American flag and a menacing, red-coloured star and crescent.

I’m amazed this got broadcast, even on Fox.


 

Amnesty: Closing Guantanamo Isn’t Enough

1

Amnesty International, in a just-released proposal, wants to go further than just closing the facility.

By Spencer Ackerman

The international human-rights organization put out a four-stage plan for closing the door on the Era of Guantanamo for good. It’s more about investigating prior abuses than shutting Guantanamo down. Bizarrely, Amnesty doesn’t actually deal with any of the actual suggestions for how to close the facility – move the detainees to Ft. Leavenworth? A different federal prison? The group doesn’t say. What its proposal, emailed to reporters a couple minutes ago, actually concerns is empaneling an investigation into:

… abuses which may have been committed by U.S. officials or agents in connection with the U.S. response to the events of September 11, 2001, or in relation to alleged acts or threats against national security, and which at a minimum will investigate detentions, renditions and the alleged use of torture and other mistreatment of detainees.

The proposal is really a timeline for investigating abuse. Amnesty wants an inquiry wrapped up by July 2010, with an update provided to the public in the January 2010 State of the Union address. Says Amnesty U.S.A. executive director Larry Cox, “Closing Guantanamo, as President-elect Obama has pledged, is just the first step. For real change, the incoming administration and Congress must work together to fully expose the Bush administration policies as a step toward ensuring that the same abuses committed in the name of national security are not repeated.”

There is, of course, the difficult question of prosecutions. Amnesty says the transition team should consider a task force in the Attorney General’s office or a special prosecutor. If not, the investigating commission could give recommendations on how to proceed following its report.

Still, I’d sort of like to know when and how one of the most important human-rights groups on the planet thinks the actual facility ought to be closed, and the absence of that guidance is kind of conspicuous.

US Troops Open Fire On Fallujah Students at Shoe Rally

0

By Jason Ditz

Besides making an international celebrity out of Iraqi reporter Muntadar al-Zeidi, the now infamous shoe-throwing incident is cropping up in surprising ways across Iraq, where a population beaten and exhausted from years of war is once again finding its voice against the US military presence and the Iraqi government seen as its enablers.

The city of Fallujah was one of the hardest hit in all of Iraq, nearly destroyed earlier in the war. When students at the city’s university held an impromptu rally in support of the jailed Zeidi, US soldiers were quick on the scene. The students raised shoes and some of them threw rocks, prompting the troops to open fire in an attempt to disperse the crowd. One student was wounded, shot in the foot according to his doctor.

Reporter Mohammed al-Dulaimy tells another story at the July 14 Bridge in Baghdad. The bridge is closed to the public several times a day while official convoys pass through… just another reality in the war-torn city. But today when Iraqi soldiers arrived and attempted to close the bridge, angry drivers refused. They continued on their way, honking angrily when the soldiers got in their way. Predictably, the soldiers drew their rifles and began firing. Surprisingly, traffic continued through the square and across the bridge.

Medical marijuana act passes NJ panel

1

By DEREK HARPER

TRENTON – New Jersey took a major step toward becoming the latest state to allow certain patients to use marijuana Monday, when the Senate’s Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee approved the Compassionate Use Medicinal Marijuana Act by a vote of 6-1.

Elise Segal, who testified in support of the legislation, said the committee’s vote “really brings me to tears, not just for me as a someone suffering from multiple sclerosis, but as a registered nurse and for all the people that I’ve treated.”

The Department of Health and Senior Services would register people with debilitating medical conditions, which would include cancer, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, or other diseases that cause wasting, chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe and persistent muscle spasms. The department then would issue a photo identity card and allow those registered to possess as many as “six marijuana plants and an ounce of usable marijuana,” according to the bill.

As a result, the person would not be subject to arrest or penalty for the use of marijuana. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies marijuana as Schedule I, the most restrictive class of drugs.

The federal prohibitions will remain, but the bill’s supporters said the overwhelming number of prosecutions are under state law, so it would lift most of the prohibitions.

The bill still bars people from operating a car, boat or airplane under the influence of marijuana. It also bans people from smoking marijuana on a school bus, public property or beach, or in a correctional institute or park.

The bill would also apply to patients younger than 18, but it requires a parent or guardian’s informed approval.

A late amendment would also allow people to start Medicinal Marijuana Alternate Treatment Centers, which would dispense regulated marijuana.

The measure was first proposed in 2005, but Monday marked the first time a bill has cleared a state legislative committee. Thirteen other states have approved similar measures.

Testimony was a tug-of-war between advocates who testified how smoking marijuana can relieve pain and suffering and opponents who said the drug is dangerously untested and its partial legalization would increase crime and drug addiction.

Sen. Jim Whelan, D-Atlantic – who cosponsored the bill with Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, Somerset, Middlesex – said, “I think the consequences of not acting is far worse with all of the pain and suffering we have heard about here today.”

Similarly, Sen. Bill Baroni, R-Middlesex, Mercer, the only Republican to vote in support, said after a weekend of consideration, “There is too much pain, too much hurt, too much suffering, and we can do something about it.”

The hearing included Brent Zettl, president of Prairie Plant Systems Inc., of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, who testified via video on the process the company uses to produce sterilized medicinal marijuana. He said a challenge in court essentially pushed the company into business, but now it covers 30 percent of the Canadian market.

Segal was also one of several patients who told senators how marijuana helps them in their fight against illness.

“I am able to relieve my multiple sclerosis symptoms, but I run the risk of being a criminal,” Segal said. “You have the power to relieve my suffering.”

Other New Jersey groups in support of the bill included the Academy of Family Physicians, League for Nursing, local chapters of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

Opponents of the measure questioned why people would be allowed to grow so many plants, how effective any smoked drug could be, and said there is too much uncertainty without FDA approval.

Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug-Free Kids: America’s Challenge, said medicinal marijuana sends the message to children that harmful drugs are legal. She also said drug abuse has risen in states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes.

The committee approved the bill 6-1 with two abstentions. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote as early as January. A companion measure was introduced to the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee in January.

Blackwater ‘could lose Iraq role’

1

Blackwater could lose its licence to operate in Iraq, rendering it unable to provide security for US diplomats, a US State Department internal report says.

The report, commissioned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said the department should look for other ways to protect diplomats, US media said.

Ms Rice ordered a review of the use of private security firms after Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.

Five guards have been charged with manslaughter over the shootings.

The incident triggered outrage in Iraq and led to a debate about the role there of private security companies – upon which the US relies heavily.

Earlier, the Associated Press news agency reported that the report recommended against renewing Blackwater’s contract, citing an official linked to the report.

But that specific recommendation was not included in the report itself, AP said later. A recommendation would not be made until the investigation into the civilian shootings was complete, it quoted the same official as saying.

Scrutiny

Based in North Carolina, Blackwater was one of the first private security firms to work in Iraq following the US-led takeover.

It provides guards and security for American and other diplomats in the country.

But the company has been under intense scrutiny since its guards opened fire at a busy Baghdad intersection in September 2007, killing 17 Iraqi civilians.

Blackwater says the guards’ convoy came under attack from insurgents.

Five of its employees have now been charged in the US with manslaughter and other offences, but the company itself has not faced charges.

Blackwater’s contract with the US government comes up for renewal early next year – so the decision on whether to renew it will be taken by US President-elect Barack Obama’s administration.

It is not clear how the US might replace Blackwater.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7788641.stm

But the report recommended that the State Department increased the presence of its Diplomatic Security Service in Iraq, AP said.

China sentences rights activist to two years in prison

0

Beijing – A Beijing court sentenced a rights activist to two years in prison on Thursday after convicting her of ‘obstructing public business,’ her husband said.

   Dong Jiqin said he was not allowed into the courtroom to present his defence of his wife, Ni Yulan, who planned to appeal against the sentence.

   ‘They didn’t let me in,’ Dong told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

   He said Xicheng district court officials only allowed the couple’s adult daughter into the courtroom but apparently did not consider any of the evidence prepared in Ni’s defence.

   ‘They didn’t let our daughter defend her [Ni] or accept her evidence,’ Dong said.

   If she loses her appeal, Ni will have to serve the remaining 16 months of her two-year sentence after spending eight months in detention before the trial, he said.

Ni, 48, was arrested on April 15 when she tried to stop some two dozen people from knocking down a wall enclosing part of the yard outside their home, which they had refused to vacate for developers despite years of pressure and threats.

   The police claimed that Ni caused serious injury to a worker while she was trying to stop them from damaging her property.

   ‘This was an excuse to arrest her,’ Dong, 56, said in an earlier interview. ‘They didn’t have any evidence.’

   The police later accused Ni of kicking an officer while in custody, he said.

   The authorities did not allow Dong to visit Ni during her detention, but a lawyer who made several visits reported that she was in poor health and complained of mistreatment during police interviews.

   Ni was left disabled following alleged abuses during an earlier spell of police detention.

    Dong said their daughter was not allowed to speak to Ni on Thursday but reported that she appeared in poor health.

   ‘My daughter saw her and said she was extremely thin,’ he said.

   Ni’s career as a lawyer was first interrupted in 2002 when police illegally detained her for 75 days for filming a forced relocation.

   During that detention, Dong said, Ni was beaten and not given medical treatment.

   She was left with permanent back and leg injuries and now walks with the aid of crutches, he said.

   Ni then lost her right to practise law following a criminal conviction in late 2002 on the same charge of ‘obstructing public business.’

   Ni told her lawyer that the police had confiscated her crutches and made her crawl to use the bathroom during her latest detention, Dong said earlier.

   Xicheng district authorities razed the family home last month as part of a local government redevelopment plan, following several years of wrangling over legal issues and compensation.

   Hundreds of thousands of people have moved over the past 20 years to allow the demolition of most of Beijing’s traditional one-storey housing, which has made way for vast new commercial and residential complexes.

 

ECHR decided against the UK DNA Database

0

On 4 December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave its judgement in the Marper case related to the controversial National DNA Database used by the UK Police for criminal investigations, stating the retention of cellular samples, fingerprints and DNA profiles constitutes an infringement of the right for private life as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case was brought to court in 2004 by Michael Marper and a boy called “S” who, in separate, unrelated cases, had been taken their DNA after having been arrested. The charges were dropped in both cases but the UK police refused to destroy the DNA samples of the two individuals on the basis of the British law which allowed the retention of DNA and fingerprints.

ECHR based its decision on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and decided that the indefinite retention by the UK Government and Police of innocent people’s DNA and fingerprints was illegal. “In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.”

The court dismissed all arguments brought by the UK Government, stating that “England, Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence”. One of the main concerns expressed by the court was “the risk of stigmatisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who have not been convicted of any offence and are entitled to the presumption of innocence, are treated in the same way as convicted persons,” the ruling adding that especially the retention of children’s data following acquittal could be harmful, “given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society.”

Following this decision, the UK Government is expected to change its present legislation which allows the police to retain samples of people who are not convicted.

According to reports, there are about 4.5 million samples presently stored in UK DNA database, out of which more than 850 000 are from people with no criminal record. The creation of a DNA database has been questioned by many people. The Information Commissioners Office made a statement last year on this issue warning on the dangers of such a database: “There are significant risks associated with creating a universal database: it would be highly intrusive, and the more information collected about us, the greater the risk of false matches and other mistakes. The potential for technical and human error leading to serious consequences cannot be under estimated.”

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve also warned on the dangers brought by the fact that the database can be checked by EU member countries against sensitive personal information. “There is a real risk that a disproportionate number of innocent British citizens will be sucked into foreign criminal investigations.”

The House of Lords has passed an amendment to the Counter Terrorism Bill, proposed on 4 November by Baroness Hanham that would force the Government to show to people how they can have their samples removed from the database.

“This amendment would require the Secretary of State to draft and lay before Parliament regulations governing the procedures by which people can discover what information is held about them and under what circumstances a request can be made by them to have samples taken during an investigation by the police destroyed,” said Baroness Hanham.

One possible approach of the UK Government, which would be accepted by ECHR, could be that of Scotland police. According to the Scottish Criminal Procedure Act, an individual’s DNA samples and resulting profile must be destroyed if the individual is not convicted or is granted an absolute discharge. Biological samples and profiles may, however, be retained for three years in case the respective person is suspected of certain sexual or violent offences even if not convicted.

European Court of Human Rights – Grand Chamber Judgement – Case of S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom (4.12.2008)
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=…

Innocent Britons ‘may be branded criminals abroad’ after Big Brother databases agreement (15.12.2008)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3761189/Innocent-Brit…

S. and Michael Marper v. The United Kingdom (DNA Retention) (28.05.2008)
http://whereismydata.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/s-and-michael-marper-v-t…

DNA retention policy breaches human rights, rules ECHR (4.12.2008)
http://www.out-law.com/page-9639

Lords demand amendment to help the innocent get DNA off database (6.11.2008)
http://www.out-law.com/page-9564

EDRi-gram: UK DNA database errors raise concerns (5.07.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.23/uk-dna-database-error

Bus drivers issued with DNA kits

0
BUS drivers in Wrexham have now been issued with DNA testing equipment to catch passengers who spit at them.
By Matt Sims
The swab kits were issued at a special event at Wrexham Bus Station in a bid to combat anti-social behaviour.

As reported in the Leader on Tuesday, the kits will be used to collect samples of saliva if they are spat on which can then be used by North Wales Police to help trace offenders through the national DNA database.

If no immediate match is found, a record of the DNA will be stored and can be used in a future arrest.

The move has been welcomed by transport group Arriva.

A spokesman said: “Thankfully, this form of assault rarely occurs, although we welcome the introduction of the kits as a further safeguard for our drivers against anti-social behaviour.

“Arriva treats the safety of its employees as paramount and will not tolerate any form of anti-social behaviour towards its staff.”

The scheme was launched by Travelsure, a partnership between Wrexham Council, the town’s community safety partnership and local bus operators.

It was set up in December 2007 as a reporting mechanism for bus drivers and passengers to report anti-social behaviour and crime without dialling 999.

It allows also allows information and intelligence provided by the bus operators and members of the public to be locally compiled and analysed.

Cllr David Bithell, lead member for environment and transport said: “Public transport in Wrexham is safe; however there is always a small risk that drivers may suffer from anti-social behaviour or an attack on the vehicle.

“This scheme will make both drivers and passengers feel safer and will help the police catch the perpetrators quicker, the use of DNA swab kits will act as a further deterrent to those who are thinking of committing crime on our transport system.”

Martin Wright, chief transportation and asset management officer said: “TravelSure is an extremely effective way of gathering information and intelligence for the police to use.

“The new scheme will strengthen our partnership and shows our commitment to making public transport safe for everyone.”

Do you think bus drivers being given DNA kits is a good idea?

Greek youths break into state TV center, take over

1

ATHENS, Greece (AP) – Protesters forced their way into Greece’s state NET television news studio Tuesday and interrupted a news broadcast featuring the prime minister so they could urge viewers to join mass anti-government demonstrations.

For more than a minute, about 10 youths blocked a broadcast showing a speech by Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis. Instead, they displayed banners reading: “Stop watching, get out onto the streets,” and “Free everyone who has been arrested.” No one was hurt, and no arrests were reported.

NET chairman Christos Panagopoulos claimed the protesters violently forced their way into the studio. “This goes beyond any limit,” he said.

It was the latest twist in 11 days of riots and protests after a policeman shot and killed a 15-year-old boy on Dec. 6. The violent protests have evolved from being just aimed at Greek police to being highly critical of Karamanlis’ conservative government.

Karamanlis has rejected mounting demands to resign and call new elections.

Earlier Tuesday, masked youths attacked riot police headquarters in Athens and protesters clashed with police in the northern city of Thessaloniki.

Police said 30 youths threw petrol bombs and stones at the riot police building, causing extensive damage to seven cars and a police bus parked outside.

Students blocked streets in Athens and dozens of teenagers gathered outside the capital’s main court complex and a maximum security prison–where some threw stones at police.

Protesters have called for riot officers to be pulled off the streets, for police to be disarmed and for the government to revise its economic, social and education policies.

The protests have brought higher education in Greece to a standstill. Lessons have stopped at more than 100 secondary schools that are under occupation by students, according to the Education Ministry. Scores of university buildings across Greece are also occupied.

After the shooting death of 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos, furious youths smashed and burnt hundreds of shops in Athens’ main shopping area, and attacked riot police who responded with massive tear gas.

Dozens of people have been injured in the rioting, while more than 300 people have been arrested. The policeman accused of killing the teenager has been charged with murder and is being held pending trial.

In the northern port of Thessaloniki, riot police fired tear gas Tuesday to disperse 300 youths throwing fruit and stones outside the city’s main court complex. The disturbance followed a court decision that found eight police officers guilty of abusing a student following riots two years ago.

The policemen received suspended sentences ranging from three years and three months for grievous bodily harm to 15 months for being an accessory to the abuse.

In a symbolic gesture meant to revive riot-shocked Athens, city authorities will light a large Christmas tree Tuesday on central Syntagma Square–which has been at the center of many of the protests. The tree replaces one burnt during last week’s riots.

Overnight, arsonists attacked three Athens banks with petrol bombs, causing extensive damage. There were no injuries or arrests. Every year, small anarchist groups carry out dozens of firebombings in Greece against government property, banks and diplomatic vehicles.

UK government bans photography

17
libertyandsolidarity.org In a letter to the National Union of Journalists, the Minister for security and counter-terrorism, Vernon Kay, clarified that the police may stop photographers taking pictures or videos when “the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or inflame an already tense situation or raise security considerations.” The Police have already been using heightened security tensions and their powers under the Terrorism Act to remove and harass people documenting political demonstrations, which was the cause of the dialogue with the NUJ.

This signifies the Home Office coming clean and admitting from now on the Police will have ability to remove anyone at all with a camera – all the police have to do is declare, possibly not even publicly, that there are special circumstances:

“Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace or to avoid a public order situation or for the person’s own safety and welfare or for the safety and welfare of others.”

This means if you witnessed the police bundling someone into the back of a van and decided to film it on your camera phone, you would be breaking the law. If a professional journalist did so, they would also be breaking the law.

Though this is a frightening development, it is only the latest in the governments’ campaign against civil liberties. Earlier this year the government announced plans requiring anyone buying a mobile phone to show their passport and to be entered onto a database. Coupled with other developments, such as compulsory ID cards, it is clear the government is deliberately curtailing the rights of its citizens. This begs the question; why?

It would seem no coincidence that the continuous curtailing of freedoms has intensified in pace since the outbreak of the “credit crunch”, an economic crisis which looks to be the most severe in recent history. Though the impact of it has not yet been felt, if previous crashes are anything to go by, it will be accompanied by large amounts of unrest from those workers who have their conditions and pay attacked in order to squeeze out money to bail out the bosses and banks.

Already we have seen mass redundancies from the various city banks and financiers, and on the high street Woolworths and MFI are the first major casualties. However these are just a small sign of what is to come. As more companies either slim down their staffing in order to curtail expenses, or simply go out of business, masses of people will be made unemployed. This will flood the labour market, driving down pay and conditions for all those who have to work for a living.

The public sector will also be affected. Having given the banks a 500 billion pound bailout, five times the size of the annual NHS budget, Gordon Brown will have to figure out a way to recoup his expense. The obvious choice seems to be intensifying the cuts of public services, increasing privatisation and diminishing public sector pay.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many people will not accept being punished for the mistakes of the bosses. A clear correlation can be seen between economic downturn and resistance from the general population. In Greece currently the police murder of a young boy has acted as a trigger for a widespread anti-police and largely anti-capitalist rebellion that has seen symbols of wealth like luxury hotels and high-end shops looted, whilst banks and police stations have been torched across the country. The uprising continues with many town halls being occupied by locals and there are ongoing street confrontations with the police. What the Greek rebellion represents is how resentment of the government and the state apparatus twinned with long term economic depression can quickly develop small revolts into generalised insurgency in the current financial crisis — even in the first world. With very minor solidarity riots occurring in other European countries, this is exactly the kind of omen our governments are panicked by, and exactly what they hope to avoid with this legislation.

However, the Greek response is not automatic, especially not in relatively dormant UK political landscape. With the steps the government has taken, and the general weakness of the left within the UK, working class victory, or at minimum, self-defence, is dependent upon the swift organisation of our communities and workplaces so that we can better resist the inevitable attacks and generalise the issues of single campaigns into a network of struggle.

The government is not ignorant of history, nor of the link between worsening conditions and civil unrest. It would appear that the government is preparing to meet the threat of revolt head on. This year has already seen the rapid expansion of both MI5, the government’s spies, and the armed forces. The government is ready for the coming clashes, and so we must be too.

[background information on the photography ban can be found here: www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=831582 and updates on the situation in Greece can be found here www.occupiedlondon.org/blog – neither have any link to L&S]

An Economy Organized to Make Revolution and Meet Human Needs

6

The question should by now occur–does society actually need the capitalist class to determine what is produced and how? Is a better way possible?

Modern production is highly complex and requires coordination and direction. But why can’t production be led and coordinated by a power that determines priorities based on the actual needs of the masses of people, and involves the masses in these decisions? As opposed to the way it is done today–where everything is determined by what will turn the highest possible profits for the relative handful of capitalists who own these highly socialized means of production?

And let’s go further. Why can’t society determine how to meet the needs of the people in a way that contributes to overcoming–instead of reinforcing–the class divisions of capitalist society (and other forms of exploitation)? A way that does without–and indeed aims to root out–the oppression of whole nations and sections of the world that the current capitalist-imperialist system requires and enforces? A way that overcomes the strict hierarchy between people who work with their minds, planning and administering, and those who labor with their hands? A way that distributes the wealth of society increasingly in accord with social need, as opposed to where someone stands in relation to capital (either owning it and gorging themselves on wealth, or being forced to seek work within it and slave at rotten jobs and barely surviving, or ending up somewhere in the middle of that, scrambling in the rat race)?

Let’s go further still. Why can’t society do all this as part of creating new social institutions that serve to overcome, rather than reinforce, the division of people into exploiter and exploited, oppressor and oppressed? And why can’t it be done in a way that is part of, and related to, overcoming the dog-eat-dog, look-out-for-number-one ethos of capitalist society and replacing it with a higher, and far better, morality?

WE NEED STATE POWER!

The answer is that humanity could do this. But we cannot do it now because the capitalist class dominates the use of force and the dissemination of ideas (through schools, media, etc.). The sheriffs who use force to carry out evictions are one small part of a larger state power that “serves and protects” the capitalist relations of production analyzed in part 1. At the core of this state power is the massive U.S. military. This machinery of death is deployed all over the world for one reason: to protect the interests of U.S. capital–that is, its ability to control resources and exploit labor in every corner of the planet.

So yes, humanity could organize society in a better way; but NOT WITHOUT REVOLUTION, AND A NEW STATE POWER, THAT INSTITUTES A SOCIALIST SOCIETY–as a first step to a classless communist society. The Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, explains what this would mean in basic terms:

This socialist state would lead and support people in making radical transformations in every sphere of society. It would construct a socialist economic system, by first taking over the major means of production (factories, land and mines, machinery and other technology, etc.) that have been owned and controlled by the big capitalists as their private property–converting these into socialist state property and utilizing them to meet the needs of the people, while rendering support to revolutionary struggle throughout the world. The socialist state would play a decisive role in moving society, through various waves and stages of multi-faceted struggle and social transformations, toward the communist vision of ensuring a common abundance for the people as a whole and overcoming the age-old division between those who work with their minds and those who work with their hands (between mental and physical labor), as well as all other oppressive divisions among people. It would act to prevent the return of the former exploiters, and resist the attacks of imperialism. It would make possible a different kind of democracy, on a far greater scale and with a much more radical vision and practice of human freedom than anything today, in line with its final goal–a final goal in which democracy itself, as a form of state, is transcended and people together debate and decide the course of things without resort to any kind of apparatus of violent suppression. Finally, this new revolutionary socialist state would be built as a “base area” for the world revolution–a springboard and support base and beacon for revolutionary struggles in other countries, all working together to get to a world without exploitation and oppression. [p. 6]

Production to Make Revolution–And Meet Social Needs

Let’s look at what it would mean for the new state to seize “the major means of production” and utilize them for revolution and meeting people’s needs. This giant step would begin to remove the fetters and distortion imposed on the production process by the never-ending accumulation of capital, as outlined in Part 1 of this article. The new state power would plan out production to meet the needs of the masses, based on the fundamental criteria of advancing the world revolution (which would include, for example, breaking with and uprooting the relations through which the U.S. now dominates the economies of other countries).

The central organs of the state would give overall direction to the economic construction of society, while involving the masses to the greatest degree possible at every level of planning. On this basis, resources would be channeled to where the social need was determined to be the greatest, as part of an overall plan. With the barriers of capital being eliminated, those who have been locked out of work in this society–even as they live in neighborhoods where work cries out to be done–would be able to take up jobs that contribute to society, and to learn new skills. And those whose skills and education have been wasted in jobs that serve no real constructive social purpose (for instance, advertising) would be given a chance to really contribute those skills to a whole new society. The need to carry all this out in a sustainable way that replenishes and does not destroy the environment could also be taken into account–again, without the barrier of “profit over all.”

But a real socialist revolution is not about doling out benefits, or only changing some forms of ownership of enterprises. It’s about a much bigger and more radical change in society and part of what must be worldwide revolutionary change. As regards the economic relations and production, the new power would also lead people to transform the relations of people within the labor process. For instance, it would unleash and guide masses of people in breaking down distinctions, in different ways, between the people who do mental work (engineers, architects, planners, etc.) and the people who do the manual labor. The production process itself would be one where people were systematically encouraged to share skills, rather than keep their knowledge as their own private “capital.” People would be led to root out the ways in which white supremacy, and the oppression of women, have been embedded in production relations (combating discrimination, harassment, and more subtle ways in which backward social relations of different kinds go down). And, critically important, workers from all levels would take part in forms of management.

This is essential. If the new, revolutionary state power did not lead the masses to do this, then these divisions inherited from capitalism would harden and begin to smack of exploitation, and provide soil for capitalism to grow back. But even this is not the sum total of it.

The Battle Between the Capitalist and Socialist Road

Much of what is described above was done in China, based on Mao’s summation of the shortcomings of the Soviet revolution, and his further, and deeper, analysis of the character of communism, and of socialist society as a transition to that. As a key part of this breakthrough, Mao developed the understanding and principle that the masses themselves must do more than carry out production, and more even than transforming the economic relations within production, important as that was. Mao insisted that the masses must most of all wage revolution in the superstructure of society–the political sphere in particular, as well as culture, education, ideas more generally, etc.

This is because, as the recent manifesto by the RCP, USA–COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE–lays out, “Mao made the path-breaking analysis that throughout the socialist period there would remain the material conditions that would pose the danger of defeat for the socialist revolution.” [p. 7] To put it very briefly here, these conditions were what Marx had called the “birthmarks” of the old society inherited by the revolution. These birthmarks persist in the production relations–for instance, in the division between mental and manual labor, which requires a determined, many-sided, and protracted struggle to truly overcome. And birthmarks also persist in the superstructure of society–for instance, in the force of habit and traditional ways in people’s thinking and in the institutions of society like education, culture, health care, etc., as well as the profound effects of the division between mental and manual labor in the sphere of politics. Combined with and reinforcing all that is the “influence, pressure and outright attacks from the remaining imperialist and reactionary states.” [ibid]

During the socialist period, there will be those within the party who, for various reasons, cling to, defend and fight for these backward relations–who resist the further transformation of society toward communism. These people, to again quote the manifesto, are “representatives not of communism, but of capitalism, and in particular the vestiges of capitalism that had not yet been thoroughly uprooted and surpassed–and could not be in the short term and within the confines of one or another particular socialist country.” [ibid]

For all these reasons, Mao put forward continuing the class struggle as the central task of the socialist period–mobilizing the masses to resist the capitalist roaders, and to identify and criticize the capitalist road itself, and to further transform both the superstructure and the economic relations, and production itself, toward the goal of a communist society. This struggle sets the terms for, and dynamically interacts with, socialist production.

The New Synthesis and Socialist Production

The new synthesis of Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the RCP, USA, builds on the accomplishments of previous socialist revolutions–but it goes further, based on a deeper understanding of the dynamics of socialist society as a transition to communism. Avakian’s new synthesis envisions and requires the revolution to firmly hold onto state power but to unleash a lot more “elasticity” in the whole process. This new synthesis envisions a much greater role for the contestation of different ideas throughout society, including ideas opposed to socialism and communism. It envisions room for initiatives running in different directions, and a larger role for civil society. It will be a scene with a lot more, and much richer and more variegated, intellectual ferment and experimentation, as well as lively interaction between intellectuals and the masses of people who’ve been locked out of these arenas, in all kinds of new ways. And it requires an even greater involvement of the masses themselves in working with ideas and in the actual direction of society in every sphere, wrangling deeply with the biggest problems of the revolution.

Bob Avakian has put forward the formulation of “a solid core with a lot of elasticity” to describe this orientation of the future socialist society. There will be a solid core of leadership, holding onto the reins of power against imperialist pressure and capitalist elements arising within socialist society (including within the party itself), and maintaining the new state power as a socialist state, in transition to communist society; and this leadership will at the same time expand the solid core to the greatest degree possible at any given time, working toward the point where such a solid core will no longer be necessary. The solid core of leadership will give expression to the greatest degree of elasticity (i.e., initiative, ferment, contestation of ideas) at any given time.1

All this will be necessary in order to enable the masses and their leadership to more deeply understand and transform the world, and truly emancipate humanity. All this will be essential to keeping society on the socialist road, moving in the direction of communism.2

Grasp Revolution, Promote Production

Now let’s return to the sphere of production itself in socialist society. In capitalist society the only motivation for workers is to work hard or get fired. But production units in socialist society will NOT hold the whip-hand of hunger over people, nor will they bribe people with bonuses. Instead, people will mainly be motivated through the process of “solid core with a lot of elasticity” described above–in short, the exhilaration of creating a whole different world with different social relations, including but not limited to the sphere of production, and learning more about the world as they struggle to transform it.

People in production units will discuss and debate the larger political and ideological questions of the day (including but not limited to how their particular work relates to those questions) and will participate in the larger struggle in society in different spheres. They will dynamically interact with the political and intellectual ferment, and at times upheaval, in society overall. Initiative–including in breaking down the division of labor within production units, investigating and working in new ways to meet unmet and/or new needs in society and the world, and trying new ways to carry out production–will be valued and fostered, all in a context of very broad social ferment.

Again, Mao pioneered this kind of orientation in China when it was genuinely socialist. He developed the principle of “Grasp Revolution, Promote Production”–where production served not only to meet the needs of the people but was carried out in such a way that this mutually reinforced the transformation of the production relations, and the political and ideological superstructure (the organs of state, the institutions, the ideas of society more generally, etc.). Now, with the new synthesis, Avakian has built on this breakthrough and taken it further.

Housing in a Whole New World

What might it mean in housing? In the first place, the orientation will be to meet the needs of the broadest masses. But this would not be a process of the state “bestowing favors” on people, in which the masses who live in the housing would be left out of the planning and construction. 

People in the neighborhoods concerned would be deeply involved in the process. They might wrangle with what kind of architecture would best serve to break down the atomized and alienated relations between people, even while leaving people space to be alone sometimes. They would take up what kinds of recreational and health and educational facilities would best serve people’s needs, and how they want all these to look. They would at the same time be learning about these different spheres–including how to do this planning and production in a way that was environmentally sustainable. They would wrangle with how all this fit into the further advance of the world revolution.

Here too there would be debates and forums and all kinds of ways that people who have been locked out of the spheres of planning, architecture, and so on would be enabled to come in, and in a real–not just a rubber-stamp–way, all as part of the overall motion of moving society toward communism. At the same time, this whole process would involve and tap the initiative and ideas of those who were trained in capitalist society, only to find their work constrained and distorted by the dictates of capital. They would listen to people’s ideas and be challenged–and inspired–by their initiative, again, all as part of the overall process.

* * *

The above is only a brief and simplified sketch. But much of this has actually been done in previous revolutions–to a certain degree in the Soviet Union up until the early 1950s and then to a much greater extent in China during its socialist years. And this was done up against tremendous material privation as well as imperialist military and economic pressure and threats. Future socialist societies will do even more, and surpass these accomplishments. These societies will build on these achievements, but will more fully give expression to the communist method and outlook, in line with the synthesis developed by Bob Avakian, which were very briefly cited here and are gone into in much greater depth in other important works.

The point is this: a far better society is possible. Think about what capitalism means to people. It is always a horror, not just within the U.S. but, in a qualitatively worse way, all over the world dominated by imperialism. Crises like the one we face today only bring that out in even sharper relief.

But times like these also bring out the great and needless irrationality and indeed insanity of this system. They can create an opening to highlight to people that a real way out of the madness–a far better society, with a far fuller and more radical vision of human freedom and flourishing–truly DOES exist. 

Isn’t it worth it to do everything we can to bring that far better form of society into being?

 

Further reading:

* “Three Alternative Worlds” by Bob Avakian, in Observations on Art and Culture, Science and Philosophy (Insight Press, 2005). Also available online at /revcom.us/a/094/three-worlds-en.html

* “Views On Socialism and Communism: A Radically New Kind of State, A Radically Different and Far Greater Vision of Freedom” by Bob Avakian, online at revcom.us/avakian/Avakianviewson.html

* “The Basis, the Goals, and the Methods of the Communist Revolution” by Bob Avakian, online at revcom.us/avakian/basis-goals-methods

* “Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity” by Bob Avakian, in the pamphlet Revolution and Communism: A Foundation and Strategic Orientation (RCP Publications, 2008). Also available online at revcom.us.

* Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism: The Shanghai Textbook (Banner Press, 1994), including the essay “The Theory and Practice of Maoist Planning: In Defense of a Viable and Visionary Socialism” by Raymond Lotta.

 

FOOTNOTES:

1. Bob Avakian, in “Making Revolution, Emancipating Humanity, Part 1,” in Revolution and Communism: A Foundation and Strategic Orientation, defines the new synthesis in this way:

This new synthesis involves a recasting and recombining of the positive aspects of the experience so far of the communist movement and of socialist society, while learning from the negative aspects of this experience, in the philosophical and ideological as well as the political dimensions, so as to have a more deeply and firmly rooted scientific orientation, method and approach with regard not only to making revolution and seizing power but then, yes, to meeting the material requirements of society and the needs of the masses of people, in an increasingly expanding way, in socialist society–overcoming the deep scars of the past and continuing the revolutionary transformation of society, while at the same time actively supporting the world revolutionary struggle and acting on the recognition that the world arena and the world struggle are most fundamental and important, in an overall sense–together with opening up qualitatively more space to give expression to the intellectual and cultural needs of the people, broadly understood, and enabling a more diverse and rich process of exploration and experimentation in the realms of science, art and culture, and intellectual life overall, with increasing scope for the contention of different ideas and schools of thought and for individual initiative and creativity and protection of individual rights, including space for individuals to interact in “civil society” independently of the state–all within an overall cooperative and collective framework and at the same time as state power is maintained and further developed as a revolutionary state power serving the interests of the proletarian revolution, in the particular country and worldwide, with this state being the leading and central element in the economy and in the overall direction of society, while the state itself is being continually transformed into something radically different from all previous states, as a crucial part of the advance toward the eventual abolition of the state with the achievement of communism on a world scale.

2. By “communist society” we mean one where classes and class distinctions, including those between mental and manual labor, have finally been eliminated; where the wealth of society is no longer produced and exchanged in any way through commodity relations but instead created and exchanged for direct social use, in a world where there is common abundance; where the oppressive institutions and ideas that grow out of and reinforce exploitation–e.g., the oppression of women or of different nationalities–have been rooted out; and where the need for any kind of state has been transcended.

Source http://www.revcom.us/a/150online/housing-pt2-en.html

Cheney Admits Authorizing Detainee’s Torture

1

Outgoing VP says Guantanamo prison should stay open until end of terror war, but has no idea when that might be

By David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster

Raw Story — Monday, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney made a startling statement on a nation-wide, televised broadcast.

When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl whether he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called “high value prisoner” at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison, Mr. Cheney, in a break from his history of being press-shy, admitted to giving official sanctioning of torture.

“I supported it,” he said regarding the practice known as “water-boarding,” a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding, a practice which the outgoing Bush administration attempted to enshrine in policy.

“I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do,” Cheney said. “And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.”

He added: “It’s been a remarkably successful effort, and I think the results speak for themselves.”

ABC asked him if in hindsight he thought the tactics went too far. “I don’t,” he said.

The prisoner in question, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who the Bush administration alleges to have planned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is one of Guantanamo’s “high value targets” thus far charged with war crimes.

Former military interrogator Travis Hall disagrees with Cheney’s position.

“Proponents of Guantanamo underestimate what a powerful a propaganda tool Guantanamo has become for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, despite several Department of Defense studies documenting the propaganda value of detention centers,” he said in a column for Opposing Views.

“For example, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has monitored numerous Al Qaeda references to Guantanamo in its recruitment propaganda materials,” continued Hall. “Improvements to Guantanamo’s administration of judicial mechanisms will not make its way into Al Qaeda propaganda. Nothing short of closing Guantanamo will remove this arrow from its quiver.”

President-elect Barack Obama has promised to close the prison and pull US forces out of Iraq. Cheney, however, has a different timeline for when Guantanamo Bay prison may be “responsibly” retired.

“Well, I think that that would come with the end of the war on terror,” he told ABC.

Problematic to his assertion: Mr. Bush’s “war on terror” is undefinable and unending by it’s very nature, and Cheney seems to recognize this as fact.

Asked when his administration’s terror war will end, he jostled, “Well, nobody knows. Nobody can specify that.”
 

Can Marijuana help memory?

3

Elements found in marijuana can be beneficial to ageing brains and can even stimulate the growth of new brain cells – according to Ohio State University scientists.

Their research suggests that a legal drug derived from marijuana could even be used to slow down the effects of Alzheimer’s disease.

The medicinal properties of cannabis is contained in tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as THC, which is the main psychoactive element the dope plant contains.

Principal researcher and Ohio University professor, Gary Wenk, said THC in small doses can give some protection against inflammation of the brain.

“It’s not that everything immoral is good for the brain,” he said. “It’s just that there are some substances that millions of people for thousands of years have used in billions of doses, and we’re noticing there’s a little signal above all the noise.”

Professor Wenk has recorded improved memory in animals exposed to a synthetic form of THC.

His research team are now trying to find out why and how it works.

They already know that THC can reduce brain inflammation and promote the production of new neurons, or brain cells.

“Knowing exactly how any of these compounds work in the brain can make it easier for drug designers to target specific systems with agents that will offer the most effective anti-aging benefits,” said Professor Wenk.

The professor would not rule out that smoking dope may prevent Alzheimer’s disease if the disease is in a person’s family history.

“It might actually work,” he said. “What we are saying is it appears that a safe, legal substance that mimics those important properties of marijuana can work on receptors in the brain to prevent memory impairments in aging. So that’s really hopeful.”

But one this clear said the professor, once a person’s memory is damaged the drug will have no useful effect.

© APN News & Media Ltd

Torture, Secret Detention, Abduction and Repeated Raping

2

By Stephen Lendman

Post-9/11, the “war on terror” has been a jihad against Islam, the colonizers v. the colonized, or what Edward Said called “the familiar (America, Europe, us) and the strange (the Orient, East, them).” Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is one of its most tragic, aggrieved, and ravaged victims. Her ordeal continues horrifically.

Boston Magazine’s Katherine Oxment asked: “Who’s afraid of Aafia Siddiqui? She went to MIT and Brandeis, married a (physician, lived in Boston), cared for her children….raised money for charities….did other volunteer work, hosted play groups in her apartment, (is) deeply religious….distribute(d) Korans to inmates in area prisons,” and did nothing out of the ordinary. (She) “was a normal woman living a normal American life. Until the FBI called her a terrorist….a high-profile Al Qaeda operative,” but we’ve seen these charges before, and each time they were bogus. They’re egregiously so against Aafia – a woman guilty only of being Muslim at the wrong time in America or elsewhere if you’re on Washington’s target list.

Against her and others, no evidence exists so prosecutors invent it. Most (or key parts) is kept classified, unavailable to the defense, and trials are judicial equivalents of circuses. Witnesses are enlisted, pressured, coerced, and/or bought off to cooperate. Proceedings are carefully orchestrated. Due process is effectively denied, and juries are intimidated to convict the innocent for political advantage.

The dominant media cooperate. Using information from Washington Post writer, Douglas Farah, and other sources, writer Lindsey Worth of FMS, Inc. referred to “the mysterious Aafia Siddiqui….allegedly Al Qaeda’s only female leader” in connecting her to “the Al Queda diamond operation” in West Africa.

The Times Online calls Aafia “Al-Qaeda woman,” and for ABC News she’s “Mata Hari” in a lengthy report featuring unsubstantiated charges against her, including:

— possessing detailed radiological, chemical and biological information, including possessing a liter of cyanide and instructions for a “dirty bomb;”

— more documents for a mass casualty attack;

— a list of New York targets, including the Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State Building, Wall Street, and the animal disease center on Plum Island;

— terrorist recruiting;

— possessing excerpts from “The Anarchist’s Arsenal;”

— “documents detailing US military assets;”

— methods of attack by reconnaissance drones, underwater bombs and gliders; and

— a thumb (or flash) drive packed with emails detailing “specific cells” and planned attacks to carry out.

According to the FBI, she is, or was when captured, a potential “treasure trove” of information on terrorist supporters, sympathizers or sleepers in America and overseas. CIA officer John Kiriakou said she’s “the most significant capture in five years,” and an unnamed counterterrorism official called her “a very dangerous person, no doubt about it.”

For Kiriakou, she’s a “radical” involved in planning “a wide variety of different operations (perhaps with WMDs),” including a “possible attempt on the life of the President.” Unnamed sources from three federal agencies accused her of an “ill conceived” and perhaps amateurish plot to “kill all living US presidents,” including Jimmy Carter by poisoning.

By marriage to his nephew, she’s also reputedly linked to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” according to the 9/11 Commission. He reportedly “gave her up” after capture on March 1, 2003, and shortly thereafter she and her children disappeared.

The DOJ also connects her to Adnan El Shukrijumah, another suspected Al Qaeda member “involved in terrorist planning with senior Al Qaeda leaders overseas and across America,” according to John Ashcroft.

Aafia’s friends and family deny all charges. They call her an innocent victim of US persecution, and an especially egregious one for being ravaged in detention. One supporter (Abu Sabaya) said this about the woman he knew:

“I want you to come to know of the concern and dedication that this woman had for Islam as described by those who knew her – a dedication that was manifested by way of actions that were very simple and easy, yet seldom carried out by those who are able.

Those who knew Aafia recall that she was a very small, quiet, polite, and shy woman who was barely noticeable in a gathering. However….she would say what (was) needed” when necessary.

While at MIT, she organized drives to deliver Korans and other Islamic literature to Muslims in local prisons. She was also dedicated to Islam on campus where fellow students described her as soft-spoken, studious, religious, but not extremist or fundamentalist. She wrote three instructional guides on the faith. More as well on how to run a daw’ah table to provide religious information and training for da’iyas (callers to Islam). She wrote:

“Imagine our humble, but sincere daw’ah effort turning into a major daw’ah movement in this country! Just imagine it! And us, reaping the reward of everyone who accepts Islam throught this movement (for) years to come. Think and plan big. May Allah give this strength and sincerity to us so that our humble effort continues and expands until America becomes a Muslim land.”

Aafia taught local Muslim children on Sundays, but her greatest passion was to help oppressed Muslims worldwide. She spoke publicly, sent emails, gave slideshow presentations, and raised donations while a student and caring for three young children at home.

Because of her faith, activism, and passion for the oppressed, it’s little wonder she was targeted and why Assistant US Attorney Christopher LaVigne called her “a high security risk” despite no evidence to prove it.

Her Background and What Happened

Aafia is a Pakistani national with degrees from MIT and a doctorate in neurocognitive science from Brandeis. Despite false media reports, she’s not a microbiologist, geneticist or neurologist. Nor did her training provide expertise for WMD terrorism. As her lawyer, Elaine Whitfeld Sharp, explains:

The prosecution claimed “that Aafia was involved in biochemical warfare. She wasn’t taking brain cells and testing how they reacted to gases. But there’s all this news in the media about the changing face of Al Qaeda, the neurobiology scare, and now we’ve got this MIT graduate with a Brandeis Ph.D. who’s cooking up all these viruses.”

Boston Magazine writer Katherine Ozment explained what Aafia “was actually cooking up” – the simple concept that people learn by imitation. To study it, “she devised a computer program and used adult volunteers, who came to her office and watched various objects move randomly across the screen, then reproduced what they recalled. The point was to see how well they retained the information having seen in on the screen.”

Brandeis professor of cognitive science Paul DiZio laughed about how this could apply to terrorism. “I can’t see how it can be applied to anything. It’s not applied work. It didn’t have a medical aspect to it. And, as a computer expert, she was competent. But you know, calling her a mastermind or something (is ludicrous) – I never saw any evidence.”

She and her husband (a medical resident at the time at Brigham and Women’s Hospital) used their apartment for a 1999 nonprofit organization they began called the Institute of Islamic Research and Teaching. It had nothing to do with terrorism. According to the neighborhood Mosque’s Imam, Abdullah Faruuq: “What I know of (Aafia) is that she was living here in America, and her organization was for sharing Islamic information with the American people.”

Faruuq was impressed with her dedication. “Aafia was an American girl and a good sister.” She also wanted her husband to use his medical skills to help the less fortunate. Despite her devout faith, “there was nothing radical about Siddiqui. She just seemed like a very kind person.”

She’s also a mother of three, and a victim of extreme viciousness in detention. According to her mother, Ismet, she “left the family home in Gulshan-e-lqbal in a taxi on March 30 to catch a flight for Rawalpindi, but never reached the airport.” Inside sources claim she was picked up by intelligence agents en route, and initial reports suggest then handed over to the FBI.

She was missing for over a year when the agency posted her photographs on its web site. Shortly afterward, a story was leaked about her involvement in the 2001 Liberian diamond trade with her as an Al Qaeda operative. The family’s attorney, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, called the allegation a blessing in disguise because it placed Aafia in Liberia at a specific time when she can prove she was in Boston that week.

Aafia’s mother says that only days after her daughter’s disappearance a man on motorcycle came to her family home and warned her to say nothing about what happened if she wanted to see Aafia and her grandchildren again. She hasn’t since, and according to the Pakistani Urdu press, the family was picked up by local authorities and taken into custody. A government interior ministry spokesman and two unnamed US officials confirmed the report in the press. They then retracted their statements, but local Chicago NBC news (based on a Press Trust of India account) reported that Aafia was being interrogated by US intelligence officials.

At the time, the FBI website stated: “Although the FBI has no information indicating this individual is connected to specific terrorist activities, the FBI would like to locate and question this individual.” The agency knew full well what happened – that Aafia was in secret detention, that her horrific ordeal had begun, and that they and other US authorities were involved.

A Brief Timeline of Affia’s Case

— March 18, 2003: the FBI issues an alert requesting information about Aafia;

— March 29: UPI reports that the FBI believes Aafia may be an Al Qaeda “fixer,” transferring money to support “terrorist” operations;

— March 30: Aafia disappears en route to the airport for a flight to Rawalpindi;

— April 3: CNN reports that Al Qaeda figure Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (arrested March 1) mentioned Aafia during interrogation; Pakistani authorities deny any knowledge of her whereabouts;

— April 4: the FBI denies that it captured and is detaining Aafia;

— May 26: John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller cite reports that Al Queda plans an attack on the US in the summer or fall; Aafia is named as an Al Qaeda “operative and facilitator” and is one of seven Al Qaeda members being sought;

— May 28, 2004: Pakistan’s Interior Ministry confirms that Aafia was turned over to US authorities in 2003 after it was unable to establish any links she may have had with Al Qaeda;

— A 2006 Amnesty International report includes Aafia as one of many of the “disappeared” in the “war on terror;”

— A 2007 Ghost Prisoner Human Rights Watch report said that Aafia “may have once been held” in secret CIA detention;

— A February 2008 Asian Human Rights Commission report said Aafia was brought to Karachi and severely tortured to secure her compliance as a government witness against Khalid Shiekh Mohammed;

— July 7, 2008: UK journalist Yvonne Ridley identifies Aafia as “Prisoner 650” at the US Bagram, Afghanistan torture-prison;

— July 11: US Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green denies that any women are being held at Bagram;

— July 31: the FBI tells Aafia’s brother that she’s in US custody;

— August 4: a DOJ press release says that Afghanistan National Police arrested Aafia in Ghazni on July 17 and that she was wounded the next day while trying to shoot US Army personnel;

— August 6: US Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis orders Aafia be held without bail; her court-appointed lawyer, Elizabeth Fink, says charges against her are “absurd;” a bail hearing was set for August 11 and another for August 18 to determine if she should be tried;

— August 12: the Washington Pakistani embassy formally requests that Aafia be repatriated to Pakistan;

— August 13: the US military in Afghanistan denies it ever held Aafia in detention and that an unnamed female prisoner was someone else;

— September 12: according to a report in MIT’s The Tech, court documents released today indicate that Aafia “was diagnosed with chronic depressive type psychosis;”

— September 23: Judge Richard Berman enters a “not guilty” plea on behalf of Aafia; she refuses to come to court because doing so requires she be strip-searched; he sets December 17 as the next hearing date to determine her fitness to stand trial; he also sets March 9, 2009 as a tentative trial date;

— September 29: World Net Daily reports that for the “first time since 9/11, counterterrorism field agents have been authorized to spy on young Muslim men and women – including American citizens – who have traveled to Pakistan without any specific evidence (suggesting) wrongdoing;”

— October 2: Aafia is moved to the Carswell Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, TX for psychiatric evaluation; in vain, her lawyer pleaded that she not be sent because she urgently needs medical treatment;

— October 6: Pakistani senators Mushahid Hussain Syed, Sadia Abbasi Mehmood, and SM Zafar met with Aafia; Faqir Saeed of the Pakistani embassy as well; she tells them of her ordeal – that she was abducted in 2003, given an injection, found herself in a cell, and was forced to sign papers and confess to things she didn’t do; her children’s lives were threatened and she was abused grievously;

— November 17: Judge Richard Berman indicates that a psychiatric evaluation indicates that Aafia is “not competent to proceed as a result of her mental disease, which renders her unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her;”

— December 17: the next scheduled date (in New York District Court) to determine if Aafia is fit to stand trial;

— March 9, 2009: the tentative date for Aafia’s trial to begin.

The US Bagram, Afghanistan Torture-Prison

After her abduction, Aafia disappeared into Bagram hell and was known only as “Prisoner 650.” Then later, by released prisoners, as the “Gray Lady of Bagram” because of her screams they heard for years.

At one time, Bagram (north of Kabul at the US air base) held twice as many prisoners as Guantanamo and likely still holds hundreds. They’re crammed into wire cages, routinely tortured, forced to sleep on floor mats, and have buckets for latrines, or at least did until recently. Many prisoners are held secretly, have been there for years, have no access to lawyers, or any knowledge of the allegations against them. Most, perhaps all, are innocent victims and guilty only of being Muslims at the wrong time in the wrong place.

What’s known about Bagram comes from released or transfered prisoners who got access to counsel. In early 2008, The New York Times also reported that the International Committee of the Red Cross filed a confidential complaint with US authorities charging that its detainees were held incommunicado for weeks or months in isolation cells and subjected to cruel treatment (torture) in violation of international law.

In February 2005, The London Guardian reported that a prisoner named Mustafa was blindfolded, handcuffed, gagged, and forced to bend down over a table by three US soldiers. They then “forcibly rammed a stick up my rectum….I could not stop screaming when this happened.”

Another case involved Wesam Abdulrahman Ahmed Al Deemawi. For over a 40 days, he was threatened with dogs, stripped and photographed “in shameful and obscene positions,” placed in a cage with a hook and hanging rope, and hung on it blindfolded for two days. Both men were never charged and were later released.

Other prisoners were beaten, chained, hung from the ceiling by their wrists, and subjected to numerous other tortures and indignities – for months or years. In some cases so horrifically they died. Aafia and other women were (and still are) at Bagram and other US torture- prisons (including torture-ships at sea), according to British journalist Yvonne Ridley: “There are many Muslim women in the captivity of American forces and if (people remain) silent, (they’ll) lose their sisters forever.” Some are treated even worse than Aafia.

Ridley wrote about Bagram’s “Prisoner 650” and her ordeal of torture and repeatedly being raped for over four years. “The cries of (this) helpless woman echoed (with such torment) in the jail that (it) prompted prisoners to go on hunger strike.” Ridley called her a “gray lady (because) she (was) almost a ghost, a spectre whose cries and screams continue to haunt those who heard her. This would never happen to a Western woman.” It did to Aafia, other Muslim women as well, and their ordeal continues horrifically.

US and International Law on Prisoners of War and Enforced Disappearances

US and international law are clear and unequivocal on prisoner detentions and their treatment. America under George Bush defiles it, and, given the rogue team he’s assembled, the Obama administration (with or without Guantanamo) promises little or no change. These practices are grievous crimes of war and against humanity and should never be tolerated against anyone for any reason. Yet they persist.

The US War Crimes Act (1996) defines these offenses as grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions (1949) and violations of its Common Article 3. It states in part:

—….”the following acts are prohibited at any time and in any place….:

— violence to life and person (including) murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

— ….humiliating and degrading treatment;”

— sentencing or executing detainees “without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees….recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples;” and

— assuring wounded and sick are (properly) cared for.

The US Army Field Manual 27-10 is also explicit on the rule of law. It incorporates the Nuremberg Principles prohibiting crimes against humanity, and specifically obligates soldiers to disobey illegal orders or be subject to prosecution under international law. Paragraph 498 states that any person, military or civilian, who commits a crime under international law bears responsibility and may be punished. Paragraph 499 defines a “war crime.” Paragraph 509 denies the defense of superior orders in the commission of a crime, and paragraph 510 denies the defense of an “act of state.”

Under Article VI of the Constitution (the supremacy clause), international law is part of domestic law, and US presidents take an oath under Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution….” Further, Article II, Section 3 requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully exercised.”

International human rights law also strictly prohibits secret detentions. Under Principle 6 of the (May 1989) UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions:

“Governments shall ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are (to be) held in officially recognised places of custody, and that accurate information on their custody and whereabouts, including transfers, is made promptly available to their relatives and lawyers or other persons of confidence.”

US and international laws leave no ambiguity on torture or its seriousness when practiced. The (1949) Third Geneva Convention’s Article 13 (on the Treatment of Prisoners of War) states:

Detainees “must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited….(these persons) must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation….”

Third Geneva also prohibits physical or mental torture, all other forms of coercion, collective punishment, corporal punishments, and any type of violence. These acts are “war crimes.” Various other US and international laws also prohibit them, yet they’re official US policy, so far with impunity.

In December 1992, the UN General Assembly passed the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. It states that:

“any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity.” It “places the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law and inflicts severe suffering on them and their families. It constitutes a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing, inter alia (among other things), the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment….No state shall practice, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances” and must terminate any such acts “in any territory under its jurisdiction.” Such practices are crimes of war and against humanity.

In 2005, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHR&GJ, New York University School of Law) published a report titled: “Fate and Whereabouts Unknown: Detainees in the “War on Terror.” It presented “factual summaries of (28) individuals who may be in secret (US) detention sites” and included known information about Aafia at the time.

CHR&GJ said enforced disappearances happen “when individuals are deprived of their liberty by state agents and the state fails to provide information about their fate or whereabouts; through these actions, detainees are placed outside the protection of law.”

“Disappearances” include these practices:

— individuals (often unidentified) held in secret US-run or controlled “black sites;”

— individuals in foreign-based sites under US control or direction;

— individuals “extraordinarily renditioned” to “black” or other sites; and

— individuals held in conflict areas and not properly registered and/or identified, such as CIA “ghost prisoners” on US military facilities like at Bagram.

United States of America v. Aafia Siddiqui

On September 2, the Justice Department (DOJ) indicted Aafia “for attempting to kill United States Nationals in Afghanistan and Six Additional Charges.” On September 4, she was arraigned before Judge Richard Berman in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Michael Garcia, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, stated (in a September 2 press release) that on July 18, 2008, “a team of United States servicemen and law enforcement officers, and others assisting them, attempted to interview Aafia Siddiqui in Ghazni, Afghanistan, where she had been detained by local police the day before….unbeknownst to the United States interview team, unsecured, behind a curtain — Siddiqui obtained one of the United States Army officer’s M-4 rifles and attempted to fire it, and did fire it, at another United States Army officer and other members of the United States interview team….

Siddiqui then assaulted one of the United States Army interpreters, as he attempted to obtain the M-4 rifle from her. Siddiqui subsequently assaulted one of the FBI agents and one of the United States Army officers, as they attempted to subdue her.”

Garcia said nothing about years of torture and rape at Bargram or that this frail, weakened, 110 pound woman was confronted by three US Army officers, two FBI agents, and two Army interpreters, yet inexplicably managed to assault three of them, get one of their rifles, open fire at close range, hit no one, and only she was severely wounded. As her attorney put it:

“Picture this woman who is very tiny (and extremely frail and weakened from her ordeal), and ask yourself how she engaged in armed conflict….with six (armed and well-trained) military men, how did this happen? And how did she get shot? I think you can answer that, can’t you (and question the absurdity of DOJ’s charges against her)?

Garcia outlined, but didn’t indict, on the above-listed allegations about specific “cells,” handwritten notes about a “mass casualty attack,” constructing “dirty bombs,” and using various devices and means to deliver them. It was also alleged that before 9/11 she travelled to Liberia where she was involved in illegal diamond trading to support Al Qaeda and then opened a Baltimore post office box for one of its members. None of these claims are credible or showed up in her indictment.

Count One

Attempted Murder of United States Nationals by obtaining a US Army Officer’s M-4 rifle and attempting to fire and firing it at him, two other US Interview Team members, and repeatedly stating her intent and desire to kill Americans.

Count Two

Attempted Murder of United States Officers and Employees in the same manner while they were engaged in and on account of the performance of their official duties.

Count Three

Armed Assault of United States Officers and Employees in the same manner.

Count Four

Discharge of A Firearm During (a) Crime of Violence as described above.

Count Five

Assault of United States Officers and Employees as described above.

Count Six

(Further charges of) Assault of United States Officers and Employees as described above.

Count Seven

(More charges of) Assault of United States Officers and Employees as described above.

Aafia’s Deteriorating Health

In response to British MP Lord Nazir’s letter on Aafia’s whereabouts, US authorities confirmed that she’s incarcerated at Carswell Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, TX (pursuant to an October 1, 2008 US District Court, NY judicial directive) where she’s undergoing psychiatric evaluation, but not getting desperately needed medical attention.

Nazir earlier raised questions about her detention and said “she (was) physically tortured and continuously raped by the officers at the (Bagram) prison” – for over four years. He now wants her immediately released and repatriated to Pakistan after it was learned she’s held on dubious charges plus all the horrific treatment she endured – yet is guilty of nothing.

Aafia is in deplorable condition and, according to Judge Berman, not in a correct state of mind to stand trial. On August 7, 2008, Iqbal Haider, Co-chairperson of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) expressed concern about her. He called it shocking and of grave concern that pictures of her show a beat-up frail and helpless woman, the effects of years of torture, abuse, and continuous rape. There are dark circles under her eyes, a badly repaired broken nose, “made up” teeth and crumbled lips, and overall “a picture of a severely dehydrated, sick person almost as if on the death bed. It shows the inhumane brutality of an apparently civilised nation by the administration of a country which claims to be much civilised.”

According to HRCP and Aafia’s family, her physical condition is deplorable, and she badly needs immediate medical treatment outside the Carswell prison where it’s not given. “Her wound was oozing blood,” and her clothes were soaked in it. Earlier in custody, one of her kidneys was removed, yet her abdominal pain persists. She has large stitches down her torso from the surgery, negligently done, and may be suffering from internal bleeding. Her teeth were removed. Her nose was broken and improperly reset. Her gunshot wound was incompetently dressed, and her overall condition is dire and life-threatening.

This poor woman was savaged by a criminal state operating outside the law for political advantage. Her outrageous treatment continues. Her son, Ahmed (a US citizen), is being detained in Afghanistan, but the whereabouts of her other two children is unknown.

A Final Comment

Post-9/11, the Bush administration:

— declared permanent war without cause;

— ravaged Iraq and Afghanistan;

— incited and/or engaged in other direct and proxy wars;

— militarized the country;

— enacted repressive police state laws;

— trashed the rule of law;

— made human and civil rights a nonstarter;

— defiled every human dignity imaginable;

— institutionalized illegal spying and electoral theft;

— made torture official US policy;

— criminalized dissent;

— waged war on working Americans;

— engineered the largest ever wealth transfer to the rich;

— turned government into a crime syndicate;

— looted the national treasury;

— bankrupted the nation;

— criminally defrauded the public; and

— waged a global jihad against Islam.

Aafia is one of its most aggrieved. She’s been destroyed physically and emotionally. Her former being no longer exists. Her survival is in jeopardy, yet she remains incarcerated, has been indicted, will be tried, likely convicted, and may spend the rest of her life in prison. And for what? For her faith, devoutness, ethnicity, humble charity, all at the wrong time in America. The message to everyone is clear. We’re all Aafia Siddiquis.

Climate Camp – ’70 injuries’ being reported by the police do not exist

1

Climate Change Action  

When the Camp for Climate Action rolled into Kingsnorth this year even veterans where suprised by the over the top policing. Being searched–often illigally-two or three times before getting onto site was quite common. This despite the history of the camp as a place of education, sustainable living which eschews physical violence…and our open meeting with our minutes online. It was quite clear that political policing to clamp down on the energy of a growing social movement was what we where seeing.

Despite this many in the media had no problem with reporting police claims of a weapons stash–it turns out that at the end of the operation no weapons where recorded in the list of confiscatred materials.

Now it turns out that the ’70 injuries’ being reported by the police do not exist, and those injuries that did occur where due to mosquito bites and toothache! You cant make this stuff up. The Lib Dems brought this to light using a freedom of information request.

The Home Office has now admitted that the protesters had not been responsible for any injuries. In a three-line written answer to a parliamentary question, the Home Office minister Vernon Coaker wrote to the Lib Dem justice spokesman, David Howarth, saying: “Kent police have informed the Home Office that there were no recorded injuries sustained as a result of direct contact with the protesters.”

Only four of the 12 reportable injuries involved any contact with protesters at all and all were at the lowest level of seriousness with no further action taken.

 

I am increasingly impressed by the Lib Dem line on climate change. It seems that if there is any climate change event the Lib Dems are likely to be representing and certainly seem to be making it a key priority for the party.

Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, who had called previously for an investigation of police tactics, said: “I personally witnessed unnecessarily aggressive policing, unprovoked violence against peaceful protesters, an extraordinary number of police on site, and tactics such as confiscating toilet rolls, board games and clown costumes from what I saw to be peaceful demonstrators.”

Lib Dem justice spokesman made it clear why he thought the policing was so heavy:

Howarth said: “That the minister could defend as ‘proportionate’ a £5.9m policing operation in which there was not a single injury to police officers caused by the protesters beggars belief. The threat posed by environmental direct action is being systematically overblown by both the government and the police.

“I hope the government and the police will now stop trying to portray peaceful protesters as somehow equivalent to terrorists or violent extremists. In light of this new evidence, one has to ask, were climate campers so heavily policed because they posed any genuine threat of violence, or because they posed a challenge to government policy?”

Nick Thorpe, a spokesman for the climate camp, said: “Policing of peaceful protest has become increasingly heavy-handed. We saw thousands of officers swarming around a legal camp in a colossal waste of public money. The police and the government claimed there was a ‘violent minority’ of protesters but this Home Office admission reveals this as a complete fiction.”

  • Guardian
  • Telegraph
  • Bush A War Criminal

    0

    Emad Erian, Translated By Mahitab Adham ( Edited by Sonia Mladin)

    Bush repeated more than a thousand lies in order to invade Iraq.10 December 2008

     

    Two years ago according to the Muslim calendar, the ex-president of the U.S. George Bush selected the morning of the Greater Bairam to execute the deceased Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, which was an outrageous insult to the Muslims and their feelings. In the same manner, Bush selected the Greater Bairam eve this year to inflame the Muslims’ rage and resentment through his irritating avowals of the war on Iraq and the invasion of its territories in 2003. These declarations indeed call for his trial as a war criminal and a direct apology to the betrayed president Saddam Hussein.

    As these announcements are very important, we summarize them again as follows:
    During the last week, Bush confirmed that the whole Iraq war was based on deceptive information from the F.B.I. about having weapons of mass destruction. Since there is no proof that Sadam possessed this kind of weapons, Bush owes him an apology for the war!

    Few days after those statements, Bush shocked the world again through announcements that had the same seriousness and led to the same irritation as the previous ones: he confirmed that Saddam Hussein had no relation with Al Qaeda organization and that the invasion of Iraq was not related to terrorism, but it happened because Iraq is considered dangerous for the neighbors and the international society!

    In fact, Bush cannot escape those clear lies and serious declarations. If Saddam Hussein didn’t have any relations with terrorism nor with Al Qaeda and if Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction during his reign, how could we say that Saddam is considered dangerous for the neighbors and the international society?! Bush’s announcements and declarations are indeed a confirmation of previous accusations from American and universal foundations and organizations: he fell into a pack of lies when he propagated the Iraq war. The most important accusation was an American study affirming that Bush reiterated more than a thousand lies in order to invade Iraq.

    Bush’s announcements add nothing new to previous facts, which were also stated by considerable European capitals that participated in the invasion of Iraq like London – the Iraq war was nothing but a big lie and those announcements are based on deceptive and biased information. Despite that, the declarations of the U.S. president who is ready for night to come, are a clear evidence for his conviction according to the rule of law that says: “Confession is the Master of Evidences.” Thereby, we are now confronted with a clear and complete crime, a crime of fighting a war without any legal or ethical proofs, a crime of kindling fires in a region that is secure or is destined for stability, a crime of killing, destroying and dividing a country, plundering its wealth and eliminating its power, a crime of killing, disfiguring and dislodging millions of its people and driving them into an unknown future.

    Since there is no crime without punishment, we are now confronted with a stage that requires George W. Bush’s trial for committing war crimes. Thus, all of the parties involved must move immediately towards this trend, especially the League of Arab States, the Islamic Convention Organization and the U.N., combined with the organizations of civil society inside and outside the Arab nation. In fact, the U.N. has an integral file to convict that man for his crimes. And even if the interests, the political conditions and the U.S. power hindered Bush’s conviction, the U.N. should make at least a serious step in order to fulfill its responsibilities and to have the honor for at least attempting to succeed!

    Egypt – Al Ahram – Original Article (Arabic);
    http://www.ahram.org.eg/archive/Index.asp?CurFN=amod2.htm&DI
    D=9792

    Bush makes surprise visit to Baghdad

    0

    BAGHDAD (AFP) – US President George W. Bush said during a surprise visit to Baghdad on Sunday that the American intervention in Iraq had been difficult but “necessary.”

    “The work hasn’t been easy but it’s been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope and world peace,” Bush said at a meeting with his Iraqi counterpart Jalal Talabani.

    Bush, who is due to leave office next month, ordered the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that toppled Saddam Hussein but triggered years of deadly insurgency and sectarian violence.

    “I’m so grateful that I’ve had a chance to come back to Iraq before my presidency ends,” said Bush, on his fourth visit to Iraq since the ousting of Saddam.

    Bush described the US-Iraq security accord that calls for the withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2011 a “reminder of our friendship and a way forward to help the Iraqis to realise the blessings of a free society”.

    Talabani, a Kurd who fought Saddam’s regime, called Bush “a great friend for the Iraqi people, who helped us liberate our country”.

    Armed police untouchable

    1

    WHEN Peter Collins expressed his disgust in the Echo at the presence of armed police upon the streets of Cardiff, I suspect his views mirrored those of many readers following the inquest verdict upon the tragic killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was gunned down in London by the Metropolitan Police.

    This unarmed and innocent man was making his way to work when officers fired no less than seven bullets into his head.

    Naively, when it was announced that a jury inquest would take place to determine the reasons for his death, I thought that justice would prevail and mete out retribution to those who were responsible.

    But this was not the case.

    Instead, the coroner did not allow the jury freedom to record a verdict.

    He directed that they could only return an open one or, quite amazingly, one of lawful killing.

    When they returned the latter, it let the police so far off the hook that I would now fear being in the vicinity of an armed constable far more than being close to a tooled-up hoodlum.

    On the basis of the de Menezes verdict, policemen would appear to be inviolate.

    Further, why bother to appoint a jury in such cases if the coroner does not allow them freedom of choice when reaching a verdict?

    This case demonstrates that the law is still the proverbial ass.

    Bill Julian Llanishen, Cardiff

    Michael Moore on the auto industry bailout

    2
    Friends, They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.

    They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.

    They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.

    They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.

    Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.

    But instead, the Senate said, we’ll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That’s right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers — billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever — the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.

    We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.

    Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: “UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill.” In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That’s what we need to do! It’s the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!

    But even doing all that wasn’t enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren’t opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they’re opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn’t given back enough, but because the UAW hadn’t given up.

    It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.

    That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who’ve already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.

    Fat chance.

    Yours,
    Michael Moore
    MMFlint@aol.com
    MichaelMoore.com

     

     

    Gov’t pulls witness in Gitmo case against Canadian

    0

    Military prosecutors have withdrawn a government witness in an upcoming Guantanamo war-crimes trial to conceal evidence of “abuse and mistreatment” of the defendant, his Pentagon-appointed lawyer alleged Sunday.

    The witness, a U.S. agent whose identity is protected, was scheduled to testify that Canadian-born Omar Khadr – charged with killing a U.S. soldier – made a self-incriminating statement during a December 2004 interrogation, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, who represents Khadr.

    The defense says the statement was extracted by coercion, an example of the kinds of abuse Khadr has endured since he became a prisoner in 2002.

    Military officials did not immediately respond to calls and e-mails for comment.

    Prosecutors dropped the witness and the incriminating statement to block any discussion of abuse, the attorney said.

    “They will argue that since they are not relying on the December 2004 statement, we do not need to introduce evidence bearing Omar’s mistreatment between February 2003 and December 2004,” Kuebler said Sunday. “Some of the most brutal treatment of Omar stems from this time.”

    Khadr’s defense team says he endured isolation, stress positions and sleep deprivation to soften him up for interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

    Khadr was 15 when he allegedly killed Delta Force soldier Chris Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan 2002. The son of an al-Qaida figure, Khadr was seriously wounded in the battle.

    A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Friday, and Khadr’s war-crimes trial is set for late January. He faces life in prison.

    But President-elect Barack Obama has raised doubt about the future of the war-crimes tribunals at the remote naval station in Cuba. Obama has pledged to close the military prison, though he has not yet revealed how he will handle prosecuting the terror suspects housed there.

    Critics say the tribunal system is too political and allows coerced statements and hearsay as evidence.

    AP News

    A Few Words on the Greek Insurrection

    0

    The social rebellion in Greece contains all the explosive potential for a revolution. But an insurrection alone is not a revolution. Now more than ever discipline is needed to keep the struggle going and intensifying – not the discipline of waiting but the discipline of acting, the discipline it takes to step up the struggle faster than the authorities are able to control.

    By Kevin S

    There is no denying the tragedy of the violence in Greece, especially the murders by the State’s police forces and their “citizen” allies, but also of all violence which is never pretty except in some illusions. But all the same, this is probably the best and most important news for us since May 1968. It is especially good news after our public discredit in the U.S. during the convention protests. This insurrection makes anarchism an internationally important social and political movement again. Not to say that in itself it will lead to anarchism becoming a popular movement elsewhere, but at least it does not end in public humiliation whereas it does demonstrate the power of a popular anarchist movement to resist the bourgeois State. Still, it is worth making a few more critical notes.

    The social rebellion in Greece contains all the explosive potential for a revolution. But an insurrection alone is not a revolution. Now more than ever discipline is needed to keep the struggle going and intensifying – not the discipline of waiting but the discipline of acting, the discipline it takes to step up the struggle faster than the authorities are able to control. More than that, it requires a more definite social content than fighting police and ransacking banks. Insurrections that fail to deepen and intensify inevitably become defensive, then either are defeated by the State or simply fade out. Without discipline and direction, this rebellion will fail to deepen and intensify. By deepening, I mean moving from only immediately fighting the police and State forces to seizing capitalist and State property, as well the need for social self-organizing of the people, more specifically of the rebellious workers and anti-authoritarian students. That is how this uprising can become a revolutionary struggle.

    The anarchists and the rebellious people of Greece have shown they know how to fight, that they know how to agitate and organize well enough to effectively resist the State. It is unlikely that even their best efforts will lead to a complete revolution, but with disciplined, concerted effort they could make some real revolutionary conquests. Furthermore, the uprisings in Greece point the way to wider anarchist agitation and involvement in popular social struggles to resist the oppressive apparatus of the State. Anarchist groups and organizations should openly support the rebellion in Greece and make every effort to equal the achievements of our Greek comrades. At the same time, all must be wary of the old mistake of substituting riot for revolution, the past failure of our movement of letting confusion and disorganization prevent us from being at the front of social struggles and turning rebellion into social revolution.

    Extraordinary scenes end Jean Charles de Menezes inquest

    8

    By Sandra Laville | The moment the family of Jean Charles de Menezes attempted to force their way past a group of private security guards into the inquest courtroom marked the lowest point in a multi-million pound hearing into the fatal shooting of an innocent man by the Metropolitan police.

    Any semblance of trust between the relatives and the establishment, in the person of the coroner and the court, dissolved into a volley of recriminations and accusations after Sir Michael Wright made a series of decisions that made the family question the openness and impartiality of proceedings.

    The dramatic scenes, which can only now be reported after the lifting of a media gagging order imposed by Wright, came on December 5, one hour before jurors were sent out to begin their deliberations on a verdict.

    After two IPCC investigations into the shooting of the innocent Brazilian man and a crown court trial, the hopes of the family were high that the inquest, held in the surroundings of the Oval cricket ground amid much publicity, would establish the facts of the fatal shooting and come to a verdict that accurately represented the events of the day.

    What they wanted, the relatives said, was some sort of accountability. What they believe they were given was a slanted inquiry, held back by the restrictions on the verdict imposed by the coroner. They believe he forced the jury into a corner, withdrawing any freedom to return a critical narrative on the shooting or to find unlawful killing – either on the grounds that an individual or individuals had committed murder or manslaughter.

    These decisions began a week of escalating tension that exploded into open hostility between the family and the court and resulted in the relatives withdrawing their legal team and their cooperation.

    “It is increasingly clear in the last week that the coroner’s impartiality has simply disappeared,” said Jasmin Khan of the Justice4Jean campaign. “That is one of the reasons why the family felt they had no choice but to withdraw their cooperation.”

    The relatives had hoped the jury would be told of their decision to withdraw before they retired to consider their verdicts, but the barristers for the police and the coroner agreed that only the blandest of statements about the absence of the family’s legal team could be given to the jury.

    “The less said the better,” said Richard Horwell QC, representing the commissioner of the Met.

    The coroner had earlier ordered the public and the media to leave the courtroom while he completed his summing up to the jury last week, giving no reason except to say he had reached a “sensitive” point in the hearing.

    When the public refused amid repeated requests for clarification of his ruling, there was a standoff for an hour and 40 minutes. The public refused to leave and the coroner refused to return to court.

    At one point the team of bouncers with walkie-talkie microphones on their shirt cuffs who had been hired to provide security at the inquest were seen huddling in a corner. “We can’t use violence, that’s clear,” one was overheard saying.

    Eventually the coroner’s orders were upheld and the public, including supporters of the family, left the court.

    The relatives were held back by security guards and kept out of the courtroom while barristers, police and the coroner filed in. Having lost all faith that those inside would honour the principle that “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”, they attempted to storm into the courtroom.

    Today, although the hearing is over and the verdict delivered, the accusations, bitterness and recriminations continue from those who believe that the inquest was never an open, impartial examination of the facts.

    Rumsfeld blamed in detainee abuse scandals

    0
    A bipartisan Senate report calls decisions made by the former Defense secretary a ‘direct cause’ of inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. Other Bush officials also are faulted.
    By Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes
    Reporting from Washington — A bipartisan Senate report released Thursday concludes that decisions made by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were a “direct cause” of widespread detainee abuses, and that other Bush administration officials were to blame for creating a legal and moral climate that contributed to inhumane treatment.

    The report, endorsed by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is the most forceful denunciation to date of the role that Rumsfeld and other top officials played in the prisoner abuse scandals of the last five years.

    The document also challenges assertions by senior Bush administration officials that the most egregious cases of prisoner mistreatment were isolated incidents of appalling conduct by U.S. troops.

    “The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own,” the report says.

    Instead, the document says, a series of high-level decisions in the Bush administration “conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody.”

    The document aims its harshest criticism at Rumsfeld’s decision in December 2002 to authorize the use of aggressive interrogation techniques at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Although the order was rescinded six weeks later, the report describes it as “a direct cause for detainee abuse” at Guantanamo Bay, and concludes that it “influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

    The report also criticizes President Bush, although less harshly. In particular, it cites a presidential memorandum signed Feb. 7, 2002, that denied detainees captured in Afghanistan the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which ban abusive treatment of prisoners of war.

    Bush’s decision to bypass an international law that had been observed by American troops for decades sent a message that “impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody,” the report says.

    That message was bolstered by a series of memos from the Justice Department, the report says, that “distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws” and “rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody.”

    The Senate report represents the culmination of an 18-month investigation by the committee’s staff. It is the latest, and in many respects the most comprehensive, in a series of government investigations started after photographs surfaced in April 2004 of prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq being stripped of their clothes, piled in pyramids and strapped to what appeared to be electrical wires.

    Those abuses “cannot be chalked up to the actions of ‘a few bad apples,’ ” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, referring to a line used by former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz in an attempt to downplay the scandal.

    Levin said it was “both unconscionable and false” for Rumsfeld and others to blame troops and escape accountability. Even so, the report does not call for further investigation or punishment.

    The findings were approved last month by the 17 committee members in attendance, indicating the report had the support of at least four of the panel’s Republicans. Committee officials did not identify which senators on the 25- person panel were not present for the vote.

    Among the panel’s members are several GOP senators who have criticized the administration’s conduct on detainee matters, including John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

    Levin said the committee had reviewed thousands of documents and conducted interviews with more than 70 people, and received written responses from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

    The investigation did not focus on the CIA’s treatment of detainees, or the agency’s operation of a network of secret prisons.

    But the inquiry turned up new information showing that the Defense Department had consulted with the CIA on interrogation matters, and that White House officials had reviewed CIA methods earlier and in more detail than previously acknowledged.

    Most of the findings had been disclosed in the panel’s interim reports or in other investigations. But the report released Thursday traces the origins of aggressive interrogation techniques to U.S. military survival training programs. It follows the use of coercive methods as they migrated from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan, then to Iraq and Abu Ghraib.

    The techniques — based on practices detailed in military courses on survival, evasion, resistance and escape, known as SERE — included stress positions, the removal of clothing and the exploitation of phobias, including fear of dogs.

    One month after Rumsfeld issued his order approving such methods at Guantanamo, they were part of a presentation witnessed by Army Capt. Carolyn Wood at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, the report says. Wood has been criticized by human rights groups for her role in U.S. interrogation techniques, and was singled out in one investigation as failing to properly oversee interrogators.

    The committee said the Afghanistan techniques eventually became standard procedure for all U.S. forces in Iraq. And by summer 2003, Wood, then serving in Iraq, proposed that the practices become the interrogation policy at Abu Ghraib.

    After Wood proposed extending the use of the techniques and pressure mounted to acquire intelligence about the insurgency, the top commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, authorized interrogators on Sept. 14, 2003, to use stress positions, “sleep management” and dogs when questioning detainees.

    A month later, he rescinded permission to use the techniques.

    “The new policy, however, contained ambiguities with respect to certain techniques, such as the use of dogs in interrogations, and led to confusion about which techniques were permitted,” the Senate report says.

    Miller and Barnes are writers in our Washington bureau.

    Excess Debt and Deflation Equals Depression

    0

    By Stephen Lendman |

    Irving Fisher (1867 – 1947) was perhaps the most noted economist of his day. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics calls him “one of America’s greatest mathematical economists and one of” its clearest writers. He earned special acclaim for his work on monetary and statistical theory, policy, index numbers, econometrics, and the distinction between real and nominal interest rates.

    He’s also remembered for having made one of the worst and most ill-timed ever stock market calls that cost him his reputation and millions in the subsequent crash – on October 17, 1929 (a week before Black Thursday) when he said “stock prices had reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”

    He made the call in a climate much like mid-2007 – one of economic growth and easy credit producing speculative excess, bubbles, and the belief that good times would continue unabated. They didn’t then and never do but only in hindsight are those lessons learned.

    Investors forget what Keynes once taught when he said: “Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise become the bubble on a whirlwind of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done.” So it was in the 1920s, in the 1990s, and post-2000, but even Keynes was wrong in 1927 when he said: “We will not have any more crashes in our time.”

    After the 1929 crash and deepening downturn, Fisher analyzed what happened and in 1933 wrote his “Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions.” It raised disturbing questions about the roles of the Fed, Wall Street and Washington, and, as a result, was largely ignored. Given the book’s relevance today, this article reviews the most significant of his “49 tentative conclusions.”

    He believed two major factors cause depression – excess debt (based on easy credit and loose lending practices) and deflation, especially in combination. Others also affect business cycles, but they’re secondary to the main ones.

    Financial expert and investor safety advocate Martin Weiss recalls what his father, Irving, taught. He lived through the 1920s, the 1929 crash, and Great Depression and tracked data as it was released “to figure out what might happen next. (He) was an analyst and that was (his) job.”

    “Years later economists like Milton Friedman and (his) young friend Alan Greenspan (tried) to decipher what went wrong. They concluded that it was mostly the government’s fault, especially the Federal Reserve. They developed the theory that the next time we’re on the brink of depression, the government has got to step in and nip it in the bud. Bah! Those guys weren’t back there back then (like Irving was).”

    He “saw exactly what the Fed was doing in the 1930s: They did everything in their power to stop the panic. They coddled the banks. They pumped in billions of dollars. But it was no use. They eventually figured out they were just throwing good money after bad. The real roots of the 1930s bust were in the 1920s boom. That’s when the Fed gave (loads of) cheap money to the banks.” They loaned it to brokers who loaned it to speculators, and a bubble was created and imploded.

    “In 1929, our economy was a house of cards. It didn’t matter which cards we propped up or which ones we let fail. We obviously couldn’t save them all. So no matter what we did,” and the longer we denied reality, “the worse it was for everyone. The sooner we accepted it, the sooner” a real recovery was possible. Fisher understood it also and wrote about it in his book.

    Besides the early years of the Great Depression (before its full impact or length could be known), he used the Panic of 1837 as an example. It was caused by heavy demand for loans to buy land, build businesses, and invest in the country’s development. Prices began rising, economic strains built up, and a speculative bubble developed that burst in New York on May 10 when every bank stopped payment in specie (gold or silver coinage). A five year depression followed. Many banks failed, and unemployment soared to record levels.

    Andrew Jackson was blamed for requiring that gold and silver currency (not fiat paper) be used to pay for government land. Also for not renewing the Second Bank of the United States charter and withdrawing government funds from the bank. Most historians believe it but more recent scholarship cites other causes instead. What’s not disputed was the speculative excess that came to a painful end.

    The Panic of 1857 ended the boom years following the 1846 – 1848 Mexican War. It gave America undisputed control of Texas, established the US – Mexican border at the Rio Grande River, seized the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming, and opened this vast new area to speculation and development. Much of it was to expand railroads. It proved unsustainable and led to crisis.

    The failure of the New York branch of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. was the proximate cause. It ignited panic as a result of massive embezzlement and heavy losses on depreciated railroad investments. Eroded public confidence took over, setting off a chain of events as follows:

    — investment money dried up;

    — British investors pulled out of American banks because of fears of their unsoundness;

    — grain prices fell and heavily impacted rural areas;

    — inventories piled up in warehouses;

    — massive layoffs followed;

    — railroads failed because of over-building;

    — 5000 businesses failed within a year; and

    — land prices collapsed ruining thousands of investors.

    A further blow was losing 30,000 pounds of San Francisco Mint gold at sea intended for eastern banks. Confidence eroded further in the government’s ability to back paper currency with specie. In October, a bank holiday in New England and New York failed to avert runs in the states. Panic spread to Europe, South America and Asia and, while brief, didn’t fully abate until the 1861 War Between the States (the American Civil War).

    The Panic of 1873 (near the onset of the Gilded Age) was called “the real Great Depression” by some. It began eight years after war ended and started a six-year depression until 1879. It was triggered by the Vienna Stock Exchange crash in May (the so-called Grunderkrach or “founders’ crash”), then spread to America in the fall.

    The key event was the failure of Jay Cooke and Company, the nation’s preeminent investment bank, the principal backer of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and holder of most government wartime loans. It triggered a series of events that followed.

    The New York Stock Exchange closed for 10 days. Credit dried up. Banks demanded payment of their loans. Investors rushed to sell stocks. Foreclosures increased, many banks failed and most major railroads. Factories then closed, unemployment soared, and many reasons were cited as the cause – post-war frenetic growth, unregulated speculative abuse, and the extreme overbuilding of the railroads causing panic and depression.

    Another factor was also involved. Like today’s Wall Street banks, the railroads crafted complex financial instruments promising a fixed return. Few investors understood them or that in case of default they’d get nothing. Initially the bonds sold well, but fell after 1871 when investors doubted their value. As prices weakened, railroads assumed short-term bank loans to keep expanding. When rates skyrocketed in 1873, they were in trouble, and when Jay Cooke (in September) defaulted on his debt the stock market crashed. Hundreds of banks failed, the panic continued for five years and even longer in Europe.

    What harmed the public, banks, and railroads created opportunity for well capitalized industrialists like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Cyrus McCormick. It let them buy assets at fire-sale prices, began the so-called Gilded Age, and triggered the onset of powerful business concentration.

    Small factories and businesses were out of luck. Many shut down. Tens of thousands of workers lost jobs. Unemployment in New York alone reached 25%. Workers demonstrated in Boston, New York, Chicago and elsewhere demanding work, and some of the most violent strikes in American history followed. One was a nationwide railroad action in 1877 in which mobs destroyed hubs in Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Cumberland, MD. Times were even harder in Central and Eastern Europe and lasted longer.

    The panic of 1893 caused another depression until 1897 that according to some was as severe or worse than the 1873 crisis. Various factors were blamed – railroad overbuilding, shaky financing, the usual kinds of speculation, and a run on the gold supply among others.

    In early May, the New York stock market fell sharply and crashed by late June. A severe credit crisis followed. About 15,000 businesses, 600 banks and 74 railroads failed, and unemployment tripled from one to three million by mid-1894.

    Workers responded in the first ever march on Washington. Businessman populist Jason Coxey led his “Coxey’s Army” (numbering about 500) from Massilon, Ohio (beginning March 25, Easter Sunday) to the nation’s capital to demand jobs and present Congress with “a petition with boots on.” Local police intervened. The marchers were disbanded. Coxey was arrested, spent 20 days in jail for disturbing the peace and violating a local ordinance prohibiting walking on the grass, was never charged, and then released.

    Other panics followed in 1903, 1907, and then the big one in 1929 – the Great Crash on three days – Black Thursday (October 24), Black Monday (October 28) and Black Tuesday (October 29) – triggering bank failures and the Great Depression throughout the 1930s until WW II ended it.

    Fisher discussed its cause and attributed it to debt and deflation. He also explained “cycle theory” – the instability around equilibrium and the influence of “forced” (like seasons) and “free” (self-generating like waves) cycles. He stated:

    “Exact equilibrium….is seldom reached and never long maintained. New disturbances are….sure to occur, so that….any variable is almost always above or below ideal equilibrium.”

    “….at most times there must be over or under-production, over or under-consumption, over or under spending, over or under-saving, over or under investment, and over or under everything else.” Believing in perfect equilibrium is like assuming the Atlantic Ocean is without waves.

    “In the great booms and depressions, each of the above-named factors has played a subordinate role as compared with two dominant factors, namely over-indebtedness to start with and deflation following soon after; also that where any of the other factors do become conspicuous, they are often merely effects or symptoms of these two.” This is key.

    Fisher then discussed nine interacting factors under debt and deflation conditions that can lead to a Great Depression. Over-indebtedness leads to liquidation “through the alarm either of debtors or creditors or both.” The following “chain of consequences” follows:

    (1) “Debt liquidation leads to distress selling and to

    (2) Contraction of deposit currency, as bank loans are paid off, and to a slowing down of velocity of circulation.” Deposit and velocity contraction (from distress sales) cause

    (3) “a fall in the level of prices, in other words, a swelling of the dollar.” If price declines aren’t “interfered with by reflation or otherwise, there must be

    (4) A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies and

    (5) a like fall in profits.” That, in turn, causes

    (6) “A reduction in output, in trade and in employment of labor. These losses, bankruptcies and unemployment, lead to

    (7) Hoarding and slowing down still more the velocity of circulation.” Velocity refers to the rate at which money circulates, changes hands, or turns over. Greater velocity means greater demand and faster growth. It’s computed by dividing the output of goods and services (GDP) by the total money supply.

    The above eight changes cause:

    (9) “Complicated disturbances in the rates of interest, in particular, a fall in the nominal, or money, rates and a rise in the real, or commodity, rates of interest.

    ….debt and deflation go far toward explaining a great mass of phenomena in a very simple logical way.”

    Fisher explained that loose monetary policy causes over-indebtedness fueling speculation and asset bubbles that aren’t sustainable. “Easy money is the great cause of over-borrowing. When an investor thinks he can make over 100 per cent per annum by borrowing at 6 per cent, he will be tempted to borrow, and to invest or speculate with the borrowed money. This was the prime cause leading to the over-indebtedness of 1929. Inventions and technological improvements (at the time) created wonderful investment opportunities, and so caused big debts.”

    Fisher then described “distinct phases” driving public sentiment:

    (a) the prospect of “big dividends or gains in income in the remote future;”

    (b) selling at a profit for a capital gain “in the immediate future;”

    (c) “the vogue of reckless promotions, taking advantage of the habituation of the public to great expectations” or the notion that good times are self-sustaining, and

    (d) “the development of downright fraud, imposing on a public which had grown credulous and gullible.”

    Fisher’s debt, deflation and instability theory is summarized as follows:

    (1) “economic changes include steady trends and unsteady occasional disturbances (that result in various type) cyclical oscillations;”

    (2) among the “disturbances” are new investment opportunities;

    (3) these among others create over-indebtedness;

    (4) this “leads to attempts to liquidate;”

    (5) “unless counteracted by reflation,” these cause price declines “or a swelling dollar;”

    (6) “the dollar may swell faster than the number of dollars owed shrinks;”

    (7) as a result, liquidation doesn’t liquidate; it aggravates debts, “and the depression grows worse instead of better;”

    (8) extricating from this is either by bankruptcy or reflation through monetary and/or fiscal policies.

    Like Keynes, Fisher believed that reflation should be limited and temporary, not long, sustained or extreme like under Greenspan and Bernanke. Otherwise short-term solutions cause much greater problems, now playing out and may become more severe ahead. As a per cent of GDP, total credit market debt is now double its 1929 level at about 350%. It’s rising fast with continuing new new liquidity injections that show no signs of diminishing. Reportedly the Fed may now issue its own debt – an astonishing move if it happens as it will create unlimited debt amounts and leave the Fed unaccountable to no one for doing it.

    As in 1873, 1929, and other financial panics, speculation has been rampant, much more extreme than earlier, and debt levels are unprecedented and growing. As a result, large banks are effectively insolvent, hoard cash, and won’t lend. Credit is scarce. Households are too over-indebted to borrow. Lenders won’t extend it anyway. Unemployment is skyrocketing, and the potentially greatest ever economic crisis is worsening – so much so that London-based GFC Economics predicts successive 2009 months of one million layoffs in the US.

    And unprecedented-sized bailouts assure greater trouble ahead. Using inflation-adjusted numbers, Jim Bianco of Bianco Research said that bailout-related debt cost more than the following combined:

    — the Marshall Plan – cost: $12.7 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: $115.3 billion;

    — the Louisiana Purchase – cost: $15 million; inflation-adjusted cost: $217 million;

    — NASA’s Apollo human spaceflight program – cost: $36.4 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: $237 billion;

    — the S & L crisis – cost: $153 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: $256 billion;

    — the Korean War – cost: $54 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: $454 billion;

    — the New Deal – cost: an estimated $32 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: an estimated $500 billion;

    — the invasion and early months of the Iraq War (not the total war cost to date that’s far higher) – cost: $551 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: $597 billion;

    — the Vietnam War – cost: $111 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: $698 billion; and

    — NASA since inception – cost: $416.7 billion; inflation-adjusted cost: $851.2 billion.

    Total: $3.92 trillion compared to around $8.5 trillion in bailout funds allocated or pledged thus far with these numbers certain to go higher.

    Will deflation and depression follow? Who can know, but Nouriel Roubini understands the seriousness of over-extended debt and explains the consequences of falling prices. It affects “the real value of nominal liabilities,” and makes them rise “as do real interest rates once the nominal interest rate hits” zero. Hoarding cash and saving “instead of investing is thus self-reinforcing as (a) deflationary spiral takes hold.”

    He sees the threat of “stag-deflation (recession/ stagnation and deflation) and “debt deflation” that’s “already forced the Fed into a liquidity trap (with investors preferring to hold cash) as the Fed funds rate is effectively close to 0% and an informal policy of ‘quantitative easing’ has already….flooded financial markets with over $2 trillion of liquidity” – now even more than when he wrote this in late November and, for the first time (on December 9), the Treasury sold $30 billion of four-week bills at zero interest. On July 31, 2001, they were auctioned for the first time, to be continued weekly along with regular 13 and 26-week bills. Back then, they yielded around 3.5%.

    Roubini sees lots of negatives from current policies, even depression, but he doesn’t predict it. He states: “Desperate times and desperate economic news require desperate policy actions.” However “partially necessary” they may be, they’ll “eventually lead to much higher real interest rates on the public debt and weaken the US dollar once this tsunami of implicit and explicit public liabilities and monetary debt (the result of rising twin fiscal and current account deficits) hits a world where the global supply of savings is shrinking. As most countries move to fiscal deficits (and reduce global savings), foreign investors (may) start to ponder the long-term sustainability of the US domestic and external liabilities.”

    With the economy “in free fall,” debt obligations at unprecedented levels, and “stag-deflation” deepening, the worst of possibilities may unfold and spread contagion everywhere.

    The Bank for International Settlements (the so-called central bank for central bankers) showed concern in its December Quarterly Review. It questions the soundness of near-zero interest rates that may disrupt money markets and “discourage banks from lending to other banks.” It’s also worried about the “scope and magnitude of the bank rescue packages (because) significant risks (from toxic debt have) been transferred onto government balance sheets” in amounts great enough to risk future default.

    Only in time will we know, but the worst of possibilities are real, especially in America where debt levels are hugely unmanageable, yet they continue to be added to recklessly.

    What will unfold and how it will end can’t be known. The human fallout already is huge. It may end up overwhelming but not as fast as in the 1930s. According to Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis figures, GDP fell 26.6% between 1929 and 1933, personal income declined 25.7%, and consumption expenditures dropped 18.2%.

    Given a three-decade US standard of living decline to the present, exacerbated by the intensifying current crisis (very likely to be protracted and deep), it’s very possible those 1930s numbers may be matched or exceeded going forward. If so, it may just take longer before their full effects show up and are felt.

    But look how big businesses are advantaged. Smaller ones will fail, and the giants will get even bigger through asset acquisitions at fire-sale prices. As they say, what goes around, comes around but much to the public’s detriment as it always is.

    U.S. Keeps Silent as Afghan Ally Removes War Crime Evidence

    0

    McClatchy Newspapers | DASHT-E LEILI, Afghanistan – Seven years ago, a convoy of container trucks rumbled across northern Afghanistan loaded with a human cargo of suspected Taliban and al Qaida members who’d surrendered to Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Afghan warlord and a key U.S. ally in ousting the Taliban regime.

    When the trucks arrived at a prison in the town of Sheberghan, near Dostum’s headquarters, they were filled with corpses.. Most of the prisoners had suffocated, and others had been killed by bullets that Dostum’s militiamen had fired into the metal containers.

    Dostum’s men hauled the bodies into the nearby desert and buried them in mass graves, according to Afghan human rights officials. By some estimates, 2,000 men were buried there.

    Earlier this year, bulldozers and backhoes returned to the scene, reportedly exhumed the bones of many of the dead men and removed evidence of the atrocity to sites unknown. In the area where the mass graves once were, there now are gaping pits in the sands of the Dasht-e-Leili desert.

    A U.N.-sponsored team of experts first spotted two large excavations on a visit in June, one of them about 100 feet long and more than 9 feet deep in places. A McClatchy reporter visited the site last month and found three additional smaller pits, which apparently had been dug since June.

    Faqir Mohammed Jowzjani, a former Dostum ally and the deputy governor of Jowzjan province, where the graves were located, told McClatchy that it’s common knowledge that Dostum sent in the bulldozers.

    He speculated that Dostum wanted to destroy the evidence because of local political trouble that could have made him more prone to prosecution for the killings.

    Last year, Dostum and the then-Jowzjan governor became embroiled in a feud that killed seven people and wounded more than 40. This year, Dostum and his men kidnapped and reportedly beat a rival Afghan leader.

    “Maybe General Dostum did it because of a fear of prosecution in the future,” Jowzjani said.

    Another local Afghan official said that Dostum had begun to worry that the 2001 killings could come back to haunt him. “Everyone in the city (Sheberghan) knows that the evidence has been removed,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of worries about being killed for talking about the subject.

    “When the crime happened, (Dostum and his commanders) didn’t think they would ever be prosecuted,” the official said. “But later they began to worry . . . they have taken all the bones and thrown them into the river” that’s about half a mile from the graves.

    NATO – which has command authority over a team of troops less than three miles from the grave site – the United Nations and the United States have been silent about the destruction of evidence of Dostum’s alleged war crimes.

    “The truth is that General Dostum went out with bulldozers and dug up those graves,” Jowzjani charged. “I don’t know why UNAMA” – the U.N. mission in Afghanistan – “hasn’t said anything in this regard . . . maybe because of fears about his power, or maybe they made a deal.”

    Gen. Ghulam Mujtaba Patang, the commander of Afghanistan’s national police in the north, said that he knew that the graves had been emptied. He noted that “the digging was done very professionally” and said that U.N. and NATO-led teams in the area were also aware. (While provincial reconstruction teams are led by individual nations, their military components are under NATO command.)

    “I don’t understand why they didn’t secure the area,” Patang said in an interview. Perhaps, he said, Western officials “are nervous” about the power that Dostum has locally and don’t want to upset local security by pushing him on the matter.

    Dostum was unavailable for comment, and one of his senior aides, Gen. Ghani Karim Zada, declined several interview requests.

    The Bush administration, too, has remained silent. U.S. officials claimed that they had no knowledge of the deaths of the prisoners in the convoy until the news media revealed them in 2002, and now the administration has remained silent about Dostum’s reported effort to destroy the evidence of them, which also would be a major violation of international law.

    American officials say that Dostum’s alleged war crimes are a matter for the Afghan authorities. But the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai is weak and depends on American and NATO troops to fight a growing Taliban insurgency that now operates in most of Afghanistan and all but surrounds Kabul, the capital.

    However, the fact that U.S. special forces and CIA operatives were working closely with Dostum in late 2001, when the killings took place, has fueled suspicions that the warlord got a free pass.

    The U.S. Defense Department has said that it found no evidence of American involvement or presence during the 2001 incident. If there was an investigation, however, its findings have never been made public.

    “At the time, we had a handful of special forces and CIA, and there was no way we could have exercised any oversight” of the thousands of detainees under Afghan control, said Joseph Collins, who was then the deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations.

    When he was asked about the detainees suffocating in metal shipping containers, Collins, who’s now a professor at the National War College, said that “I think most people just took for granted what he (Dostum) said: that it was a horrible accident.”

    McClatchy interviewed eight Pakistani men last year who said that Dostum’s gunmen had stuffed them in the containers. The men, mostly low-level Taliban volunteers, said they’d had to climb over dozens of dead bodies to get out of the containers.

    “We were all sitting on the dead bodies which were lying on the floor; they were lifeless,” said Abdul Haleem, who said that many of the approximately 200 men in his container died. “An arm was sticking up in the air here, a leg was sticking up in the air there.”

    Another man who said he’d made the trip to Sheberghan in a container full of dead and dying men was Tariq Khan. He said that when Dostum’s men shot into the metal box, “some people were shot in the eye; some were shot in the neck.”

    Dostum offered to take Pierre-Richard Prosper, who was then the U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, on a tour of the grave site in late 2002, but Prosper declined. He was pressing a reluctant Afghan government and the U.N. to take the lead in investigating the killings.

    “We felt the Afghans needed to play a role,” Prosper said in a telephone interview. “If you’re a new government, and you want to move forward, you have to deal with the past.”

    However, no investigation was likely without strong U.S. backing, and Prosper said that he couldn’t recall whether Washington ever gave funding for a probe.

    Farid Mutaqi, a senior investigator for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in the nearby city of Mazar-e-Sharif, said that it was almost impossible to visit the site because of Dostum’s power in northern Afghanistan.

    Mutaqi said there’d been threats on his life and those of his staff members from Dostum. There are rumors that the site was mined and that Dostum’s men would torture or kill people if they were caught researching in the area. At least three Afghans who witnessed the original digging of the mass grave or who investigated it later reportedly were killed, and a handful of others were beaten.

    Mutaqi said that he told officials at the United Nations and the local provincial reconstruction team that Dostum’s men had disturbed the mass graves this year. They did nothing, he said.

    Now, Mutaqi said, “You can see only a hole. In the area around it you can find a few bones or some clothes. The site is gone . . . as for evidence, there is nothing.”

    A spokesman for the United Nations in Afghanistan, Adrian Edwards, acknowledged in an e-mail statement that the U.N. had known that the graves had been dug up but had kept quiet.

    “You’re right that we don’t always make public statements, but that’s because we’re in a conflict environment and have to weigh up whether doing so will stall chances of progress against impunity in other areas or put lives at risk,” the statement said. “It’s a judgment call we constantly strive to get right, and this is not the only instance where the choices we have to make can be extraordinarily tough ones.” Edwards noted that the U.N. is awaiting a report about the site by a forensic specialist.

    The spokesman for the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rupert Colville, said that while he didn’t know the details of the digging at the site, “there cannot be impunity for war crimes of this nature and scale . . . it’s a real shame.”

    Spokesmen for NATO and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul denied knowing that the remains of hundreds of men had been removed from the site, and had no further comment.

    “We have no information about bulldozers or digging at the site,” said Lt. Cmdr. James Gater, a spokesman for the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The U.S. general who heads NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, wouldn’t do an interview, Gater said.

    U.S. Embassy spokesman Mark Stroh said that he’d checked with several officials at the embassy and “nobody seemed to have any visibility on this.” Stroh added that “We don’t necessarily monitor all of Dostum’s behavior.”

    A McClatchy reporter, traveling without official escort, took GPS readings of the open pits last month, and a forensic investigator with Physicians for Human Rights, a group contracted by the U.N. to examine the site, confirmed that they were in the same area where the grave site was found in early 2002.

    In May 2002, the U.N. announced that a Physicians for Human Rights team had dug a test trench in the area and found 15 bodies, three of which had been exhumed and found to have died recently of asphyxiation

    In November 2002, amid the Physicians for Human Rights findings and news reports, a top-secret cable from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research said that the number of people killed during transport to Sheberghan “may approach 2,000.”

    The cable also said that while there was no security at Dasht-e Leili, U.N. personnel from Mazar-e-Sharif were monitoring the grave ” ‘every few days’ for signs of tampering.” There’d been plans for a detailed forensic investigation of the site in spring 2003.

    “The hope had been to do a full exhumation in 2003,” said Nathaniel Raymond, a senior investigator at Physicians for Human Rights. “It didn’t happen.”

    The U.N. monitoring of the site stopped. Edwards, the U.N. spokesman, said that he was still trying to reach officials who’d been present to get an explanation. The U.N., NATO, U.S. forces and the Afghan government never took any formal responsibility for patrolling the grave site.

    Physicians for Human Rights made several requests to top U.S. officials to secure the mass graves, including an August 2002 letter to then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld asking that he “reconsider the position of the Defense Department and assure security at the grave site.” Four months later, the organization sent a letter to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz saying that it was crucial to provide a small security detachment.

    “From the time we discovered the site in January 2002, we had been advocating privately and publicly to the United Nations, the U.S. and the Afghan government to ensure consistent site protection and protection of forensic evidence,” Frank Donaghue, the chief executive officer of Physicians for Human Rights, said in a statement to McClatchy. “And clearly that did not happen.”

    Dostum has long experience with mass graves being used in the Afghan political arena. In 1997, he revealed the discovery of mass graves of Taliban members killed by a former ally turned rival, Gen. Abdul Malik Pahlawan, in the Dasht-e Leili desert. The grave sites, which Dostum’s men brought in international journalists to document, helped cement Pahlawan’s exile from the area at the time.

    Afghanistan’s attorney general, its top law enforcement official, said that given the bad security conditions in the country it was hard to think about investigating possible war crimes.

    “So for the time being, we have put these issues off for the future,” Mohammed Ishaq Aloko said in an interview at his Kabul office.

    Aloko, who’s seen as being very close to President Karzai, didn’t respond directly to repeated questions about Dostum.

    “I believe that those who committed crimes against humanity will be prosecuted one day,” Aloko said. Just not anytime soon, he said.

    Public support for ID cards dips to 55 per cent

    1

    By Lewis Page | The latest Home Office poll on public attitudes to the planned National ID card indicates that support for the scheme has eroded slightly, with the proportion of those in favour down from 60 to 55 per cent.

    The survey, carried out among 2,098 randomly selected Brits from 31 October to 4 November, showed opposition to the Card remaining steady. Seventeen per cent of respondents disagreed strongly with the plans and 9 per cent slightly, up from August by a single percentage point each.

    The top reason given for disagreeing with the card stayed the same – that it would interfere with personal freedom. Other common objections were that the scheme was unnecessary, wouldn’t work, and would be a waste of money.

    Twenty-three per cent of those disagreeing also said that the government could not be trusted to keep personal data secure, up from 19 per cent in August. Before August’s survey this concern wasn’t cited often enough to figure in the results, reflecting the rash of data-loss scandals suffered this year.

    According to the survey report, “there is still confusion and uncertainty, particularly regarding the belief that individuals will be required to carry their identity cards with them at all times”. Some 69 per cent of respondents believed this to be true, but according to the Home Office pollsters “it is in fact false”.

    Another interesting remark was made in the report: “There were also a number of people who believed public and private sector organisations will be able to access their information (56%), but again this is a false statement.”

    One would have thought that some public-sector organisations – for instance the Immigration and Passport Service itself – would be able to access the information, but apparently not.

    The Tories and the NO2ID anti-card group said the survey results showed the government was losing the argument.

    “We are seeing the beginning of the end of ID cards,” NO2ID’s Phil Booth told the Telegraph.

    The survey results can be read in full here (pdf). ®

    Britons think UK is turning into police state

    0
    By Ian Dunt | Britain is turning into a police state, according to politics.co.uk users in a new poll.

    The results come as concerns raised by the arrest of Damian Green refuse to die down.

    Sixty-five per cent of users said they believed Britain was turning into a police state, echoing accusations of ‘Mugabe-style’ tactics levelled against the government by the Conservatives.

    Only 24 per cent of users disagreed with the statement.

    There was strong support for Mr Green, with 83 per cent of users saying he did not deserve to be arrested.

    The government came in for criticism over the affair, indicating Labour’s response to the controversy has failed to satisfy the public.

    The committee set up to assess the causes and impact of the arrest was lambasted by opposition parties for having a limited remit and only being able to convene after the police investigation is over.

    The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are both boycotting the committee.

    Seventy-eight per cent of politics.co.uk users said they believed government figures were aware of the police action before it occurred.

    Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith, home secretary, have explicitly said they were unaware of the arrest. Yesterday Sir Gus O’Donnel, head of the civil service, assured MPs on the public administration committee he was taken by surprise by the arrest.

    He also confirmed the home secretary was not made aware of the arrest before it occurred.

    But asked what should happen next, 51 per cent said the government had to prove it did not know of the arrest.

    Twenty-three per cent of users said the system whereby police enter parliament had to be reformed. Nine per cent of users said heads should roll in the Metropolitan police.

    Some users did disagree with the shadow immigration minister’s actions though. Eleven per cent called for a clampdown on people leaking government information, while nine per cent wanted Mr Green to apologise for leaking information.

    There are several investigations into the arrest currently ongoing.

    The police are investigating themselves through an internal inquiry set for publication next week.

    Two committees of MPs — the home affairs committee and the public administration committee — are looking in to the arrest.

    It is not yet clear how the committee set up by speaker Michael Martin will conduct its affairs now it is being boycotted by everyone but Labour.

    Pentagon approves Iraq sales worth up to $6 billion

    0

    The U.S. Defense Department on Wednesday said it had approved the sale to Iraq of weapons valued at up to $6 billion, including 400 Stryker wheeled vehicles, military radios, training aircraft, 20 coastal patrol boats and 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks.

    The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees major foreign arms sales, said it had notified Congress this week about eight separate arms sales agreements with the Iraqi government.

    Lawmakers now have 30 days to block the sales, although such action is rare since such large agreements are usually vetted well ahead of time.

    The largest of the agreements, valued at up to $2.16 billion, is for 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 8 M88A2 tank recovery vehicles, 64 armored Humvees, shelter carriers and other military vehicles.

    The prime contractors for the vehicle sales would be General Dynamics Corp (GD.N), Honeywell International (HON.N), and General Motors Corp (GM.N).

    The Iraqi government also requested the sale of 400 M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicles and associated equipment valued at up to $1.11 billion, the agency said. General Dynamics is the main contractor for that deal as well.

    Another big-ticket arms sale involves 20 30-35-meter coastal patrol boats and 3 55-60 meter offshore support vessels, a deal valued at up to $1.01 billion, if all options are exercised, the Pentagon agency said.

    It said no principal contractor had been identified yet for the patrol boats and support vessels, but the acquisition would be subject to U.S. defense sourcing requirements.

    Iraq also asked to buy 26 Bell Armed 407 Helicopters with engines built by Rolls-Royce (RR.L). DSCA said the principal contractors also had not been identified. The helicopters are built by Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc (TXT.N).

    The arms sales also include up to $148 million in rifles, carbines and grenade launchers; and up to $210 million in 20 T-6A Texan training aircraft built by privately held Hawker Beechcraft, but including other equipment built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N) and a unit of L-3 Communications Holdings Inc (LLL.N).

    Iraq had also requested the sale of 36 AT-6B Texan II aircraft and associated equipment, a deal valued at up to $520 million. Hawker Beechcraft, Pratt & Whitney and L-3 would be the prime contractors for that deal as well.

    The Pentagon also said it had approved the 64 deployable rapid assembly shelters and a wide array of military radio equipment under an agreement valued at up to $485 million, and for which the primary contractors would be ITT Corp (ITT.N) and Harris Corp (HRS.N).

    (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Gary Hill)

    Bush returns to West Point to defend doctrine of aggressive war

    0

    By Bill Van Auken

    President George W. Bush made a farewell appearance Tuesday at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York, delivering an unrepentant defense of the doctrine of preventive war that he unveiled there six-and-a-half years ago.

    When Bush spoke to West Point’s graduating class of 2002, the World Socialist Web Site warned that his remarks signaled “a historic shift in US foreign policy that is pregnant with catastrophic implications for the people of the United States and the entire world.” The doctrine of “preemptive”–or, more accurately, aggressive–war that he outlined, the WSWS said, represented the “culmination of a protracted turn by the US ruling elite toward reliance on military force as the solution to all challenges it confronts on the world arena.” (See “Bush speaks at West Point: from containment to ‘rollback’“)

    In the intervening years, these warnings have been fully confirmed. Since Bush spoke to the Army’s newly minted officers in 2002, at least 70 West Point graduates have been killed in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with more than 4,750 other members of the US military.

    For the countries where they were sent to fight, the doctrine produced catastrophes of historic proportions. In Iraq, the death toll has risen to well over a million. An estimated 2 million more have been wounded and at least 4 million have been forced to flee the country or turned into internal refugees. In short, nearly six years of war and occupation have left more than 20 percent of the nation’s pre-war population dead, maimed, expelled or homeless.

    In Afghanistan, air strikes and ground operations, along with displacement, hunger and disease resulting from the war, have claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians while the disintegration of society under the impact of foreign occupation has left the country’s population facing a humanitarian catastrophe.

    At home, Bush’s war policies have turned him into the most reviled president in US history with a popularity rating that has plumbed depths not even reached by Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate crisis.

    Yet, according to Bush’s speech Tuesday, the entire strategy has proved an immense success and constitutes his proud legacy.

    He boasted of having “reshaped our approach to national security,” declaring that his administration had given “our national security professionals vital new tools like the Patriot Act and the ability to monitor terrorist communications.” These “tools” include torture, extraordinary rendition and secret prisons, the loathsome practices that turned the US into an international pariah. They also encompassed wholesale and illegal domestic spying and other methods associated with a police state.

    Praising the results of his wars of aggression, Bush claimed to have “liberated 25 million Afghans,” but was forced to admit that more than seven years after the US invasion that “the battle is difficult.” This is an understatement, given reports that insurgents control up to 70 percent of the country.

    In relation to Iraq, he repeated the phony pretexts advanced by his administration six years ago, describing it as a “country that combined support for terror” with “the development of weapons of mass destruction.” Gone was the expression of “regret” he voiced barely a week ago in an ABC television interview about the “failure of intelligence” concerning Iraq’s supposed weapons programs. In the end, the legacy and the defense of lies used to drag the American people into war are indivisible.

    Claiming again to have “liberated 25 million Iraqis,” Bush grudgingly acknowledged that “The battle in Iraq has been longer and more difficult than expected.” The passive voice begs the question: expected by whom? For the likes of Vice President Cheney and other right-wing ideologues in his administration who assured the American people that US troops would be “welcomed as liberators,” this was no doubt the case. But all those with serious knowledge of the region understood full well that Washington’s attempt to recolonize Iraq could only unleash a bloodbath.

    Likewise, Bush touted his administration’s drive to create an anti-ballistic missile system and establish missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland along with its program to build up “the reliability and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.” These are policies that are paving the way to a military confrontation with Russia that could end in nuclear war.

    Bush also looked to the future and to Pakistan, where, he seemed to be warning, the West Point cadets may soon find themselves in combat.

    “One of the most important challenges we will face, and you will face, in the years ahead is helping our partners assert control over ungoverned spaces,” said Bush. “This problem is most pronounced in Pakistan, where areas along the Afghanistan border are home to Taliban and to Al Qaeda fighters.”

    He added pointedly, “We have made it clear to Pakistan–and to all our partners–that we will do what is necessary to protect American troops and the American people.”

    The implications of this remark–coming in the wake of a series of US missile attacks on Pakistani targets, many of them claiming the lives of civilians–were unmistakable. Washington is preparing to launch still another war of aggression to subdue the inhabitants of “ungoverned spaces.”

    While he did not utter his name, Bush’s concluding remarks were clearly directed to the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama, urging a continuation and deepening of the policies associated with the Bush Doctrine.

    “With all the actions we’ve taken these past eight years, we’ve laid a solid foundation on which future Presidents and future military leaders can build,” he said.

    Bush continued, “In the years ahead, our nation must continue developing the capabilities to take the fight to our enemies across the world. We must stay on the offensive.”

    Given the events of the last eight years, the Bush Doctrine deserves to be thrown on the scrap heap of history together with the doctrines of aggressive war propagated by Nazi Germany 70 years ago. He and other leading figures in his administration deserve to be tried for war crimes as well as crimes against the US Constitution.

    What then is to explain his seeming confidence in claiming vindication for his appalling record?

    No doubt it is a well-founded conviction that under the incoming Obama administration, the Bush Doctrine–whatever tactical modifications may be made–will remain essentially intact as the foundation for US imperialist policy on a global scale.

    With his retention of Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates, his pledge to keep tens of thousands of troops as a “residual force” in Iraq, and his vows to expand the US intervention in Afghanistan and carry out cross-border attacks against Pakistan, the Democratic president-elect has provided ample indications that his administration will be characterized far more by continuity than by the “change” he promised in the course of the election campaign.

    In the final analysis, Washington’s turn towards militarism and aggression is driven not so much by the right-wing ideology of Bush & Co. as by the insoluble crisis of American capitalism, which will only deepen under an Obama administration. Unable to resolve the fundamental economic and social contradictions underlying this crisis, US imperialism will continue seeking to offset its historic decline with the use of military force.

    Settling accounts with the Bush Doctrine and holding accountable those responsible for the wars of aggression, torture and repression of the last eight years will not be realized with Barack Obama entering the White House. These tasks require the building of an independent movement of working people armed with a socialist program to end war by putting an end to the capitalist profit system itself.

    HOW 2 FEDERAL JUDGES INVOKED “SECRECY” TO BLOCK ACCESS TO BUSH TORTURE DATA

    0

    By Sherwood Ross

    Two Federal judges have deliberately invoked secrecy statutes to conceal the Federal government’s illegal use of torture, a prominent legal authority says.

    Named are judges Terence Boyle of the U.S. District Court of Eastern North Carolina, and T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Virginia, both nominees of President Ronald Reagan.

    According to Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Judge Boyle refused to allow CIA contractor David Passaro access to government memos that could be construed to show he was acting under orders when he tortured a prisoner to death. And Judge Ellis threw out a case brought by Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen illegally arrested and tortured by the CIA.

    Judge Ellis “used the states secret doctrine to shield a once secret, now revealed criminal governmental enterprise—torture is a criminal violation of both international and domestic law,” Velvel said.

    The state secrets doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1953 in a case in which, it is now known, the government lied to the Court “but which nonetheless continues to be used by reactionary judges for the purpose of letting the government get away with torture if not murder,” Velvel said.

    Judge Ellis said that if El-Masri’s claims were true he “has suffered injuries as a result of our country’s mistake and deserves a remedy” from the Executive or the Congress. To this Velvel commented, the judge knows “the chance El-Masri will be given a remedy by one of those branches approaches nil.” The judge did not rule on the facts of El-Masri’s charges.

    As for the Passaro case, Velvel said while Passaro is “a savage,” he did have a possible defense, “one that Judge Boyle made sure he could not successfully raise.”

    Passaro’s lawyers invoked “the public authority defense,” claiming he was acting in accordance with the desires of the CIA and Executive Branch. His lawyers sought to subpoena and examine executive branch officials such as CIA Director George Tenet and others “whose names the judge kept secret,” Velvel said.

    “There is no doubt he(Passaro) is right about what the Executive wanted and authorized,” Velvel writes in his book, “An Enemy of The People”(Doukathsan Press), “no doubt at all.” But Boyle “would not allow Passaro to get the memos or subpoena the officials…Boyle plainly didn’t want the truth about our highest officials to come out in his courtroom…so he rejected Passaro’s attempts to get the evidence… It was a deliberate judicial cover-up by a conservative or reactionary Reagan appointee.”

    In still another controversial ruling, Judge Ellis decided not to dismiss a government prosecution for receiving and passing on classified information against two officials of The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC.

    Ellis gave the government “great scope to argue that leaks must be punished whenever it (the government) says they are dangerous or harmful, whenever it (the government) says “’legitimate national security interests’ are involved,” Velvel said.

    “This broad language is a vast loophole allowing the government to prevent the public from obtaining information it desperately needs in order to know the evil that government is doing,” Velvel said.

    Velvel cofounded the Massachusetts School of Law in 1988, purposefully dedicated to providing a quality, affordable education to minorities, immigrants, and students from low-income households that could otherwise not afford to obtain a legal degree.

    #(Reach Sherwood Ross, media consultant to Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com )

    More reports from Greece

    0

    dim

    It is getting harder and harder to gather information. Today it was the General Strike day in Greece and there was a big gathering at Sintagma square, outside the parliament, where clashes with the police had taken place the previous days. Together with the labors were standing pupils, students, anarchists and others. Once again the highschool students stood infront of the riot police lines and voiced their dislike. The police tried to push them away and the students fought back by throwing rocks and other objects. More people stepped in and threw rocks and petrol bombs and the police started throwing tear gas. The clashes then spread out on nearby streets and finally the rioters were gathered in the NTUA (Polytechnic University) which have been occupied by the protesters since the day the revolt started. Until late at night, fights with the police were taking place. The police once again had on its side members of the neo-nazi/far right group Hrisi Augi (Golden Dawn) which were armed with sticks and knives and they were making attacks on the protesters and then were hiding behind the riot police lines.

    Today the two cops that killed the 15 year old Alex appeared before a judge. The 11 page long testimony of the murder cop is offensive against the boy, saying among others that “the boy was a football hooligan and that they were at the Exarchia area to make attacks as he his alike do every week”. In no point he apologized and in the end he asked to be set free. His lawyer, Alexis Kougias (well known for defending rich scumbags and using his connections with politicians and the media for his benefit) is trying for days now to mislead the people by saying that the ballistic report showed that the shot was not direct and that the bullet ricocheted. The official report has been out yet. However there are fears that the ballistic reports will be forged to show that the shot was not direct, although there are tenths of eye witnesses saying that the cop took his gun out, aimed and shot the kid. The judge decided that the two cops will stay in jail, at least for now. Outside the courthouse there were people gathered and they threw some rocks and two petrol bombs.
    Small part of the cop’s testimony:
    http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/2008/12/11/the-murderer-on-alexandros-%E2%80%9Che-had-exhibited-deviant-behaviour%E2%80%9D/

    In the past two days there are more and more photos published, showing undercover cops and right wing thugs, dressed as protesters with their faces covered together with the police or making arrests. There are also numerous reports of protesters-like men, showing up behind the police lines, joining the demonstrations and then breaking and smashing small shops and cars. Moreover, if you watch the videos of the events in the past days, you can see people with hoods and protester-look behind the police. It is clear that this is part of the government to turn the public opinion against the protesters. It is not the first time this has happened either.
    Photos of undercover cops and right-wing thugs in action:
    http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=937920
    http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=939524
    http://patras.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&from_admin=1&article_id=2835#2988
    http://patras.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=2953

    In other cities, students and more people were on the streets again, demonstrating, clashing with the police, occupying governmental buildings and more but the actions were less in number than previous days. The numbers of the arrested in every city is still unclear. There are some information but it’s still early to tell. For sure there are hundreds across the country. Some of the arrested were released (mostly the underaged) but some will be heavily charged.

    International acts of solidarity:
    The number of solidarity acts across the world are increasing. Here are some cities, possibly not all, on which actions, gatherings and demonstrations took place:
    London, Bristol (UK), New York (US), Paris (France), Barcelona, Madrid, Toledo (Spain), Copenhagen (Denmark), Stockholm (Sweden), Sofia (Bulgaria), Rome, Florence (Italy), Berlin, Hamburg, Koln, Dresden, Hanover, Leipzig, Potsdam, Bremen, Jena, Dortmund,Frankfurt (Germany), Lefkosia (Cyprus), Istanbul (Turkey), Bern (Switzerland), Glasgow, Edinburgh (Scotland), Amsterdam, Hague, Nijmegen (Netherlands), Warsaw, Poznan (Poland), Brussels (Belgium), Mexico.

    There are arrests in London, Copenhagen, Spain and maybe more. Solidarity with every arrestee!

    12 years for Saudi student having cannabis

    0

    SHAH ALAM: “Please, please” pleaded Muhamed Tariq Sadaquah Abualjadeil in the High Court yesterday, minutes before he was to be sentenced.

    His counsel, Gurbachan Singh, who was delivering his mitigation plea, shrugged off his client several times, then gave in and told judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad that Tariq “had stomach problems and needed to ease himself”.

    Syed Ahmad adjourned sentencing for 15 minutes, saying he could use the time to prepare the judgment.

    When the court resumed Syed Ahmad sentenced the 21-year-old student from Saudi Arabia to 12 years’ jail and three strokes of the rotan for possessing 2.57kg of cannabis at the entrance of Cyber Heights Villa, Dengkil, Sepang, at 1am on Nov 18, 2006.

    He pleaded guilty to the reduced charge. He was initially charged with trafficking in the drug.
    Syed Ahmad sentenced Tariq to another three years’ jail and 10 strokes of the rotan on a second charge of possessing 43.5g of cannabis at the same time and place.

    He ordered both jail terms to run concurrently from the date of Tariq’s arrest on Nov 18, 2006.

    In delivering the sentence, Syed Ahmad said he took into consideration Gurbachan’s mitigation which highlighted the fact that Tariq was a business computing student in a private college here when he was arrested.

    “Your lawyer has asked that you be given another opportunity although you have caused your family tremendous shame.”

    Earlier, Gurbachan told the court that his client, who had been in remand since his arrest two years ago, was remorseful and wanted to continue his studies.

    “He mixed with the wrong crowd. I ask the court to allow this young man another chance for him to complete his studies.”

    Deputy public prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin submitted that Tariq should be thankful that the prosecution offered him a lower charge and thus escape the mandatory death sentence.

    Copyright © 2007 NST Online

    Ex-MI5 chief ‘astonished’ at how many organisations use anti-terror law

    By Andrew Sparrow

    The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) was passed in 2000 to regulate the way that public bodies such as the police and the security services carry out surveillance. Originally only a handful of authorities were able to use RIPA but its scope has been expanded enormously and now there are at least 792 organisations using it, including hundreds of local councils.

    This has generated dozens of complaints about anti-terrorism legislation being used to spy on, for example, a nursery suspected of selling pot plants unlawfully, a family suspected of lying about living in a school catchment area, and paperboys suspected of not having the right paperwork.

    Now those campaigning against the abuse of RIPA have got a new ally — Lady Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5. In a speech in the House of Lords yesterday, she said she was “astonished” when she found out how many organisations were getting access to RIPA powers.

    When RIPA was introduced … I assumed wrongly that the activities authorised by that legislation would be confined to the intelligence and security agencies, the police, and Customs and Excise. The legislation was drafted at the urgent request of the intelligence and security community so that its techniques would be compatible with the Human Rights Act when it came into force in 2000. I can remember being astonished to read that organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board, and whatever the equivalent is for eggs, would have access to some of the techniques. On the principle governing the use of intrusive techniques which invade people’s privacy, there should be clarity in the law as to what is permitted and they should be used only in cases where the threat justified them and their use was proportionate.

    Apparently she also raised a laugh when she told peers how to pronounce the acronym for the act. “Those of us in the intelligence community call it ‘Ripper’, as in ‘Jack the’, and not ‘Reaper’, as in ‘the Grim’,” she said.

    Google Flu Trends tool raises privacy concerns

    0

    Privacy groups want Google to ensure that aggregate search data about flu outbreaks cannot be used to re-identify the people who provided the information

    Google’s new Flu Trends tool, which collects and analyzes search queries to predict flu outbreaks around the country, is raising concern with privacy groups.

    The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking federal officials to disclose how much user search data the company has recently transmitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, as part of its Google Flu Trends effort .

    [ Learn how to secure your systems with Roger Grimes’ Security Adviser blog and newsletter, both from InfoWorld. ]

    Concern stems from what privacy groups claim is a disturbing lack of transparency surrounding the method Google is using to predict flu outbreaks. Google has publicly stated that all of the data used is made anonymous and aggregated, but there has been no independent verification of how search queries are used and transformed into data for Google Flu Trends, the privacy groups say.

    “What we are basically saying is that if Google has found a way to ensure that aggregate search data cannot be used to re-identify the people who provided the search information, they should be transparent about that technique,” said Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center’s president.

    Rotenberg said the issue is important because the same techniques Google is using to predict flu outbreaks could be applied to tracking other diseases, including those that the urgency to contain the disease could be a whole lot greater with, such as SARS. “Let’s say we have a spike in Detroit of SARS and the police say we want to know who in Detroit submitted those searches. How can Google ensure that this can’t be done? The burden is on Google,” Rotenberg said.

    Google Flu Trends was publicly disclosed in November and has been described by the company as Web tool to help individuals and health care professionals obtain influenza-related activity estimates for all U.S. states up to two weeks faster than traditional government disease surveillance systems.

    Google said in a blog post introducing Flu Trends last month that search queries such as “flu symptoms” tend to be very common during flu season each year. A comparison of the number of such queries with the actual number of people reporting flu-like symptoms shows a very close relationship, it said. As a result, tallying each day’s flu-related searches in a particular geography allows the company to estimate how many people have a flu-like illness in that region.

    In making the announcement, Google noted that it had shared results from Flu Trends with the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch of the Influenza Division at CDC during the last flu season and noticed a strong correlation between its own estimates and CDC’s surveillance data based on actual reported cases. Google said that by making flu estimates available each day, Google Flu Trends could provide epidemiologists with an early-warning system for flu outbreaks.

    Rotenberg said the service was potentially useful, but much depended on the kind of search data that Google is collecting and analyzing to make its predictions. Google has said that the database it uses for Flu Trends retains no identity information, IP addresses or any physical user locations. However, what is not clear is whether the company is completely deleting IP addresses, and if so, when it is doing it. Also, he said another issue was whether all Google is doing is anonymizing IP addresses by redacting some of the numbers in an IP string.

    Google also claims that as part of its overall privacy policy it anonymizes all IP addresses associated with searches after nine months. Yet in an apparent contradiction, when introducing Flu Trends, Google noted that it uses both current and historic search data – dating back to 2003 — to make its predictions, Rotenberg said.

    Jeffery Chester, executive director of the Center For Digital Democracy, said Google’s growing presence in the healthcare space also makes it important for the company to disclose what kind of data it is collecting and using for Flu Trends.

    “Google sees a potential profit center from targeting its vast user base with advertising that is related to health issues,” Chester said. The company’s announcement of Flu Trends in fact shows to pharmaceutical and medical markets precisely the kind of sophisticated analysis the company can do with search data to enable highly targeted medical marketing, he said. “This is about taking the tracking data that Google has at its disposal and focusing it on generating a new profit center for the company,” Chester said.

    Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, echoed similar concerns and questioned whether the anonymization techniques used by Google provided enough of a guarantee that a search term could not be traced back to specific individuals. She pointed to an incident two years ago where AOL inadvertently posted search information on a public Web site. The search queries had supposedly been anonymized by AOL, but it was still relatively easy to track specific search terms back to IP addresses and even individuals in many cases, Dixon said.

    Mike Yang, senior product counsel at Google, downplayed privacy concerns related to Flu Trends and insisted that the tool uses no personally identifiable data.

    “Flu Trends uses aggregated data from hundreds of millions of searches over time,” Yang said today in an e-mail. “Flu Trends uses aggregations of search query data which contain no information that can identify users personally. We also never reveal how many users are searching for particular queries.”

    Yang noted that the data used in Flu Trends comes from Google’s standard search logs. He also referenced an article in the journal Nature , authored by the Google Flu Trends team, which he said explains the methodology behind the tool.

    Computerworld

    City Bans Swearing

    0

    City hall bosses trying to prevent booze-fuelled Christmas bad behaviour have banned swearing on their streets – and put up signs using slang to get the message across.

    Preston council’s Respect Our City campaign advertises a number of rules in an attempt to make sure revellers do not cause misery for residents and businesses over the festive period.

    Signs around the Lancashire city list “Rules ‘Round Town” such as “No ‘Effin & ‘Jeffin” and “No Aggro”.

    Other reminders are “No Pavement Pizza”, which shows a character being sick in the street, and “Don’t Pee Anti-Social” which depicts someone urinating in a public place.

    The campaign is also designed to clamp down on swearing, spitting, litter-dropping and dog fouling.

    Police can give out fixed penalty notices of up to £80 for various public order offences while council officers can impose £75 on-the-spot fines for litter offences.

    Posters have been put up in shops, restaurants and takeaways in the city centre and stickers will be used on beer mats in pubs and clubs.

    Later this week, 10ft banners will be displayed on the sides of buses.

    Councillor Kate Calder said: “Christmas is a great time to visit Preston and enjoy festive nights out and shopping trips, but we want people to respect the city and each other when they are out and about.

    “We want people to enjoy the festivities, drink safely and behave in a responsible way. The police can use a number of enforcement methods if they catch anyone behaving in an anti-social way.”

    Inspector Stuart Whittle, from Lancashire Constabulary, said: “Preston has a lot to offer and we want everyone to enjoy themselves, especially as we enter the Christmas season.

    “We hope that the Respect Our City campaign will encourage people to think about their behaviour and take pride in our city.”

    VIDEO: Gitmo Military Prosecutor Breaks His Silence

    0

    The tribunals used for putting suspects on trial at Guantanamo Bay are a “stain on America’s military”, a former military prosecutor has told the BBC in his first interview since resigning.

    Former Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a former U.S. prosecutor at Guantanamo, told BBC yesterday in his first interview since resigning earlier this year that Guantanamo detainees were treated in a “wrong, unethical and finally, immoral” manner. Vandeveld was so “appalled” by the conditions at Guantanamo that he consulted his Jesuit priest, who told him to resign. “I never suffered such anguish in my life about anything,” he said. Watch BBC’s segment:

    Greek Riots – What The Media Isn’t Telling You

    1
    dim – For updates see http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/
    The police had completely lost control yesterday, so on Tuesday they used every mean possible to gain control of the situation. The riot cops attacked the protesters in many occasions for no reason, trying to break up even the peaceful protesters, took out the guns and opened fire, made numerous arrests, used huge amounts of tear gas in urban areas and thousand of residents had trouble breathing.

    On Tuesday morning, thousands of highschool students were on the streets again. In many cities they classed with the police and there were arrests. During the past 2 days in EVERY greek city, even the smaller ones there were demonstrations and attacks on police stations and banks by students and others.

    The media are covering the police and they follow the police’s guiding lines trying to make the people turn against the protesters. They are trying to scare the people and stop them from participating on the revolt. They also mislead the viewers, saying that the anarchists are burning down small businesses and shops without showing any images. However the vast majority of the attacked and burned buildings are banks, governmental buildings (ministries etc), multinational businesses and big corporations.

    Today the funeral of Alexis took place and the police in many occasions used violence to stop students that were heading to the cemetery to attend. However thousands of students and people showed up. The streets around the cemetery were full. The police was also there when they had no right to be and they were provocative as always. Reports say that riot cops were shouting to students things as “Where is Alexis now?” and “You will be next”. Of course the people reacted and started throwing rocks at them and setting fire barricades. The police’s plan was obviously to break up the people attending the funeral and they used tear gas and their sticks on students who where there for the funeral of their friend. One (at least) cop, took out his gun and fired 15 shots! The police said that it was only one shot because he was alone and he was surrounded and attacked by anarchists but the shots from cameras are different. At the moment of shooting, there is a group of about 15 bike cops together, the protesters are far away and the cop just takes his gun out and start firing in the air!

    Photos and video of the shooting:  http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=937475

    In the afternoon the demonstrations and classes continued in many cities. In Athens and Thessaloniki around the universities, in Patras protesters try to reach the Central police station. In smaller cities the same.

    In Patras right-wing thugs and members of neo-nazi groups together with undercover cops are helping the police (this it not the first time that they act together, there is a huge issue in greece about their collaboration in numerous occasions) by hunting protesters and throwing rocks at them. Even the city mayor confirmed that! In the early 90’s, in the city of Patras, in a similar situation, a teacher was MURDERED by a right-wing thug (at the time he was a member of the then and now in power party) who was again helping the police, during school strikes. The thugs are in groups of 10-20 people, carrying sticks and knives, organized by the cops are walking around in the streets trying to find protesters. A protester was STUBBED! The media say they are plain people and shop owners trying to protect their stores but this is not true since there are reports that only the police, banks and governmental building were attacked in Patras. Lies, lies, lies by the media!

    Right-wing thugs and members of the Chrisi Augi (neo-nazi group) seem to work together with the police in other cities too. There are reports of a girl stubbed in Athens and protesters and immigrants attacked! It’s hard to gather information. The media keep lying about shop-owners and raged residents…

    Tenths of gatherings and demonstrations outside greek embassies and consulates took place across europe! There is need for international solidarity.

    International Amnesty about Greece


    Amnesty International
    Press Release
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2008

    Amnesty International Urges Greek Authorities to End Unlawful, Disproportionate Police Force Used Against Peaceful Demonstrators
    —
    Human Rights Organization Calls for Prompt, Impartial Investigation into 15-Year-Old Alexis’ Death

    Contact: AIUSA media office, 202-544-0200 x302,  lspann@aiusa.org

    (Washington) — As anti-government demonstrations continue inGreece for the fourth day running, Amnesty International calls for a clear commitment by the authorities to end the unlawful and disproportionate use of force by police.

    “Images in the international media and eyewitness statements to Amnesty International present mounting evidence of police beating and ill-treating peaceful demonstrators,” said Nicola Duckworth, Europe and Central Asia Program director at Amnesty International.

    Members of Amnesty International in Greece have reported that officers involved in policing the riots engaged in punitive violence against peaceful demonstrators, rather than targeting those who were inciting violence and destroying property. In this context, the human rights organization is concerned about the ill-treatment of two of its members, who were beaten with batons by the police.

    It is the duty of the police under international law to ensure that policing of demonstrations is carried out in a manner that complies with international standards, including those on the use of force. Amnesty International acknowledges the difficulties they face during the demonstrations in which hundreds of buildings have been torched and dozens of people injured and notes that the Greek authorities have both a responsibility and an obligation under international law to ensure the safety and security of people and property.

    The riots started on the evening of December 6 after 15-year-old Alexandros-Andreas (Alexis) Gregoropoulos was killed by an officer serving in the “special guards” unit. Accounts of the events that led to his death vary.

    According to the police, two police officers in a vehicle were initially attacked by a group of 20-30 young people. In a second encounter, one of the officers threw a flash grenade while the other fired two shots in the air and one towards the ground; one of these shots ricocheted and fatally wounded the 15 year old.

    According to information received by Amnesty International, the teenager was out with his friends on Saturday evening. The group was approached at around 9:00 p.m. by two police officers in a vehicle who engaged in a verbal exchange with the youths. As the officers left the scene, one of the teenagers threw a beer bottle towards the police vehicle. The police officers parked their vehicle, returned on foot and engaged in further verbal abuse with the teenagers. During this exchange, another officer fired three shots, one of which fatally wounded Alexis Gregoropoulos.

    “The statements made by police and eyewitnesses are contradictory. Only a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the full circumstances of the shooting can establish the sequence of events and the responsibility for the 15-year-old’s death,” Duckworth said.

    The officers have been suspended. The officer who fired the shot currently faces charges of unlawful use of firearms and manslaughter with intent. The second officer faces charges of complicity.

    “The killing of Alexis Gregoropoulos and the apparent disproportionate use of force in policing the demonstrations follow a distinct pattern of serious human rights violations by the police which includes excessive use of force, torture and other ill-treatment, misuse of firearms and impunity throughout law enforcement bodies,” Duckworth said.

    Amnesty International has extensively researched human rights violations committed by law enforcement bodies in Greece and repeatedly called on the Greek authorities to undertake a thorough investigation of the system which allows them to happen. The organization urges the authorities to take immediate steps to break the chain of impunity by instituting independent mechanisms for investigating allegations of unlawful police conduct, reviewing policing of demonstrations, and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment.

    Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 2.2 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.


     

    Starbucks Employee Sacked For Raising Health and Safety Issue

    2

    Grand Rapids, MI — The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration has found after trial that Starbucks unlawfully terminated a barista here in retaliation for filing a safety complaint. The barista, a member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, was retaliated against after complaining about the effects of a perennially leaking roof. The MIOSHA determination comes less than a month before embattled Starbucks faces a trial in Grand Rapids at the National Labor Relations Board over anti-union retaliation.

    “Two federal agencies are holding Starbucks accountable in Grand Rapids for wantonly trampling employee rights. Without the IWW Starbucks Workers Union they may have gotten away with it,” said Cole Dorsey, the fired barista and union member.

    The Michigan litigation comes on the heels of a recent settlement Starbucks signed with the NLRB in Minnesota. In that instance they re-instated a barista who was wrongfully terminated for union activity and agreed to desist illegal anti-union activity. The company and union are awaiting a judge’s decision in New York after a 2007 trial on over 30 counts of unlawful union-busting.

    The IWW Starbucks Workers Union is a grassroots organization of over 200 current and former employees at the world’s largest coffee chain united for secure work hours and a living wage. The union has members throughout the United States fighting for systemic change at the company and remedying individual grievances with management. The SWU has been especially active in New York City, Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Grand Rapids.

    Union baristas, bussers, and shift supervisors have fought successfully toward improved scheduling and staffing levels, increased wages, and workplace safety. Workers who join the union have immediate access to co-workers and members of the community who will struggle with them for a better life on the job.

    Congress Busts the UAW

    4

    By Phil Mattera

    The United Automobile Workers has been effectively decertified as the collective bargaining representative of workers at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. And the main union buster was not management, but rather the Congress of the United States.

    That’s only a slight exaggeration of the facts. The UAW, fearing that its contracts at the Big Three would be voided if the automakers filed for bankruptcy, has made major new contract concessions to satisfy Congressional critics of a bailout that the auto companies insist is the only way they can avoid Chapter 11. In order to save its union contract, the UAW is being forced to destroy it.

    It is infuriating that the UAW was put in this situation. First, there’s the obvious and widely noted double standard. The federal government has spent vastly more on the rescue of the financial sector while imposing no real conditions beyond token restrictions on executive compensation. By contrast, the auto industry, especially its workforce, is being put through the wringer.

    Second, many of the members of Congress speaking out against the auto industry bailout are from Southern states where Japanese, Korean and European automakers have set up non-union plants with the aid of huge state subsidy packages. These lawmakers are functioning more like foreign agents than legitimate representatives of the United States.

    And then there are the Congressional leaders who think they can remake the auto industry by insisting that the Big Three come up with new business plans to merit the federal intervention. Pressuring Detroit to move faster on the development of clean cars may be a good thing, but these would-be industrial policymakers are ignoring the fact that a bailout of the auto industry at this point is justified mainly as a way to prevent an accelerated collapse of the overall economy.

    Yet, by pressuring the UAW to give up, for instance, what remains of the jobs bank program (a job security measure that provides nearly full pay for laid off workers), Congress is assuring that more people will end up on the unemployment rolls instead, thus taxing already strained state government budgets. Another of the main givebacks consented to by the UAW were delays in company payments to retiree health plans. This raises the odds that those plans, over which the UAW was previously pressured to assume administrative control, will collapse, forcing participants to turn to taxpayer-funded healthcare.

    And these measures, which UAW leaders could implement without a vote of the membership, will apparently be followed by more wage concessions. Just when Congress is desperately trying to stimulate job creation and prop up family income in the larger economy, it is pressing the auto industry to take steps that will have the opposite effect.

    The notion that the problems of the U.S. auto industry are the result of overpaid union workers (as opposed to managerial incompetence) is a long-standing myth that has been trotted out time and time again over the past quarter century. What’s amazing is that this fairy tale continues to be employed even after the UAW has made repeated concessions, and basic union wage rates (especially for new hires) are now not significantly different from pay levels at the U.S. operations of companies such as Toyota and Nissan. And what’s even more amazing is that the Democratic leadership of Congress has in effect compelled the UAW to make sacrifices that diminish the difference between union and non-union working conditions almost to the vanishing point.

    The Democrats will be congratulating themselves if the auto bailout is approved, but they should be held accountable for making union workers pay so dearly for their survival.

    Full disclosure: I am a member of UAW Local 1981, the National Writers Union.

    Police charge 49 after Stansted protest

    0
    Nearly 50 people have been charged following yesterday’s climate change protests at Stansted airport.

    Essex police said in a brief statement that 49 people had been charged with aggravated trespass.

    They, along with several others, have been bailed. It follows the arrest of 56 people after yesterday’s protest in which demonstrators from activist group Plane Stupid breached Stansted airport’s security.

    The protest resulted in the cancellation of several flights yesterday. Plane Stupid said its “blockade” was intended to prevent “the release of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere” through the grounding of flights.

    Details of court appearances are yet to be released but the 49 are expected to appear before Harlow magistrates court at various dates in December and the new year, an Essex police spokesperson said.

    Budget airline Ryanair suffered numerous flight cancellations and reiterated its call for airports operator BAA to have its hold over Britain’s airports broken up.

    “The security at BAA Stansted airport has once again failed. We need to know what measures the BAA is putting in place to prevent these repeated security failures,” spokesperson Stephen McNamara said.
    © Adfero Ltd

    Exposing Corporate-financed Holocaust in Africa

    0

    By Keith Harmon Snow

    War in Congo has again been splashed across world headlines and the same old clichés about violence and suffering are repackaged and rebroadcast as “news”. Meanwhile, early indications out of America are that President-elect Barack Obama will assemble a foreign policy-team primed for business as usual.

    How will Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State compromise the Obama Administration’s capacity to honestly redress the untold suffering, massive theft of resources and millions of deaths in Africa? And Tom Daschle? Behind the media smokescreens are people whose involvement has been documented and exposed, but there is always some African fall guy–the ‘embraceable’ black subordinate or ‘rebel’ commander–charged with war crimes and used to deflect attention from the leaders of organized white-collar crime networks.

    Blacked out are the corporate executives, government officials and expatriate personnel of Western enterprises whose success amidst chaos implicates them in the deracination and death of millions of black people. What’s behind the recent hostilities and media posturing in Central Africa?

    THE SHORT, BRUTISH LIFE OF SANDRINE

    On a darkling plain in a far away place the skeletons of hundreds of unnamed people lie strewn over the land amidst the red dirt and brown grasses scorched by the equatorial sun. Bones poke into the air here and there, hidden by the tall grass, tripping you up as you walk; others lay bleaching white in piles where the bodies fell. These are the killing fields of Bogoro, a small hillside village on a southerly road out of Bunia, a metropolis of suffering in the wild, wild east of Congo.

    The grassy plains of Bogoro were guarded by soldiers and when I arrived the militia of the day wore black trench coats and black mirror sunglasses to enhance the aura of terror that surrounds them. With AK-47’s slung over their shoulders they talked on shiny Nokias and Motorolas and Samsungs–cellphones built with the blood minerals of the Congolese people.
    Militia soldier talking on is cell-phone while guarding the killing fields of Bogoro. Photo copyright 2007 Keith Harmon Snow.Militia soldier talking on is cell-phone while guarding the killing fields of Bogoro. Photo copyright 2007 Keith Harmon Snow.

    Sandrine–not her real name–is a survivor who participated in the massacre at Bogoro. I interviewed Sandrine, just seventeen at the time, in 2007, and she recounted her ordeal as the sex slave of soldiers. Sandrine told how people were forced by militia commanders to chase down neighbors and kill or be killed. I found Sandrine living in misery in an evacuated refugee camp.

    Sandrine knows nothing at all of the vast mining operations or minerals shipments being flown out of remote jungle airstrips in her home territory–or even that such airstrips exist. Ditto for the Congolese researchers I met, in Orientale, who worked with the International Criminal Court. Moto Gold? Mwana Africa? Walter Kansteiner? They had never heard of such companies, or such people.

    In Western media reportage the plunder of raw materials in Congo is usually de-linked from the killing, even though the extractive industries are directly behind it, and even though almost everyone has begun to parrot the accusation of “resource wars” in Congo.

    The Bogoro massacre occurred in February 2003 and, like the Hutu-Tutsi stories from Rwanda, the media whipped up the specter of ancient tribal animosities between Hema and Lendu tribes. But the real story is not quite so black and white. Or is it?

    Today the International Criminal Court (ICC) holds three Congolese “warlords” in the ICC prison at The Hague, Netherlands, and all three were associated with events at Bogoro. However, the white patrons reaping the profits behind the bloodletting in the eastern Congo are protected by a new humanitarian order predicated on permanent inequality, structural violence and race politics.

    But for a few brief periods of relative calm, the war in Congo’s eastern Orientale and Kivus provinces has hardly stopped since its’ beginning in 1996, and the realities have been shrouded in media clichés and stereotypes and disingenuous expressions of outrage that deflect attention from the true protagonists and root causes of war and plunder in Africa.1

    GOOD VERSUS EVIL AND THE NAMES GAMES

    The UPC, FPRI, FNI–these are three of the scores of militias that have risen and fallen in Orientale since the war began in 1996 and, more poignantly, they are meaningless acronyms used to scramble the brains of western spectator-news-consumers.

    First there was the Rwanda Patriotic Front/Army (RPF/A) that invaded Rwanda, and then came the Alliance for the Democratic Liberation of Zaire (ADFL) that marched across Zaire to unseat President Mobutu. Next came the “rebellion” with Jean-Pierre Bemba and the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), and all the different factions of the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie, or Congolese Rally for Democracy–RCD, RCD-G (Goma), RCD-K, RCD-K-ML–backed by Rwanda and Uganda.

    Here are the comrades in arms who studied together at the Marxist University of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania: Yoweri Museveni, Uganda’s president; Laurent Desire Kabila, the ADFL figurehead and assassinated president of the Democratic Republic of Congo; Meles Zenawi, president of Ethiopia; Isaias Afwerki, president of Eritrea; Africa scholar Mahmood Mamdani; former RCD leader Wamba dia Wamba; Paul Kagame, Rwanda’s president; and John Garang (d. 2005), former leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and first president of South Sudan.

    Both the RPF/A and SPLA waged successful covert guerrilla wars against governments that were considered “undesirable” by Washington, both achieved their objectives of seizing land and gaining control, and both insurgencies were covertly backed by U.S. Committee for Refugees official Roger Winter–a pivotal U.S. intelligence asset operating in Sudan and a dedicated ally of Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame and John Garang. Winter’s protégé is Susan Rice, Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Rice was one of the primary architects of the Pentagon’s prized Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI)–a euphemistically named entity created to project U.S. power in Africa, and run by U.S. Army Special Forces Command (SOCOM).2

    The coups d’etat in Rwanda and Burundi occurred after the presidents Juvenal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira were assassinated on April 6, 1994. Similarly, more than a decade of covert U.S. military support for the SPLA, channeled through Uganda and Ethiopia, led to the Naivasha Peace Agreement of January 2005 and the creation of the autonomous country of South Sudan.

    The “Rwanda genocide” began with the 1990 invasion of northern Rwanda by Ugandan forces that brutally targeted everyone in their path. By the time the RPF/A forces–comprised mostly of seasoned Ugandan troops–reached Kigali, more than 800,000 IDPs (internally displaced persons) were hovering around the capital city: they were terrified, they were homeless, they were hungry, they were angry and–justifiably–they took up arms. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) and its Canadian General Romeo Dallaire clandestinely backed the illegal guerrilla war.3

    The guerrilla wars in Rwanda and South Sudan were prosecuted much like the CIA-backed low-intensity guerrilla warfare, spawned by Washington, against populist movements in Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile and Guatemala. This is exactly what is playing out in Congo and Sudan today: low-intensity guerrilla warfare prosecuted by powerful shadow forces competing for land and loot.

    SPLA leader John Garang received military training at the School of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia. Paul Kagame received training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. At the time he was sent for training, Kagame was Museveni’s director of military intelligence; upon his return he assumed command of the army created, financed and trained by Uganda: the Rwanda Patriotic Army.

    Both Garang and Kagame likely received “counter-insurgency” training through the Pentagon’s International Military Education and Training Program (IMET). Since 1998, the IMET program has provided training to 318 RDF and 291 UPDF soldiers. Many other IMET soldiers who attended the notorious School of the Americas are today known human rights violators in Latin America.

    In North Kivu province we find the Forces for the Democratic Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and the National Congress for the Defense of the People, the CNDP, created by self-appointed Rwandan “General” Laurent Nkunda. Here the media has historically cast General Nkunda as good, the FDLR as evil. Only recently has Nkunda come under any kind of “harsh” criticism.

    The war in Eastern Congo is almost universally described with clichés about the “Rwanda genocide.” The usual targets of white media racial profiling and hysterical academic polemics are the Hutu–the infamous Interahamwe and FDLR–the “killers” that “fled Rwanda after committing genocide” there. This is how millions of innocent Hutu people–comprising over 85% of the populations of Rwanda and Burundi–are collectively dehumanized.

    Congolese Mai Mai militias are described as “nationalists” sometimes “wearing bathroom fixtures on their heads” and “shooting magic bullets.” The Mai Mai are the closest thing to a people’s or indigenous justice movement in Congo. The Mai Mai have most recently allied with the Congo’s national army, the Armed Forces for the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC), and the Mai Mai are sometimes cast as good, but usually as evil.

    In 2007 the Mai Mai and FLDR joined forces to form the Front for the National Liberation of Kivu (FNLK). Backed by the FARDC, the FNLK is purportedly vying for power against General Nkunda’s CNDP. However, alliances are constantly shifting based on private profit and “warlord” fiefdoms, and ALL factions, at some point or other, have collaborated in war and resource plunder.

    Western news stories throw the acronyms and names of militias around with little or no information about their rise or fall, and nothing substantive about foreign backers they collaborate with. Militias mysteriously appear and disappear. Indeed, the more you read about Congo from venues like the New York Times, Harper’s, the New Yorker, or the Atlantic Monthly, the less you will understand. This is no accident, and–no, you are not dumb.

    Take the militia FNI: but for the victims and their suffering, it makes no difference what the acronym stands for, it’s all one big sadistic joke of language and power. The most significant fact to remember about this “F” “N” “I” is that they served as the private proxy army for the gold mining operations of Metalor, a Swedish firm, and AngloGold Ashanti, headquartered in South Africa and partnered with Barrick Gold.4 Secondly, they were agents for Ugandan power brokers.

    Anglo-Gold Ashanti directors include Sir Sam Jonah, who is also a director of shady mining-cum-military companies operating in Sierra Leone and connected to Tony Buckingham and other white-collar mercenaries. Buckingham affiliated companies–e.g. Heritage Oil and Gas, Branch Energy, Saracen Uganda–collaborate with the Museveni regime. Saracen’s top shareholder is General Salim Saleh, half-brother of Yoweri Museveni, and Congo’s nemesis, a Ugandan agent cited by the United Nations for war and plunder in Congo.

    AngloGold Ashanti is the Anglo American mining conglomerate of the Oppenheimers and De Beers mining cartels of Britain and South Africa, interests deeply aligned with Belgian American intelligence insider Maurice Tempelsman–the godfather of covert operations in Africa. Tempelsman’s diamond interests in Congo were, at least partially, displaced by the Israeli cartels of Dan Gertler and Benny Steinmetz.5 It is a no-brainer that the Tempelsman gang backs Rwanda’s occupation of eastern Congo.

    For a second example, media corporations have consistently blacked out the truth about the lucrative corporate “conservation” industry with articles like the recent New York Times production “Congo Violence Reaches Endangered Mountain Gorillas” (Jeffrey Gettleman, 11/18/08). Unreported however are the many accusations coming out of North Kivu that link the Jane Goodall Institute and Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund to local Mai Mai and FDLR: like every other militia, or occupation army, these factions have infiltrated villages and now prey on, intimidate and abuse the locals. The white agents working for Western “conservation” NGOs–and we know their names–are directly responsible for extortion, racketeering, land theft, human rights atrocities and for ripping apart the social fabric.6

    “The commander of the Mai-Mai is Colonel Ntasibanga and the commander of the FDLR is Colonel Faraja,” report Congolese locals who have been documenting the abuses (the facts are confirmed by a Spanish journalist). “We count already five people killed because of this [conservation] project… DFGF and JGI are without doubt corrupt… they are paying armed groups and forcing us off of our lands.”7

    The Gettleman NYT article, on the other hand, cites one of these agents, Samantha Newport, described as “a spokeswoman for Virunga National Park,” who in fact works for Richard Leakey’s organization Wildlife Direct, a shady paramilitary entity involving Walter Kansteiner.

    A LITTLE MATTER OF GENOCIDE

    The international arrest warrants issued by Spain and France against some 40 former RPF/A and current Rwanda Defense Force (RDF) are patently dismissed by Western media of all stripes, buried behind waves of pro-RPF propaganda and intimidation that labels anyone who does not support the Kigali military dictatorship as genocide deniers, themselves guilty, by extension, of genocide.

    While the RPF/A and UPDF are often named for leading the charge and supplying the bulk of the forces, the 1996 invasion of Zaire, launched from Uganda and Rwanda, involved U.S. covert forces with state-of-the-art C4ISTR–Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance–and there were Humvees and C-130 aircraft ferrying black-skinned U.S. Special Forces into South Sudan and northeastern Congo. The invasion also involved Israeli military experts, an assortment of Eritrean and Ethiopian regulars, and SPLA forces.8

    The Anglo-European-Israeli forces penetrated eastern Zaire through the Gulu and Arua Districts of northwestern Uganda–the heart of Acholiland and ground zero for the ongoing genocide of the indigenous Acholi people–and they backed the RPA/UPDF who marched across Zaire massacring refugees, mostly women and children, mostly Hutus, that fled Kigali in 1994.910

    Howard French, then the Africa Bureau Chief for the New York Times, witnessed the Hutu genocide in Zaire, and wrote about it.11 Ugandan scholar Mahmood Mamdani–who by no means was an impartial observer when he arrived in Goma in September 1997–described “an indiscriminate slaughter” of Interahamwe, of unarmed Hutu refugees, and of Congolese Hutus in the Kivus.12 Bill Richardson, President Clinton’s Ambassador to the United Nations, stated in a may 1997 interview: “I think there’s strong evidence that there have been these massacres.”13

    But the subject of Hutus being slaughtered was only broached as a tool to hammer down the uppity black rebel who diverged from his script and upset Washington’s plans. Indeed, the rise and fall of ADFL figurehead Laurent Desire Kabila exemplifies the embraceable black leader transformed almost overnight into the unembraceable black fall guy. In the end, a bullet dispatched Laurent Kabila on 16 January 2001, exactly 40 years after the assassination of Patrice Lumumba (17 January 1961).

    Anyone who dismisses the organized and intentional RPF/A and UPDF military campaign against millions of Hutu people–massacred and chased from the Uganda border to Kigali, into to eastern Congo, and finally attacked in refugee camps and butchered all the way across Zaire–is a genocide denier. (Of course, the UPDF-RPF/A alliance also summarily executed and massacred Rwandan Tutsis and indigenous Twa, and Congolese people.) Similarly, anyone who dismisses the organized persecution and atrocities against the Acholi people in northern Uganda–maintained by the Museveni government and the UPDF occupation–is a genocide denier.

    The criminality of the Kagame regime is whitewashed by the massive public relations campaigns involving Kagame’s special advisor/sponsors: former Ambassador Andrew Young and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Young’s Goodworks International also backs the Museveni regime. Buffing the shiny image of the government of Congo’s President Joseph Kabila is Stevens and Schriefer Group the Washington D.C. PR-firm that twice helped get George W. Bush elected.

    The New Yorker and CNN have consistently manufactured the pro-RPF/A propaganda, reported by Christiane Amanpour and Philip Gourevitch. Amanpour is married to James Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State and Madeleine Albright’s right-hand man, and now economic adviser to President-elect Barack Obama. Gourevitch–who produced the celebrated pro-RPF/A text We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, is a close friend of Paul Kagame and a conduit for State Department disinformation passed by James Rubin, who was also Chief Spokesman for the Clinton State Department (1997-2000), and whose sister, Elizabeth Rubin, was dating Gourevitch.

    U.S. business tycoon Joe Ritchie “has volunteered in Rwanda for the past five years introducing the country to business leaders around the world.” Ritchie also runs an “entrepreneurial philanthropy” called Friends of Rwanda and serves on President Paul Kagame’s Advisory Council and as CEO of the Rwanda Development Board.1415 Like Walter Kansteiner, Joe Ritchie is a commodities and options trader from Chicago with deep pockets and dark secrets: involved in a private attempt to overthrow the Taliban in 2000, Joe and James Ritchie were aided by their favorite consultant, former national security adviser Robert McFarlane, who successfully lobbied the CIA to dispatch an Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV) to the skies over Afghanistan.16

    The Congo wars have direct links to the many long years of war in Sudan and Uganda, and they are intertwined with the current low-intensity warfare and the mass murder in Darfur, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. If we apply the genocide label to conflicts where it surely fits, then genocide is ongoing in Congo’s Orientale and Kivus provinces, and in Acholiland in Northern Uganda.17 But it is also occurring in Iraq, Afghanistan, Burundi, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Botswana, Columbia, the Palestinian Territories and Malaysia, to mention a few irrefutable cases.

    These geopolitical and strategic hotspots remain mostly blanketed by media reportage that quite literally blacks out key white protagonists by putting a black African face on things. Another example: there has been little reported about the perpetual warfare and human rights atrocities in Orientale linked to tight little airstrips carved out of the rainforest and paved with support from the Pentagon-connected United States Agency for International Development (USAID).18

    Consider Mwana Africa, a South African firm that controls the Kilo-Moto gold fields in Zani, DRC. The Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), led by Thomas Lubanga, occupied the Zani gold fields in 2002 and stirred up ethnic animosities that led to massive suffering and depopulation. However, according to Congolese locals, it was the white missionaries from the Africa Inland Mission that deeply divided local ethnic groups. French tycoons Jacques and Alvaro Hachuel own Mwana Africa.

    Mwana Africa’s European director, Etienne Denis, began his long career of impoverishing the Congo at Umicore, formerly the Belgian mining giant Union Miniere, in 1974. The Mwana Africa airstrip at Zani, and nearby roads, were built with USAID backing, and the gold is flown out to Tanzania–one of the most underappreciated criminal players funneling weapons to Uganda and Congo–or sometimes shipped out by road through Uganda.19 Mwana Africa is also involved in Congo’s bloody MIBA diamond concessions in Mbuji Mayi and the cobalt/copper concessions in Katanga.20

    Similarly, almost nothing in context has been reported of the white mercenaries and their petroleum operations on the Uganda border with Orientale.21 Like the ongoing covert war in Darfur, where the backers of the “mysterious” rebel groups are never exposed, the militias operating in Congo are proxy armies that serve the interests of external power blocks at the expense of their competitors.

    Most reporting from the Kivus zooms in on sexual violence and the Western media always blames the victims–Congolese soldiers caught in the maelstrom of international proxy warfare and organized crime–but we hear nothing about U.S. or Canadian or Australian mining companies–and for those rare times that we do the reportage de-links the mining from the mass murder.22 More often, the media turns the story upside down, claiming that responsible Western mining executives are waiting in the wings for security to improve so they can provide jobs and accountability and “sustainable development” for the Congolese people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    A recent front-page news feature, “Congo’s Riches, Looted by Renegade Troops,” about the Bisie tin mine in North Kivu, offers the perfect example. “On paper, the exploration rights to this mine belong to a consortium of British and South African investors who say they will turn this perilous and exploitative operation into a safe, modern beacon of prosperity for Congo,” wrote Jeffrey Gettleman for the New York Times. “But in practice, the consortium’s workers cannot even set foot on the mountain. Like a mafia, Colonel Matumo and his men extort, tax and appropriate at will, draining this vast operation, worth as much as $80 million a year.”23

    And thus do the valiant white knights of the New York Times shine their spotlight on plunder and extortion in Congo. Alas, it is a selective shining, an expedient “humanitarian” concern, and an arrogant moral high ground. Indeed, it is just another shade of the black and white race politics behind the politicization of the International Criminal Court.

    THE BLACK AFRICAN FALL GUYS

    In June of 2008 the ICC charged two black African rebel leaders, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, with six counts of war crimes (willful killing; inhuman treatment or cruel treatment; using children under the age of fifteen years to participate actively in hostilities; sexual slavery; intentionally directing attacks against civilians; and pillaging) and three counts of crimes against humanity (murder, inhumane acts and sexual slavery).

    ICC prosecutors say that Chui and his commander Katanga–known as Simba–led a militia called the Front for Patriotic Resistance of Ituri (FPRI); Chui was also a commander in another militia, the National Integrationist Front (FNI). The FPRI was fighting against the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC); another militia in Congo backed by outsiders, in particular, some faction from the U.S.

    UPC commander Thomas Lubanga–another black man–was the first person detained at the ICC’s Scheveningen prison at The Hague. Charles Taylor, former “warlord” and president from Liberia was the second. Germaine Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui were next to be chosen for this auspicious club. Congolese “warlord” Jean-Pierre Bemba is the last of five detainees now held at the ICC. Bemba was the leader of the Congolese rebel army, the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), but he is charged with crimes in the Central African Republic.24

    These five men all have more in common than the charges against them. They are all black men, once embraced by the system and empowered as local or national leaders, and they are now the black stooges who fell from grace to become, in the language of anthropologist and scholar Dr. Enoch Page, “unembraceable.”25

    The unembraceable status, applied to Africa, is reserved for black males, for dictators and warlords, rapists and killers, for ‘dirty’ Arabs like Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan, and for former ‘Marxist’ guerillas, like Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe. Always they are people of color: they are the O.J. Simpsons and Michael Jacksons of Africa, formerly embraced black males now ruthlessly persecuted by the Western establishment–primarily through racial surveillance and targeting in the mass media. Such treatment is rarely applied to white males, anywhere.

    Someone has to be held responsible for the mass murder at Bogoro, but who paid the 29 year-old “warlord” Germaine Katanga? Why should he be the only one prosecuted? Who provided the jeeps for the “warlord” Mathieu Chui? Where did “warlord” Thomas Lubanga get the satellite phone to coordinate his private militia? How did Charles Taylor go from Harvard University to money laundering in Liberia to a Massachusetts prison–which he “escaped” from–and then on to become first the “President” and later “warlord” of Liberia?

    How does Moto Gold Mining Company extract gold from a war zone? And how do the shiny black leather belts and pressed camouflage fatigues and crisp felt berets and rocket-propelled grenades find their way to Laurent Nunda’s “rebel” army now fighting in the North and South Kivu provinces of Congo?

    Aware of their vulnerability as black African fall guys–and soon after the ICC arrest of Jean-Pierre Bemba–the top brass of the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces curtailed their international travel plans and convened a special meeting at Uganda’s Bombo army headquarters near Kampala, in June 2008, to discuss fears of ICC warrants being issued against them.

    Of course, the U.S. Government and its business partners dictate the operations of the ICC. While considering soldiers of the United States and its allies to be above international humanitarian law and protected from the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Pentagon has simultaneously directed the formation, operations and legal precedents of the ICC through the involvement of members of the U.S. military’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, the legal arm of the Pentagon.26

    Congolese troops and militias connected to Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and wife Janet and their military collaborators operate extortion and racketeering networks that are plundering Congo. While former militias responsible for plunder have ostensibly been disbanded, new military networks have replaced them again and again.

    UGANDA ARMING MILITIAS YET AGAIN

    “The Congolese military [FARDC] works with Ugandans,” reported Christian Lukusha, an expert with Justice Plus, a Congolese human rights NGO based in Bunia, “including Salim Saleh, Museveni’s half-brother. And they ship timber and minerals across the border at both Aru and Mahagi. It’s completely clandestine.”27

    According to the United Nations Observers Mission in Congo (MONUC), fighting in Orientale in September 2008 drove over 90,000 additional IDPs from their homes and lands. Fighting continued into October and November, and militias new and old are today floating between Uganda, South Sudan and DRC, recruiting and conscripting soldiers, including children, and training and indoctrinating them in the ideology of their “mysterious” leaders.

    The FPJC–Front Congolaise Pour la Justice au Congo–is but the latest militia to suddenly emerge from the hills of Orientale. On September 29, 2008, the FPJC, described as “a newly formed rebel group,” attacked and pursued retreating contingents of President Joseph Kabila’s regular army, the FARDC, before raiding and looting villages. Since mid-September the FPJC has engaged FARDC troops in firefights along the Lake Albert border zone.

    According to Congolese sources in Bunia, the FPJC is solidly backed by Uganda and provides a second front in an alliance with Laurent Nkunda’s Rwandan army, which has freely operated in the Kivu provinces for years.

    “The FPJC rebels are in the bush close to the Semliki River and the Uganda border,” says Godefroid (not his real name), a Congolese professional in Bunia who travels back and forth to Uganda by land. “There is some new recruitment of former militias along the Congo-Uganda border by Thomas Lubanga’s former UPC minister Mr. Avochi, a Congolese who as been in exile in Uganda since 2004.”28

    Military training camps for the new FPJC recruits are today operating from at least four sites on the Uganda side of the border: {1} in the Kikong-Hoima district; {2} in Kasatu (close to Djegu) in Nebbi district; {3} in the Urusi area (close to Mahagi) of Nebbi district; and {4} in Bondo (close to Aru and Arua) in the Uganda district.

    “Such trainings cannot happen without a clear agreement and support of the upper authorities of Uganda,” says Godefroid. “It’s all connected to the oil under Lake Albert and the gold in Orientale.”

    According to this source, a senior FPJC military commander named Sherif confirmed that Laurent Nkunda and his National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) are involved with these Ugandan bases. “They are providing CNDP military training and recruits are given the CNDP ideology.”

    Coincidentally–but not reported by the media–a hornet’s nest of Western petroleum and mining companies, all linked to international private military companies, local militias, and the national armies of Uganda, Rwanda and Congo, are fighting for control of the land on both sides of the Congo’s eastern border.

    “Salim Saleh is involved in all of this,” said one Congolese official at the border town of Aru, DRC. “He is certainly responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Saleh worked with Jerome Kakwavu when he was the big chief in Aru. Kakwavu is a FARDC general now, in Kinshasa. Salim worked all the different groups, trading arms, playing them off one against the other.”29

    Petroleum companies that have recently emerged and now laying claim to DRC or Ugandan concessions on Lake Albert include: Tower Resources; South African consortiums PetroSA and Divine Inspiration; and H Oil & Minerals Ltd.30 Tower Resources is a U.S.-U.K. firm affiliated with U.K.-based Hardman Resources and tied to oil exploitation in Kenya and Namibia.31

    H Oil & Minerals is a European firm operating in South Sudan, DRC and Angola; financiers include the Deutsche Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction & Development, and the Belgian giant Société Generale–one of the Congolese people’s greatest historical enemies. H Oil & Minerals is also closely linked to Marc Rich and his Switzerland-based company Glencore International, both known for arms trafficking in Angola and DRC through Angolagate notable Pierre Falcone. An Arizona (USA) republican, Falcone is reportedly very tight with the Joseph Kabila government. Marc Rich is the fugitive Swiss financier who for years appeared on the FBI’s list of most wanted criminals on charges ranging from trading with embargoed states, tax evasion, racketeering and arms trafficking; Marc Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton on Clinton’s last day in office.32

    One of the most notorious global arms traffickers involved in Congo, Namibia and Zimbabwe is John Bredenkamp, one of Britain’s 50 richest men. Walter Hailwax, the Belgian honorary consul to Namibia, is a director of arms producer Windhoeker Maschinenfabrik, and the local director of Bredenkamp’s arms brokerage company ACS International Ltd. A key agent in Zimbabwean and DRC organized crime networks, Bredenkamp is one of the phantom white-collar criminals behind Robert Mugabe, another black African fall guy now targeted by the Western press, think tanks and flak organizations, to the exclusion of other major interests. Of course, the Ndebele people suffered war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide under Mugabe, with the bulk of the atrocities committed from 1981-1988. (Mugabe remained an embraceable black agent of white power until about 1999, and today–according to the Western economic and policy establishment, and the mass media, who no longer embrace him–he is the devil incarnate in Zimbabwe.)

    THE LORD’S RESISTANCE ARMY

    If you asked Western media consumers to name a bloodthirsty guerrilla movement in Africa it is likely they would point to “warlord” Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), this thanks to the one-sided fictional media campaigns waged by National Public Radio, Time magazine, Washington Post, or by Christopher Hitchens–who calls them “a Christian Khmer Rouge”–and Vanity Fair.3334

    In the simplistic Western media narratives, the LRA is always described as a “fanatical Christian cult” that abducts children and forces them to commit atrocities. In the dichotomy of “good” versus “evil” the LRA is “wicked” and the forces they are fighting against, President Museveni and the UPDF, are benevolent. Indeed, evangelical Christian missionaries from the United States have been deeply involved with the SPLA war against the “satanic” forces of the LRA and the Islamic Government of Sudan.35

    Spilling over from the wars in Uganda and Sudan and operating a clandestine network of terror and extortion in the north of Congo today, the LRA has waged a low-intensity war against the Museveni regime since circa 1987. The LRA is a Ugandan guerrilla force backed by the government of Sudan (Khartoum) and its allies and clandestinely supported by unnamed factions in Congo, Europe and Washington.

    “For 19 years, Joseph Kony has been enslaving, torturing, raping, and murdering Ugandan children,” wrote Christopher Hitchens, “many of whom have become soldiers for his ‘Lord’s Resistance Army,’ going on to torture, rape, and kill other children.” Parroting the establishment line, Hitchens has no complaints about the UPDF brutalizing children in the refugee camps of Acholiland, and he never mentions the SPLA’s conscription of thousands of child soldiers.36

    According to a high-level United Nations source working in the DRC, the LRA maintains very high-level political ties in New York and Washington D.C. through Jongomoi Okidi-Olal, a Ugandan-American representative living in the U.S. The Uganda government has purportedly asked the Bush Administration and the United Nations to arrest Okidi-Olal and hand him over to the ICC.37 Other sources claim that Okidi is a fraud.

    Interestingly, we find that Mwana Africa–whose vast Kilo-Moto mining concessions sprawl across northern Orientale–is also operating in Angola and South Africa, and at five major mining concessions in the so-called “failed state” of Zimbabwe.20The government of Angola has always backed President Joseph Kabila, is very hostile to the Kagame gang, and currently controls Congolese territory (Kehemba) near the Angolan border. Given the spoils to be had, it is likely that factions from Angola or Zimbabwe also back the Lord’s Resistance Army in a bid to displace Mwana Africa and other competitors from mining and petroleum sites in northeastern Congo.38

    Congolese sources claim that MONUC moved into the Watsa region in northern Orientale only after the LRA–coming in through Garamba National Park near the Sudan border–began threatening the operations of AngloGold Ashanti, Mwana Africa and Moto Gold Mining.39 Additionally, Garamba National Park is rich in diamonds and gold.

    While the LRA is also supported by Ugandan factions opposed to the Museveni dictatorship, it is widely believed the LRA is a tool of the Museveni government used to manipulate public opinion, create chaos across the region, gain international sympathy from foreign donors and thereby procure massive financial backing to facilitate some of the world’s most lucrative and unappreciated AID-for-ARMS scandals. It is the perfect ruse to facilitate permanent foreign military intervention.

    The LRA also reportedly moved into the northern DRC to displace SPLA troops that had a long history of plundering the area, shooting wildlife and harassing villages.40 Thus while the evil LRA is always in the crosshairs of the international media, the same media protects the saintly SPLA, no matter the justice or criminality of either.41

    The mass media and foreign policy discourses are saturated with the writings, op-eds and policy briefs of “experts” that serve as apologetic propagandists for foreign interventions and hidden agendas. Such “experts” exercise stark biases in naming or delineating the “killers” versus “victims” and for this reason they often gain exclusive access to mass media venues. The system of information control becomes self-perpetuating in favor of power and deception.

    Experts working for the Pentagon, State Department, or national security apparatus deploy arguments cloaked in righteous assumptions of higher morality about human rights or humanitarian concern. For example, Sudan “experts” like Dr. Eric Reeves and Alex De Waal provide a constant barrage of one-sided propaganda to manufacture consent at home and project American power in Sudan.41 This propaganda is unassailable by Western “news” consumers, because consumers are not otherwise privy to, interested in, or compelled to discover the deeper truths.

    STARBUCKS GENOCIDE COFFEE

    Like the “Save Tibet” campaign, the one-sided propaganda campaign and institutionalized big-money networking of the “Save Darfur” movement compelled ordinary citizens to become active participants in “stopping genocide.” A similar agenda is driving the new “RAISE HOPE FOR CONGO” initiative. While their ideological programs are advanced through the Western mass media, organizations–e.g. the International Crises Group, Center for American Progress, International Rescue Committee, ENOUGH!–work to manufacture consent and channel popular consciousness through jingoistic sloganeering and humanistic language that offers “news” consumers exactly what they want to hear: peacekeeping, human rights, democracy, sustainable development, participatory mapping, Africa for the African people, and “never again” interventions against genocide.

    Such propaganda campaigns proscribe ideas and possibilities, and they subvert popular movements. In the end, the true grass roots initiatives for social justice and legitimate peace have been expropriated or channeled into serving narrow prerogatives of power. And the voices of the voiceless are crushed, along with their bodies. The International Criminal Court serves a similar and necessary function in manufacturing consent and consolidating Western power. It is really about keeping up appearances: the appearance of justice being served, human rights being protected.

    On October 14, 2005, the ICC unsealed arrest warrants against five LRA commanders, all of them black Africans: Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen. In October 2008, after the LRA committed fresh atrocities in northern DRC, the ICC renewed its calls for the arrest of Joseph Kony.42

    Uganda’s representation at ICC proceedings to explore war crimes in Congo has included at least two very high-profile lawyers from Foley Hoag LLP, an influential Washington law firm.43 Similarly, the Pentagon seconded its lawyers from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corp to the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR), where victor’s justice has arbitrarily and selectively politicized genocide in favor of the Pentagon’s UPDF/RPA proxy governments.44

    Foley Hoag LLP is also tied to the U.S.-Uganda Friendship Council, a consortium that involves Coke, Pfizer and Chevron-Texaco. Coke director Kathleen Black is a principle in the Hearst media empire, while Coke directors Warren Buffet and Barry Diller are directors of the Washington Post Company, and these are the media institutions that whitewash the white-collar crime in Congo. Uganda’s image is further sanitized by London PR firm Hill & Knowlton.”45

    From 2000 to at least 2004, Yoweri Museveni was co-chair of the euphemistically named Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (PCHPA). The PCHPA is a front for multinational corporations and USAID, a Christian-based “soft policy” wing of the Pentagon that uses food as a weapon under the disguise of charity. Other PCHPA chairs include former U.S. Senator and Alston & Bird lawyer Bob Dole; Peter Seligman, Chair and CEO of Conservation International, an NGO connected to the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund and Jane Goodall Institute operations in DRC; George Rupp, President of the International Rescue Committee, a flak-producing organization involved in DRC; and Alpha Konare, the former Chair of the Commission of the African Union (2003-2008), the governing body responsible, for example, for oversight of the supposedly “neutral” African Union “peacekeeping” force in Darfur, Sudan–a force that again deploys RDF forces as proxies to secretly further U.S./U.K. interests.

    One PCHPA director also represents Bread for the World, a protectionist and nationalistic U.S.-based Christian evangelical “charity” whose directors include Bob Dole and former White House cabinet officials Mike McCurry and Leon Panetta. Along with Thomas Pickering, Susan Rice, Gayle Smith, Donald Payne, Ed Royce, John Podesta, Anthony Lake, Bill and Hillary Clinton and others, these are the architects of covert operations in Africa during the Clinton years.2

    Senator Tom Daschle is a Special Policy Advisor for Alston & Bird, and an Honorary Senior fellow of the Center for American Progress (CAP), the nationalist U.S. big money “think tank” behind a multitude of front groups with hidden foreign policy agendas around Uganda, Rwanda, Congo and Sudan. These include the ENOUGH! Project, the new RAISE HOPE FOR CONGO initiative, the Genocide Intervention Network, the ONE Campaign and the International Crisis Group (ICG)–all of which somehow involve agents like John Prendergast, former national security insider for President Bill Clinton. It is interesting that a lot of the same people show up tied to different organizations involved in “grass roots” campaigns to help Africa.

    The ONE campaign was launched by a coalition of 11 prominent corporate so-called “charity” organizations, including Bread for the World, CARE, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee (IRC); each of these profit-based organizations has a euphemistic name that suggests a humanitarian or humanistic agenda, but they actually serve corporate interests. CARE has received funding from weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corporation. In 1996 the IRC reportedly took over bases near the Hutu refugee camps in eastern Zaire and proceeded to shell the camps with heavy weapons; also, Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright are IRC overseers.46 ICG director Zbigniew Brzezinski is an advisor to President-elect Barack Obama.

    In July 2008, Senator Tom Daschle led a special delegation of policymakers on behalf of the ONE Campaign, described as “a bipartisan movement of over 2 million advocates for the elimination of global poverty and disease.” The ONE delegation also “met with civic and government leaders, as well as everyday citizens and entrepreneurs, to discuss Rwanda’s courageous national reconciliation since the genocide in 1994…”47

    Child Soldiers in the Congolese National Army FARDC–  Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo copyright 2006 Keith Harmon Snow.

    Child Soldiers in the Congolese National Army FARDC– Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo copyright 2006 Keith Harmon Snow.

    Daschle and Dole’s law firm, Alston & Bird, is a sponsor of the corporate “Millennium Promise” project, and they provide pro bono legal services, in both the U.S. and Africa, for the Millennium Villages and Millennium Promise, both in Rwanda.47 These programs are designed to put a “development” face on Africa while maintaining structural inequality, protectionist trade barriers and military superiority.

    To put it simply, white people will always get the best jobs, corporations will run and ruin the world–dumping substandard and outdated products on confused populations; seeding the natural world with genetically engineered crops; peddling pretty plastic junk; pushing pharmaceutical pills; strip-mining everything–and we will all fool ourselves and ease our consciences by pretending that we are breaking down barriers of inequality and building a better world.

    According to a very high level United Nations special investigator sent to negotiate with LRA commanders in DRC’s far north Garamba region in February 2007, the Uganda government had then recently “arrested” a U.S. military agent and five Congolese militia leaders discovered in Uganda. Originally detained in Kampala, the U.S. military agent was nonetheless allowed to move freely in and out of the DRC.48

    The U.S. maintains “Intelligence Fusion Cells” in Congo and one cell, in Kisangani, capital of Orientale, was situated in a compound, ringed with coils of barbed wire, near the Tshopo River power station, and was run by a “ex” marine named “Tom” who refused to discuss the cell. There were two U.S. military and two Rwandan military working there.49 MONUC’s local spokesman confirmed only that the cell revolves around a “tripartite security arrangement between Rwanda, Uganda and DRC,” adding, “that one we don’t touch. It’s very hot.”50 British soldiers stationed in Kisangani said the American fusion cell “monitors intelligence on tantalum extraction.”

    A few years back, the U.S. donated to Rwanda two Boeing aircraft that were routinely used by the regime’s Ministry of Defense for arms and minerals trafficking between Rwanda, Belgium, Albania and Bulgaria. Operated by Silverback Cargo Freighters, a Kigali-based company blocked from European airspace since 2006, the planes were also reportedly used for CIA operations, including the transfer of U.S. “war on terror” prisoners. The Rwandan government refused to aid UN investigators seeking information about the company’s clandestine operations.5152

    Recent massive human suffering and the escalation of hostilities by the Nkunda army in eastern Congo have provoked a spate of high-visibility policy statements where some powerful Western interests are calling on the “international community” to strengthen the MONUC military occupation of Congo, while other powerful interests from the new humanitarian order are calling for the European Union to send in a rapid reaction force.53

    BLESSED BE THE PEACEKEEPERS

    Congolese sources everywhere confirm the widespread involvement of MONUC soldiers in guns-for-minerals swaps and sexual violence; sources repeatedly accuse MONUC troops of delivering weapons back to militias to justify MONUC’s one billion dollar a year occupation of Congo.54

    “MONUC was giving weapons to the militias,” says yet one more Congolese official. “MONUC had their own ambitions. It was about gold. The peace that was achieved in Orientale around 2006 was not achieved by MONUC; the National Police Force from Kinshasa and the integrated FARDC brigades achieved it. MONUC was frustrating the peace.”55

    In the new Congo war documentary by Dutch filmmaker Renzo Martens, ENJOY POVERTY, we see South African mining staff of AngloGold Ashanti confirming MONUC’s pivotal role in securing the company’s access to gold in Orientale. The entire “humanitarian” enterprise must be properly situated in the political economy of profit-based charity, resource control and racial injustice.56

    MONUC doesn’t need more guns, it needs fewer guns (but arms dealers keep shipping them in), and Congo doesn’t need more foreign mercenary forces posing as “peacekeepers” but secretly serving narrow, undisclosed interventionist agendas on behalf of multinational corporations.

    Ditto for Darfur. In an “explosive” new book by progressive activists that mildly exposes some of the hypocrisies of the Save Darfur movement we find the authors calling for greater military intervention and sneering at others who have criticized and rejected military intervention for being what we might call the new, old humanitarian warfare in Africa.57

    The book, Scramble For Africa: Darfur–Intervention and the USA, cites ad nauseum all the usual propagandists that are monopolizing the English language mass media, publications from the far right to progressive left, on Darfur. These experts include Alex De Waal and Eric Reeves–and the International Crisis Group–but there are plenty of citations and references to journalists who peddle the establishment inventions and thereby black out the forces of Western control.

    By page xvii of the preface, the authors–who have no experience anywhere near Sudan–have become the prosecution, judges and jury of their own private international court: “That [President Omar al-Bashir] is a major war criminal is beyond doubt,” they wrote, “as is the fact that he should face trial for his substantial violations of international human rights law.” The American authors, it seems, are also in the business of overthrowing governments: “Given the litany of abuses for which [the Government of Sudan] is guilty,” they wrote, “there would be little to mourn in Bashir’s overthrow, and such a move–depending, of course, on the actors involved, and its prospects for success–could be cautiously supported.”58

    In other words, it’s fine for white people from the United States to organize the overthrow of sovereign governments, as long as we selectively chose the “right” people for the job. The authors never similarly condemn “leaders” from the United States, Canada, Israel or Europe, and they never suggest that President Bush should be overthrown, or that Donald Rumsfeld, or Henry Kissinger, or General Norman Schwarzkopf, or Maurice Tempelsman, should be prosecuted for war crimes. The book makes no mention of covert operations or private military companies operating in South Sudan or Darfur, and while it illuminates the Bush Administration’s collaboration with the Khartoum government, it is nothing more than a cheerleading tool for the opposing power blocks, including the massive so-called “humanitarian relief” operations. Such is the racial obliviousness of the new humanitarian disorder.

    But Darfur’s cheerleaders and Khartoum’s enemies are not so neutral as they appear.

    In 1992, Darfur human rights expert Alex De Waal established African Rights, an NGO based in London, co-directed with Rakiya Omaar. In August 1995, African Rights published the report, Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance, one of the first “human rights investigations” to appear after the so-called “100 days of killing” and the successful RPA/UPDF coup d’etat in Rwanda of 1994.

    “Among the early reports on the genocide, none matches Africa[n] Rights, Rwanda, Death, Despair and Defiance (September 1994) for the clinical description of the atrocities inflicted upon Tutsi victims,” wrote renowned Africa scholar René Lemarchand, “ranging from political murders to collective massacres in churches, schools and stadiums, and the daily manhunts conducted on the hills. Significant as it is to our understanding of the sheer savagery that has accompanied the carnage, the African Rights report is utterly silent on the grisly crimes and torture inflicted by Tutsi soldiers on innocent Hutu civilians, some of which are by now well documented (Nduwayo, 2002: 9-16; Amnesty International, 1994; Des Forges, 1999; Reyntjens and De Souter, 1994).”59

    Lemarchand makes the usual error of accepting the “clinical description of the atrocities inflicted on Tutsis” at face value. How does he know they are all Tutsis and only Tutsis? Because African Rights says they are? Where does he get his information about “daily manhunts conducted on the hills”? Why would Lemarchand so quickly trust the claims of a report that he simultaneously castigates for its (authors’) extreme and obvious biases?

    “This woman of Somali origin is an RPF agent,” says Jean-Marie Higiro of African Rights’ co-director Rakiya Omaar. Higiro was Director of the Rwandan Information Office (ORINFOR). “She has her office in Kigali. In 1994 she was at Mulindi, the headquarters of the RPF. As the RPF conquered territories from the Rwandan Government Forces, she collected information fed to her by the RPF.”60

    “An intensive back and forth activity between this so-called British human rights organization, African Rights, and the intelligence services of the President’s office and the military, has been observed,” wrote Paul Rusesabagina. “Her investigators are very close to the [RPF/RDF] military intelligence apparatus, and the modus operandi of both appears to be similar.”61

    The African Rights report was one of the first to manufacture and promulgate the false (one-sided) mythology of “genocide” in Rwanda. It says nothing about RPF/A massacres or foreign military involvement and peddles the now clichéd and disingenuous stereotypes about victims and killers. What does the African Rights report tell us about the veracity of Alex De Waal’s “human rights” reports and political analyses coming out of Darfur? Further, Alex De Waal’s ties to U.S. intelligence include his involvement with Harvard University and the Council on Foreign Relations: De Waal was a member of a CFR task force focused on defining a new military and intelligence engagement with Africa that is cloaked in “humanitarian” rhetoric.62

    We further witness the hypocrisy and international scandal of having three battalions of Pentagon “trained” Rwandan Defense Force (RDF) “peacekeepers” operating in Darfur while the RDF is openly backing Laurent Nkunda’s occupation proxy force in Congo. Similarly, the UPDF–having received fresh military training by U.S. covert forces in Uganda–has been sent to Somalia. This is not “peacekeeping,” it is crazy making.

    A few well-placed arrests–beginning in Washington, Frankfurt, London, New York or Brussels–would redress the problem of impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity everywhere.

    THE KANSTEINER CONNECTION

    The Moto Gold Project is located in the Kilo Moto goldfields in the north east of the DRC, some 150 kilometers west of the Ugandan border town of Arua. Kilo Moto was President Joseph Mobutu’s private mine, but the project, at various stages, involved powerful Western interlocutors: Belgians Yves Le Norvan and the Damseau family; Roger Lemaire, a Houston (TX) insider; and an Israeli military agent identified as David Agnon.63 Kilo Moto’s gold, then as now, usually exited Congo (Zaire) through remote airstrips.63

    The present Moto Gold Mining “lease”–a massive land grab corruptly obtained–covers an area of approximately 1,841 square kilometers and involves sites at Durba, Watsa and Doko. Moto Gold’s partners in Orientale include Siemens and Ken Overseas. Siemens director Tiego Moseneke is also a director of PetroSA, a new South African oil minor poaching DRC oil concessions on Lake Albert.64 Ken Overseas Company is involved in the Minière de Bakwanga (MIBA) diamond mines in Congo’s Mbuji-Mayi province. In their reports on war and plunder in DRC, the United Nations Panel of Experts named Ken Overseas in a MIBA mining consortium linked to Belgian tycoon Philippe de Moerloose and Israeli mining magnate Dan Gertler; both men have been flagged for arms trafficking.65

    Walter Kansteiner III is one of the shadiest architects of Congo’s troubles. The son of a coltan trader in Chicago, Kansteiner was Assistant Secretary of State for Africa under G.W. Bush and former “National Security” insider and member of the Department of Defense Task Force on Strategic Minerals under Bill Clinton. Kansteiner’s speech at The Forum for International Policy in October of 1996 advocated partitioning the Congo (Zaire) into smaller states based on ethnic lineage; Laurent Kabila was marching across Zaire at the time.66

    The balkanization of Congo appears to be a major objective behind the current organized chaos in the Great Lakes region.67 Further, it is obvious that conflicts from within the U.S.–between the Department of State, Pentagon and intelligence agencies–are translating to regional warfare on the ground in, especially, Sudan, Uganda, and Congo.

    Kansteiner is a trustee of the Africa Wildlife Foundation–another profit-based “conservation” corporation tied to Conservation International, the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund and the Jane Goodall Institute–entities whose front of gorilla and chimpanzee protection hides a deeper agenda.68 It is not surprising to find that one of the AWF’s premier sponsors is Barrick Gold. Kansteiner is also linked to Richard Leakey’s paramilitary front organization Wildlife Direct, and to the Africa Conservation Fund, a shady Washington D.C. entity.69

    Kansteiner is a director of the precious metal firm Titanium Resources Group, a company deeply tied to Sierra Rutile Limited, a firm pivotal to the bloodshed in Sierra Leone.70 Sierra Rutile Ltd. director Sir Sam Jonah reportedly helped finance Rwandan RCD rebel groups in DRC while he was a CEO of Ashanti Goldfields; Jonah is also a director for Moto Gold.2 Sierra Rutile is owned by Max and Jean-Raymond Boulle and Robert Friedland, “Friends of Bill” Clinton who are linked to clandestine networks of offshore holdings and front companies involved in weapons trafficking, money laundering and human rights atrocities from Burma to the Congos to Mongolia.2

    On April 28, 2008, the ICC issued an international arrest warrant for militia commander Bosco Ntaganda, former commander of the Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (FPLC), a militia that operated in the oil and gold areas of Orientale. Bosco is currently the Chief of Staff of Laurent Nkunda’s CNDP army in North Kivu.

    On July 14, 2008, the prosecutor of the ICC applied for an arrest warrant for Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, accused of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. Bashir is an Arab–another person of color–and the ICC has deeply politicized the Darfur conflict in keeping with the imperialist smokescreen of the “Save Darfur” movement.

    There have been no ICC indictments against a single white man who could be proven to be equally culpable in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, though the list of possibilities–as indicated herein–is very, very long.

    “Its name notwithstanding, the ICC is rapidly turning into a Western court to try African crimes against humanity,” writes Mahmood Mamdani. “It has targeted governments that are U.S. adversaries and ignored actions the United States doesn’t oppose, like those of Uganda and Rwanda in eastern Congo, effectively conferring impunity on them.”71

     

    Kagame & RPF officials & Directors of Royal/Dutch Shell Corp. (Photo courtesy New Vision newspaper Kampala, Uganda.)

    Kagame & RPF officials & Directors of Royal/Dutch Shell Corp. (Photo courtesy New Vision newspaper Kampala, Uganda.)

     

    The writing is on the wall, and we can anticipate the eventual arrest of Ugandan military commanders, including Laurent Nkunda, James Kazini, James Kabarebe, Salim Saleh and Paul Kagame. Such arrests aren’t likely to involve legitimate judicial proceedings, and it won’t merely because these people deserve to be arrested, which they do, and they probably won’t be arrested before a few more million people are slaughtered in Central Africa.

    The arrests will come because these are the notoriously visible people of color used to make invisible–quite literally black out–the white war criminals and covert operators wrecking havoc in Africa and elsewhere around the world. They are the embraceable black Africans, and the future fall guys, and Africa’s “leaders” should take note. And so should Barack Obama.

    Even more critical is the need for the Western news consuming public to recognize the face of propaganda and the nature of “change” and what it means to people of color everywhere. Thus it is critical to note the recent shift in media coverage that accompanies the imminent shift in the post-election balance of U.S. power. General Laurent Nkunda has been deeply involved in Congo for years and the Kagame military machine has been shipping weapons and officers directly to Congo; these Rwanda Defense Force (RDF) officers infiltrate the country and direct the “rebel” operations, and the CNDP has served as a lever of power used against the Kabila government. Reported herein–and nowhere else–is the ongoing secret military involvement of Yoweri Museveni and the Ugandan crime networks.

    Only recently, as power shifts from the G.W. Bush power elite to the incoming Obama Administration–being packed with Clintonite friends and officials, and by Democratic Party financiers like diamond kingpin Maurice Tempelsman–has Nkunda or Rwanda been subject to any kind of “harsh criticism”. The New York Times article of December 3, 2008, is the perfect example of the “news” media serving hidden agendas. In “Rwanda Stirs Deadly Brew of Troubles in Congo,” the New York Times peddles the standard narrative about “genocide in Rwanda” in 1994.

    Suddenly, writes Jeffrey Gettleman, one of the NYT’s chief Congo propagandists of late, there is a “secret Rwandan brotherhood” and Rwandan government officials are involved in the bloodletting and plunder in Congo.72 Such “exposés” appear only because power factions–in this case a right-wing Republican faction allied with the Bush administration–are exerting leverage through their mouthpiece, the New York Times, and thus mildly exposing the obvious links of the former Clinton administration–a competing power faction, more heavily comprised of right-wing Democrats–to war and covert operations in Congo. There is a similar political economy of intervention at work vis-à-vis Darfur, Sudan.

    Suddenly it is beneficial to name a few names–names like Modeste Makabuza Ngoga–names that have been known and named before.73 These New York Times articles are nothing more than expedience, tricks in a bag of tricks, as power jockeys for its positions, and for massive private profit, as we approach the zero hour and the twilight of savior Barack Obama’s coming, bringing “change” to America, and the same old, new, humanitarian warfare to Africa.

    1. There are exceptions to the rule, including the extensive publications by this author and those by Africa researcher David Barouski. See, e.g., David Barouski, “Mining in the Ituri Province of the Congo-A Contemporary Profile,” Z-Net, April 15, 2008; and David Barouski, Laurent Nkundabatware, His Rwandan Allies, and the ex-ANC Mutiny: Chronic Barriers to Lasting Peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, February 13, 2007. [↩]
    2. Wayne Madsen, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, 1993-1999, Mellon Books, 1999. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
    3. Investigations into the 1994 events in Rwanda and documents presented at the International Criminal tribunal for Rwanda reveal a huge body of evidence supporting what soon become obvious conclusions. [↩]
    4. keith harmon snow and David Barouski, “Behind the Numbers: Untold Suffering in Congo,” Z Magazine, March 1, 2006; and Human Rights Watch, The Curse of Gold, June 1, 2005. [↩]
    5. See: keith harmon snow, “Gertler’s Bling Bang Torah Gang,” Dissident Voice, February 9, 2008. [↩]
    6. Private investigations, North Kivu, DRC, 2005-2007, and private communications, 2008. [↩]
    7. Private communications, July through November 2008. [↩]
    8. See: Wayne Madsen, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, 1993-1999, Mellon Books, 1999; and keith harmon snow, “Darfurism, Uganda, and U.S. War in Africa: The Spectre of Continental Genocide,” Dissident Voice, November 24, 2007; private interviews, eyewitnesses working in western Uganda at the time, October 2007. [↩]
    9. The Acholi people–non-combatant men, but mostly women and children–have suffered decades of genocidal treatment by UPDF soldiers deployed by Yoweri Museveni, president in Uganda, and top military commanders Gen. James Kazini, Gen. Salim Saleh, Gen. Kahinda Otafiir, Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, Lt. Gen. Katumba Wamala, Maj. Gen. Jim Owoyesigire, and Brig. Gen. Robert Rusoke. [↩]
    10. Private interview, eyewitness working in western Uganda at the time, October 2007; see also Wayne Madsen, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, 1993-1999, Mellon Books, 1999. [↩]
    11. Howard French, A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa, Vintage, April 2005. [↩]
    12. Mahmood Mamdani, Understanding the Crisis in Kivu: Report of the CODESRIA Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo September, 1997, Centre for African Studies University of Cape Town, November 20, 1998. [↩]
    13. “ZAIRE: Peace Possible?” “Interview with Bill Richardson,” PBS Online News Hour, May 9, 1997. [↩]
    14. Friends of Rwanda advisory board. [↩]
    15. “A Brief Profile of Joe Ritchie,” New Times, November 26, 2008. [↩]
    16. Marc Kaufman and Robert E. Pierre, “Rich Brothers Mission to Save Afghanistan Stirs Suspicions,” Washington Post News Service, International herald Tribune On-Line, November 9, 2001. [↩]
    17. Quotes are used because the “genocide” label and realities on the ground are highly contested. [↩]
    18. Moto Gold Mines web site. [↩]
    19. Private interviews, Bunia, Kisangani and Zani, DRC, March 26-28, 2007; and Mwana Africa presentation, 30th Minesite Mining Forum March 28, 2006. [↩]
    20. Mwana Africa presentation, 30th Minesite Mining Forum March 28, 2006. [↩] [↩]
    21. See: keith harmon snow, “Northern Uganda: Hidden War, Massive Suffering: Another White People’s War for Oil,” Global Research, May 26, 2007. [↩]
    22. See: keith harmon snow, “Three Cheers for Eve Ensler? Propaganda, White Collar Crime and Sexual Atrocities in Eastern Congo,” Z-Net, October 24, 2007. [↩]
    23. Jeffrey Gettleman, “Congo’s Riches, looted by renegade Troops,” New York Times, November 18, 2008, p. 1. [↩]
    24. See: keith harmon snow, “A People’s History of Congo’s Jean-Pierre Bemba,” Toward Freedom, September 18, 2007. [↩]
    25. See: Dr. Enoch (Helan) Page, “‘Black Male’ Imagery and Media Containment of African American Men,” American Anthropologist, March 1997, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 99-111. [↩]
    26. See e.g., William K. Lietzau. [↩]
    27. Interview with human rights investigator, Bunia, DRC, March 23, 2007. [↩]
    28. Private communications, Orientale, DRC, November. [↩]
    29. Private interview, Aru official, Aru, DRC, March 26, 2007. [↩]
    30. See: “An Industry Rebirth? Oil in the DRC,” Consultancy Africa Intelligence; and Tower Resources; H Oil and Minerals Ltd. [↩]
    31. Tower Resources. [↩]
    32. Ken Silverstein, “The Arms Dealer Next Door: International billionaire, French prisoner, Angolan weapons broker, Arizona Republican. Who is Pierre Falcone?” In These Times, December 22, 2001. [↩]
    33. Christopher Hitchens, “Childhood’s End,” Vanity Fair, January 20076. [↩]
    34. After querying Vanity Fair editors with a story idea about war in Africa, the editors responded that Christopher Hitchens is their sole source correspondent on Africa. [↩]
    35. See: Richard Bartholomew, “American Pastor Helps SPLA Battle LRA in Sudan,” January 25, 2005; and keith harmon snow, “Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia?” Global Research, February 7, 2007. [↩]
    36. Jo Becker, “Children as Weapons of War,” Human Rights Watch World Report 2004, Human Rights Watch, January 2004. [↩]
    37. Interviews with UN Official in eastern DRC, August 2006 and February 2007. See also: “U.S. asked to arrest Ugandan-American rebel Jongomoi Okidi-Olal–The real brain behind LRA leadership?” Xinhua, April 9, 2006. [↩]
    38. See: Charles Onyango Obbo, “Soon the Guns of Goma might be heard in Kampala,” Monitor On-Line, November 19, 2008. [↩]
    39. Private interviews, Bunia and Kisangani, February and March 2007. [↩]
    40. The international rhino conservation programs at Garamba are reportedly somehow tied to the political interests of the opposition party in Zimbabwe; private interview, UN investigator, Kisangani, DRC 2007. [↩]
    41. See: keith harmon snow, “Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia?” Global Research, February 7, 2007. [↩] [↩]
    42. “ICC calls for renewed efforts to arrest Joseph Kony,” RNW International Justice Desk, October 6, 2008. [↩]
    43. Paul S. Reichler and Lawrence H. Martin. See: Public sitting held on Monday 18 April 2005, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Shi presiding, in the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), International Court of Justice, CR 2005/7, 2005. [↩]
    44. Ralph G. Kershaw, “Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: International Justice According to Washington,” Covert Action Quarterly, No. 74, Fall 2002. [↩]
    45. Jeevan Vasagar, “Uganda hires PR agency to buff up its image,” Guardian, May 21, 2005. [↩]
    46. Private interview with UN special investigator XXX XXX, Kisangani, DRC, 2006; investigations in Goma and Bukavu, DRC, 2005-2007. [↩]
    47. See: “Senator Tom Daschle Leads Delegation in Rwanda,” Alston & Bird web site, July 22, 2008. [↩] [↩]
    48. Private interview with UN special investigator XXX XXX, Kisangani, DRC, 2006. [↩]
    49. Investigations of “American Intelligence Fusion Cell,” Kisangani, DRC, July 31, 2006. [↩]
    50. Investigations and interviews in Kisangani, DRC, 2006. [↩]
    51. Private interview with UN special investigator XXX XXX, Kisangani, DRC 2007. [↩]
    52. See: “Silverback Cargo Freighters Rwanda,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Silverback Cargo Freighters. [↩]
    53. Marianna Brungs, “EU: Coalition of Leaders Calls for EU Force in Congo,” Crisis Watch Press Release, Human Rights Watch, London, November 27, 2008. [↩]
    54. Private interviews, Bunia, DRC, February and March 2007. [↩]
    55. Private interviews, Bunia, Aru and Zani, February 2007. [↩]
    56. Renzo Martens, Enjoy Poverty, International Documentary Festival Amsterdam. [↩]
    57. See: keith harmon snow, “Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia? The New, Old, Humanitarian Warfare in Africa,” Global Research, February 7, 2007. [↩]
    58. Kevin Funk and Steven Fake, The Scramble for Africa: Darfur–Intervention and the USA, Black Rose Books, 2008. [↩]
    59. René Lemarchand, Scholarly Review: Rwanda: The State of Research. [↩]
    60. Private communication, Jean-Marie Higiro, October 17, 2008. [↩]
    61. Paul Rusesabagina, “Rusesabagina responds to Rwanda government book on ‘Hotel Rwanda’,” EUX-TV (Brussels), April 12, 2008. [↩]
    62. More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach Toward Africa, Council on Foreign Relations, Task Force Report Number 56, January 2006. [↩]
    63. Private interview, keith harmon snow with OKIMO Company officials, Bunia, March 24, 2007. [↩] [↩]
    64. Legal Brief Today, July 27, 2006; and “Local Companies in Scramble for DRC Oil,” Johannesburg Sunday Times, August 18, 2008; and H Oil and Minerals Ltd. web site. [↩]
    65. The others included the Groupe Van De Ghinste, Demimpex, Chanic and OSS; both OSS and Demimpex are De Moerloose companies. See: Report of the United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Also see: keith harmon snow, “Gertler’s Bling Bang Torah Gang,” Dissident Voice, February 9, 2008; and keith harmon snow, “Congo’s President Joseph Kabila: Dynasty or Travesty?” Toward Freedom, November 13, 2007. [↩]
    66. “Genocide and Covert Operations In Africa, 1993-1999,” United States One Hundred Seventh Congress, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, First Session, 17 May 2001, comp. Centre for Research on Globalization. [↩]
    67. “The U.S. (Under)mining Job of Africa.” [↩]
    68. See the KING KONG series published by keith harmon snow and Georgianne Nienaber, Op-Ed News, 2007 and 2008. [↩]
    69. Africa Wildlife Foundation. [↩]
    70. Titanium Resources Group. [↩]
    71. Mahmood Mamdani, “The New Humanitarian Order,” The Nation, September 29, 2008. [↩]
    72. Jeffrey Gettleman, “Rwanda Stirs Deadly Brew of Troubles in Congo,” New York Times, December 3, 2008; and Jerome Delay, “Many of the most powerful people in Congo have close ties to Rwanda’s elite in Kigali,” New York Times, December 3, 2008. [↩]
    73. See: Roxanne Stasyszyn, “A World Playground: Congolese People Sacrificed for International Games and Profits,” Dissident Voice, November 8, 2008. [↩]

    Legal Scholars Outraged by Talk of Blanket Pardons

    0

    By Daphne Eviatar

    In his Nov. 16 interview on CBS’s “60 minutes,” President-elect Barack Obama reiterated his pledge to shut down Guantanamo Bay and end U.S.-sponsored torture. Both actions would be “part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world,” he said.

    Obama’s advisers are similarly encouraging him to look to the future and avoid the appearance of seeking vengeance for past practices. But many legal experts insist it’s as important not to let those responsible for diminishing America’s moral stature get away scot-free.

    “When we speak about accountability, we’re not talking about vengeance,” lawyer and writer Scott Horton told at a packed forum on torture at New York University School of Law last week. “We’re really talking about the future.” President George W. Bush “has set a precedent that we cannot let stand.”

    Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who also attended the forum, added: “Accountability is one of the most important questions before the country. It’s critical to preventing a recurrence of the lawbreaking that clearly has been done [by this administration].”

    Liberal lawyers and civil rights advocates have been calling for prosecutions, even impeachment, of Bush officials tied to torture for years. Elizabeth Holtzman, a former Democratic congresswoman, published “The Impeachment of George W. Bush” in 2006. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, published his book, “The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book,” in September. Others have published volumes of evidence implicating Bush officials in potentially criminal conduct . Among the most influential are Jane Mayer’s “The Dark Side,” Phillipe Sands’ “Torture Team” and “The Torture Papers,” a collection of administration documents on detainee abuses edited by Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at NYU, and Joshua Dratel, a prominent defense attorney who represents detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

    But as the administration nears its end, the debate over what Obama should do about officials who authorized torture, humiliation or systematic abuse of detainees as part of the “war on terror” has become more urgent. (The NYU forum attracted so much interest that hundreds of vociferous supporters of prosecution were denied entry into the auditorium because of fire-code restrictions.)

    Even as the pressure on Obama to take action grows, some prominent legal experts are urging restraint.

    In a Nov. 26 Op-Ed in the Washington Post, Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, director of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Dept. from 2003-2004, urged the incoming administration to let bygones be bygones. The decisions to use waterboarding or other forms of torture on terrorist suspects should not be prosecuted as criminal actions, he argued. Instead, they were wartime policy decisions that shouldn’t be second-guessed by lawyers. “[T]he greater danger now is that lawyers will become excessively cautious in giving advice and will substitute predictions of political palatability for careful legal judgment,” he wrote.

    But what if President Bush pardoned himself and all other officials who authorized abusive interrogations of prisoners? Would that render the torture-accountability debate moot?

    In August, Stuart Taylor Jr., a Brookings Institute fellow and columnist for Newsweek and the National Journal, argued that the president should issue a blanket pardon – and leave it to a non-prosecutorial truth commission to set the record straight for posterity.

    Atty. Gen Michael Mukasey, however, has insisted repeatedly that neither investigations nor pardons are needed, because everyone in the administration was acting on the advice of Justice Dept. lawyers – and thus did nothing wrong.

    As the debate over accountability heats up, the possibility of Bush issuing a blanket pardon increases – and that outrages lawyers and legislators who would see such a move as a flagrant abuse of executive power.

    In November, Nadler, the congressman, introduced a House resolution urging the president not to pardon officials who authorized torture and potential lawbreaking. Since then, Democrats.com has been circulating a petition on the Internet to collect signatures of those who support the resolution. So far, almost 50,000 have signed it.

    But legal experts say that neither the resolution nor the petition would have any legal effect on the matter.

    “Congress can’t control the pardon power,” said New York University law professor David Golove, an expert on executive power. “For practical purposes, there are no clear limits.”

    The breadth of the president’s pardon power has been challenged before, particularly after President Abraham Lincoln pardoned former confederate officials who swore an oath of loyalty to the Union. But in Ex Parte Garland, the Supreme Court spelled out just how far-reaching the president’s power is.

    The pardon power “clothe[s] the president with the power to pardon all offenses, and thereby to wash away the legal stain and extinguish all the legal consequences of treason – all penalties, all punishments, and everything in the nature of punishment,” the court ruled.

    Accordingly, if Bush pardoned administration officials accused of authorizing torture – say, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Cheney chief of staff Richard Addington or former Justice Dept. lawyer John Yoo, to name a few frequently mentioned possibilities – legal experts say the pardons would be extremely difficult to challenge in court. The fact that none of these men have been convicted of anything makes no difference.

    The Confederates pardoned by Lincoln hadn’t been indicted or tried, either. Similarly, President Jimmy Carter preemptively pardoned draft evaders during the Vietnam War when he took office in 1976. Even the Watergate-plagued Richard Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford in 1974, was never convicted of a crime.

    Could Bush pardon himself?

    That’s legally dicey. Although it’s never been done before, nothing in the Constitution specifically prevents it.

    “I do not believe that a president can issue a pardon of himself,” said Holtzman, a panelist at the NYU forum. “I believe that would be an abuse of the pardon power.”

    Some say that pardoning administration officials whose actions you signed off on would also be an abuse of power. Allowing a president to do that may set a precedent that’s even more destructive, say some legal experts, because it would remove any incentive for future presidents to follow the law.

    “One of the most effective potential weapons to assure that a runaway executive does not violate the rule of law is that the people who carry out the president’s wishes are themselves subject to legal jeopardy,” said Golove.

    In that regard, the U.S. presidency is similar to the British system. Although by law the English king could do no wrong, his ministers could, explained Golove. “So the way you controlled the crown was by threatening to bring criminal prosecutions against those who carry out his orders.”

    That’s been the case in the United States as well. “So to allow the president to pardon those people is to remove to a considerable extent the incentive for the executive branch to follow the law,” contended Golove. “I see this as a terrible problem.”

    Carolyn Patty Blum, emeritus professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, agrees. “Bush doesn’t really need to pardon himself if he preemptively pardons others, because then no one has an incentive to talk about his role.”

    Some commentators, such as Taylor, have argued that a blanket pardon would still allow for the appointment of a truth commission along the lines of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It could be easier for such a body to learn what really happened because participants wouldn’t face jail for participating.

    But Blum, a consultant to the International Center for Transitional Justice, which specializes in accountability for human-rights abuses, disagrees. “[Our] institutional experience working with truth commissions around the world is that the opposite happens. Once people feel they are already protected, they don’t have any incentive to come forward.”

    In South Africa, she noted, people were pardoned only after they testified truthfully about their crimes.

    Pardons for administration officials would not necessarily close down the inquiry, however. A pardon wouldn’t stop victims of torture from suing U.S. officials, for example, and revealing the truth – although federal government officials can claim all sorts of immunities that would make such cases difficult to pursue in the United States. And a pardon would not prevent another country, or an international tribunal, from investigating and prosecuting war crimes and other violations of international law.

    “Hitler could not pardon himself and the Nazi general staff for war crimes committed during World War II,” said Golove. “Even if he could have pardoned them under German law, that wouldn’t have had any effect at the Nuremberg Tribunal.”

    As Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights noted at the NYU forum, “You cannot pardon war crimes and torture. Maybe here, but they’re not going to walk so freely in Europe.”

    The center and prosecutors abroad have already sought to bring administration officials to trial in Germany, France, Italy and Spain, among other countries. Although charges probably wouldn’t land any U.S. officials behind bars, it could at least put a crimp in their travel plans – and prompt investigations that might further tarnish the Bush legacy.

    Blackwater shootings case moved to Washington DC

    0

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Five Blackwater Worldwide guards charged with the unprovoked shooting that killed 14 innocent Iraqis and wounded dozens of others in 2007 will get their day in a Washington court after unsuccessfully trying to move the trial to Utah.

    A federal judge on Monday ordered the guards to report Jan. 6 to a District of Columbia courthouse, where they are expected to plead not guilty.

    The decision came hours after prosecutors announced charges against the guards that carry mandatory 30-year prison terms for the wild gunfire and grenade attacks on a Baghdad street.

    The guards “must be held accountable for their actions, not just for the integrity of the American people, but for the Iraqi men, women and children whose lives have been destroyed,” FBI Assistant Director Joseph Persichini said at a Justice Department news conference in Washington.

    The five Blackwater guards – all decorated military veterans – declined comment as they surrendered in federal court in Utah. They maintain they were protecting themselves from what they believed was an imminent car bomb attack.

    “We think it’s pure and simple a case of self-defense,” defense attorney Paul Cassell said Monday as the guards were booked. “Tragically, people did die.”

    Defense attorneys sought to move the case to Utah, where one of the five guards lives, in hopes of appealing to conservative jurors who may be more sympathetic to the war in Iraq than those in Washington.

    But the Justice Department argued that the case should remain in Washington, where a sixth guard who turned against his former colleagues has already pleaded guilty in a deal to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for lesser charges.

    A federal magistrate in Salt Lake City agreed, although defense attorneys can appeal for the right to return to Utah.

    Outraged Iraqis have waited more than a year to see how the U.S. would respond. The shooting by the largest U.S. security contractor in Iraq on a busy street in the capital sparked international condemnation, launched congressional hearings and inspired anti-American insurgent propaganda.

    Prosecutors said the slain included young children, women, people fleeing in cars and a man whose arms were raised in surrender as he was shot in the chest.

    The drama is far from over. After more than a year of investigative missteps and fierce debate, the Justice Department now faces stiff challenges to the evidence and legal grounds at the heart of its case.

    Most importantly, prosecutors must prove they did not rely on protected statements the guards gave to State Department investigators within hours of the shootings.

    The State Department gave limited immunity to all the guards in the four-car convoy, promising not to prosecute them based on the initial statements recounting how the violence began. The move left Justice Department and FBI investigators with a crime scene long gone cold and with limited forensic evidence to bolster their case.

    “We fully expect that the defendants will raise the issue,” said Assistant Attorney General Patrick Rowan. “We’ve been very careful and very painstaking in the way we have investigated this case, the way we have assembled evidence. And we fully expect to prevail when the court hears that issue.”

    Defense attorneys also will argue that the guards cannot be charged under a law intended to cover soldiers and military contractors since the men worked as civilian contractors for the State Department. Rowan, however, said Blackwater was supporting the military’s mission in Baghdad and the law therefore applies to them.

    It is the first time prosecutors have used that argument to prosecute contractors. The Justice Department recently lost a somewhat similar case against former Marine Jose Luis Nazario Jr., who was charged in Riverside, Calif., with killing four unarmed Iraqi detainees.

    The five guards are Donald Ball, a former Marine from West Valley City, Utah; Dustin Heard, a former Marine from Knoxville, Tenn.; Evan Liberty, a former Marine from Rochester, N.H.; Nick Slatten, a former Army sergeant from Sparta, Tenn.; and Paul Slough, an Army veteran from Keller, Texas.

    They are charged with 14 counts of manslaughter, 20 counts of attempted manslaughter and one count of using a machine gun to commit a crime of violence. The machine gun charge, typically used in drug cases, carries a 30-year minimum prison sentence.

    The sixth guard, who is cooperating with the government, is Jeremy Ridgeway of California. He pleaded guilty to one count each of manslaughter, attempted manslaughter, and aiding and abetting.

    The Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater has not been charged in the case.

    Mickey Z – Obama and the 2076 Election

    1

    By Mickey Z

    Before we get to 2076, first things first: Hail Obama, our brilliant, articulate, eloquent, half-black savior and prince.

    Okay, so maybe St. Barack is a tad less progressive than we imagined but you have to admit he’s brilliant and eloquent and half-black. And c’mon, folks, he’s not even in office yet. Give the poor guy a chance. Once he’s in, we’ll hold his feet to the fire and make real progress. We’ll get permits to hold weekend protests (with none of those nasty anarchists invited) and we’ll give voice to the voiceless…in our designated free speech zones, of course. President Obama will hear us, I’m sure. He’ll prove there is a difference between the two parties. After all, you can’t tell me you didn’t shed a tear when you saw all those young people celebrating in the streets. The youth have spoken! The future has arrived! Bushism is dead!!! Let’s rejoice!!! Let’s sing along with Ani DiFranco’s amazing new song, “Yes We Can”!!!

    In fact, I’m willing to go out on a limb right now and boldly predict that by the year 2011, the number of US combat troops in Iraq will have decreased by at least 10-15%. To those who want more, I ask: We can’t expect Obama to simply withdraw those brave, heroic, gallant, valiant, superhuman men and women in one shot, can we? No way, there’s no cut and run for America. (And remember: we wouldn’t be in this mess if that damn egotistical Ralph Nader hadn’t ruined everything in 2000. He shouldn’t be allowed to run. Make it illegal, I say.)

    At least Obama is forming a strong centrist coalition. “A team of rivals,” they say. Some may nitpick and point out that every single appointee is a Washington retread who supported the war and could’ve just as easily been chosen by John McCain had he won, but Obama is clearly in charge and he’s brilliant. He makes the decisions, and he’s so articulate. He promised hope and change and, being that he’s so eloquent, I’m positive he will deliver. It would be negative, bitter, and cynical to think otherwise. In fact, anyone not thrilled with the historic election of a half-black man should not be allowed to breathe our precious oxygen. (Ain’t that right, Tim Wise?)

    Looking ahead, we’ll have bumps in the road (like many years of recession, escalation of the war on Afghanistan and subsequent blowback, reinstitution of the military draft, drastic cuts in social programs, an ongoing policy of torture and extra-judicial trials, the use of US troops to quell dissent by US citizens on US soil, to name but a few) but I’m confident we’ll have the brilliant, inspirational Obama in office until 2016…followed by America’s first female president–Hillary Clinton–until 2024. Hooray!!!!! What a proud moment for the world’s greatest nation. Gender equality is ours!!! No more patriarchy!!!

    Sure, those mean Republicans may steal an election or two. They may even stage one of those infamous false flag operations that a Democrat would never participate in. But we’ll prevail. We will prevail. Progressive values will never die and no slimy Republican or more-radical-than-thou nihilist can tell me different. I have faith. I have hope. I believe. I read The Nation and Z Magazine. I watch Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow. I leave comments at Daily Kos. I’m part of the solution, pal. If you’re not with me, you’re against me!!! This is change I can believe in!!! How about you?

    As this century progresses, we’re bound to see the first Hispanic-American president, the first Asian-American president, the first indigenous-disabled-transgender-atheist-undocumented-communist president and who knows what other proud breakthroughs lie ahead for the land of the free and home of the brave? Maybe we’ll cut emissions by 2-3%, the minimum wage will rise by at least 25 cents, and being a loyal American consumer will be so much easier when that national ID card becomes mandatory.

    What’s that you say? 10,000 gallons of gasoline are burned in the US every second? We’re losing 200,000 acres of rain forest every 24 hours? 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides are used by Americans each year? 100 plant or animal species go extinct each day? 81 tons of mercury are emitted into the atmosphere each year as a result of electric power generation? Every square mile of ocean hosts 46,000 pieces of floating plastic? 13 million tons of toxic chemicals released across the globe each and every day? 70,000 new chemical compounds have been invented and dispersed into our environment since 1950? There will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park by 2030? The Arctic region expected to have its first completely ice-free summer in 2040? Coastal glaciers in Greenland thinning by 3 feet per year? 90% of the large fish in the ocean are already gone? 80% of the world’s forest are already gone? Every two seconds, a human being starves to death and 29,158 children under the age of five die from preventable causes every single day?

    Slow down, Mr. Negative. Don’t bum me out with your pessimistic stats and unconstructive attitude. You’re full of bad news but you never offer a solution. You have no plan. We have a plan–a plan that comes equipped with its own soaring oratory, a plan named Barack Obama. Besides, it’s always best to focus on the positive and not dwell in gloom and doom. How else can we maintain the hope we need to make a difference? How else can we each become the change we wish to see in the world? How else can we justify our Obama worship?

    Sure, some things are a little messed up but I deeply sense in my heart of hearts that change will come. It will come slowly, but it will come!!! By the time we get to that all-important 2076 election, true radicals will finally be able to vote their conscious. At long last, we’ll have a president that the people (well, the few people that are still alive) can support without compromise. No more lesser evil. No more hold your nose and vote. Nope, stay tuned for 2076, folks. Democracy, peace, justice, and solidarity will be ours on America’s 300th birthday…and it all begins on January 20, 2009 with our very own brilliant, eloquent, half-black Pope of Hope!!!

    I’ll see you in the future…

  • inspired by Joe from Maine
  • Spying on pacifists, environmentalists and nuns

    1
    By Bob Drogin
    Reporting from Takoma Park, Md. — To friends in the protest movement, Lucy was an eager 20-something who attended their events and sent encouraging e-mails to support their causes.

    Only one thing seemed strange.

    “At one demonstration, I remember her showing up with a laptop computer and typing away,” said Mike Stark, who helped lead the anti-death-penalty march in Baltimore that day. “We all thought that was odd.”

    Not really. The woman was an undercover Maryland State Police trooper who between 2005 and 2007 infiltrated more than two dozen rallies and meetings of nonviolent groups.

    Maryland officials now concede that, based on information gathered by “Lucy” and others, state police wrongly listed at least 53 Americans as terrorists in a criminal intelligence database — and shared some information about them with half a dozen state and federal agencies, including the National Security Agency.

    Among those labeled as terrorists: two Catholic nuns, a former Democratic congressional candidate, a lifelong pacifist and a registered lobbyist. One suspect’s file warned that she was “involved in puppet making and allows anarchists to utilize her property for meetings.”

    “There wasn’t a scintilla of illegal activity” going on, said David Rocah, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit and in July obtained the first surveillance files. State police have released other heavily redacted documents.

    Investigators, the files show, targeted groups that advocated against abortion, global warming, nuclear arms, military recruiting in high schools and biodefense research, among other issues.

    “It was unconscionable conduct,” said Democratic state Sen. Brian Frosh, who is backing legislation to ban similar spying in Maryland unless the police superintendent can document a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” of criminal activity.

    The case is the latest to emerge since the Sept. 11 attacks spurred a sharp increase in state and federal surveillance of Americans. Critics say such investigations violate constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly, and serve to inhibit lawful dissent.

    In the largest known effort, the Pentagon monitored at least 186 lawful protests and meetings — including church services and silent vigils — in California and other states.

    The military also compiled more than 2,800 reports on Americans in a database of supposed terrorist threats. That program, known as TALON, was ordered closed in 2007 after it was exposed in news reports.

    The Maryland operation also has ended, but critics still question why police spent hundreds of hours spying on Quakers and other peace groups in a state that reported more than 36,000 violent crimes last year.

    Stephen Sachs, a former state attorney general, investigated the scandal for Gov. Martin O’Malley — a Democrat elected in 2006. He concluded that state police had violated federal regulations and “significantly overreached.”

    According to Sachs’ 93-page report and other documents, state police launched the operation in March 2005 out of concern that the planned execution of a convicted murderer might lead to violent protests.

    They sent Lucy to join local activists at Takoma Park’s Electrik Maid, a funky community center popular with punk rockers and slam poets. Ten people attended the gathering, including a local representative from Amnesty International.

    “The meeting was primarily concerned with getting people to put up fliers and getting information out to local businesses and churches about the upcoming events,” the undercover officer reported later. “No other pertinent intelligence information was obtained.”

    That proved true for all 29 meetings, rallies and protests that Lucy ultimately attended. Most drew only a handful of people, and none involved illegal or disruptive actions.

    Using the aliases Lucy Shoup and Lucy McDonald, she befriended activists. “I want to get involved in different causes,” she wrote in an e-mail, citing her interest in “anti-death penalty, antiwar and pro-animal actions!!!”

    Max Obuszewski, a Baltimore pacifist who leads antiwar protests, said Lucy asked about civil disobedience, but didn’t instigate any. “She never volunteered to do anything, not even hand out leaflets,” he said. “She was not an agent provocateur.”

    Greg Shipley, a state police spokesman, said that no one in the department had been disciplined in connection with the spying program. Lucy, who has not been publicly identified, would not consent to an interview, he said.

    The surveillance, Shipley said, was inappropriate. And the listing of lawful activity as terrorism “shouldn’t have happened, and has been corrected.”

    Most of the files list terrorism as a “primary crime” and a “secondary crime,” then add subgroups for designations such as antiwar protester.

    Some contain errors and inconsistencies that are almost comical.

    Nancy Kricorian, 48, a novelist on the terrorist list, is coordinator for the New York City chapter of CodePink, an antiwar group. She serves as liaison with local police for group protests, and has never been arrested.

    “I have no idea why I made the list,” she said. “I’ve never been to the state of Maryland, except maybe to stop for gas on the way to Washington.”

    Josh Tulkin, 27, a registered lobbyist with the Virginia state Legislature, is cited under “terrorism — environmental extremists.” Tulkin was deputy director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group that claims 15,000 members and regularly meets with governors and members of Congress.

    “If asking your elected officials a question about public policy is a crime, then I’m guilty,” he said.

    Barry Kissin, 57, a lawyer who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2006, heads the Frederick Progressive Action Coalition, a group that works “for social, economic and environmental justice,” according to his police file. Their protests “are always peaceful,” it added.

    He was labeled “Terrorism — Anti-Government.”

    Nadine Bloch, 47, runs workshops for protest groups that seek corporate responsibility and builds huge papier-mache puppets often used in street marches. Her terrorism file indicates she participated in a Taking Action for Animals conference in Washington on July 16-18, 2005.

    Animal rights, Bloch said, is one of the few causes she doesn’t actively embrace. Besides, she was attending an educators conference in Hawaii that week as a contractor for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    “This whole thing,” she said, “is so absurd.”

    Bush Regime Declares Itself Above the Law

    1

    By Paul Craig Roberts

    The US government does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but no other government can match the hypocrisy of the US government.

    It is now well documented and known all over the world that the US government tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and that the US government has had people kidnaped and “rendentioned,” that is, transported to third world countries, such as Egypt, to be tortured.

    Also documented and well known is the fact that the US Department of Justice provided written memos justifying the torture of detainees. One torture advocate who wrote the DOJ memos that gave the green light to the Bush regime’s use of torture is John Yoo, a Vietnamese immigrant who somehow secured a US Justice Department appointment and a tenured professorship at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. John Yoo is the best case against immigration that I know.

    Members of Berkeley’s city council believe that Yoo should be charged with war crimes. The US government has charged lesser offenders than Yoo with war crimes. Yoo helped the DOJ achieve the Bush regime’s goal of finding a way around the torture prohibitions of both US statutory law and the Geneva Conventions.

    The way around the law that Yoo provided for the sadistic Bush regime was closed down by the US Supreme Court, which voided Yoo’s arguments, and Yoo’s torture memo was rescinded by the Department of Justice. Nevertheless, Yoo’s obvious constitutional incompetence, which in Yoo’s case is total, has not affected his position as professor of constitutional law at Berkeley. Can you imagine the harm Yoo is doing by teaching future cadres of lawyers and government officials that torture is consistent with the Constitution and the law of the land? How many of us will suffer from this ignorant man’s teachings?

    But I digress. Even as the US government was torturing people, the US government was prosecuting the son of Charles Taylor, the former ruler of Liberia, for torturing political opponents of his father’s government. The US government did not employ the Yoo torture memo to justify Liberia’s use of torture against those who wished to overthrow the Liberian government or commit terror against it. The US government’s position is that Liberia’s government had no right to use torture to defend itself. Only an “indispensable nation” such as the US has the right to torture people who are imagined to threaten it.

    I use the word “imagined” because approximately 99 percent of the detainees tortured by America were totally innocent people picked up at random or sold to the stupid Americans by warlords as “terrorists.” (The US government offered rewards for terrorists, like the bounty offered for outlaws in the “wild west.” The result was that warlords in Afghanistan and Pakistan grabbed whoever was not one of them and sold their captives to Americans as “terrorists.”)

    According to Carrie Johnson, a Washington Post staff writer, on October 30, 2008, a federal jury in Miami convicted Charles Taylor’s son, Chuckie, of torture. Chuckie will be sentenced by the indispensable Americans in January for torture, conspiracy and firearms violations. He may spend the rest of his life in an American prison.

    While Chuckie’s trial was underway, the Bush regime was torturing people.

    The Washington Post writes that Chuckie’s conviction is “the first test of an American law that gives prosecutors the power to bring charges for acts of torture committed in foreign lands.” In other words, US law against torture applies to the entire world, to every other country except the United States. The hubris is unimaginable–no country can torture except the US.

    Anyone else who tortures gets life, or in the case of Saddam Hussein gets hung by the neck until dead.

    Isn’t it great to be an American. Our laws don’t apply to us, only to every other nation. This is what it means to be the moral light of the world, the unipower, the salt of the earth.

    Neither poor Carrie Johnson nor her editors at the Washington post see the irony or the paradox. Johnson writes in the Washington Post that the US prosecutors “accused Taylor of taking part in atrocities and directing subordinates to torture victims using . . . electrical devices from 1999 to 2002.” That charge practically overlaps in time with Bush’s, or Cheney’s, or Yoo’s, or the DOJ’s, or Rumfeld’s, or whoever’s direction to subordinates to torture people detained by Americans at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in various CIA rendition sites. By now everyone in the world has seen the photograph of the hooded Iraqi with electrical wires attached standing on that box in Abu Ghraib.

    If only American laws applied to the American government. Then the criminals who have been in charge for 8 years could be prosecuted for their extreme violation of United States laws. But, of course, the great moral American government is far above the law. American law only applies to dispensable nations. America is not answerable to law, not to its own law and not to international law. US attorney general Michael Mukasey affirmed that the US government is above all law when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that there would be no investigation or prosecution of those Bush regime officials who authorized torture and those who carried out the sadistic acts.

    The American government, the government of the great indispensable nation, has a free pass. The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.

    Canada’s “constitutional coup” and the corporate media

    0

    By Keith Jones |

    Canada’s corporate media is either vocally supporting Thursday’s “constitutional coup” – the minority Conservative government and the unelected governor-general shut down parliament so as to prevent the opposition parties from ousting the government in a non-confidence vote–or keeping a guilty silence.

     

    Never before in Canada or any other country that follows the British parliamentary pattern has a government prorogued parliament to avoid defeat in an impending non-confidence vote.

     

    That Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had lost parliament’s support and was facing defeat is incontrovertible. The three opposition parties, who together have a parliamentary majority and polled substantially more than half of the votes in an election less than eight weeks ago, had officially informed Governor-General Michaëlle Jean that they would defeat the government at the earliest opportunity. They had also formally notified her of their intention to form an alternate government, a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Québécois.

     

    Since Prime Minister Harper manifestly did not have parliament’s support, the governor-general, according to all constitutional precedent, had no choice but to rebuff his request that parliament be shut down till the end of January.

     

    The anti-democratic nature of the Conservatives’ attempt to cling to power in defiance of parliament was further underscored by the visceral, anti-democratic campaign they mounted in the run-up to Thursday’s shutting down of parliament. The Conservatives and their supporters in the corporate media openly incited anti-Quebec chauvinism and labeled the opposition’s attempt to form an alternate government “illegal,” even treasonous.

     

    But rather than telling Harper that the no-confidence vote scheduled for this coming Monday had to proceed, Governor-General Jean, bowing to the wishes of Canada’s ruling class, ordered parliament shut down, thereby ensuring the survival of a government without parliament’s support.

     

    Given the import and unprecedented character of Jean’s actions, one would have expected all of the country’s major newspapers to have published editorials Friday analyzing and critiquing them. In fact there was scant editorial comment.

     

    Predictably, the neo-conservative National Post and several other right-wing mouthpieces hailed the governor-general for doing the “right thing.”

     

    But most of the press was silent. Neither the Globe and Mail nor La presse, respectively the most influential English- and French-language dailies, commented editorially on the governor-general’s action.

     

    The Toronto Star, a newspaper closely allied with the Liberal Party, stated in passing, in an editorial devoted to urging Harper to pursue a less “adversarial” course, that Jean “probably had no choice but to grant” the prime minister his request for parliament to be prorogued “lest her office be accused of partisanship.”

     

    The opposition parties, it needs by emphasized, have acted in a like fashion. They have failed to vigorously condemn the shutting down of parliament as a major attack on democratic rights, let alone called on the public to oppose it. As of Friday evening, the web site of the New Democratic Party, Canada’s social-democratic party, carried no statement of any kind on the shutting down of parliament. But it did feature party leader Jack Layton’s tribute to three Canadian Armed Forces soldiers killed Friday in Afghanistan fighting to uphold the US-installed government of Hamid Karzai.

     

    The media silence has a double-purpose.

     

    First, to stifle public debate of what has taken place and why.

     

    Second, to protect the office of the governor-general and the fictions and fabrications that surround it. The representative of the monarch, the governor-general is a supposedly non-partisan and almost exclusively ceremonial institution. In fact, as the events of the past week have demonstrated, the governor-general has vast “reserve” powers, powers that are subject to no legal check. Jean has not, nor will she provide any explanation for her actions.

     

    The bourgeoisie has maintained this feudal relic precisely so as to arm itself with a means of short-circuiting parliamentary democracy in a time of crisis. And all sections of the bourgeoisie, especially now under conditions of mounting economic crisis and social conflict, are determined to preserve this institution, armed with unlimited constitutional power and utterly insulated from the will of the people.

     

    Given the general lack of editorial comment on Thursday’s suspension of parliament, the position adopted by editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen is especially revealing. In an editorial titled “The wounded body politic,” the Citizen, conceded that “Canadian democracy” had “sustained long-term damage” as a result of this week’s event, but ultimately argued this damage was the necessary price of preventing the coming to power of a Liberal-NDP government.

     

    “A fundamental principle of our democracy,” propounded the Citizen, “is that the executive branch cannot govern without the consent and participation of the legislative branch. For the next month and a half, Mr. Harper proposes to govern without a parliament.” The Citizen went on to warn that future governments “can now try to escape” parliament’s judgment by appealing to the governor-general.

     

    These concerns were raised, however, only to be smartly dismissed: “Practically speaking proroguing parliament will probably make for a better few months for the country, and for the economy, than the alternative that the Liberals and NDP had planned.”

     

    In truth, the Liberals and NDP were planning to form a right-wing government committed to Canada continuing to play a leading role in the Afghan war till the end of 2011 and to implementing the Conservatives’ plan to slash corporate taxes by more than $50 billion over five years.

     

    But the most powerful sections of the bourgeoisie preferred a government of unabashed reaction and toward that end were quite ready to run roughshod over parliamentary norms and democratic rights.

     

    Whilst the editorial pages largely avoided commenting on the shutting down of parliament, the dailies did publish many copy-inches of reportage. The common refrain of this reportage was that the governor-general had called a “time out.”

     

    The “time out” metaphor has a very definite political significance. It is meant to lull the population to sleep, to foster the notion that little, if anything, of significance has taken place and everything will, in any event, soon go back to normal because parliament has merely been “suspended.”

     

    The truth is otherwise. The suspension of parliament and of MPs’ right to defeat and replace the sitting government strikes at the most fundamental democratic principle–the right of the people to choose their own government.

     

    If not overturned by a movement from below, Canada’s constitution, through the power of precedent, will have been rewritten and the powers of the executive, of both the sitting government and of the governor-general, to ignore parliament and rule by decree will have been significantly increased.

     

    As for the question of “suspension,” this is precisely how democratic rights are taken away. Governments moving in an authoritarian direction don’t generally outright abolish democratic rights; they “suspend” them, claiming that they need to be temporarily withdrawn so as to confront a purported crisis or emergency.

     

    Working people must take heed: The corporate media’s support for the constitutional coup engineered by the Conservatives and the governor-general attests to the fact there is no significant constituency within the ruling class committed to the defence of constitutional principles and democratic rights.

    Hundreds protest police shooting of youth

    0

    THESSALONIKI, Greece (AP) — Riots broke out Sunday in the Greek capital and the northern city of Thessaloniki as demonstrators protested the fatal police shooting of a teenager in Athens the previous night.

    Youths hurled firebombs, rocks and other objects at riot police, who responded with tear gas.

    The circumstances surrounding the shooting of a 16-year-old boy by a police special guard in the downtown Athens district of Exarchia are still unclear. But the death triggered extensive riots in cities around the country overnight, with youths burning shops, setting up flaming barricades across streets and torching cars.

    More riots broke out during demonstrations on Sunday, with protesters in Greece’s second largest city of Thessaloniki attacking City Hall, two police precincts, several shops and a bank. They also attacked vans and cars belonging to several Greek television channels.

    The march of about 1,200 people turned violent when participants began pelting the police precinct, already targeted on Saturday night, with rocks and firebombs. Others erected barricades on central roads using blazing trash bins.

    Shops were smashed and a firebomb damaged a bank branch, the third such attack in Thessaloniki since Saturday night.

    In Athens, more than two thousand protesters began marching to the capital’s police headquarters. Violence quickly broke out, with demonstrators throwing rocks and firebombs, damaging several shops and banks.

    Firebombs also damaged an office building belonging to the Environment and Public Works Ministry. Police were using large amounts of tear gas to contain the rampaging youths.

    Earlier, Interior Minister Prokopis Pavlopoulos had called for restraint during the demonstrations. He expressed the government’s deep sadness over the teenager’s death, and both he and Deputy Minister Panagiotis Chinofotis submitted their resignations, which were not accepted by the prime minister.

    Police said that the two officers involved in the shooting claimed they were attacked by a group of youths in the Exarchia district. One responded by throwing a stun grenade, and the other by firing three shots. At least one shot hit the teen in the chest.

    Exarchia, home to music clubs, bars and increasing number of upscale restaurants, has long been considered a haven for anarchists and drug users. Clashes often break out during demonstrations in Greece, and anarchists frequently firebomb banks, car dealerships and vehicles with diplomatic license plates.

    After the shooting, hundreds of youths in Athens, Thessaloniki, Chania in Crete and other Greek cities hurled firebombs, rocks and other projectiles at police, who responded with tear gas. Rioters set up burning barricades across city streets, lit fires and smashed storefronts and bank branches.

    On Sunday, crews cleaned up streets littered with the debris of smashed and burned businesses and banks and the charred remains of cars, while tear gas still hung in the air.

    Twenty-four police were hurt in overnight rioting, and one remained hospitalized Sunday morning, Athens police said. It said rioters damaged or burned 31 stores, nine bank branches and 25 cars, including six police cars. Six people were arrested, five of them for theft from damaged stores and one for carrying a weapon, it said.

    The two officers involved in the shooting have been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, as has the police chief in the Exarchia precinct.

    Pavlopoulos promised there would be a thorough investigation into the teenager’s death and pledged to punish anyone found responsible.

    “It is inconceivable for there not to be punishment when a person loses their life, particularly when it is a child,” Pavlopoulos said during a news conference Sunday morning. “The taking of life is something that is not excusable in a democracy.”

    Human rights increasingly violated in Israel, report finds

    0

    Jerusalem – Basic human rights, such as health, a life of dignity, education, housing, equality, freedom from racism, freedom of expression, privacy and democracy are increasingly being violated in Israel, a human rights watchdog group warned Sunday.

    In its annual report, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) pointed to ‘extremely worrisome trends at the centre of which are violations of the most elementary human rights.’

    The report also noted that the situation in the occupied West Bank, between Israeli settlers and the local Palestinian population, was ‘reminiscent, in many and increasing ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa.’

    The ACRI noted that since the foundation of Israel, the country’s Arab citizens have been discriminated against though legislation and allocation of resources.

    In addition, women were widely discriminated against in the workplace, earning less money than men in nearly every profession, with a higher rate of unemployment, and with representation in the Israeli academia 10 per cent lower than the average in any of the European Union nations.

    While the discrimination between Jews of European origins and those of Oriental or Middle Eastern origin has now been virtually eradicated, the report said, the socioeconomic gap between the two groups has grown, which bolsters a feeling of discrimination.

    As regards the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian areas, the ACRI said that Israeli settlements in the West Bank have resulted in institutionalized discrimination in which two separate populations live under two separate judicial systems.

    Allocation of funds and services in the occupied area is also unequal and settler violence against local Palestinians has grown. Many of the 430 people killed and 1,150 wounded in the West Bank by Israeli security forcers in 2008 were innocent bystanders, the report said, without giving exact figures.

    The report went on to note that despite progressive labour legislation in Israel, the rights of employees are still violated, or at least not enforced, and many services remain physically inaccessible to the handicapped, who also suffer from a high rate of unemployment compared to the rest of the population.

    However, the ACRI did find that the rights of gays in Israel were relatively advanced compared to other Western countries, and gay couples enjoyed the same rights as common-law couples.

    The report was published to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

     

    Bush Bailout for Rumsfeld, Torturers Might Be Next

    0

    By Ann Woolner

    The season of forgiveness is here, and federal felons everywhere are hoping some of it will alight on them.

    The period from about Thanksgiving until precisely noon on Jan. 20, is prime time for pardons in a president’s last term.

    Junk-bond baron Michael Milken wants forgiveness, ex- WorldCom chief Bernard Ebbers a shorter prison term. More than 2,000 applications have flooded the White House and the Justice Department, most from run-of-the-mill crooks.

    Then there are those people not yet charged, much less convicted, who nervously look for pardons, too. Suspecting the future might bring indictments, those within President George W. Bush’s administration who may have broken laws to carry out Bush- Cheney policies could use the boss’s protection.

    Beyond the wiretappers, the perjurers, the obstructers of justice in the U.S. attorney firings are those who promoted the notion that torture isn’t torture, and even if it is, it isn’t necessarily illegal.

    Will Bush preemptively pardon them? If he doesn’t, what are the chances some of them might wind up behind bars?

    It would be pleasant to turn our back on the shame of the recent past, fervently denounce torture as un-American and, with a new president and a world eager to trust him, say it won’t happen again.

    There is something to be said for forgiving the excesses of public servants, some of whom were risking their lives, who believed they were protecting their nation even if skating close to the law’s edge.

    ‘Not Even Past’

    The problem with just moving on is, as William Faulkner put it, “The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past.”

    We can’t expect the enemy to respect anti-torture laws when they capture some of our guys, if we have flouted those same laws.

    “It’s a question of protecting future military personnel in future conflicts,” says Scott Horton, a New York lawyer to whom military lawyers turned when they couldn’t get the ear of the civilian leaders at the Pentagon. Now he writes for Harper’s magazine, often on torture.

    Nor can we allow to rest undisturbed the precedent Bush set for his successors. We can’t simply forget that an administration assumed it had authority to violate the law and human rights.

    When the torture at Abu Ghraib prison was exposed in 2004, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate committee he should be held accountable, if only because it “occurred on my watch.”

    Lack of Accountability

    Held accountable?

    Rumsfeld stayed on the job for another two years without so much as a reprimand from the president. It was as if the torture that killed at least one man, humiliated others and brought shame to the U.S. wasn’t sufficient grounds to kick him out of the Pentagon.

    There has to be some sort of accountability for what happened. I am not talking about vengeance or political retribution. I mean a somber, thorough look at what happened and how to make sure it doesn’t again.

    If, in the course of that, evidence turns up criminal conduct, we can take it from there.

    I’m not especially worried about punishing interrogators who stripped detainees naked, forced them into contorted poses for hours at a time, hosed them down and refrigerated them.

    True Investigation

    Nor am I focused on those who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example, to make the al-Qaeda leader think he was drowning, or who drugged and flew suspects to secret Central Intelligence Agency sites or countries like Egypt for more expert torture.

    (But I wouldn’t rule out prosecution for anyone up or down the line, depending on what a true investigation shows.)

    More than zeroing in on interrogators, I’m interested in those who declared that sort of conduct legal in the face of clear law that forbids it. This crowd includes former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld, some of Rumsfeld’s top aides and a slew of lawyers at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon. One of them, Jay Bybee, who used to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, now works as a federal appeals court judge.

    They crafted memoranda that said interrogators could essentially ignore the Geneva Conventions, international treaties and U.S. law barring torture. They said the president can authorize it in time of war, even though he can’t legally. And they laid out a defense for those interrogators who engage in torture, bogus as that argument was.

    Wise Counsel

    To accomplish this, they had to reject the wise and persistent counsel of career military lawyers and leaders. These experts insisted time and again that in permitting torture, government lawyers would be breaking the law, making torture more likely for captured U.S. troops, giving the enemy recruiting material and inflicting irreparable damage to the U.S.’s reputation.

    Writing a bad legal opinion doesn’t make the author a criminal conspirator. But it’s another matter if a lawyer whose duty is to guide government agents in behaving legally, instead writes memos intended to distort the law and gives cover for illegal conduct.

    So far, none of the investigations have led to a definitive account of what happened, though more are under way. If none produce a complete picture, the next president should empanel a commission that will.

    Whether through full disclosure or actual prosecutions, there must be acknowledgement of past sins, a determination not to repeat them and accountability for any sinners.

    Portland Police Boast of Torture

    0

    Citizen X

    “The Rap Sheet is the official monthly publication of the Portland Police Association. The Rap Sheet is the only publication of its kind that represents the interests of the men and women working in law enforcement in Portland.” This is how the Portland police union’s newspaper describes itself.

    On the cover of The Rap Sheet’s November, 2008 edition, an article appears that was authored by the Portland Police Association (PPA) President Scott Westerman, entitled “An objective view of the Chasse incident.”

    In his article, Westerman claims (among other things) that the media attention of the Chasse case was “misdirected” and that the Chasse family attorney is “posturing himself for financial gain” and “attempting to cloud the issue.” Westerman further attempts to direct responsibility for Chasse’s death from the police to “our degrading mental health system and others in his life.”

    However, perhaps even greater insight is provided in another article that also appears on the same Rap Sheet’s front page, “Riding with Rick.” In this article, retired Portland police detective Kent Perry writes about working with his former partner, officer Richard Hegrenes, at North Precinct. Describing events that occurred during the 1970’s, detective Perry seems to fondly recall, and vividly describes, incidents of violence, police brutality and torture.

    The fact that the Portland Police Association printed detective Perry’s 1970’s stories of police torture, in 2008, and then put it right next to their article defending themselves in the James Chasse “incident,” speaks volumes.

    Both articles can be read on PPA’s web site by going here (document in PDF format): http://www.portlandpoliceassociation.com/rsissues/0811novrs.pdf

    In his article, detective Perry boasts that Portland police officers working “The Avenue” (now known as Martin Luther King Blvd in NE Portland) had a “certain panache.” “Only the toughest, meanest, don’t-piss-me-off-or-I’ll-kick-your-ass-into-the-middle-of-next-week cops worked ‘The Avenue,'” Perry writes.

    Detective Perry also writes of the intentional torture of suspects using “the once-venerated ‘choke-hold.'”

    A choke hold applied “… sometimes to a junkie on the street reluctant to disgorge the dime bag hidden under his tongue,” detective Perry goes on to explain that, “A choke hold was deemed to have been properly administered if, in the process, the subject lost not only consciousness, but all bladder and bowel control as well. I got pretty good at it. Rick [Hegrenes], though, was a virtuoso.”

    The use of choke holds was banned by the Portland police after the April 20, 1985 death of 31 year-old Tony Lloyd Stephenson. Mr Stephenson was African-American, an off-duty Fred Meyer security guard. Mr Stephenson had been trying to break-up a fight at the 7-11 located at NE 3rd & Weidler when Portland police officers arrived. Officer Gary Barbour put Mr Stephenson into a choke hold from which he never regained consciousness. Officers neglected to do CPR when they discovered that Mr Stephenson was not breathing and in apparent cardiac arrest, contrary to police General Orders at the time. A later Internal Affairs investigation revealed that officers also mistakenly canceled an ambulance that had been called for Mr Stephenson. He died in the 7-11 parking lot.

    After all the pain and division that Mr Stephenson’s death caused the community, it is interesting that, all these years later, the Portland Police Association would print such remorseless remarks about their use of choke holds. Further, the choke hold symptoms that detective Perry describes, “loss of all bladder and bowel control” are actually the symptoms of strangulation.

    For law enforcement use, the choke hold was designed to compress the carotid arteries and jugular veins on both sides of the neck, causing brief unconsciousness. Even this was eventually deemed too dangerous for the Portland police to do and the use of choke holds was discontinued after Mr Stephenson’s tragic death. However, loss of all bladder and bowel control occur when someone is being strangled. And clearly, Detective Perry and his partner Richard Hegrenes enjoyed inflicting such strangulation torture on people.

    “I can see him yet,” Detective Perry writes, “in my mind’s eye, clinging desperately to the back of some drunken low-life, riding him like a cowboy on a bucking bronco, bouncing off walls, kitchen appliances – parked cars, if we were outside – everybody screaming and yelling until, finally, the hapless dirt-bag collapsed, all the fight gone out of him, pants fouled (fragrantly). Yee-hah!”

    The fact that Detective Perry would boast of such things, and that The Rap Sheet would print them now, shows that apparently not much has changed with the Portland Police Bureau even after all these years.

    On the Portland police web site, Chief Rosie Sizer writes, “The Portland Police Bureau is made up of men and women who go out each and every day and do an extraordinary job for the citizens of Portland. I’m proud of the work they do and proud to be a part of an organization that serves the community so well.”

    Meanwhile, the Portland Police Association is the organization that represents the rank and file police officers, and they printed detective Perry’s glowing story of merciless torture and violence on their own newspaper’s front page. Right next to their defense of what happened to James Chasse. The Rap Sheet offers no apologies or disclaimers for Detective Perry’s callous remarks. This is the legacy that they seem to take pride in. How sad.

    Are these current members of the Portland Police Association the same officers that Chief Sizer is so proud of? That serve their community so well?

    Who would you believe?

    Five Blackwater Guards To Face Massacre Charges Next Week

    1

    By JASON RYAN and BRIAN ROSS

    Five Blackwater guards have been told to surrender to the FBI by Monday to face federal manslaughter and assault charges connected to the shooting deaths of 17 civilians at an traffic circle in Iraq last year, ABC News has learned.

    Law enforcement officials say the grand jury hearing the case was in session Thursday in Washington, D.C. and was expected to have voted on the indictments.

     

    The federal investigation revealed that two of the Blackwater guards did most of the shooting and are expected to face either murder or manslaughter charges, law enforcement officials said.

     

    They identified the two as Dustin Heard, of Tennessee, a former Marine who joined Blackwater in 2004; and Paul Slough, of Texas, a former U.S. Army infantry soldier who joined Blackwater in 2006.

    Also told to surrender to the FBI on Monday are: Donald Ball, a former Marine Corporal from West Valley City, Utah; Evan Liberty, a former Marine who guarded US Embassies in Egypt and Guatemala from Rochester, N.H.; Nick Slatten, a former Army sergeant from the 82 Airborne from Sparta, Tenn.

    FBI agents and American prosecutors plan to travel to Baghdad next week to personally brief the families of victims about the indictments, according to the law enforcement officials.

     

    Justice Department officials declined to comment on the ABC News report.

    The bloody incident at Baghdad’s Nisoor Square sparked widespread outrage in Iraq over what many considered trigger-happy American security guards who shot at civilians with impunity and no fear of consequences.

     

    Weeks later, the Department of Justice publicly announced it had opened an investigation. Some of the defense lawyers say their clients, all former decorated members of the military in their 20’s, are being used as scapegoats to quell anger at the U.S. in Iraq.

     

    Blackwater maintained its guards fired in self-defense after coming under fire as they protected a diplomatic motorcade.

     

    Civilians at the scene and relatives of the dead told U.S. investigators there was no hostile fire and the shootings were unprovoked.

    Case Against Blackwater Guards Likely to Face Serious Legal Challenge

    Prosecutors plan to charge the men under a law meant to cover soldiers and military contractors even though the Blackwater guards were in Iraq as part of a State Department security contract, according to lawyers briefed on the case.

     

    As a result, the case is likely to face a serious challenge on technical legal grounds.

     

    “I think a district judge would have really no choice but to dismiss the indictment,” said noted military defense lawyer Gene Fidell, citing the fact the Blackwater contract was not with the military.

    The jurisdiction “simply doesn’t apply,” Fidell said.

     

    In a statement made the day after the September 2007 shooting, Slough told US State Department agents he opened fire on a car because “the driver looked directly at me and kept moving toward our motorcade. Fearing for my life and the lives of my teammates, I engaged the driver and stopped the threat.”

    U.S. investigators say the driver of the car was an unarmed civilian.

     

    Heard, in his statement to agents, said he “heard gunshots” and “engaged the car with approximately 20 to 30 rounds from my M4 rifle.”

     

    Heard’s attorney, David Schertler, said they strongly disagree with the decision to bring charges against Heard, which he characterized as “wrong and unjust.”

    Schertler said: “On September 16, 2007, at Nisour Square, Blackwater security guards were defending themselves and their comrades who were being shot at and receiving fire from Iraqis they believed to be enemy insurgents, in a place where the enemy has made a major city, Baghdad, the battlefield. Because of that and because of the deceptive tactics used by these insurgents against Americans, civilian casualties tragically occur. We have been and remain determined and prepared to fight these charges and we are confident that Dustin Heard will be vindicated.”

    Lawyers for the other Blackwater guards declined to comment. Blackwater says it has cooperated with the investigation and officials say no criminal charges are expected against the company itself.

    Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration

    0

    From Bob Fertik:

    President-elect Obama wants Americans to tell him our priorities at Change.gov, so we submitted this. Please vote for this by clicking the vote tally. (It will prompt you to login).

    Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration

    President-elect Obama recently said, “if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law.”

    Attorney General-designate Eric Holder recently said top Bush Administration officials “authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance of American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the Writ of Habeus Corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants, and authorized the use of procedures that both violate international law and the United States Constitution.”

    The Bush administration has refused to investigate its own crimes and President Bush may issue blanket pardons before he leaves. President Obama must appoint a Special Prosecutor – ideally Patrick Fitzgerald – to fully investigate these crimes and prosecute those responsible to demonstrate that we are truly a Nation of Laws and no one – including the President – is above the law.

    Leaked Documents Show Thousands Could Have Their Homes Searched

    0
    NO2ID has received a Leaked Home Office document that seeks to take away the fundemental civil liberties of any worker on the government’s intrusive and unwanted ID card scheme.
    A secret Home Office document leaked to campaign group NO2ID yesterday shows that the thousands of workers on the ID scheme face the possibility of having their homes entered and searched on the say-so
    of the Home Secretary.

    The papers were passed to NO2ID’s national co-ordinator, Phil Booth, in the aftermath of the furore over the police raid on Damian Green MP’s office.

    The document is the Non-Disclosure Agreement that was signed by those companies bidding for work related to the National Identity Scheme (the ID card programme).

    It was drafted in 2007 and has been signed by the five companies [1] on the supplier short-list, one of which (Thales) has since been awarded a multi-million pound contract to start work on the scheme.

    Clause 5 of the document provides the grounds upon which the Home Office can secure access to the property, computers and records of the company, its employees and subcontractors.

    Such access would be at the ‘sole discretion’ of the Home Secretary. No search warrant or judicial oversight would be required.

    This would mean, for example, if an employee of a software company working on the ID scheme took a work laptop home with them, they could face having their home entered and personal [1] property searched without a warrant (or indeed, without any suspicion of a crime having been committed).

    Similar searches of commercial premises would, of course, imply the ability to look at every file stored on a computer or in a filing cabinet – not just those marked ‘NIS’ – compromising the commercial confidentiality of any other clients.

    Phil Booth, NO2ID’s national co-ordinator, said;

    “This is quite extraordinary, especially when you consider how careless and untrustworthy the government is with ordinary people’s personal information.

    “Some serious questions must be answered – for example, has every employee of these five companies, and all of their subcontractors, working on the ID scheme been made aware of the fact that their homes
    could be entered and searched without warrant at any time in the next 25 years? How do they feel about this? Were they given a choice?

    “Under these conditions, doesn’t working on the National Identity Scheme also mean sacrificing any promise of commercial confidentiality these companies have made to their other customers?”

    No Secret Pardons for Bush

    1

    From American Freedom Campaign

    We may soon be seeing one of history’s greatest examples of adding insult to injury.

    For eight years, we have been forced to sit by helplessly as President George W. Bush and top members of his administration eviscerated the Constitution, broke federal laws, and defied the will of Congress.

    Now, President Bush is poised to give each and every one of his accomplices — from Dick Cheney to Karl Rove to Alberto Gonzales — a full pardon, ensuring that they will never receive the punishments they deserve for their activities.

    Worse, Bush may issue a preemptive “blanket” pardon, covering all officials within his administration without disclosing either the names of the officials involved or the crimes for which they are being absolved.

    If this kind of secretive pardon seems wrong to you, please take a moment and send an email to your representatives in Congress immediately:

    http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_K…

    The American Freedom Campaign strongly opposes the issuance of preemptive blanket pardons for administration officials who sanctioned torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping and more. First of all, if these individuals believe they were acting within the law, they have nothing to fear. If they broke laws, then they should suffer the consequences.

    In addition, we believe the American people deserve to know which members of the administration were involved in illegal behavior. Should Bush issue a blanket pardon to all administration officials, it will set a precedent under which future presidents may direct illegal behavior for four or eight years and then give all participants in the illegal conduct secretive free passes on his (or her) way out of office.

    Congress can, however, stop this most objectionable action before it occurs. The American Freedom Campaign has proposed a Pardons Disclosure Act*, which would force the president to specifically name any political appointees for whom pardons are granted along with the crime or crimes for which they are being pardoned.

    To tell your representatives in Congress to support a Pardons Disclosure Act, click on the following link:

    http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_K…

    Once you have sent your message to Congress, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the “Tell-A-Friend” option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.

    Thank you so much for taking action.

    Steve Fox

    Campaign Director

    American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

    * The following language could be the heart of a Pardons Disclosure Act:

    “Any pardon issued by the President under Article II, section 2, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, if granted to the President, the Vice-President or any political appointees in the President’s own administration, shall specifically identify each individual to whom a pardon is being granted along with the crimes committed or acts taken in the course of his or her official duties for which that person is being pardoned.”

    What’s Wrong with the U.S. Military

    2

    By ANDREW COCKBURN

    Coinciding with the arrival of Obama and his deputies in Washington, the Center for Defense Information is releasing “America’s Defense Meltdown — Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress,” a primer on what is wrong with our defense system written by men with long and honorable experience in the bowels of the military services and Pentagon bureaucracy. The book’s editor, Winslow Wheeler is familiar to readers of this site for his acrid and knowledgeable commentaries on the defense establishment. CounterPuncher Andrew Cockburn interviews him about the book and its message.

    You say in your preface that “the vast majority, perhaps even all, of Congress, the general officer corps of the armed forces, top management of American defense manufacturers, prominent members of Washington’s think tank community and nationally recognized ‘defense journalists’ will hate this book.” Why is that?

    WW: The conventional wisdom amongst the elite in Washington is that they have done a pretty good job of taking care of our national defense, that things may be a little expensive but we have the best armed forces in the world, perhaps even in history, and we do the best for our troops by giving them the world’s most sophisticated equipment which is, of course, the most effective. We have, so the elite asserts, demonstrated our ability by knocking off Saddam Hussein’s forces twice and are in general a model to the rest of the world on how to build equipment and provide for forces.

    That’s all crap. None of it is true. None of it stands up to scrutiny. Let’s tick through it. First of all, we now have the largest defense budget in inflation-adjusted dollars since the end of World War Two. That has bought the smallest military establishment we have had since the end of World War Two. We now have fewer navy combat ships and submarines, fewer combat aircraft and fewer army fighting units than we have had at any point since the end of World War Two. Our major items of equipment are on average older than at any time during this period. Key elements of our fighting forces are badly trained. In other words we’re getting less for more. People point to the two wars against Saddam Hussein. His armed forces were pitifully incompetent and even against them in both the 1991 and 2003 gulf wars we demonstrated serious deficiencies while overestimating how good we were.

    But is the U.S. likely to be facing anyone better in the near future?

    WW: Apparently we are right now. In Afghanistan things are going south, rapidly. In Iraq people seem to think the surge saved things, but far more important than the so-called surge in reducing American casualties has been the purchase of Sunni co-operation with hefty bribes and the ceasefire that was brokered not by us but by Iran to get Muqtada al-Sadr’s forces to sit on the sidelines. Time after time we read in the press about how American air units have killed civilians, how American ground units have killed civilians. We have a huge technological edge against these opponents and yet they are able not just to survive against us but fight us all too effectively.

    What brought the U.S. to this sorry state of affairs?

    WW: The fundamental reason, I believe, is that we are not interested in what works best in combat. Instead, our defense structure in Washington is interested in other things. In Congress they’re interested in jobs and campaign contributions. In the Pentagon they’re interested in various political and bureaucratic agendas. They’re not paying attention to the lessons of combat history. A bloated, declining military structure is the result. 

    Surely you’re not suggesting that our leaders in uniform, as opposed to those interfering civilians [sound of Wheeler laughing] aren’t interested in producing the most combat-efficient force possible?

    WW: I was laughing because that’s the bilgewater that they keep on pumping — and believing, I’m sure — on Capitol Hill. If you look at the record, a lot of our military leadership is very questionable. During the 2003 march to Baghdad the commanders had to pause simply out of panic at the minimal opposition they were facing, coupled with some poor weather and a supply problem. None of the commanders warned the public, or the president, about the problems that we encountered in Iraq. People point to [former army chief of staff] General Eric Shinseki as the great hero who told us that we needed a larger invasion and occupation force and was ignored. That argument simply doesn’t work. The idea that more Christian, white American soldiers occupying an alien country would have prevented an insurgency is ridiculous. 

    We might also pause to note that Shinseki gave his famous warning just three weeks before the invasion, having remained totally mute for the year of buildup when a public statement might actually have made a difference. Anyway, criticism of the Pentagon is normally considered liberal turf, but I believe you yourself served as a Republican staffer on the hill for many years and your contributors don’t look like too dovish a crew. Can you tell us a little more about who put this book together?

    WW: It’s not a bipartisan bunch, it’s a non-partisan bunch. I myself worked for three Republicans and one Democrat on Capitol Hill. Two of the Republicans were so-called ‘suspect Republicans’. One was Jacob Javits, the other was Nancy Kassebaum, neither of whom were ‘good soldiers’ on the Republican dogma of “more money for the Pentagon means we are stronger.” The people who wrote this anthology come from all over the political spectrum. In most cases I don’t even know what their politics are. Some of them are registered Republicans. Most of them are pretty non political people. Their qualification is the fact that they had brilliant careers, albeit sometimes short ones, in the armed forces or inside the Pentagon, as civilians. Some of them are writers who have written extensively about defense issues with no identifiable politics.

    On the list of contributors I see majors, lieutenant colonels, colonels. I don’t see any generals. Why do you think that might be?

    WW: I’ve not met a general in my lifetime that I would welcome to write a chapter in this book. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I just don’t know of them. In some cases these contributors sacrificed their careers in order to speak truth to power. These are people who have demonstrated by what they have already written and what they have already done that they understand the nature of the problem in our defenses and that they have real ideas to address those problems. 

    Now there will be some among CounterPunch’s readers who say, “Wheeler and his pals just want to give us a more combat-efficient military so that President Obama can go and bomb and invade and lay waste to more countries.” What do you say to that? 

    WW: They’re half right. We do want to give any president an effective, usable military force. But we have three chapters in this book that address various aspects of our national character and national security strategy. The second chapter, written by retired air force colonel Chet Richards is remarkable in the radically different national security strategy it urges Congress and the president to consider. It is fundamentally a strategy that goes back to America’s roots and says that we should only fight when we truly have to fight rather than pursue agendas and political dogmas and help politicians posture as patriots. 

    It’s clear that you feel strongly about the amount of money we’re spending on defense and yet it’s frequently pointed out that calcaulated as a percentage of GDP, we spent more on defense in the 1950s. Do you think we’re exaggerating the burden of the present defense budget?

    WW: The use of the measure of GDP percentage to decide how much money we should spend on the Pentagon is specious and ridiculous. The thing that should define how much we spend is the world situation; how much we can afford; how we decide to make good use of our money. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, an individual that President-elect Obama seems to be happy with, has said that we should adopt a specific share of GDP — four per cent, he says — and spend that only on defense. It would make as much sense if we counted the number of MacDonalds in this country as a measure of the size of our economy and built our defense on the basis of the number of MacDonald’s hamburger stands in this country. It is a completely irrelevant measure of what our spending should be.

    Given the way the economy is going, pretty soon four per cent of GDP isn’t going to get you much of a defense budget.

    WW: That’s why they’re now starting to talk about “4.8 percent.” It’s a cheap trick designed to make the defense budget look small. Because the Pentagon budget is now bigger than it has been since 1946 they’re looking for devices to make it look small and this ruse of a percentage of GDP is right down their alley. 

    Outline what you and your contributors say the Obama national security team should be doing, as opposed to what they seem more than likely to do. 

    WW: The book is divided into chapters that identify specific problems as well as the solutions we identify, but to keep it short and simple, it starts with a national strategy that seems more appropriate for the 21st century and does not get America involved in these quagmire occupations in alien lands and seeks to defend us only when we have real threats that we actually have to face.

    What that means is that our army, navy and air force need to go through a radical resizing and reposturing to make themselves appropriate to the world as it currently exists. It also means that we need to learn how to think in new and different ways in making decisions in the Pentagon. By that I mean decisions about hardware need to be made on the basis of much more reliable data, in sharp contrast to the phony, biased data that they use to make decisions now. 

    We need to have a set of people making those decisions who are not corrupted by the possibility that after they leave the Pentagon they can go work for people who are making or losing money based on their decisions. That’s the so-called revolving door issue. People tend to think it’s not a big deal. It’s a huge deal. It corrupts our decisions and it corrupts the people making them. 

    Given the sort of people he’s selecting for defense position, it looks as though Obama is not necessarily going to follow the course of action you urge in your book. What is your opinion of the Obama defense team as currently formulated?

    WW: He campaigned on “Change We Can Believe in” and his transition almost immediately switched to “Continuity We Can Believe In.” The people so far selected, especially Robert Gates, have a track record, and that track record is basically to keep things the way they are. Gates will do what he’s told on issues like Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s already made it clear that as far as managing the Pentagon is concerned he thinks he’s been doing a competent job. But during his tenure things have only gotten worse. The budget’s going up faster than ever before in recent history; the size of our forces is going south; the equipment continues to get older. We have a new report from the Congressional Budget Office that tracks the size of our weapons inventory and its age. This study shows that if everything goes perfectly according to Gates’ plans as revealed in his Pentagon budget, our forces will continue to shrink and the equipment will continue to get older.

    The one exception is Obama’s plan to expand the number of combat units in the army and marine corps. That is turning out to be a question of much larger cost than people suspected. It’s going to cost us somewhere in excess of a hundred billion dollars. It’s very unclear therefore if that expansion is actually going to occur and the historic trend suggests that even if it does occur it will reverse itself in a few years and the additional units will be phased out. Also, if you look at previous wars such as Korea and the Indochina wars, the expansions that occurred during those conflict were gigantic compared to the puny little 60,000 man increase that Robert Gates and Barack Obama say they want to endorse. 

    Realistically, do you think there’s any possibility that you could meaningful reform in the Pentagon?

    WW: I’m not at all optimistic. The second tier of appointments that they’re talking about in the press for the Obama team are mostly holdovers from the Clinton era, when things were almost as bad as they were during the Bush era. Most of the major hardware programs that are now coming a cropper as major cost and performance disasters were conceived during the Clinton era. Things such as the Future Combat Systems, or the Navy’s DDG 1000 Destroyer known as the Arsenal Ship and later the DDX Destroyer, spawned when Richard Danzig was Secretary of the Navy. Danzig is under active consideration to be deputy secretary of defense and Gates’ natural successor when Gates finishes whatever short timer term he has under Obama. The F-22 fighter, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, it goes on, all these programs that are cost and performance disasters had their genesis during the Clinton era.

    One of the individuals being talked of now for some unspecified senior position with the Obama team is an individual by the name of William Lynn. During the Clinton era Lynn was the Comptroller of the Department of Defense. I was a staffer on the Senate Budget Committee and I’ve never seen, before or since, such preposterous gimmicks as those that were added when William Lynn was chief financial officer at the Pentagon as the DoD Comptroller. If that’s the kind of performance we can expect, we’re in for a rocky time with the Pentagon and its budget.

    What about Obama’s National Security Adviser, General Jim Jones? He looks like a fine upstanding marine.

    WW: He is a man of great stature, physically and figuratively, in Washington. He is a Washington ‘heavy’ but if you look at his record, nothing much ever happened. Things went south in Afghanistan pretty rapidly when he was supreme commander of all Nato forces in Afghanistan.  When he was Commandant of the Marine Corps, a lot of the marines’ overpriced underperforming hardware programs, such as the V-22 [vertical takeoff troop transport plane] and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle were endorsed and continued happily along. He seems to have been mostly a placeholder when he had these very senior and important positions.

    Interested readers can download America’s Defense Meltdown for free from the Center for Defense Information.

    Andrew Cockburn is a regular CounterPunch contributor. He lives in Washington DC. His most recent book is  Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall and Catastrophic Legacy.

    Noam Chomsky and the Innate Humanity in the Human Brain

    2

    Discover | In his penetrating study of language, MIT linguist Noam Chomsky has given us a framework that is to culture what the genetic code is to life. “Noam Chomsky’s position in the history of ideas is comparable to that of Darwin or Descartes,” University College London linguist Neil Smith declared in Nature. “Chomsky has redefined our understanding of ourselves as humans.”

    Chomsky’s works, most notably Syntactic Structures (1957) and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), presented a revolutionary approach to understanding language structure, known as generative grammar, positing that every child has the innate capacity to master language. Chomsky’s finding that language is genetically determined and part of the evolutionary process ultimately overturned the once popular notion that language comes to children through imitation and conditioning.

    In addition to being a linguistic scholar, Chomsky has earned a worldwide reputation as an impassioned and informed political writer. His observations, which grew out of his opposition to the Vietnam War and, later, what he saw as the United States’ resorting to violence and other forms of coercion and domination abroad, thrust him into the spotlight and have made him one of the top pundits and gadflies of the day.

    One reason for Chomsky’s enormous influence in both the “hard” and social sciences may be his willingness to share ideas and his embrace of open debate. “I don’t want any followers,” Chomsky once told an interviewer. “My message, especially to students, is that they shouldn’t be following anyone.”

    An appreciation of Chomsky by Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard University and author of The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature:

    Noam Chomsky stands in the tradition of the great Enlightenment thinkers who combined a sweeping intellectual vision with meticulous technical analyses. He revived a rationalist conception of human nature in which the mind is richly endowed with creative powers at a time when behaviorism ruled and “innate” was a dirty word.

    He showed that languages have an elegant mathematical structure, which set a research agenda for linguistics, psychology, and computer science for decades to come, namely, “What are the computations that allow a language to be learned and used?” And he uncovered countless intriguing phenomena of language itself. Who would have guessed that sentences as similar as “He appeared to Lisa to be brave” and “He appealed to Lisa to be brave” would have opposite meanings?

    Chomsky is also a polemicist, spawning both steadfast disciples and implacable enemies. Some scholars find his theories overly abstruse and disconnected from biology. Yet despite having another life as a prolific activist, he remains, on the brink of his 80th birthday, the world’s most influential working linguist.

    ‘THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER’ INSIST ANTI-CENTROS CAMPAIGNERS

    1

    On Monday 1st December, nine campaigners from Lancaster travelled to London to protest at the offices of Centros, the development company behind the plans for the canal corridor shopping centre. The protesters were not acting in the name of the Carnival of Culture, It’s our City or any other campaigning group.

    Contrary to reports appearing in the Bay and the Citizen, protesters did not
    enter the Centros offices by force, nor did they enter shouting and screaming.
    Whilst some protesters quietly held up a banner and handed out fliers, four
    protesters locked themselves to one another, so that they could not be moved.
    They then proceeded to read out a list of questions to engage Centros’ members
    of staff in a dialogue.

    After having sat through the pretence of a council planning meeting, where most
    councillors (excepting the Greens) happily swallowed the often absurd claims
    made by Centros, these protesters felt utterly disempowered. Why had most
    councillors failed to ask any challenging questions, such as: if this
    development isn’t going to increase traffic, as Centros claims, why is there
    going to be a four-fold increase in car parking spaces? Why did they let
    Centros claim this development would be good for the environment, because it
    would reduce shopping trips from Lancaster to Preston, whilst simultaneously
    claiming that the development would be economically viable because people from
    Preston, Blackpool and Kendal would be coming to shop here? Why did they not
    challenge Centros’ plans by pointing out how big developments like this
    threaten the viability of independent local business?

    Nothing Centros said was challenged by any councillors other than the Greens,
    and nothing that those speaking in opposition had to say was given
    consideration. Petitions and letters and the biggest march in Lancaster for a
    very long time did not make most councillors see that this development faces
    massive opposition; not even the removal of Ian Barker – clearly a protest
    against this development – was acknowledged for what it was. Voting Barker out
    was the clearest way possible for those most directly affected by these plans
    to say Stop. They were ignored, leaving many people — including those who took
    part in Monday’s action — feeling that there was no other alternative but to
    take a more direct approach.

    Taking direct action has a long and, though we often forget it, successful and
    valued history. From Gandhi to the Suffragettes to the civil rights movement to
    the anti-roads campaigners, direct action has brought change when petitions and
    letters were not enough.

    As well as having a local impact, the protesters believe that, in the face of
    catastrophic climate change, developments like this which rely on unsustainable
    transport patterns and a continuation of over consumption are nothing short of
    madness; in fact, they go against the government’s own proposals to drastically
    cut CO2 emissions.

    Articles in the press this week have called the protest an anti-development
    campaign; but the people involved would love to see this area developed in a
    genuinely sustainable way, restoring existing historic buildings, building
    sustainable and affordable housing, providing real green spaces, and ensuring
    that the existing city centre and its many small, independent shops remain
    viable.

    Below is the text of the leaflet handed out to office workers and other people
    in the building.
    For further info, please contact: 383012 and leave a message, or email
    lancasterbasement@aktivix.org

    ***********************************
    Centros…at the heart of urban degeneration…


    Why are we here?
    We’ve come to the offices of Centros today to peacefully demonstrate against the
    planned invasion of our town and our community by this development company.
    Just as Centros has come to Lancaster and forced itself on our community, so we
    are now coming to Centros directly, to let them know we cannot allow them to
    destroy the environment and soul of our town.

    The development that is planned for Lancaster is almost half the size of the
    existing town centre.That means that either Lancaster town centre will grow by
    fifty percent, or that the old town, with many small independent shops, will
    rapidly turn into a ghost town. Neither option is acceptable.

    Hundreds of people have taken part in protests against this development, and
    thousands more have signed petitions and voiced their opposition. But a debt
    ridden council and a company based in London have decided they have the right
    to decide Lancaster’s fate.We’re here to tell them they don’t.

    Centros & Climate Change…
    The reality of climate change is no longer being denied – the international
    community has recognised we need to act now to prevent massive and
    unprecedented world-wide destruction. If we take this threat seriously,
    developments like that proposed by Centros simply cannot happen.

    It is inconceivable that developments that encourage car journeys and
    unsustainable consumption habits can continue in the face of global climate
    chaos.We need to start changing the way we live, work and consume, and the
    plans laid out by Centros epitomise everything we need to stop doing.

    Real Sustainability…
    Many other individuals and groups have offered their own visions of a truly
    sustainable and community centred regeneration for the same site. Real green
    spaces – not trees in tubs; local shops – not multinationals; sustainable
    transport solutions – not an almost three-fold increase in parking spaces and
    the destruction of existing cycle routes.
    Centros needs this development to go ahead, because that’s how it makes its
    money. Lancaster, and the planet, need this development to stop right now…and
    a truly sustainable alternative to be chosen instead.

    Something’s got to give…
    The lives, jobs, health and well-being of the thousands of local people who
    would be directly affected by this proposal, not to mention the state of the
    planet, must take precedence over the short term interests of Centros.

    Utlimately, we believe we have not only a moral, but also a legal right to
    prevent this development from going ahead; if we’re going to stop climate
    change, we’re going to have to stop developments like this.

    Please visit the following sites for more information about other campaigns
    against Centros, the threat of climate change and the economic and social
    impacts of such developments:
    www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange www.stopclimatechaos.org
    www.timetolead.eu www.neweconomics.org www.carnivalofculture.org.uk
    www.itsourcity.org.uk

    Smash EDO: Online map reveals the extent of police brutality

    0

    A new interactive online map reveals the extent of police brutality in Brighton during the Smash EDO protest on October 15th.

    Plotting events and linking them with relevant video footage, photography and eyewitness reports, the map makes for deeply concerning reading. Issues raised include:

    – The arrest of a disabled student, who was held for 7 hours and denied access to a doctor

    – Students attacked by police dogs while peacefully protesting

    – Arrests of nonviolent protesters and observers under anti-terrorism laws passed in November 2001.

    One student, who was arrested while observing the event and suffers from a severe disability, insists she was not a part of the protest. “I suffer from Fybromyalgia Syndrome, which means I have to keep wrapped up warm. Police took one look at my scarf and decided I was a protestor. They didn’t want to listen when I said I was disabled and not part of the protest.”

    The student, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was held in custody for 7 hours and denied access to a doctor. She was also cut off from her solicitor and refused reconnection. All her clothes and possessions were confiscated, including her phone and camera. She is still under bail terms and has not had her possessions returned.

    Another Sussex student describes the attacks upon protesters by police dog units. ‘We linked arms with our hands in the air to show we meant no harm, and walked towards the police lines, very slowly. I kept on saying, We’re not going to hurt you, We don’t want trouble.
     
    “I was trying to joke and laugh with the policeman in front of me, who kept on shouting, and wouldn’t look at me. Eventually, I said, Are you afraid to make eye contact, because you’ve been taught that if you do, you won’t be able to hit me? He didn’t like that – at that point he set his dog on me. I was knocked down with the dog’s teeth around my left arm.”

    The creator of the map, Sussex student Josh Jones, says:
     
    “When police are using anti-terror laws to arrest peaceful protesters, something had gone seriously wrong in our society.
     
    “It is my hope that by raising awareness around these events, police actions in the future will have to be more reasonable.”

    The map can be viewed at http://photographywithoutborders.blogspot.com

    Nearly half of all criminals escape the DNA database say Lib Dems

    0
    Ahead of today’s European Court of Human Rights ruling on whether two innocent men should be removed from the DNA database, the Liberal Democrats have revealed that 40% of Britain’s criminals escape inclusion on the database.

    Research by the party revealed that:
    > More than 2.3 million criminals, 41.6% of all criminals with a record on the Police National Computer, are not on the DNA database

    > There are over 850,000 people on the DNA database who have no criminal record
    > Since the database was created, more than a million children have been added to it, including over 340,000 who remain under 18

    > The number of crimes solved using DNA evidence fell by nearly 12% last year

    Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:
    “The Government’s policy is both shambolic and grotesquely unfair.

    “Because it has proved easier to target kids and the innocent than criminals, the enormous increase in DNA samples has not led to a corresponding increase in convictions.

    “Nobody who committed a crime before 2001 and who has evaded arrest since then will have their records on the computer, so many real crooks are avoiding detection.

    “The random growth of the database is due to a policy of incompetence combined with intrusiveness. The police should target former criminals, not the innocent.

    “All the innocent people on the database will be outraged that they are being treated worse than nearly half of all convicted criminals.

    “Ministers should focus on tracking down the serious offenders not on the database, rather than preying on the vulnerable and the lawful.”

    The figures came in answers to Parliamentary Questions.

    The most up to date figures show that there were 2,324,879 people with a record on the Police National Computer (PNC) in England and Wales who had a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning, but no record on the DNA database:

    There are 3,259,347 people on the DNA database who have had a conviction, caution, formal warning or reprimand recorded on the PNC:

    2,324,879 + 3,259,347 = 5,584,226 people have a conviction, caution, formal warning or reprimand recorded on the PNC. 41.6% of those (2,324,879/5,584,226) have no record on the DNA database.

    857,366 people on the database do not have a current criminal record on the PNC:
    <link>

    Since the DNA database was created, 1,066,896 profiles of people aged under-18 have been added. This is nearly a quarter of the total. There are currently 344,339 children on the database:

    The number of crimes solved by DNA evidence fell by 11.7% last year, from 19,949 crimes (0.37% of all recorded crime) in 2006/07 to 17,614 crimes (0.36% of all recorded crime) in 2007/08. This is down from a peak of 21,098 detections involving DNA evidence in 2002/03:

    Publictechnology.net

    ID Cards Under Fire

    0
    Ministers trying to extend identity card scheme by stealth say Lib Dems
    Commenting on reports that measures will be introduced to allow state officials to demand a person’s proof of identity at all times, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:
    “Ministers seem to be breaking their promise that no one would ever have to carry an ID card. They are leaving the back door open by giving themselves the option to make the carrying of an ID card compulsory in future.

    “This is a sly and underhand way of extending the ID card scheme by stealth.

    “If this is included in legislation, it will be the worst example of creeping state power since the outrageous plan, thankfully jettisoned, to allow ministers to create criminal offences with a sentence of up to two years in prison without even a debate in Parliament.”

    ‘Expensive and intrusive’ & should be ditched says SNP
    SNP Westminster Home Affairs Spokesman, Pete Wishart MP, has expressed concern over reports that immigration and citizenship proposals in the Queen’s Speech contain clauses which will give state officials the power, previously reserved for times of war, to demand proof of identity at any time.
    Currently, state officials can only ask for proof of identity if there is reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a crime but according to analysis by Liberty, only those who have never been abroad for business or on holiday would be exempt under the new legislation.

    Mr Wishart said:
    “This looks like another slippery attempt by the UK Government to introduce ID cards by the back door.

    “Labour’s abysmal record on data protection is reason enough to abandon ID cards but it is even more absurd pushing ahead with this costly project given the dire state of the UK Government’s finances.

    Publictechnology.net

    Security agreements mean Iraq occupation will continue to 2012 and beyond

    0

    By James Cogan |

    For more than five-and-a-half years, and at the cost of the lives of at least one million Iraqis and over 4,200 Americans, the US has occupied Iraq and repressed all opposition to its presence. The Iraqi parliament’s ratification of a status of forces agreement and “Strategic Framework” with the US on November 27 ensures the ongoing occupation of the country and formalises its status as a US client state.

     

    The status of forces goes into effect on January 1, the same day a United Nations mandate expires, and provides a legal framework for American operations inside Iraq until December 31, 2011. President-elect Barack Obama has put his stamp of approval on the new arrangements.

     

    With the armed resistance largely drowned in blood, US combat troops will pull back to some 400 fortified bases outside the country’s population centres by the middle of next year. The Iraqi government, however, can at any time request American military assistance in combat operations against “terrorists”, “outlaw groups” and “remnants of the former regime”. “Non-combat” components of the US military will provide “training, equipping, supporting, supplying and upgrading logistical systems” for the Iraqi security forces. Iraq can also request “temporary support” from the US for the “surveillance and control of Iraqi air space”.

     

    American troops and civilian contractors employed by the US Defense Department will continue to operate with full immunity from Iraqi law, except in the rare cases where they are off duty and off their bases. The US occupation forces can continue to import and export equipment and goods, and move personnel in and out of the country without being subject to any taxes, custom charges or even inspection by Iraqi agencies.

     

    Civilian security companies contracted by foreign embassies, aid agencies and Iraqi politicians will be stripped of immunity. It is therefore expected that most non-Iraqi personnel will leave, forcing large numbers of mercenaries to look for contracts in Afghanistan or other potential war zones.

     

    In the end, the agreements were supported by the two main Shiite fundamentalist parties in Maliki’s government–the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Da’wa–as well as by the Kurdish nationalist parties and the Sunni-based Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF). In all, 149 of the 275 legislators in the parliament voted in favour. Of the 35 who voted against, most were loyalists from the Shiite movement of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The remaining legislators either abstained or were not present.

     

    The Sunni support for the agreements was won through a range of political concessions by Maliki. A referendum will be held before July to give a popular endorsement to the pacts; amnesty will be offered to many of the estimated 25,000, predominantly Sunni detainees being held in US or Iraqi government prisons; and more of the Sunni Awakening Council militiamen recruited during the US military surge will be offered positions in the Iraqi army or public service.

     

    The IAF’s acceptance was sufficient for the agreements to gain the implicit backing of the Shiite religious elite in Iraq, headed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani had appealed for unity on any pact with the US. The primary concern of the clergy was that Sunni opposition could re-ignite a large-scale insurgency against the Shiite-dominated government.

     

    Two aspects of the agreement also overcame the opposition of the Iranian regime, which is close to both ISCI and Da’wa. US forces are prohibited from storing “weapons of mass destruction” such as nuclear weapons on Iraqi territory, or using its land, air or sea space to attack other states. In another signal that Tehran hopes for better relations with the US after the inauguration of an Obama administration, a senior Iranian leader, Ahmad Jannati, hailed the agreements as “a very good decision by the Iraqi parliament”.

     

    Da’wa, ISCI and the Sunni IAF–groupings that have directly collaborated with the US since the 2003 invasion–are all seeking to use the agreement to bolster their electoral fortunes ahead of provincial elections in January. They are presenting their protracted negotiations with the Bush administration as a victory in securing a definite date for the end to the broadly hated foreign occupation.

     

    The agreement does state that “all United States forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011. The barely disguised intent, however, is that the terms will be renegotiated beforehand to sanction an enduring American presence. The associated “Strategic Framework Agreement,” which was signed between the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 28, commits both parties to a “long term relationship in economic, diplomatic, cultural and security fields”.

     

    In three years time, the Iraqi security forces will still be incapable of conducting operations against significant insurgent activity without American support, let alone defending Iraq’s borders against potential regional rivals. The US occupation has not provided the Iraqi military with a modern air force, naval assets, modern tanks and artillery. A small number of advanced F-16 jet fighters and helicopters are due for delivery in 2011, but will require US personnel and maintenance systems.

     

    John Nagl, a retired US officer who assisted General David Petraeus draft the counter-insurgency plan applied in Iraq, told the Washington Post last month: “Everyone knows the Iraqi security forces are not going to be self-sufficient by 2011. There are going to be Americans helping Iraqis keep their F-16s in the air for at least a decade.” The Iraqi ministry of defence has stated that the earliest it will have an “independent” air force is 2020.

     

    Moreover, in dealing with “external or internal threats,” the Strategic Framework sanctions the US to use “diplomatic, economic or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat”. Not only does this imply an ongoing presence, the clause could be interpreted as overriding, under certain circumstances, the status of forces’ prohibitions on stationing nuclear weapons in Iraq or using the country to launch attacks elsewhere.

     

    For American personnel and the Iraqi people, therefore, US deployments to Iraq are far from coming to an end. Even with no major deterioration in the security situation, and after a substantial withdrawal by 2011 to reinforce the occupation of Afghanistan or conduct other operations, tens of thousands of troops will remain to garrison the major air bases the US has constructed at Balad, Al Asad, Tallil and other locations. While not called “permanent bases,” the American military will be using these facilities for years to come.

    Police turn on anti-government Facebookers

    1

    By Zoran Radosavljevic | Croatian police have detained and questioned web activists who are criticizing or ridiculing the government, media and the opposition say, accusing authorities of violating basic civil rights.

    Media said on Tuesday police had detained organizers of a group on Facebook, the online social networking site, which called an anti-government rally in several towns, including the capital Zagreb, for December 5. The group has over 80,000 members.

    “For the first time since the 1990s, Croatia is starting to enforce repression against its citizens who want to freely express their political stands,” Nacional weekly said.

    It said police had arrested a coordinator of the protests in the Adriatic city of Zadar. Business.hr news website said police had detained and questioned another activist in Zagreb, who had been posting protest posters on billboards in the capital.

    A police official confirmed to Reuters a Facebook activist had been detained in Zagreb, but denied the other arrest.

    Government spokesman Zlatko Mehun said the government had no reason to fear criticism on the web.

    “Our focus is work on the fundamental issues for this country – the economic crisis and the European Union membership talks,” he said.

    STOP FACEBOOK

    Within a few years, the Internet has become the most widespread medium in this small EU candidate country for citizens to vent their discontent with Prime Minister Ivo Sanader‘s conservative government.

    When Sanader, quoting the global financial crisis, called last month for belt-tightening and a wage freeze and abolished Christmas parties and presents in state institutions and companies, a new group popped up on Facebook.

    It called itself Sanader Grinch – a reference to the green-faced character from the movie ‘How Grinch Stole Christmas’. The group’s activities were widely reported in local media, but provoked no reaction from the government or police.

    The police first turned on Facebookers last week, after Niksa Klecak, a member of the main opposition party, the Social Democrats, launched a group called “I bet I can find 5,000 Facebookers who dislike Sanader.”

    In a matter of days, the group grew to almost 12,000 members compared to 27 members of two groups that support Sanader.

    Police detained and interrogated Klecak last Friday. It said they had acted “not because of his party affiliation” but because he posted a photo montage portrait of Sanader in a Nazi uniform — which violated Croatia‘s law banning Nazi propaganda.

    “Facebook is a great thing… and everyone has a right to show their discontent but if you promote hatred, a totalitarian regime, that is not good, that is not satire. That is against democracy in Croatia,” Sanader said.

    Opposition and the media dismissed the explanation, saying the police had until now never acted against Nazi propaganda.

    “This is a fundamental violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression,” Social Democrats leader Zoran Milanovic said on Monday.

    An editorial in wide-selling Jutarnji List daily, entitled “Stop Facebook,” said the authorities were acting in a manner similar to Yugoslav communists, who distrusted the media and wanted to control them.

    Feds to Judge: Don’t ‘Second Guess’ Bush Domestic Spy Program

    0

    By David Kravets

    The Bush administration on Tuesday urged a federal judge to dismiss lawsuits against the nation’s telecommunications companies accused of complying with the government’s once-secret spy program adopted in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

    “That was designed to protect from a terrorist attack,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Carl Nichols told U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

    Walker was hearing oral arguments on whether to uphold legislation barring lawsuits against the telecoms for violating Americans’ privacy if they forwarded electronic communications to the government. “I don’t think it would be appropriate for this court to look back and second-guess the administration,” Nichols added.

    In July, Congress passed legislation immunizing the telecoms from lawsuits brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and others accusing the companies of funneling electronic communications to the National Security Agency without warrants. The government has neither directly confirmed nor denied the allegations, but Bush in late 2005 acknowledged a limited warrantless spy program of eavesdropping on Americans’ international phone calls and e-mails.

    Still, Walker was concerned that the immunity law, which also authorized continuing the admitted eavesdropping, gives the attorney general too much power.

    “It gives the attorney general carte blanche to immunize anyone who in his judgment or view should be immunized from possible liability,” Walker said from the bench.

    President-elect Barack Obama was among the majority in the Senate voting for the immunity provision in July, as part of a broader domestic spying bill. At the close of a two-hour hearing here, Walker did not say when he would rule.

    Richard Wiebe, an EFF attorney, said the immunity provision allowed for a Justice Department “camouflage” or a “smokescreen,” adding that it’s inherently unconstitutional to immunize unconstitutional behavior.

    He said the companies should face lawsuits for what he termed “mass unwarranted surveillance.”

    “Congress recognized these cases created a risk to national security,” Nichols countered. “Congress has spoken.”

    At several points during the nearly two-hour hearing, Walker appeared to agree with the government. He noted that Congress often strips judges of their power to hear cases, like in 2005 when Congress immunized gun manufacturers from liability. He told Wiebe his complaint should be made with Congress.

    “I’m the wrong person to be making that argument to,” Walker said.

    Walker also wondered aloud whether he should decide the case before the Obama administration takes office in January.

    “It would be very, very unlikely for any future Department of Justice to decline to defend the constitutionality of the statute,” replied Nichols, who conceded the law was unprecedented.

    Congress passed the immunity measure after Walker dismissed the government’s claim that the lawsuits against AT&T, Sprint and others filed in 2006 should be dismissed because they threatened to expose state secrets. Walker’s decision was on appeal to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when lawmakers passed the immunity measure. The appeals court, noting the legislation, dismissed the appeal as moot.

    Assuming for the sake of argument the carriers and the government engaged in illegal eavesdropping, Walker wondered aloud what would be wrong with the litigation being solely directed at the government.

    “Let’s assume that’s exactly what happened. Then why shouldn’t the government just be on the hook for any harm or damage?” Walker asked.

    Cindy Cohn, the EFF’s legal director, replied that the 9th Circuit could still throw out the cases against the government under the State Secrets Privilege. In any event, she said, the telecoms should be held responsible. “Carriers have an independent duty to protect their customers.”

    ID cards are not voluntary

    0

    When the Government introduced its ID card legislation several years ago, it made one thing clear. Even though it would be obligatory to register on the ID database when obtaining a new passport, it would not be compulsory to carry a card.

    This has led some people to assume that the scheme is voluntary. It is not, except insofar as someone whose passport has expired is happy never to travel abroad again. But ministers recognised that the scope for ID ‘matrydom’ was high if people were forced to carry an ID card.

    The last identity system was abolished in 1952 following a celebrated case prompted by the refusal of a man called Clarence Willcock to produce his card when required to by a police officer. Mr Willcock reasoned that as the war that necessitated their introduction was over, he had no need to carry ID with him. The Government wanted to avoid creating an army of Clarence Willcocks so deliberately did not make it a legal requirement to carry ID.

    Now it turns out that they are planning to sneak in just such a power presumably hoping that no-one noticed. But the eagle-eyed lawyers at Liberty spotted that clauses in the draft Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill — confirmed as part of the Government’s programme for this session of parliament in the Queen’s Speech – give state officials the power to make anyone who has ever entered the country, at any time, prove who they are.

    This would effectively cover any British citizen who has ever left the UK, even for a holiday, because they will have “entered” the UK on their return. It will mean that for the first time in more than half a century that the police will be able to demand your papers.

    One reason for publishing a draft Bill is so that it can be closely scrutinised before it gets into parliament for precisely such hidden powers or for clumsy drafting. Perhaps the Government did not intend the legislation to be so widely drawn and meant it merely to apply to people when they arrive at the border as part of a proper immigration control system.

    If this is a drafting error, then the remedy is simple: when the Bill is formally introduced the offending clause can be withdrawn or amended.

    If the Government insists upon proceeding with the measure in its current form, then we can draw our own conclusions.

    © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group

    Human rights abuses ongoing in Iraq

    0
    Improvements in general security have not ended serious human rights abuses in Iraq, a United Nations report has claimed.

    The UN assistance mission in Iraq said the first half of 2008 had seen alleged assaults on minorities, widespread torture of detainees and attacks against women.

    And it criticised both Iraqi law enforcement authorities and coalition forces for their treatment of detainees. Long-term internment of suspects without judicial review of their cases remains concerning, the report concluded.

    “Ongoing widespread ill-treatment and torture of detainees by Iraqi law enforcement authorities, amid pervasive impunity of current and past human rights abuses, constitute severe breaches of international human rights obligations and represent examples of challenges faced by the Iraqi government,” the report said.

    Professionals including journalists, teachers, doctors, judges and lawyers have continued to be the victims of targeted killings.

    And security operations by coalition forces have often seen the use of excessive or indiscriminate force, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians.

    Coalition forces should investigate these incidents carefully, the UN report said. It suggested the introduction of basic “due process guarantees enshrined in international human rights law”.
    © Adfero Ltd

    64,000 DNA samples from our children – This needs to be stopped

    0

    Western Mail | THE debate over privacy and the rights of the individual against those of society at large has been given a fresh twist this week with the arrest of an MP and complaints of police heavy-handedness.

    Damian Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman, has become one of the thousands of people forced to give a DNA sample. Mr Green has not been charged with any offence, yet his sample will lie on the database.

    As we report today, the expansion of the DNA database has an even more sinister side. Thousands of children have had their DNA taken and stored — a staggering total of 64,610 youngsters in Wales alone.

    Are all these children hardened criminals? Is holding their DNA helping to clear up dozens of cold cases, forgotten murders or international terror plots? Of course not. This is an insidious trend that needs to be stopped before it becomes accepted practice.

    The discovery of DNA has proved something of a double-edged sword. Its uses in tackling and solving crime have been astonishing.

    There are innocent people who would be in prison today were it not for scientists’ ability to clear their names through using new methods of analysing DNA samples. Similarly there are killers behind bars who would still be at large were it not for those same techniques.

    And yet the story of DNA technology has not been an entirely happy one. Its success as a crime-solving tool depends on a database from which samples found at crime scenes can be matched. It could be argued, therefore, that the more people there are on the database, the greater the chances of catching more criminals — an argument that has been put forward of late by Lord Justice Sedley.

    That takes us into an important area of civil liberties. DNA samples from individuals have to be obtained, with or without consent, for a database to be constructed. Police have already established the right to do this, and have the further right to retain the DNA sample even if no charges are ever brought against the individual they detain.

    No-one is arguing that criminals in particular should not have their DNA taken and stored. It’s not clear, either, why samples should always be taken at the moment of arrest rather than at the moment of conviction.

    But the biggest change that needs to be made relates to children. What message do we send to youngsters if we take more than 60,000 DNA samples from them, regardless of whether they are then found guilty of anything?

    Discovering DNA has transformed crime-fighting, for the better. We shouldn’t allow this achievement, however, to be used as the pretext for another assault on our civil liberties. Mr Green’s arrest has prompted much loose talk about a police state. That’s an exaggeration — but taking DNA samples from our children really is a question that needs an urgent answer.

    Anti-ID Card Protesters Arrested

    2

    By Nick Ward | POLICE made a dozen arrests after a group of anarchists staged a protest at the Home Office buildings in Sheffield.

    Members of the Anarchists’ Federation arrived at Vulcan House in Millsands on the Riverside in Sheffield city centre at around 8.30am to mount a protest against the Government’s ID card scheme.

    After being refused entry by security staff many of the protesters chained themselves to the building forcing hundreds of staff to enter via the emergency exits.

    The protesters were warned by police that they would be arrested if they did not move on.

    By 11.30am officers had cleared the area after making 12 arrests for alleged aggravated trespass.

    Those arrested were taken into custody and spent the rest of the day being questioned.

    A spokesperson for the Anarchists Federation said: “The demonstration was against the national rolling out of ID cards for non-EU nationals as well as against ID cards in general.

    “The police treated us very fairly and warned us that anyone who failed to move on would be arrested.”

    Additional Information Thanks To Defy ID

    *Activists from around Yorkshire were involved in this.

    *Noone was refused entry as noone was trying to enter the building anyway. (it was shut at that time so of course noone would be allowed in)

    *11 people were arrested, not 12.

    *By 8pm everyone had been released with a caution.

    How Many Americans Died Because of Bush’s Torture Program?

    0

    Harpers — According to a special operations intelligence officer, the answer is a number north of three thousand—not counting the tens of thousands maimed or seriously wounded, the destruction of the nation’s reputation as a moral leader, or the damage done to our Constitution. In a stunning op-ed published in Sunday’s Washington Post, a special operations intelligence officer details his direct experience with torture practices put into effect in Iraq in 2006–long after the Pentagon had forsworn them, but while Donald Rumsfeld was still running the shop.

    Amid the chaos, four other Air Force criminal investigators and I joined an elite team of interrogators attempting to locate Zarqawi. What I soon discovered about our methods astonished me. The Army was still conducting interrogations according to the Guantanamo Bay model: Interrogators were nominally using the methods outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the interrogators’ bible, but they were pushing in every way possible to bend the rules – and often break them. I don’t have to belabor the point; dozens of newspaper articles and books have been written about the misconduct that resulted. These interrogations were based on fear and control; they often resulted in torture and abuse.

    The Pentagon’s claims that it had returned to interrogations based on the venerable Field Manual, was, it seems, conscious disinformation. But the officer offers an assessment. The torture techniques consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence, he said. But the old techniques–which rest on confidence building–consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to information that saved lives. Moreover, the strategies employed to effect later were used as a much broader tactic, accentuating differences between native Iraqi Sunnis and foreign fighters, in what came to be known as the “Sunni Awakening.”

    But then we come to the most chilling part of the op-ed, which the writer discloses the Bush Administration struggled to suppress:

    I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for Al Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me—unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.

    The torture techniques developed by the Bush torture team were the most effective recruitment tool we could ever have given terrorists. They cost thousands of American lives. And that’s a key element of the legacy of the forty-third president.

    Thai court dismisses the government

    0

    By Peter Symonds | In a highly political decision, Thailand’s Constitutional Court effectively sacked the government yesterday by dissolving the ruling People Power Party (PPP) and two of its coalition partners. Anti-government protests that paralysed Bangkok’s two main airports for a week have been called off, but the country’s protracted political crisis is far from over.

     

    The court ruled unanimously that the PPP, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya were guilty of electoral fraud in last December’s national election. Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat announced that he would step down after the court banned him and 108 executive members and officials from the three parties from politics for five years. Government supporters, who protested outside the court yesterday, condemned the decision as a “coup in disguise” and a “judicial coup”.

    It is the second time in three months that the Constitutional Court has ousted the government. In September, the judges ruled that Prime Minister Samak Samaravej, also from the PPP, had violated the constitution by continuing to receive a small honorarium for his appearances on a long-running cooking show on commercial TV. In May 2007, the court dissolved the PPP’s forerunner, Thai Rak Thai (TRT), and imposed a political ban on former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and 110 senior TRT officials.

     

    Yesterday’s court decision is another demonstration of the politicisation of the entire Thai state amid a bitter, protracted confrontation between two factions of the country’s ruling elite. For months, Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD) demonstrators have been allowed to occupy the Government House compound in central Bangkok. No action was taken by the army, the police or the courts after PAD protesters seized control of Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi international and Don Muang domestic airports, stranding up to 250,000 tourists and travellers. Instead, the Constitutional Court met with unusual haste to sack the government for electoral fraud–a practice for which all Thai parties are notorious.

     

    While the court ruling has defused the immediate crisis, the political standoff remains. PPP leaders have vowed to form a new government by re-forming their party under a new name–Puea Thai (Party for Thais)–and choosing a new prime minister. Even though some 24 PPP parliamentarians, including 13 cabinet members, will be forced to resign as a result of the court ban, the renamed PPP and its allies will still have a clear parliamentary majority. Somchai’s deputy, Chavarat Charnvirakul, has taken over as acting prime minister and parliament is being convened on December 8 to install a new government.

     

    Such an outcome will not satisfy PAD or its backers in the military, the monarchy, courts and state bureaucracy. In ending the airport occupations yesterday, PAD leader and media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul warned: “If a puppet government returns or a new government shows insincerity in pushing for political reform, we will return.” Although protest numbers have been dwindling as the confrontation has become more violent, PAD is still capable of mobilising thousands of largely urban middle class supporters.

     

    Sondhi launched the PAD protests against the Thaksin government in late 2005, precipitating a constitutional crisis that led to an army coup in September 2006. The military junta called fresh elections under a revamped constitution last December, expecting that the pro-Thaksin PPP would be sidelined, but the opposite took place. PAD restarted its protests in May denouncing first Samak, then Somchai, as a “puppet” of Thaksin, who is currently in exile.

     

    PAD spokesmen bitterly criticise Thaksin and the PPP-led government for corruption, treason and disrespect for the monarchy. However, Sondhi and other PAD leaders publicly backed Thaksin and his TRT when he first came to power in 2001. Sections of Thai business supported Thaksin as a means of ending the IMF-backed restructuring measures implemented by the Democrat Party-led government following the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.

     

    Having come to power, however, Thaksin alienated many of his establishment supporters by continuing to open Thailand up to foreign investors. Sections of the military and state bureaucracy were resentful that Thaksin was undermining their traditional prerogatives and associated payoffs. Layers of small and medium business in Bangkok complained at the failure of the government to protect them from international competition. These elements formed the core of a rather heterogeneous movement that also roped in those angered by Thaksin’s autocratic methods and the impact of his policies on jobs and living standards.

     

    There is nothing remotely progressive, however, in PAD’s agenda. Its “new politics” directly expresses the interests of the traditional Thai elites that have ruled the country for much of the past 80 years through military dictatorships. PAD leaders brand the many rural voters who supported the TRT, then the PPP, as ignorant and uneducated and call for 70 percent of the national assembly to be appointed. PAD has no political party of its own and has an uneasy relationship with the opposition Democrats. The main aim of PAD’s occupations has been to provide a pretext for the army or the state apparatus to directly intervene.

     

    There is no guarantee that the PPP will be allowed to re-label itself and form a new government next week. The Constitutional Court ruling opens the door for further moves by the state apparatus against the government. Asia Times correspondent Shawn Crispin pointed out that the Election Commission might now intervene to overturn the December 2007 results. “The half-appointed Senate as well as the Privy Council [of the king] could potentially play appointment roles in such a scenario, one political analyst suggests. It’s also still possible that the military will move to forcefully fill the political gap through an appointed body, especially if Tuesday’s court decision leads to more street violence.”

     

    The ongoing political crisis, compounded by the impact of the global economic recession, is having a devastating impact on the Thai economy. Finance Minister Suchart Thada Thamrongvech told Reuters on Monday that the economy would grow next year by at most 1-2 percent, down from earlier forecasts of 4-5 percent. International credit rating agencies Standard & Poors and Fitch downgraded their outlook for Thailand from “stable” to “negative” on Monday. Fitch Rating predicted a growth rate of 0.9 percent for 2009.

     

    Thai business groups have cautiously welcomed the court decision as a means of ending the crisis. Thai Chamber of Commerce chairman Pramon Sutivong told the Nation that the “private sector wants all conflicts to end soon and expects PAD to come to its senses now that the government has been unseated”. Layers of big business have in the past supported the PPP government as a means of further opening up the Thai economy and encouraging foreign investment.

     

    The international press has been increasingly critical of PAD and its backers for throwing the country into chaos and undermining the “democratically elected” government. An exasperated article in the British-based Times, for instance, declared that an entire country had been “held to ransom by a few thousand middle-class zealots” demonstrating “the alarming transformation” of Thailand into “a place where effective democratic politics has almost ceased to function”.

     

    Other articles paint the ruling PPP as a bastion of democracy and a defender of the “rural poor” against the middle classes and privileged elites of Bangkok. The PPP, however, is no more concerned with the democratic rights and living standards of the rural masses than PAD represents the interests of the bulk of the middle classes in Bangkok. While offering limited handouts to rural areas, Thaksin, one of Thailand’s wealthiest businessmen, was notorious for his repressive, anti-democratic methods while in office. Both the pro- and anti-government camps are funded by wealthy backers and represent competing right-wing factions of the ruling elite.

     

    The temporary lull in tensions is likely to be short-lived as the government and its opponents manoeuvre behind the scenes prior to the convening of parliament next week to select a new prime minister.

    In Courtroom Showdown, Bush Demands Amnesty for Spying Telecoms

    0

    By David Kravets |

    SAN FRANCISCO – The Bush administration on Tuesday will try to convince a federal judge to let stand a law granting retroactive legal immunity to the nation’s telecoms, which are accused of transmitting Americans’ private communications to the National Security Agency without warrants.

    At issue in the high-stakes showdown – set to begin at 10:00 a.m. PST – are the nearly four dozen lawsuits filed by civil liberties groups and class action attorneys against AT&T, Verizon, MCI, Sprint and other carriers who allegedly cooperated with the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance program in the years following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The lawsuits claim the cooperation violated federal wiretapping laws and the Constitution.

    In July, as part of a wider domestic spying bill, Congress voted to kill the lawsuits and grant retroactive amnesty to any phone companies that helped with the surveillance; President-elect Barack Obama was among those who voted for the law in the Senate. On Tuesday, lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation are set to urge the federal judge overseeing those lawsuits to reject immunity as unconstitutional. At stake, they say, is the very principle of the rule of law in America.

    “I think it does set a very frightening precedent that it’s okay for people to break the law because they can just have Congress bail them out later,” says EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. “It’s very troubling.”

    The judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, announced late Monday he wanted to discuss 11 questions (.pdf) at Tuesday’s hearing, one of which goes directly to the heart of the immunity legislation.

    “Is there any precedent for this type of enactment that is analogous in all of these respects: retroactivity; immunity for constitutional violations; and delegation of broad discretion to the executive branch to determine whether to invoke the provision?,” the judge asked.

    Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, says the immunity legislation, if upheld, “makes it possible to extend immunity to other areas of the law.”

    He agreed, for example, that it would not be far-fetched to imagine Congress immunizing ExxonMobil for the 1989 Valdez oil spill “for national security reasons.” A jury awarded about $5 billion in punitive damages in that case, an amount the courts reduced to $500 million.

    In the telecom immunity challenge, the government argues that the telecoms should not be punished, or suffer the threat of punishment, for a surveillance program that the Bush administration claims was designed only to fight terrorism. The government also denies the lawsuits’ allegations that the surveillance was a broad dragnet that sucked down Americans’ communications on a wholesale basis.

    The administration also says the immunity is warranted because the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets.

    The EFF brought the original spying lawsuit in 2006 against AT&T, and has since been joined by dozens of others targeting the nation’s telecommunications companies.

    The EFF’s case, which has been consolidated with the others in the U.S. District Court of San Francisco, includes so-called whistle-blower documents from a former AT&T technician. The EFF claims the documents describe a secret room in an AT&T building in San Francisco that is wired to share raw internet traffic with the NSA.

    The government sought to dismiss the original EFF case, and others that followed, on the grounds that they threatened to expose state secrets. Judge Walker has ruled against the government, saying the case could proceed.

    The government appealed. But before the appeal was decided, Congress on July 9 gave the president the power to grant immunity to the carriers.

    The EFF is now challenging the immunity legislation on the grounds that it seeks to circumvent the Constitution’s separation of powers clause, as well as Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    “The legislation is an attempt to give the president the authority to terminate claims that the president has violated the people’s Fourth Amendment rights,” the EFF’s Cohn says. “You can’t do that.”

    Two weeks ago, the administration told Walker in a court filing (.pdf) that the immunity legislation “represents the considered judgment of our nation’s political branches that, in the unique historical circumstances following the 9/11 attacks, telecommunications companies should not bear the burden of defending against claims that those companies assisted the government in its efforts to detect and prevent further terrorist attacks.”

    Congress, the government continued, “concluded that those companies should not face further litigation if they provided such assistance pursuant to a court order or a written certification, directive or request from a senior government official, or did not provide the alleged assistance.”

    The immunity law allows the government to file a classified brief with Judge Walker activating immunity for a particular communication company. Walker then has little power to deny the request, unless the judge finds the immunity legislation is itself unconstitutional.

    Oral arguments in Walker’s courtroom are scheduled for 10 a.m. PST on Tuesday. Threat Level will cover the proceedings live.

    Pentagon to deploy 20,000 troops on domestic “anti-terror” mission

    5
    By Patrick Martin | The Pentagon has begun to implement plans for the mobilization of 20,000 regular Army troops in anti-terror operations alongside state and local forces, a dramatic change in US military operations within the borders of the United States.

    Some 4,700 troops, a full combat brigade based at Ft. Stewart, Georgia, were made available to the US Northern Command on October 1. The remaining troops will be assigned to the Northern Command as they complete assignments in Iraq or Afghanistan and are redeployed home by 2011.

    The October 1 deployment was reported in the Army Times newspaper but not otherwise noted in the national media. The larger mobilization for 2011 was reported on the front page of the Washington Post Monday morning, an indication that the Pentagon seeks wider publicity about the move in order to accustom the American public to the sight of uniformed troops in the streets.

    The pretext for the increased militarization of American society is, as always, the danger of terrorism, and in this case, a “nuclear terrorist attack,” although the Post added that some “other domestic catastrophe” could be the trigger for military action. While the article suggests that this means a natural disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina, there is no doubt that the social and economic consequences of the meltdown in financial markets could well qualify as a “domestic catastrophe” requiring military intervention.

    The Bush administration has worked for years to undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law dating back to the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, barring the use of regular military forces for domestic policing duties. The only exceptions to this longstanding ban have been the use of the National Guard during natural disasters, and the deployment of federal troops during the ghetto riots of the 1960s.

    Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said the use of 20,000 troops in a domestic deployment “would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable” before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to the text of a speech given to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, quoted by the Post. He described the new policy as “a fundamental change in military culture.”

    Two additional brigades will be assigned to create a total of three response teams to address what the military calls a CBRNE event, for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosives. The teams are known in Pentagon jargon as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces, or CCMRF. Another 6,000 troops would be drawn from specialized groups of National Guard and reserve troops trained to respond to a CBRNE event.

    A combat post training exercise involving elements of three brigades was held September 8-19, 2008. The forces represented in Operation Vibrant Response included the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division, the unit at Ft. Stewart; the 1st Medical Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas; and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, Fort Bragg, N.C.

    McHale told the Post that the armed units would still be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act and would not engage in security duties except those relating directly to the CBRNE event or to protecting themselves while so engaged.

    According to the Post account, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive in late 2007 providing $556 million over five years to fund the program. The Pentagon began a pilot project last month funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in which civilian officials in five states–Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia–would use military planners to help them develop disaster response plans.

    When the Ft. Stewart unit was assigned to the Northern Command on October 1, the Army Times reported the event as “the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.” The unit returned from duty in Afghanistan last spring.

    According to the Army Times, the troops would “learn new skills [and] use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone…. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack….”

    The unit’s commander, Col. Roger Cloutier, was quoted as follows: “It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

     

    The package includes equipment to stand up a roadblock; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and beanbag bullets. It also includes the use of Tasers.

    The deployment to NorthCom was made possible by the 2006 Defense Authorization Act, whose Section 1076 empowered President Bush to impose martial law in the event of a threat to “public order,” regardless of its cause–i.e., potentially one produced by domestic political or social upheaval, not a terrorist attack.

    That provision was drafted by the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, and the leading Democrat on the panel, Carl Levin of Michigan. According to one press account, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act limited the power to declare martial law, but Bush issued a signing statement suggesting he did not accept those restrictions.

    Both Democratic and Republican governors objected to Section 1076 as an unneeded expansion of presidential authority to federalize the National Guard and usurp the powers of state officials, according to a letter jointly signed by Governor Michael Easley of North Carolina, a Democrat, and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a Republican, in 2007.

    World Anti-slavery Day

    0

    Kiwis urged to become part of the solution on World Anti-slavery Day

    Although slavery was abolished worldwide in 1926, it is still a thriving industry today with between 600,000 to 800,000 people being trafficked every year. On World Anti-slavery Day (December 2) it is time for those in developing nations not only to speak out against the trade, but to be part of the solution, TEAR Fund Executive Director Stephen Tollestrup said.

    “It is not enough to abolish slavery or to say it is wrong. We need to attack the causes of why the trade still thrives, and at the root of all forms of slavery lies desperate poverty. Abolishing slavery doesn’t make the problem go away.”

    The focus of TEAR Fund’s Christmas appeal, The Lost Children of the Himalayas is an example of a project where that approach is taking place, said Mr Tollestrup. TEAR Fund is working in Nepal to alleviate the sort of poverty that sees 10,000 Nepalese children trafficked into brothels in India every year.

    “Traffickers prey on families made vulnerable by poverty, offering their children good jobs and a better life in India; but the reality is a degrading life of prostitution or bonded servitude.”

     

    By providing microenterprise initiatives, as well as farmer training and trade skills training, TEAR Fund through its partner Share and Care Nepal is creating employment locally.

    The result is that family incomes are being boosted and nutritious food is being grown, so there is no need for parents to send their children away for work, he said.

    In addition, families are being educated about the deceptions used by child traffickers and through the programme, traffic victims returning home are cared for and reintegrated back into the community. TEAR Fund’s partner is also working closely with the authorities to apprehend traffickers.
    Slavery Facts

    Slavery today is defined as forced labour without pay under threat of violence.

    – Slavery was abolished in England 1838, USA 1865, and Outlawed internationally in 1926 by the slave convention.

    – UN Abolition of similar practices in 1956: Bonded labour, serfdom, sale of women into marriage, child labour.

    – There are estimated 27 million slaves in the world today or 67 million if you include underpaid child labour

    – The most common form of slavery is bonded labour used to repay family debt. It impacts 20 million adults and children.

    – About 300,000 are child soldiers or gang-pressed recruits for rebel factions.

     

    – About 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked internationally every year. Approximately 80 per cent of them are women and children.

    – Slavery was officially abolished worldwide at the 1927 Slavery Convention, yet it continues to thrive thanks to the complicity of some governments and the ignorance of much of the world.

    – In the 2000 Refugee Report, “Trafficking in Women and Children: A Contemporary Manifestation of Slavery,” former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls human trafficking “the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world.”

    – Slavery is an extremely profitable, international industry. Experts estimate trafficking in the US yields $9 billion every year. Around the world, trafficking in women for commercial sex purposes nets $6 billion per year. The trade of human flesh is so lucrative that authorities complain that even as they close in on one smuggling ring in the US, another one pops up.

    – The four most common types of slavery are: chattel slavery, debt bondage, forced labour, and sexual slavery.

    Censorship in America?

    1

    By Timothy V. Gatto |

    The people of the United States might not know what it is that they want the new administration to do, they may not know what it is they want Congress to do, but one thing for sure is that they don’t want another repeat of the Bush Administration or the last two sessions of Congress. One reason that progressives and liberals seem to be the ones complaining about Obama’s cabinet picks is because this is a group of people that get their news not from the mainstream media, but from the internet. We are better informed than those that believe that Wolf Blitzer or Katie Couric is “informing” them and keeping the politicians honest. We don’t listen to right-wing talk radio and repeat Rush Limbaugh’s talking points; we like to figure things out on our own. That may be why some say that trying to get a liberal consensus is “like herding cats”.
     
    We may or may not be smarter than others, the reason that we are usually the first to start complaining or coming out against something is because we get our information first. The rest of the country is just a little slower. To understand this or to validate what I just claimed, all one has to do is think how long it took the majority of Americans to realize they had been duped about Iraq. For months, anyone that was against the war was considered a traitor. Another example is the conflict between Georgia and Russia. During the Democratic National Convention both Barack Obama and Joe Biden railed against “Russian aggression” against Georgia. It’s pretty clear now to almost everyone who started the hostilities, the NY Times has reported twice during the last two weeks that Georgia initiated the hostilities. Anyone that has read the reports on the internet would have known who had initiated hostilities the day after they started. I knew what had happened and I don’t get a national security briefing every morning, nor am I brighter than most other Americans. In order to back my claims you can go to an article I posted on Information Clearinghouse on August 15, 2008.
     
    I am surprised and dismayed at Obama and Biden when they accused the Russians of aggression. I can’t believe that they did not know what really happened. Over 1,000 American and 2,000 Israeli advisors were in Georgia when they attacked South Ossetia by firing missiles in 12-14 second intervals. It was reported by independent observers the next day. Didn’t Obama and Biden have anyone that knew how to surf the net or were they just blatantly lying to the public figuring we would never know the truth? Regardless of which is the truth, it’s all troubling. Are we going to have another President that believes all Americans are naïve or that we wouldn’t discover the truth?
     
    The situation between Israel and Palestine is another example of a “news blackout” on the mainstream media. Media throughout the world is reporting on Gaza and the siege that Israel has re-imposed since November 5th. Food, medicine, fuel and other vital supplies are being withheld from the people in Gaza, even though 50% of them are under the age of 15! Israel has prohibited reporters from entering Gaza because of the suffering there, yet just about the entire world gets regular reports about it. The only nation whose population doesn’t know about the genocide against the people of Gaza is Americans. How can we justify that? Who makes the decisions on what gets aired and what doesn’t?
     
    Really, how can we continue to remain blissfully unaware of what is happening in the world? The attacks by missile-bearing unmanned Predators have killed hundreds in Pakistan attending funerals and weddings, yet this hardly gets mentioned in the MSM. When Americans see the demonstrations and protests against our actions in the Middle-East, it is apparent that most Americans are wondering why. When the Arab world protests against what Israel is doing to the people of Gaza, wouldn’t it be better to know what is really happening so that we can all understand the situation better? When our politicians give speeches to AIPAC and vow to support Israel regardless of the world’s position, should we support that? If we aren’t getting the information the rest of the world is getting, how can we continue to blindly support our leaders?
     
    This is all commonsense. I cannot see anyone that cannot understand this. How can this nation let it’s government know what we want if we don’t know what is really going on? The only advice I can offer to my fellow citizens is to scream like hell to end “selective” news reporting, or to go to the internet for your news. I only wish I could publish this in a venue that would actually inform those who need informing. This will be published on the internet, and sadly, we all know this information already. It won’t reach the people that need to read this. 

    Bush: ‘I was unprepared for war’

    1

    By John Byrne | Five years after he declared victory in Iraq on the US aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, President George W. Bush says he was “unprepared” for a war in Iraq that has gone on to claim thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

    “I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess,” Bush tells ABC’s Charlie Gibson in an interview to be broadcast tonight, and said he didn’t know if he’d have gone to war if he didn’t think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    “That is a do-over that I can’t do,” Bush said.

    He said incorrect intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal was the “biggest regret of all the presidency.”

    “I think I was unprepared for war,” Bush remarked. “In other words, I didn’t campaign and say, ‘Please vote for me, I’ll be able to handle an attack,'” he said. “In other words, I didn’t anticipate war. Presidents — one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen.”

    But also he tried to spread the blame — and his credulity — for bad intelligence on others.

    “A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein,” Bush said. “It wasn’t just people in my administration. A lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington, D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence.”

    “I listened to a lot of voices, but ultimately, I listened to this voice: I’m not going to let your son die in vain,” he said. “I believe we can win. I’m going to do what it takes to win in Iraq.”

    In the interview, Bush also defended his administration’s response to a now paralyzing economic crisis spurned by the failure of the US credit markets.

    “When you have the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed say, ‘If we don’t act boldly, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression,’ that’s an ‘uh-oh’ moment,” he said.


    This video is from ABC’s Good Morning America, broadcast Dec. 1, 2008.




    Thousands of Afghans Held Without Trial in ‘Telephone Justice’ System

    0

    By Jason Ditz |

    For the rich and well-connected, the Afghan criminal justice system is remarkably convenient, with a simple phone call to an influential police officer or judge usually sufficient to ensure release without any formal charges, even for those arrested under severe circumstances. But the UN warns that for poorer citizens, the situation is far more onerous.

    Speaking at a news conference today in Kabul, UN drug and crime agency in Afghanistan head Christina Oguz revealed that at least half of Afghanistan’s prisoners are being held without having faced a trial. Those without connections find themselves detained for an indefinite period of time awaiting a trial in a bribery-heavy system.

    To make matters worse poor citizens find, even having been convicted of a crime and served their sentences, they are being held past their release date for being unable to pay fines or bribe their way out.

    How to Find out the Hidden Secrets of the Bush Administration

    0

    In March 2001, U.S. Archivist John W. Carlin received a letter from Alberto Gonzales, then counsel to the newly inaugurated president George W. Bush. It concerned an important deadline that was looming — one that Bush owed to Richard Nixon.

    In 1974, Congress ordered a lockdown on all records kept by the Nixon White House, afraid that the outgoing president would try to wipe out the paper trail of his disastrous second term and chastened by the recent destruction of decades’ worth of FBI files by the late director J. Edgar Hoover’s loyal secretary. That order was expanded four years later into a law requiring that all presidents’ papers — everything from briefings to personal notes and everyday communications between the president, vice president, and their staffers — be handed over to the National Archives twelve years after their terms ended for eventual public release. Ronald Reagan was the first chief executive to whom the Presidential Records Act applied, and his papers were due to be turned over to Carlin at the beginning of Bush’s term.

    Gonzales wanted Carlin to delay the release until June. His letter didn’t say why, but Carlin agreed. Then in June, Carlin got another memo from Gonzales — Bush’s attorney now wanted until the end of August. Carlin agreed again. The extensions continued until November, when Bush issued an executive order: effective immediately, the release of presidential records would require the approval of both the sitting president and the president whose records were in question, rather than just the former. It was what open-government advocates would later describe as a two-key system: under Bush’s rule, Nixon could have buried the Watergate tapes without explaining himself to anyone.

    Bush’s executive order had little to do with any concerns of Reagan himself, whose estate has since shared his papers enthusiastically. Some administration critics theorized at the time that Bush was trying to shield from scrutiny his father’s vice presidential records, which were among the Reagan White House documents — but ultimately it wasn’t really about George H. W. Bush, either. It was about the new president and vice president, and the kind of government they intended to run. Bill Clinton’s White House had been relatively obliging in matters of secrecy, handing over millions of pages of documents — down to the White House Christmas card list — when Congress demanded them. Things would be different under Bush. “I think they thought Clinton was too open, had caved in to Congress too much,” Carlin says. “It was a different philosophy.”

    Gonzales’s March 2001 memo was the opening salvo in a war over information, one that began in the earliest days of the Bush administration and will continue beyond its end. The stakes, which no one could have predicted when the letter crossed Carlin’s desk, are now self-evidently enormous: when Bush hands over the keys to the White House in January, he will leave behind more unanswered questions of sweeping national importance than any modern president. We still do not know how intelligence operatives, acting in the name of the United States, have interrogated suspected terrorists, and how they are interrogating them now.

    We do not know how many Americans’ phone calls and e-mails were scanned by the National Security Agency. We do not know — although we can guess — who ordered the firings of the U.S. attorneys who didn’t comply with the Bush administration’s political agenda, and we do not know who may have been wrongly prosecuted by those who did. There are large gaps in our understanding of the backstories to everything from pre-war intelligence in Iraq to the censoring of scientific opinion at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. And those are the things we know we don’t know — there are also what Donald Rumsfeld might call the unknown unknowns.

    The thought of revisiting this history after living through it for eight years is exhausting, and both President Barack Obama and Congress will have every political reason to just move on. But we can’t — it’s too important. Fortunately, an accounting of the Bush years is a less daunting prospect than it seems from the outset. If the new president and leaders on Capitol Hill act shrewdly, they can pull it off while successfully navigating the political realities and expectations they now face. A few key actions will take us much of the distance between what we know and what we need to know.

    Three months after Bush issued his presidential records order, a Justice Department attorney named Anne Weismann stood in front of Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington’s district court. Weismann was defending Dick Cheney’s refusal to hand over the records from the energy task force meetings he had convened the previous year, which had prompted a lawsuit by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club. Sullivan was irate. “I get the feeling the government’s underestimating the seriousness of this case,” he told Weismann.

    Weismann had been a Justice lawyer for twenty years, and had appeared often in Sullivan’s court. But this case was different. “I’ve never seen him that angry — he wouldn’t even let me talk,” she recalled recently. The encounter made her rethink what she was doing. Weismann still believes that there were limited legal arguments to make in defense of keeping the energy task force records secret. But what drove Cheney was something bigger. The case would ultimately wind its way to the Supreme Court, after Cheney’s legal team claimed to Sullivan that executive privilege meant the White House didn’t have to hand over anything to the courts if he didn’t feel like it. But by the time the Supreme Court ruled in Cheney’s favor, Weismann was no longer representing the vice president. The day Sullivan read her the riot act in district court, she says, “was the point at which I said, ‘I have to stop doing this.’ ”

    Continue

    Fisk: Afghanistan in Crisis

    1

    By Robert Fisk | The collapse of Afghanistan is closer than the world believes. Kandahar is in Taliban hands–all but a square mile at the centre of the city–and the first Taliban checkpoints are scarcely 15 miles from Kabul. Hamid Karzai’s deeply corrupted government is almost as powerless as the Iraqi cabinet in Baghdad’s “Green Zone”; lorry drivers in the country now carry business permits issued by the Taliban which operate their own courts in remote areas of the country.

    The Red Cross has already warned that humanitarian operations are being drastically curtailed in ever larger areas of Afghanistan; more than 4,000 people, at least a third of them civilians, have been killed in the past 11 months, along with scores of Nato troops and about 30 aid workers. Both the Taliban and Mr Karzai’s government are executing their prisoners in ever greater numbers. The Afghan authorities hanged five men this month for murder, kidnap or rape–one prisoner, a distant relative of Mr Karzai, predictably had his sentence commuted–and more than 100 others are now on Kabul’s death row.

    This is not the democratic, peaceful, resurgent, “gender-sensitive” Afghanistan that the world promised to create after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Outside the capital and the far north of the country, almost every woman wears the all-enshrouding burkha, while fighters are now joining the Taliban’s ranks from Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Chechnya and even Turkey. More than 300 Turkish fighters are now believed to be in Afghanistan, many of them holding European passports.

    “Nobody I know wants to see the Taliban back in power,” a Kabul business executive says–anonymity is now as much demanded as it was before 2001–“but people hate the government and the parliament which doesn’t care about their security. The government is useless. With so many internally displaced refugees pouring into Kabul from the countryside, there’s mass unemployment–but of course, there are no statistics.

    “The ‘open market’ led many of us into financial disaster. Afghanistan is just a battlefield of ideology, opium and political corruption. Now you’ve got all these commercial outfits receiving contracts from people like USAID. First they skim off 30 to 50 per cent for their own profits–then they contract out and sub-contract to other companies and there’s only 10 per cent of the original amount left for the Afghans themselves.”

    Afghans working for charitable organisations and for the UN are telling their employers that they are coming under increasing pressure to give information to the Taliban and provide them with safe houses. In the countryside, farmers live in fear of both sides in the war. A very senior NGO official in Kabul–again, anonymity was requested–says both the Taliban and the police regularly threaten villagers. “A Taliban group will arrive at a village headman’s door at night–maybe 15 or 16 of them–and say they need food and shelter. And the headman tells the villagers to give them food and let them stay at the mosque. Then the police or army arrive in the day and accuse the villagers of colluding with the Taliban, detain innocent men and threaten to withhold humanitarian aid. Then there’s the danger the village will be air-raided by the Americans.”

    In the city of Ghazni, the Taliban ordered all mobile phones to be switched off from 5pm until 6am for fear that spies would use them to give away guerrilla locations. The mobile phone war may be one conflict the government is winning. With American help the Interior Ministry police can now track and triangulate calls. Once more, the Americans are talking about forming “tribal militias” to combat the Taliban, much as they did in Iraq and as the Pakistani authorities have tried to do on the North West Frontier. But the tribal lashkars of the [1980s] were corrupted by the Russians and when the system was first tried out two years ago–it was called the Auxiliary Police Force–it was a fiasco. The newly-formed constabulary stopped showing up for work, stole weapons and turned themselves into private militias.

    “Now every time a new Western ambassador arrives in Kabul, they dredge it all up again,” another NGO official says in near despair. “ ’Oh,’ they proclaim, ‘let’s have local militias–what a bright idea.’ But that will not solve the problem. The country is subject to brigandage as well as the cruelty of the Taliban and the air raids which Afghans find so outrageous. The international community has got to stop spinning and do some fundamental thinking which should have been done four or five years ago.”

    What this means to those Westerners who have spent years in Kabul is simple. Is it really the overriding ambition of Afghans to have “democracy”? Is a strong federal state possible in Afghanistan? Is the international community ready to take on the warlords and drug barons who are within Mr Karzai’s own government? And–most important of all–is development really about “securing the country”? The tired old American adage that “where the Tarmac ends, the Taliban begins” is untrue. The Taliban are mounting checkpoints on those very same newly-built roads.

    The Afghan Minister of Defence has 65,000 troops under his dubious command but says he needs 500,000 to control Afghanistan. The Soviets failed to contain the country even when they had 100,000 troops here with 150,000 Afghan soldiers in support. And as Barack Obama prepares to send another 7,000 US soldiers into the pit of Afghanistan, the Spanish and Italians are talking of leaving while the Norwegians may pull their 500 troops out of the area north of Heart. Repeatedly, Western leaders talk of the “key”–of training more and more Afghans to fight in the army. But that was the same “key” which the Russians tried–and it did not fit the lock.

    “We” are not winning in Afghanistan. Talk of crushing the Taliban seems as bleakly unrealistic as it has ever been. Indeed, when the President of Afghanistan tries to talk to Mullah Omar–one of America’s principal targets in this wretched war–you know the writing is on the wall. And even Mullah Omar didn’t want to talk to Mr Karzai.

    Partition is the one option that no one will discuss–giving the southern part of Afghanistan to the Taliban and keeping the rest–but that will only open another crisis with Pakistan because the Pashtuns, who form most of the Taliban, would want all of what they regard as “Pashtunistan”; and that would have to include much of Pakistan’s own tribal territories. It will also be a return to the “Great Game” and the redrawing of borders in south-west Asia, something which–history shows– has always been accompanied by great bloodshed.

    Kristol Calls On Bush To Pardon Torturers And Wiretappers, Reward Them With Medal Of Freedom

    1

    Think Progress |

    In his new Weekly Standard column, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol lays out a to-do list for President Bush before he leaves office. He urges Bush to deliver speeches “reminding Americans of our successes fighting the war on terror.” Kristol dreams, “Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.”

    After urging Bush to fight the incoming administration’s desire to close Guantanamo, Kristol concludes with this:

    One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning—and should at least be vociferously praising—everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

    In the Bush era, the Medal of Freedom has come to absurdly represent a reward for those who carried out policy failures at the urging of the Bush administration. By this standard, the implementers of torture and warrantless wiretapping certainly qualify for such a medal.

    The Wall Street Journal reported recently that the White House “isn’t inclined to grant sweeping pardons for former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations and detentions of terror suspects.” President-elect Barack Obama is reportedly unlikely to pursue criminal cases against such officials, but is said to be considering a 9/11-style commission that would investigate counterterrorism policies and make public as many details as possible.”

    Bush’s “record of stonewalling inquiries into his administration’s legally questionable behavior – the torture policy that led to the Abu Ghraib nightmare; illegal wiretapping; the politically motivated firing of federal attorneys – justify concern that he may be considering pardoning officials involved in those misdeeds,” the New York Times warns in an editorial this morning. “If he wants to try to reclaim his reputation, he can start by not abusing the pardon power on his way out the door,” the Times writes.

    Former interrogator slams torture: Torture has cost nearly as many lives as 9/11

    0

    By Ali Frick | In a Washington Post op-ed today, a former Special Operations interrogator who worked in Iraq in 2006 sharply criticizes American torture techniques as ineffective and dangerous. “Torture and abuse cost American lives,” he writes:

    I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. … It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me – unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.

    The writer, who used a pseudonym for the article, adds that when he switched his team’s techniques to a rapport-building method, they found enormous success. One detainee told the author, “I thought you would torture me, and when you didn’t, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That’s why I decided to cooperate.”

    UpdateThe author, who is writing a book on his experiences as an interrogator, notes that the Pentagon tried to redact non-classified information and block parts of his book. “Apparently, some members of the military command are not only unconvinced by the arguments against torture; they don’t even want the public to hear them,” he writes.

    George W. Bush Belongs in Prison

    1

    By Joel S. Hirschhorn |

    Electing Barack Obama president was the first step in redeeming American democracy. The second step must be indicting ex-president George W. Bush, giving him a fair trial, finding him guilty of many criminal acts and putting him in prison. Forget revenge. Think rule of law and justice.

    I want President Obama soon after taking office to go on television and announce the formation of a special group of outstanding jurists and attorneys to make a recommendation whether or not the US Justice Department should bring criminal charges against George W. Bush. Based on earlier analyses, including work by the American Bar Association, I have no doubt they will recommend indictment.

    If moral honesty and courage have any meaning, then the nation must take seriously the concept that no president can ever be allowed to be above the law. How can President Obama not strongly support this? Surely no president must be allowed to disrespect and dishonor the US Constitution. George W. Bush broke his oath of office. His behavior was treasonous. Instead of defending the Constitution he disgraced it. Instead of protecting constitutional rights, including privacy, he sullied them. He asserted his right to ignore or not enforce laws so he could break them. Respect for the office of the presidency must never be allowed to trump truth and justice.

    Millions and millions of Americans and people worldwide know that George W. Bush made 9/11 the trigger for initiating an illegal war in Iraq that has killed and maimed so many thousands of people. What Vincent Bugliosi, author of “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” called “the most serious crime ever committed in American history.” I say convict Bush of myriad counts of criminally negligent homicide related to both Iraq and the Katrina disaster and put him in prison. A former president in prison would not disgrace the presidency. It would restore honor to the office and the Constitution.

    Surely millions more people now understand that George W. Bush bears responsibility for creating the conditions that encouraged greed-driven capitalism to rape and murder the middle class and push us into the current global economic meltdown. By removing government oversight and regulation he committed the greatest acts of fraud in the history of mankind. After he made American democracy delusional he made prosperity delusional.

    We the people are paying the price for George W. Bush’s criminal acts and so must he. When George W. Bush is sent to prison everyone will see that American democracy has earned the respect of the world. Everyone will better understand that evil comes in many forms and that even an elected president of the United States of America can and must be recognized as a perpetrator of horrendous criminal acts.

    Please President-elect Obama, make it so. Be the principled person we want you to be. Make the USA the nation it is supposed to be. Have the courage to do what Congress refused to do when it did not impeach George W. Bush. Change history by showing the world that American justice applies as equally to the president as it does to anyone else. Do not let George W. Bush escape the justice and prison sentence he deserves. Do not let respect for the presidency trump respect for justice. If we do not bring George W. Bush to justice that probably only you can make happen, then surely we do not restore respect for the office that you worked so hard to achieve.

    To ensure that no future president behaves like George W. Bush we must punish him. Not merely through the words of historians, but through the physical punishment that he has inflicted on so many millions of people. In previous eras citizens would have demanded “off with his head.” Now we must demand “lock him up.” How poetic for a pro-torture ex-president. As summed up at www.imprisonbush.com : “Bush must be made accountable to the law, to serve as a lesson to all those who would attempt to destroy the American system of laws and liberty for the sake of their own power.” This is a test for both President Obama and American democracy.

    If there is any kind of God in the universe, then George W. Bush must go to prison. When he does, then and only then should God bless America.

    Formerly a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of nonfiction books, including Prosperity Without Pollution, Sprawl Kills and Delusional Democracy.

    Police in CCTV ‘beating’ of war hero to be probed

    0
     
    Two police officers are being investigated for allegedly pinning down war hero Mark Aspinall and repeatedly punching him.

    The officers, called to deal with a man who was creating a nuisance, are said to have mistaken Mark Aspinall, 24, for the culprit.

    CCTV footage of the incident appears to show PC Peter Lightfoot and a colleague chasing Mark and throwing him to the floor. They then seemingly bang his head on the ground and punch him eight times while holding him down.

    POlice beat handcuffed war veteran Mark Aspinall

    Lance Corporal Mark, 24, who has served in Afghanistan and Iraq and was described as a model soldier by his commanding officer, was later charged with assaulting police and a public order offence.

    Magistrates found him guilty and ordered him to pay the officers £250 in compensation. But the charges were quashed on appeal by judge John Phipps who said: “I am shocked and appalled at the level of police violence shown here.”

    Now the Independent Police Complaints Commission has launched an inquiry in the wake of the publication of the shocking CCTV images by our sister paper the Sunday Mirror.

    The Greater Manchester Police’s professional standards branch is also holding an internal inquiry.

    Mark, who admits being drunk, suffered 14 head injuries during the incident in Wigan.

    Open government means access to e-mails

     

    Business and budgeting as usual have gone by the boards for most cities and towns. The revenue picture is grim, and communities are hurting. With but one major revenue source, a property tax paid by people who are also facing hard times, tough decisions must be made. Cut services, including some long considered essential, and reduce the help given residents who need it? Or make life that much harder for taxpayers, who are themselves struggling?

    When cuts must be made, passions and suspicions run high. Are those who squawk the loudest, no matter what the merit of their case, winning out at the expense of those with greater needs? Are the well-connected the last to lose their jobs? It’s natural to harbor such suspicions and ask such questions in good times, let alone during the kind of economic angst communities are suffering now.

    On Wednesday the Monitor’s Amy Augustine reported on a challenge to a Hopkinton selectman’s decision to discuss potential ways to cut that town’s budget via e-mail messages with the board’s other members. The issue came to light when a resident requested copies of official e-mails and received one marked “Eyes Only.”

    Whoops and double whoops. Nonpublic business messages between a quorum of town officials on a matter not exempt under the state’s right-to-know law are a no-no. And sending proof of a potential violation to a member of the public guarantees trouble.

    The e-mail, from board Chairman Scott Flood to his colleagues, was an assessment of town needs and wants, with suggestions for which budget items should be considered for cuts and which public properties should be sold.

    Those are controversial subjects guaranteed to spur lobbying attempts and protests, but they are under discussion in every town and city hall.

    Hopkinton’s practices are better than many: An e-mail message between a quorum of members is, if the sender believes it falls under the right-to-know law, forwarded to the town administrator, who will make it available to the public upon request. There are potential flaws with that system – all town officials may not understand or interpret the law correctly or the same way, for example – but it shows a good-faith effort to conduct open government. Another potential problem exists with such systems because citizens can’t easily ask for something they don’t know exists.

    The new system Hopkinton will put in place as a result of resident Janet Krzyzaniak’s request for information is a vast improvement and could become a model for other towns. Hopkinton officials will now e-mail each other using town accounts rather than private accounts, and all messages will go into a folder available to the public at the town hall.

    Like Hopkinton’s board members, most local office holders work a full-time job. Town business has become far more complicated and demanding. The ability of officials to communicate by e-mail is a blessing, one that, properly used, greatly benefits citizens who depend on the willingness of volunteers who sacrifice a huge chunk of their time for the good of the community.

    In keeping with the times and technology, it would also be helpful, since the messages were created in electronic form, for towns to keep them in a digital folder that’s available to the public on the town’s website. Now that would truly be government at its most open and accessible.

    Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot

    First ID cards not being scanned

    0

    The first batch of biometric identity cards issued in Britain last week to foreigners are not being read because the government failed to issue a single scanner in time.

    Machines that scan fingerprints and facial details were meant to be in the hands of employers, recruiters and emergency services for the rollout of the cards on Tuesday.

    But The Observer reported that the Home Office had still not issued the biometric readers by last week, and was unable to say when deployment would begin.

    As a result, the cards can only be used as a visual identifier, like a valid passport or visa, making their current use akin to a ‘flash and go’ corporate identity card scheme.

    Ministers have hailed the capture of facial image and fingerprints of card-holders as a way to “lock” foreign nationals to one identity and help stamp out illegal working.

    Welcoming the issuing of the cards to foreign staff, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation said the move would enhance “safe and ethical recruitment” in the UK.

    It called its members, including IT recruiters, to ensure that they
    familiarise themselves with the appearance of the cards
    to ensure foreign candidates they engage are eligible.

    However, documents from the Home Office state that the cards’ biometric details will only be cross-checked with the National Identity Register in a minority of cases.

    Employers who suspect the cards are not genuine must report to the UK Borders Agency, as must colleges in the UK with similar doubts about foreign students they enlist.

    Public and private sector bodies need to change how they vet workers’ rights to be in the UK, ensuring their contact details and a copy of their identity card are stored.

     © Contractor UK

    Venezuelan Elections: The Media Response

    2

    By Stephen Lendman |

    On November 23, Venezuela held regional and local elections for governors, mayors and other municipal offices. Over 5000 candidates contested in 603 races for 22 state governors, 328 mayors, 233 state legislative council members, 13 Caracas Metropolitan area council members, and seven others for the Alto Apure District Council.

    As mandated under Article 56 of the Bolivarian Constitution: “All persons have the right to be registered (to vote) free of charge with the Civil Registry Office after birth, and to obtain public documents constituting evidence of the biological identity, in accordance with the law.”

    It’s a constitutional mandate to let all Venezuelans vote. Once registered, none are purged from the rolls, obstructed, or prevented from having their vote count like so often happens in America. In Venezuela, democracy works.

    In 2003, Hugo Chavez undertook a major successful initiative called Mision Itentidad (Mission Identity) to implement the law. Prior to it in 2000, 11 million Venezuelans were registered to vote. By September 2006, it was 16 million, and now it’s 16.8 million in a country of 27 million people.

    How the Process Works

    The electoral process is administered by the National Electoral Council (CNE). Unlike America’s privatized system, it’s an independent body, separate from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government or any private corporate interests. It’s comprised of 11 members of the National Assembly and 10 representatives of civil society, none of whom are appointed by the President.

    Elections are conducted using Smartmatic touchscreen electronic voting machines with verifiable paper ballot receipts. Voters can thus check to confirm their votes and their accuracy. The CNE then saves them as a permanent record to be used in case a recount is needed. It also requires voters to leave an electronic thumbprint to assure no one votes more than once.

    The machines work as intended, and, after the 2006 election, the Carter Center said: based on its observations, Venezuela’s “automated machines worked well and the voting results do reflect the will of the people.” Further earlier independent studies verified the same thing, including ones carried out by vote-process experts at the University of California Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, Stanford and elsewhere.

    In design, great care was taken to eliminate the possibility of tampering. It required a special technology that split the security codes into four parts. As a result, numerous voting security reports endorse the process they say makes Venezuelan machines the most advanced and accurate in the world.

    On November 23, CNE president Tibisay Lucena said voters turned out in unprecedented numbers at 65.45%, the largest ever total for a regional election. The people spoke and registered a resounding, but not one-sided, victory for Hugo Chavez’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) candidates and sent a message. They affirmed the success of Bolivarianism and want it continued.

    As the Venezuela Information Office reported, PSUV candidates won 77% of governorships (17 of 22), 81% of mayoral offices, 77% of all contests, and 58% of the popular vote – an impressive result by any standard anywhere in an election that 134 independent observers from 54 countries (from America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the 34-member country Organization of American States – OAS) judged open, free, fair, and efficient like all others under Chavez. OAS secretary general Jose Miguel Insulza called this one “peaceful and exemplary” and described it as a powerful expression of democratic maturity and the trust Venezuelans have in it under Chavez.

    Other observer comments were as follows:

    — Colombia’s CNE representative, Joaquin Vives, called Venezuela’s electoral process “a pioneer in the world (and added) Many things dazzled us” about it, such as voters “great desire to construct democracy in Venezuela;”

    — Greek legislator Sofia Sakorafa called the process “one that expresses the will of the people and is characterized by a commitment to social and political inclusion;”

    — Costa Rica’s Maria Elena Salazar said the election was “beautiful, participative, of which all Latin Americans should be proud;” and

    — Anthony Gonzales from America admired well-equipped and secured voting centers and that the election was held on a weekend to make it easier for working people.

    Long-time Latin American expert James Petras commented on the significance of the victory:

    — few European, North or South American parties have as high a level of support as the PSUV; certainly none in the United States in particular where growing numbers of voters have little faith in a deeply corrupted process;

    — the PSUV is popular “in the context of several radical economic measures, including the nationalization of major cement, steel, financial and other private capitalist monopolies;” even so, business in Venezuela remains strong (though slowing) at a time of a global economic crisis;

    — the PSUV won in spite of declining oil prices; fluctuating around $50 a barrel, they’re down about two-thirds from their peak price; even so, “the government maintained most of its funding for its social programs” and intends to continue doing it – in contrast to America where social programs have eroded for years and show no signs of revitalization under either party;

    — the electorate was selective in its voting choices – “rewarding candidates who performed adequately in providing government services and punishing those who ignored or were unresponsive to popular demands;”

    — most important: “the decisive (PSUV) victory provides the basis for confronting the deepening collapse of world capitalism with (impressive and workable) socialist measures;” compare them to the looting of the US Treasury to reward criminal bankers for their malfeasance and failures; the differences between both countries are dramatic and breathtaking – democratically impressive (though not perfect) in Venezuela compared to criminally corrupted under either party in America; no one dares mention this in the corporate media.

    In the election’s aftermath, Petras explained that “most Venezuelan firms are heavily indebted to the state and local banks.” Chavez can ask them “to repay their debts or hand over the keys (and be able to bring) about a painless and eminently legal transition to socialism.” It remains to be seen if he’ll do it to advance his socialism of the 21st century – or perhaps remain defensive, proceed cautiously, and fail to take advantage of an important opportunity.

    Responses from the Dominant Media

    With some exceptions, it’s been pretty much as expected – one-sided, distorted, inaccurate, and not at all reflecting the will of Venezuelans and their impressive support for Chavez and Bolivarianism.

    For example, the New York Times in a November 25 editorial headlined: “Hugo Chavez’s Choice.” After he took office in February 1999, the Times kept up a steady attack against him in editorials and commentaries. Here it states: Hugo Chavez “is not feeling the love. Collapsing oil prices have sharply curtailed his ability to ‘buy’ public sympathies,” and after Barack Obama’s election he no longer has “a convenient foe.”

    Sunday’s elections “showed just how fed up (Venezuelans) are with his government’s ‘authoritarianism and incompetence’ by rejecting the president’s allies in significant races.” Even by Times standards, these comments are way over the top and mirror opposite of the facts.

    The Times continues: “Mr. Chavez did pretty much everything he could to skew the elections. His government increased public spending by 60 percent in the last year.” Of course, he’s always used the nation’s wealth for his people and not as handouts to the rich like in America.

    “A government watchdog (also) disqualified many opposition candidates,” but the Times omitted saying that the Venezuelan Supreme Court (YSJ) barred them because of corruption, misuse of public funds, and convictions for these offenses. The Times called them “bogus.”

    It then exaggerated Sunday’s results, suggested Chavez’s popular support is waning, referred to his “rejected (December) power-grabbing constitutional reform,” and stated “Venezuelans don’t want to give Mr. Chavez even more power. He should heed the message (and) accept democratic limits to his rule.” Unstated was:

    • Chavez’s popular support at over 60% compared to George Bush scoring lowest ever for a US president at around 20%;
    • the nation’s impressive social democracy;
    • the kind few other nations have;
    • the type absent in America;
    • the kind Venezuelans never before had and cherish; and
    • are committed never to give up.

    Simon Romero is the Times man in Caracas where his reporting is mediocre and inaccurate. His November 24 article was typical. It’s headlined: “Chavez Supporters Suffer Defeat in State and Municipal Races” in which he refers to their “stinging defeat in several state and municipal races.” Unnoticed were all the victories and how impressively they were won.

    Instead Romero noted “festering discontent” and how “celebratory fireworks went off over parts of (Caracas) after the results were announced.” Perhaps so but mostly for Chavez and his PSUV.

    Romero preferred to quote Caracas opposition mayoral winner, Antonio Ledezma, saying “Those who should feel defeated are the criminals.” An urban Caracas Petare carpenter as well being “tired of Chavez treating the entire country as if it were his military barracks.”

    Well into his article, Romero had to say that “Voting unfolded without reports of major irregularities” but ignored the fact that few at all occurred and they were minor. He also admitted that pro-Chavez candidates won 17 of 22 states but added sour grapes about some being small “in terms of population.”

    On the same day, Romero wrote another commentary headlined: “Once Considered Invincible, Chavez Takes a Blow” with as many inaccuracies as the above one. He referred to “many of (Chavez’s) supporters desert(ing) him… in areas where he was once thought invincible,” but had to admit the results might not “slow his Socialist-inspired revolution or check his power.” Why should it when most Venezuelans want it.

    He repeated much from his other article, added a few inaccurate quotes (like it’s a “myth” to believe “only Chavez can be a champion of the poor”), omitted the most important facts, but again admitted the obvious – that “Mr. Chavez remains by far the dominant and most popular figure in Venezuelan politics,” and the election results showed it.

    Even so, Romero downplayed his victory and said Chavez candidates won mostly in largely rural states. He quoted economist Luis Pedro Espana, director of the Economic and Social Research Institute at Venezuela’s Andres Bello Catholic University, stating: “The more modern part of the country wants political change.” What he means, but didn’t say, is the more affluent part, now forced to share some of the nation’s wealth with its least advantaged and most in need people – the great majority who support Chavez overwhelmingly.

    On November 25, the Wall Street Journal was extremely hostile in two post-election articles – one on the results and another feature story headlined: “Chavez Lets Colombian Rebels Wield Power Inside Venezuela.” It reeks of inaccuracies, uses Washington and the Colombian military as its sources, and claims that Chavez is providing a growing “safe haven” for FARC-EP and ELN “guerrillas.”

    Unreported was anything about Chavez’s Colombian peace intervention and his successful efforts to arrange FARC-EP held hostage releases – in spite of Washington and Colombia’s president Uribe conspiring to prevent it.

    Journal writer Jose de Cordoba accused the Venezuelan military and police of “turning a blind eye to guerrilla activity, and at times cooperating in areas including the trafficking of arms and cocaine.” This and other anti-Chavez agitprop show up often in Journal commentaries, but this time in far more detail compared to much less said about the election results.

    That was in a page six article headlined: “Chavez Base Rebukes Him at Polls.” Writer John Lyon referred to Chavez’s “dual ambitions – to stay in power for life and wield outsize influence on the global stage.” He added how “the very people that brought him to power” rebuked him: “the urban poor.”

    Like the Times, the article reeked with inaccuracies that are increasingly common on both the Journal’s op-ed and news pages. Lyon suggests trouble for Chavez with his electoral “setbacks add(ing) to a list of growing problems that are likely to slow his swagger.” For example, falling oil prices that may crimp his “checkbook diplomacy that has won him allies outside his borders….”

    He also compared him to Fidel Castro, referred to his “foreign adventures… backfir(ing) amid the local financial crisis,” and said his base is “dwindling” at a time it’s impressively strong. He quoted opposition candidate Antonio Ledezma (as did Romero) saying “Now is the time for true change” by which he means ending Bolivarianism, its social democracy, returning power to the privileged oligarchs, and throwing most Venezuelans back into deep poverty. Lyon apparently approves and quotes a leading opposition newspaper, Tal Cual, headlining: “We hit him where it hurts.” For the past 10 years, the Venezuelan people have had the last word.

    The Washington Post was just as hostile in a November 25 editorial headlined “How to Beat Mr. Chavez” and his “Cuban-style socialist regime.” It called him “Venezuela’s strongman (and) caudillo” and over-hyped Sunday’s results much the way the Journal and Times did it. It added that Chavez “shows no sign that he is listening to the country,” and post-election said the voters’ message was to “continue down the same road.” Indeed it was and will be.

    According to the Post, “the opposition now has an opportunity to show that it can offer a workable alternative to Mr. Chavez’s policies.” Unmentioned was that they had generations to “show” it, failed dismally, Venezuelans overwhelmingly reject them, and want no part of their kind of “change.”

    With its large anti-Castro population, Miami is a hotbed of anti-Chavismo, and the Miami Herald reflects it. Post-election, it headlined “Despite foes’ gains, Hugo Chavez will try to get another term in Venezuela.” It referred to state and local elections “slow(ing) his grand ambitions to yank Venezuela and Latin America to the left” but not enough to stop him according to unnamed analysts.

    It suggested an upcoming “titanic battle” as Chavez is expected to hold a national plebiscite next year “that would allow him to campaign for an additional six-year presidential term in 2012.” It quoted pollster Luis Vincente Leon of Datanalisis, who publicly called for Chavez’s assassination, saying: “He wants to change the constitution to run again. There’s no doubt about that,” but again unsaid is what the people want. Chavez wants them to choose and like always will honor their will.

    On November 23, the far right Washington Times headlined a John Thomson commentary on “Chavez’s fraud game” and referred to “The kinds and extent of fraud already being applied by the Venezuelan government to crucial elections today.” He called them “unprecedented (and) unmitigated electoral larceny (and) Venezuela’s pilfer process starts well before the day the votes are cast and counted.”

    In an age of breathtaking anti-Chavez agitprop, this comment takes the cake or at least matches the worst of it. Thomson called the “fraud potential” on election day “staggering” and listed a menu of absurdities and rubbish ranging from “jumbled” voting lists to “rigged” voting machines, and “manipulation” of results.

    It’s much like Journal writer Mary O’Grady’s agitprop – her latest on November 17 in a commentary headlined: “Dodd’s Democrat Tightens His Grip.” Dodd, of course, is Senator Chris Dodd, and her article is about Venezuela’s election, the country’s “numerous setbacks for democracy,” and the chance Venezuelans have to “rid themselves of Mr. Chavez.”

    She refers to his “authoritarian powers… deteriorating living standards (and) the widespread assumption that the government will use tricks to win” on November 23. “Venezuelans saw this coming. From his earliest days as president in 1999, Mr. Chavez began working to destroy any checks on his power.”

    She attacked Chris Dodd for “throw(ing) a fit over Mr. Chavez’s (48-hour) removal” in April 2002. “This self-styled Latin American expert (referred to) a US-backed coup and insisted that since Mr. Chavez (was) democratically elected in a fair vote” no one should question his legitimacy.

    “Of course it wasn’t a coup,” according to O’Grady, as she questions the “circumstances (of his) political resurrection,” again called him a “strongman,” warned earlier about his budding “dictatorship,” and now says her view about him is accurate.

    “Political prisoners are rotting in Venezuelan jails without trials. Being identified as a political opponent of the revolution is a ticket to the end of the unemployment line. Private property has zero protection under the law and the economy’s private sector has been all but destroyed… (and Chavez) has made it clear he will not accept defeat at the polls.”

    Breathtaking hardly describes this rant. It’s mirror opposite the truth. Venezuela’s social democracy is unimaginable in America, and one reason why O’Grady and others vilify it. It’s also why they reported inaccurately on Sunday’s election.

    A Sane Voice in the Wilderness

    On November 22, the London Independent published “Letters: In praise of Hugo Chavez.” One confronted Latin American writer Phil Gunson’s “bleak picture” of Venezuela in his article titled: “Tough-talking Chavez faces rising dissent.” It was grossly inaccurate, mentioned the usual kinds of criticisms, and pretty much read like the US and Venezuelan corporate media agitprop.

    The writer asked: If Gunson is right, “why are President Chavez’s approval ratings at 58%, as he reports.” He doesn’t mention “how (his) government has delivered free healthcare to millions of people for the first time, eradicated illiteracy and used the country’s best economic performance for decades to halve the poverty levels.”

    Suggesting that poll results may trigger a “violent reaction… turn(s) reality on its head. It was the Chavez government itself that was briefly the victim of an opposition-led military coup in 2002. In contrast, (his) government has showed a consistent commitment to democracy…. Moreover, last week the respected Latinbarametro survey showed that Venezuela is now the country with the greatest support for democracy in Latin America and the region’s second-most satisfied with the functioning of its democracy. Venezuela’s combination of democracy and social progress under Chavez has inspired widespread support.”

    It’s signed by Colin Burgon, MP, Chair, Labour Friends of Venezuela group of MPs, House of Commons. He adds more as well, and the Independent published it. It’s unlike major US broadsheets that cover Chavez one way: with venomous inaccuracy and very rare exceptions that hardly draw notice.

    The Venezuela Information Office reviewed the election in detail, and it’s summarized below as follows:

    • for a regional election, voter turnout was unprecedented at over 65%;
    • independent observers judged the process open, free, fair and efficient and according to OAS secretary general Insulza “peaceful and exemplary;”
    • PSUV candidates won impressive victories, far exceeding the opposition;
    • pro-government candidates gained a large majority of offices throughout the country – for governors, mayors and other posts;
    • like for the past decade, most Venezuelans will continue to live under pro-Chavez regional and local leaders because they want them;
    • the PSUV scored important victories in strategic areas of the country, but not all of them;
    • pro-government candidates won by wide margins affirming Venezuelans faith in Bolivarianism;
    • although the metropolitan Caracas mayoralty went to the opposition, residents of the largest city municipality voted for the PSUV;
    • even in states won by the opposition, key municipalities went to the PSUV; and
    • Venezuela’s Electoral Authority (CNE) handled the record voter turnout impressively.

    The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other publications falsely reported that a majority of the population is under opposition control. Official statistics show otherwise but were ignored.

    The Legal Advice to Wage War on Iraq was not just “sexed-up”, it was concocted

    0

    By C Stephen Frost |

    Mary Bedworth, Christopher Burns-Cox, Lou Coatney and David Halpin co-signed this article, which appeared as a commentary in The Guardian following the publication of an article by Richard Norton Taylor (see below).  

     
    Background on the scandal of the twice-changed legal advice of the British Attorney General, which purported to allow the United Kingdom, and thereby the United States (together with Australia, Denmark and Poland), to wage an aggressive and illegal war on Iraq. This war is the “supreme international war crime” according to the the Nuremberg Protocol and the Geneva Conventions.
         

    Iraq war: Time for a full inquiry

    Some of this scepticism is well-founded. But not all of it. In the first place, Lord Bingham is not just any old lawyer. He is the most senior judge of the modern era. He is regarded by many as its finest legal mind. Though Lord Bingham only retired a few weeks ago, he has been at the pinnacle of English law-making for a decade and a half and has clearly been pondering the war’s legality for years. It may raise some eyebrows that he should be so quick to engage on this supremely divisive issue so soon after leaving the bench – but if the issue is so important, why not? The simple fact is that, when Lord Bingham speaks on the law, it is always a good idea to listen.

    Just because it is now more than five years since the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, advised that an invasion would be lawful, it does not follow that his advice or the decision are less controversial or momentous now than they were in 2003. It is hard to think of a more serious decision than one to go to war. Particularly in circumstances other than national self-defence, it is essential to know what is lawful and what is not. In a world increasingly and rightly regulated by international law, all nations need to be clear about the lawfulness of war and the obligation to obey that law.
    Lord Bingham’s conclusion that the Iraq invasion was “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law” – which ministers are required to uphold – has already been vigorously challenged by Lord Goldsmith and Jack Straw. Yet this is such a serious subject, with such immense implications for Britain’s standing, that the argument cannot be allowed to rest there. When such senior figures of the legal establishment are at odds in this way, it enhances the case for a full public inquiry into the lessons of the Iraq war. That inquiry should have been established long ago. But when someone of Lord Bingham’s stature says the war was unlawful, the case for such a scrutiny, already compelling, becomes irresistible.
     
    We make the following comments on the Guardian article and editorial:
     
    Look, it is this simple – the Intelligence was not just sexed-up, it was concocted – further, the legal advice was not just sexed-up, it was also concocted – so, “the supreme international war crime” (according to the Geneva Conventions) of waging aggressive war on a sovereign state, was indeed committed by Blair, Goldsmith, Straw, Hoon, Falconer, Morgan and others.

    The British war criminals knew that Iraq posed no threat to the United Kingdom, and that a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could not be claimed to be necessary in self-defence, which was why there was a need for the Intelligence to be sexed-up, nay concocted. Furthermore, because the British war criminals knew that they could not obtain the further United Nations resolution required (if they were not acting in self-defence, as they knew they were not), it was necessary to sex-up/concoct the legal advice. Further, the then Chief of the British Armed Forces, Sir Michael Boyce, asked on 13 March 2003 for assurances from the Government that the proposed invasion was legal and that his forces would not be committing a war crime by invading Iraq. That was why the Goldsmith 7 March 2003 written legal advice (which itself represented Goldsmith’s first change of mind), with all its caveats, had to be so drastically changed (with a little help from Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan who had an unminuted meeting with Goldsmith at 10 Downing Street on 14 March 2003, at which the latter conveyed his “verbal view”) to the infamous 17 March 2003 Parliamentary Answer on a single sheet of A4, devoid of all previous caveats, purporting as it did at the time to be the definitive legal advice, when it was no such thing. In any case, it was not for Goldsmith to decide whether Iraq had or had not complied with a combination of previous United Nations resolutions – that was always something for the United Nations to decide. The “legal advice” on the single sheet of A4 (which we are not even sure was written by Goldsmith) was what was shown to Sir Michael Boyce and the Cabinet. Robin Cook (former Foreign Secretary) resigned on 17 March 2003, and the second most senior lawyer at the Foreign Office, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned the following day. Those two, Robin Cook and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, were alone in resigning – the rest, who could have made a difference, just sat on their hands.

     

    As has previously been mentioned upthread there is no point in having a public inquiry, because the Public Inquiries Act 1921 was quietly repealed in the dying days of the last government and replaced by the odious Inquiries Act 2005.

    It is unlikely that we will see the British war criminals on trial at the ICC in the Hague, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that any one of them could at any time be arrested in a foreign country and put on trial in that country using its own laws. So, for the rest of their lives, they will have to be careful where they travel. 

    Our suggestions are:

    1) A list should be drawn up of suspected war criminals – the usual suspects would be on that list, but the list could become rather long if one were to include those who were complicit by their inaction (for example, the Conservatives inexplicably as far as I have understood were not concerned about the existence or otherwise of WMD – they wanted regime change regardless (which of course is illegal). So, to isolate the worst culprits, it would probably be best to keep the list as short as possible, confined to the worst culprits, numbering say 10 to 15.

    2) A fresh inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly should be secured – this could and should be secured using Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners’ Act, and would represent the best chance of getting the war criminals into a court of law giving evidence this time (unlike at the Hutton Inquiry) under oath – the Hutton Inquiry purported to be an inquest, but it was no such thing – Hutton was not granted any of the statutory powers which a coroner would automatically possess – for example, he did not even hear evidence under oath, and he had no powers of subpoena – further, a coroner can call a jury and he can have witnesses aggressively cross-examined (Hutton possessed no such powers). Further, suicide must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (ie a criminal level of proof, which is a very high standard of proof) before a verdict of suicide can be returned – Hutton did not even hear evidence under oath, so it was never possible that he could be satisfied that suicide had been proved to the required standard. So, David Kelly’s death has not been subjected to the rigours of a proper inquest, and that is in flagrant contravention of English (and European) law. So, due process of law was subverted in the investigation of arguably the most important death to have occurred in the United Kingdom in our lifetimes, inextricably linked as Kelly’s death was to the United Kingdom’s highly dubious reasons for going to war with Iraq. The necessary urgent correction of this incontrovertible subversion of due process of law would provide the perfect excuse to get the war criminals in a court of law giving evidence under oath, under threat of charges of perjury were they to lie. The Coroner would have the power to subpoena any British citizen.

     
    Here is the 7 March 2003 legal advice (which represented Goldsmith’s first change of mind):
     
     
    Here is the 17 March 2003 legal advice (which represented Lord Goldsmith’s second change of mind);
     
     
    “Here is the full text of the 17 March 2003 response:
    Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.
     
    All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:
    In Resolutions 678, the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
     
    In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678.
     
    A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678.
     
    In Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
     
    The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” and warned Iraq of the “serious consequences” if it did not.

    The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

     
     
    It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
     
    Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
     
    Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that Resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.” 


    ANNEX

    Top judge: US and UK acted as ‘vigilantes’ in Iraq invasion

    by Richard Norton-Taylor

    Former senior law lord condemns ‘serious violation of international law’

    18 November 2008, The Guardian

    One of Britain’s most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a “world vigilante”.

    Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general’s defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed.

    Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith’s advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: “It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had.” Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions “passes belief”.

    Governments were bound by international law as much as by their domestic laws, he said. “The current ministerial code,” he added “binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to ‘comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations’.”

    The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats continue to press for an independent inquiry into the circumstances around the invasion. The government says an inquiry would be harmful while British troops are in Iraq. Ministers say most of the remaining 4,000 will leave by mid-2009.

    Addressing the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night, Bingham said: “If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the security council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.

    “For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the security council …”

    The moment a state treated the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rested was broken, Bingham argued. Quoting a comment made by a leading academic lawyer, he added: “It is, as has been said, ‘the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante’.”

    Bingham said he had very recently provided an advance copy of his speech to Goldsmith and to Jack Straw, foreign secretary at the time of the invasion of Iraq. He told his audience he should make it plain they challenged his conclusions.

    Both men emphasised that point last night by intervening to defend their views as consistent with those held at the time of the invasion. Goldsmith said in a statement: “I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view. Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event.” Goldsmith defended what is known as the “revival argument” – namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with previous UN resolutions which could now take effect. Goldsmith added that Tony Blair had told him it was his “unequivocal view” that Iraq was in breach of its UN obligations to give up weapons of mass destruction.

    Straw said last night that he shared Goldsmith’s view. He continued: “However controversial the view that military action was justified in international law it was our attorney general’s view that it was lawful and that view was widely shared across the world.”

    Bingham also criticised the post-invasion record of Britain as “an occupying power in Iraq”. It is “sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr Baha Mousa [a hotel receptionist] in Basra [in 2003]”, he said.

    Such breaches of the law, however, were not the result of deliberate government policy and the rights of victims had been recognised, Bingham observed.

    He contrasted that with the “unilateral decisions of the US government” on issues such as the detention conditions in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

    After referring to mistreatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib, Bingham added: “Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration.”

    Civil rights complaint targets Wall Street rating firms

    0
    Moody’s and Fitch’s high ratings of subprime mortgage bonds disproportionately harmed black and Latino home buyers, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition alleges.
    By Kenneth R. Harney |
    In what is apparently the first legal action of its kind, an association of community-based organizations has filed a federal civil rights complaint against two of the three largest Wall Street rating firms, charging that their inflated ratings on subprime mortgage bonds disproportionately caused financial harm to African American and Latino home buyers across the country.

    The complaint, filed by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, alleges that Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings enriched themselves by assigning high ratings to bonds backed by mortgages “that were designed to fail” because of “unfair payment terms and insufficient borrower income levels.”

    The firms “knew or should have known” that subprime loans disproportionately were marketed to minority consumers — a process known as “reverse redlining” — and that those borrowers would ultimately default and go into foreclosure at high rates, according to the coalition’s complaint.

    Fitch Managing Director David Weinfurter said the NCRC’s filing “is fully without merit, and Fitch intends to defend itself vigorously.” Moody’s had no immediate comment.

    The filing cites multiple studies that found that African Americans and Latinos received a disproportionate share of subprime loans during the housing boom years. A Federal Reserve study in 2006 estimated that 45% of mortgages extended to Latinos and 55% of loans to African Americans were subprime — a utilization rate “three to four times that of non-Hispanic whites.”

    Because the loans themselves often came with terms that increased borrowers’ probability of default — upfront teaser rates followed by unaffordable reset payment adjustments, no required documentation of applicants’ incomes or assets, plus hefty prepayment penalties — African Americans with subprime mortgages are projected to lose $71 billion to $92 billion through foreclosures, while Latinos are projected to lose $75 billion to $98 billion, according to one study cited in the complaint.

    “Had subprime loans been distributed equitably,” the complaint estimates, “losses for whites would be 44.5% higher and losses for people of color would be about 24% lower.”

    A third rating firm with heavy involvement in the subprime boom, Standard & Poor’s Corp., was not named in the complaint but has been “in discussions” with the NCRC, said David Berenbaum, the group’s executive vice president. If the discussions with S&P prove “unsatisfactory,” he said, the company could be the subject of a separate action.

    The NCRC filed its complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fair housing and equal opportunity unit. After a review, HUD could either dismiss the allegations or refer the case to the Justice Department of the incoming Obama administration for litigation next year. If HUD fails to respond adequately, the NCRC says it may file a federal civil lawsuit.

    The civil rights complaint is the latest in a series of lawsuits, regulatory investigations and congressional criticism of the rating firms’ roles and conduct during the mortgage bond heyday years of 2003-05. In dollar terms, subprime and so-called Alt-A no-documentation loans accounted for 32% of all mortgage originations in 2005. Their share had been 10% two years before. Virtually all of those high-risk loans were sold to Wall Street firms for inclusion in complex bond structures that were resold, often in bits and pieces, to pension funds and financial institutions.

    The traditional function of the rating firms has been that of Wall Street’s “gatekeepers,” evaluating the risks involved in the collateral backing bonds. Their assignment of investment-grade ratings to securities based on high-risk mortgages — and their subsequent mass lowering of those ratings as default losses piled up — has earned them scorching criticism from investors, regulators and Congress.

    Much of the criticism focused on the fact that the firms are paid lucrative fees for their ratings by bond issuers themselves — not investors — thereby creating potential conflicts of interest. The firms also competed with one another to rate subprime loan securitizations, creating additional pressure to provide the most favorable possible ratings.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the rating firms this year and found “serious shortcomings” at Moody’s, Fitch and S&P, including lack of oversight of conflicts of interest. Investigators also turned up evidence that employees apparently knew that some of the mortgage pools they were rating were potentially toxic.

    In one instant-message exchange, an analyst reportedly called a deal “ridiculous. . . . We should not be rating it.” A colleague responded: “We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.”

    Critics such as Berenbaum contend that without mass securitizations of high-risk mortgages — with stamps of approval from the rating firms — far fewer subprime loans would have been made, and far fewer minority home buyers would have ended up in foreclosure.

    Freedom from slavery – at a price

    0

    Even after emancipation, the lives of former slaves in BDA were heavily policed
    The Bermuda Archives has extended its “groundbreaking” exhibit, ‘A Very Manifest Alteration’ to December 31.

    Pilot James ‘Jemmy’ Darrell is the basis from which 17 display items examine the limitations on the rights of ‘freed people of colour’ during Bermuda’s transitional period from 1793 to 1816.

    The pilot-slave was ‘manumitted’ (freed) in 1796 on the recommendation of British Rear Admiral George Murray for safely manoeuvring Admiral Murray’s flagship, HMS Resolution through Bermuda’s northern reefs and into the deep waters of what became Murray’s Anchorage.

    “We wanted not to focus so much on that particular feat, but what it meant to be a free person of colour in the age of slavery,” Bermuda Archives director, Karla Hayward said.

    The ‘narrative,’ according to Ms Hayward, focuses on legal status. Freedom hardly differed from the earlier servitude, except that freed non-whites could benefit from their earnings.

    When Pilot Darrell was manumitted, the document requested that all persons “treat him, as a Man actually and bona fide Free.” But the later-appointed King’s Pilot could not serve on a jury, or testify in a court.

    The 1806 passage of three Acts further curtailed that freedom.

    Acts one and two were intended to level the opportunities for young white men, who were being surpassed in the mechanics’ trades by successful and enterprising freed non-whites.

    Parents of white apprentices and the tradesmen who taught their sons sail-making, tailoring, masonry, ship and house carpentry split a bounty, while ‘Freed Negroes and Persons of Colour’ practising the mechanics trades were subject to duties.

    The third Act regulated emancipation.

    Fear of insurrection

    Fear in the white population of slave insurrection that might be instigated by the growing population of freed non-whites led to the stipulation that such slaves manumitted at 40-years or younger would have to leave the island within three months.

    An emancipated slave not following the law was subject to imprisonment and deportation. If they returned, they could be re-enslaved.

    The third Act also prevented freed non-whites from willing an estate. Pilot Darrell could therefore not leave the small parcel of land he acquired in 1800 to his wife and family.

    The Act additionally stopped ‘Freed Blacks and Persons of Colour’ from renting a property for longer than seven years.

    The petition by King’s Pilots Darrell and Jacob Pitcairn to the Naval Commissioners in London regarding the deprivation of property posterity would suffer under this latter Act is exhibited, as is Mr. Darrell’s Will. The Will was probated in 1823, eight years after his death and eight months prior to his wife Eusebia’s death.

    No birth certificate exists, but Mr. Darrell was born into slavery about 1749. A 1795 receipt for his purchase for £150 by Governor James Crawford, and his Manumission a year later stating his age as 47 do exist and are part of the exhibit.

    The three Acts, pilotage returns from Bermuda, census figures and the rights of a child of an interracial couple – which Mr. Darrell himself is suspected to have been – are among the items also displayed and explained.

    “This is our history, and it’s a history of what slavery meant in Bermuda. It’s specific. It’s not slavery as it appeared in the American South or the Caribbean. It is Bermudian history, and it’s groundbreaking,” Ms. Hayward said. “The details that we have uncovered in this exhibition have not been examined or reported elsewhere.”

    School groups, residents and visitors are invited to view this free exhibit until December 31.

    A printed version of the documents on display is available upon request.

    Other duplications may be made, depending upon donor permission and copyright, for a fee.

    Activists want end to Israeli blockade of Gaza

    0
    Human rights activists are calling on Egypt to open its border with Gaza to prevent the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the strip.

    Parliamentarians, community leaders, NGOs and human rights activists, from different countries, have written a letter to be delivered on Saturday by the Egyptian Embassy to President Hosni Mubarak to ask him to open Gaza crossing.

    “The letter calls on the Egyptian President Mubarak to immediately open border-crossing with Gaza for urgent humanitarian aid,” Masoud Shajareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, told IRNA on Friday.

    The already-worse Israeli siege on Gaza has created miserable living conditions for more than 1.5 million people mostly women and children trapped inside the strip.

    “Israeli ongoing collective punishment of the civilian population is pushing Gazans into further poverty and misery,” he said.

    Referring to the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian lands, Shajareh said the humanitarian crisis created by Israeli policy of collective punishment must “no longer be tolerated”.

    He called on the Egyptian government to open its border with Gaza so that humanitarian supplies could be passed to the besieged Palestinians.

    “While none can ignore the plight of the Palestinians, the Egyptian government bears the responsibility of allowing vital aid to the innocent people of Gaza whose only crime is living under occupation,” he said.

    Shajareh added that the letter has been signed by human rights activists and other personalities from different countries including the UK, Turkey, Italy, Malaysia, Denmark, Sudan, Greece and Indonesia. –IRNA

    Taking liberties with information

    1

    FT | So much for parliamentary privilege: Damian Green, the frontbench Conservative MP for Ashford, was arrested this week and held for nine hours for his part in leaking official documents to the press. The police’s absurd over-reaction shows a lack of understanding of political sensitivities in relation to freedom of information.

    The government is right to investigate leaks. Given the sensitivity of materials in the Home Office, police involvement can be appropriate. In this case, however, there were no security implications. The mole should simply have been subject to internal disciplinary procedures.

    But the police force has, not for the first time, used political offences as a pretext for showing off. As with the “cash for honours” investigation into whether parties sold positions in the House of Lords to donors, the police have delighted in dramatic, empty gestures.

    Mr Green was arrested on the common-law offence of suspicion of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office; among other things, this would require proving that the leaks he was involved with were damaging to the commonweal. Some of the exposés were trivial, some showed up ministerial incompetence. None was against the public interest. Revelations like Mr Green’s are what we demand of our official opposition politicians; they are self-evidently a public good.

    Ministers adamantly deny knowing that Mr Green was going to be arrested for doing his job. Maybe so, but they must explain how an internal leak inquiry ended with arresting an MP for such a ridiculous offence. The Metropolitan Police Authority, the body to which the London police force answers, will need to ask tough questions about why this was allowed to happen. Boris Johnson, mayor of London, chairs the body and advised against the action. There must be genuine accountability for police forces.

    Mr Green’s experience has also highlighted part of the common law that needs reform. Charges of the same offence were dropped only this week against a local journalist in Milton Keynes. Her offence had been to find out from a helpful policeman whether a local footballer would be charged with an offence. She escaped only because of protections offered by the European Human Rights Act.

    Governments must be jealous of giving the police too much power and of vague, open-ended offences. Unaccountable police forces with such loosely defined prerogatives are a menace to liberty. But there is little reason to hope that this administration will recognise this. The draconian anti-terror legislation it has introduced alone has given the police so much power that it has been used to detain an elderly heckler at the Labour party conference, stop protests and, last month, to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks. The government must stop making free with civil liberties.

    Bush Speaks of Legacy

    1

    Truthdig | Still-President Bush has discussed his legacy with his sister Dorothy Bush Koch as part of a national oral-history project, suggesting the future should remember him for his “liberation” of 50 million people and reluctance to “sell his soul … to accommodate the political process”–likely referring to that which is outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

     

     

    ABC News:

    In a personal and wide-ranging interview conducted by his sister about his legacy, his faith and the influence of his father, President George W. Bush said he hopes to be remembered as a liberator of the Iraqi people.

    “I’d like to be a president [known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace,” Bush told his sister, Dorothy Bush Koch, in a conversation recorded for the oral-history organization StoryCorps for the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress.

    “I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process,” Bush said, according to White House excerpts.

    The president told his sister he is proud of the “tough decisions” he made.

    Read more

    Report suggests CIA covered up role in missionary’s death

    0

    By Steve Gunn

    MUSKEGON, Mich. — A top-ranking Republican said he will call for a new federal inquiry into an alleged CIA cover-up in the 2001 military attack on a small plane in Peru that killed an American missionary and her infant child.

    Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said the attack that killed Veronica and Charity Bowers can be traced to a reckless CIA-sponsored drug interception program that already had downed numerous other planes.

    Hoekstra also said the CIA may be responsible for a widespread cover-up designed to hide embarrassing details about the Bowers’ deaths and similar incidents in the skies over Peru between 1995 and 2001.

    A new report from CIA Inspector General John Helgerson accuses the agency of running a reckless air interception program for illegal drugs and ignoring regulations and procedures designed to protect innocent air travelers.

    That type of disregard for procedure might have led to the unnecessary downing of several private planes during the six-year life of the “Narcotics Airbridge Denial Program,” culminating with the Bowers tragedy, Hoekstra said.

    “To say these deaths did not have to happen is an understatement,” said Hoekstra, who also represents the Bowers’ hometown of Muskegon.

    “The CIA knew about repeated serious issues with this program but took no corrective action, which could have prevented this needless tragedy. Making matters worse, the inspector general found continuous efforts to cover the matter up and potentially block a criminal investigation.”

    The CIA has admitted that proper procedures were not followed during the April 20, 2001, attack on the missionary plane carrying the Bowers family, according to Hoekstra.

    The attack, by a Peruvian Air Force jet, resulted in the death of Veronica “Roni” Bowers, 35, and the Bowers’ 7-month-old daughter, Charity. Her husband, Jim Bowers, the Bowers’ young son, Cory, and pilot Kevin Donaldson survived.

    The couple had been working in Peru with the Pennsylvania-based Association of Baptists for World Evangelism when the attack occurred. Jim Bowers, who has remarried and recently was working as a missionary in Africa, could not be reached for comment.

    CIA officials claimed the tragedy was an isolated incident and its air interception program had been operating smoothly and legally to that point.

    Hoekstra, however, said the report suggests that approximately 10 other private planes were shot down over Peru in the years before the Bowers tragedy.

    In many of those incidents, strict federal procedures for identifying, following and trying to make contact with suspect planes were routinely ignored, and at least some of those planes may have been shot down without cause, Hoekstra said.

    By the time the Bowers’ plane flew into the danger zone, disregard for the rules was apparently standard operating procedure, Hoekstra said.

    So the Peruvian military plane that shot down the Bowers plane may have been doing nothing different from what it had done in the past — shooting and killing without proper warning or justification, Hoekstra said.

    “(The CIA) told us this was the first time that anything happened out of the ordinary, that all guidelines in the past had been meticulously followed, and that was a lie,” Hoekstra said. “Every shoot-down prior to this, they never followed the rules as meticulously as they should have.”

    The two Peruvian pilots who shot down the Bowers plane spent 10 months in prison in their native country but were never charged with a crime. The U.S. Justice Department also declined to bring any criminal charges following an investigation.

    “If there had been accountability in the program, if there had been respect for procedures and adherence to the law, the Bowers (family) never would have been shot down,” said Hoekstra, who said he recently shared the new information with Jim Bowers.

    “It was the senseless killing of a family, done by an agency that wasn’t following the rules.”

    Hoekstra, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the initial investigation of the tragedy, said he now realizes that CIA officials who testified before his committee, and answered his personal questions, may have been lying or concealing part of the truth.

    Hoekstra said he would call for a new federal inquiry of the now-defunct drug interception program, the Bowers incident and the alleged CIA cover-up.

    “We need to follow up as aggressively as we can,” Hoekstra said. “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.”

    A statement issued by the CIA indicated that the agency is taking the Inspector General’s report seriously.

    “As soon as Director (Michael) Hayden got the Inspector General’s report in late August, he read it and recognized the seriousness of the matter,” the CIA statement said.

    CCTV Judges Your Behaviour

    2
    Via anonymous email
    Portsmouth introduces CCTV cameras that can ‘identify’ suspicious behaviour and alert their operators

    As an MP is reportedly arrested for trying to leak information in the public interest, and royal assent is given to a bill that carries up to ten years in prison for gathering information on a police officer, new CCTV cameras in Portsmouth will be able to identify ‘unusual’ incidents and alert their operators to them. Such unusual and suspicious behaviour includes loitering, other causes for alarm include cars going ‘too fast’.

    The makers are keen to stress with a some jocularity, that it is not of course the camera that can decide if the situation in question is about to spiral into criminal deviance – it is only the camera operator that can weigh up the evidence and make this ‘human’ decision. This does not of course make the slightest bit of difference to the fact that people in Portsmouth will now constantly be watched for anything that could possibly indicate them doing something illegal. Considering how low the bar seems to be before the cameras register alarm, and how many things are now criminal offences, this virtually amounts to people being watched all the time, under constant suspicion.

    It’s quite interesting to follow the logic of this scheme to it’s only real conclusion. The cameras are not just designed to predict crime based on certain criteria of behaviour, although this is of course a massive loss of liberties in itself. Essentially, they are designed to monitor behaviour that falls outside of the state appointed norm, and even in the cases where security guards choose not to interpret this behaviour as criminal, they will still constantly highlight those whose behaviour falls outside of these boundaries. By this logic, the deviance will, officially, become the same as the crime, highlighted in the same context, dealt with in the same framework, and ultimately the two become associated in the minds of the camera operators, as if security guards weren’t pseudo cops enough already.

    Little information exists as yet as to what will be done with images of those who are flagged but turn out to not be about to rob a bank, mug an old lady or stand on the pavement with a flyer (post up if you know), but it would make sense for all these images to be kept, the way the state and police currently keep information on all the ‘deviants’. This creates a situation where people are scared of doing anything that isn’t state-stamped as ‘normal’ for fear of being considered criminal, and even more so than happens already, begin to police themselves. For things like standing about.

    So will it really come to the point where everyone, once outside their home, is constantly on the move, not stopping, not looking up, not pausing to consider, not stopping to think, not thinking, not choosing where to go, just going?

    Critical mass loitering in Portsmouth, anyone?

    ‘Historic’ UK climate laws ushered in

    1

    Three laws aimed at fighting climate change come into force in Britain today.

    by JOEL TAYLOR

    The legislation provides the world’s first legally binding targets for a country to reduce carbon emissions.

    Its aim is to cut 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 80 per cent in 2050.

    Environmentalists welcomed the ‘historic’ laws but called on the government to go further by developing a low-carbon economy.

    They were also concerned that one of the statutes – the Planning Act – would make it easier for large projects, such as new airports, to be given the go-ahead.

    Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, said the new legislation ‘will be instrumental in reducing carbon emissions and removing barriers to enable industry to invest in important new infrastructure’.

    It would also give people an incentive ‘to use energy more efficiently and generate their own heat and energy’, he added.

    Friends of the Earth said the government should now set up a low-carbon economy by investing in green energy and lowering energy waste.

    ‘It will create exciting business opportunities, thousands of jobs and help lead Britain out of recession,’ said executive director Andy Atkins.

    The Campaign to Protect Rural England was concerned about decision-making powers being given to the ‘unaccountable and unelected’ Independent Planning Commission.

    No More Shop till You Drop

    0

    By Ruth Conniff | Black Friday is only a day away, and it doesn’t look good for retailers. A front-page story in The New York Times, “To Buy Children’s Gifts, Mothers Do Without,” describes a trend away from shopping responsible for an 18.2 percent drop in women’s clothing sales from a year ago. People are curbing the Christmas binge, buying less, forgoing gifts, and generally avoiding the bottomless pit of consumerism that drives our economy.

    That might be good for those of us who care to withdraw voluntarily from the rat race at the mall. Buy Nothing Day also happens to be the Friday after Thanksgiving–a day of nonshopping organized to spread the word that, as Adbusters –http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd–puts it, “There’s only one way to avoid the collapse of this human experiment of ours on Planet Earth: we have to consume less.”

    But it is also a sign of the dire shape of our economy.

    Here is the conundrum of the financial meltdown: we are all living in a world fueled by unsustainable spending. Every day there are new stories about the hubris of the last few decades of financial boom. A long profile of Fed chair Ben Bernanke in The New Yorker describes how he and other disciples of Alan Greenspan refused to see the housing bubble even as economists like Dean Baker were warning of an imminent mortgage market collapse. Michael Lewis has spent years documenting corruption and stupidity on Wall Street. In a current piece on portfolio. com, he sums up the reasons for Wall Street’s collapse, in highly readable prose: “To this day, the willingness of a Wall Street investment bank to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispense investment advice to grownups remains a mystery to me. I was 24 years old, with no experience of, or particular interest in, guessing which stocks and bonds would rise and which would fall. The essential function of Wall Street is to allocate capital–to decide who should get it and who should not. Believe me when I tell you that I hadn’t the first clue. I’d never taken an accounting course, never run a business, never even had savings of my own to manage. I stumbled into a job at Salomon Brothers in 1985 and stumbled out much richer three years later, and even though I wrote a book about the experience, the whole thing still strikes me as preposterous.”

    Much of the last several decades on Wall Street looks preposterous now. But the bankers and their cronies in Washington, including Greenspan, were convinced that the housing boom, lax credit, and oceans of easy money would never dry up.

    Unfortunately, some of the intellectual architects of unfettered recklessness and speculation are getting key jobs in the Obama Administration.

    As Bill Greider puts it in The Nation, “A year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page . . . I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward. . . . Virtually all of his leading appointments are restoring the Clinton presidency, only without Mr. Bill. In some important ways, Obama’s selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush.”

    The economic crisis calls for massive, bold action, not pouring money into firms that now have the temerity to pay out the taxpayer-financed bailout money as dividends, which is what they are doing. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who helped create the lax regulatory environment that led to this crisis, as well as the bailouts that followed, can’t be counted on.

    The problem confronting Obama and, one hopes, the more thoughtful and less tainted members of his economic team, is how to address the crisis in a way that helps the people at the bottom of the great pyramid scheme of our economy, rather than just wasting more money on bailouts for the mismanagers at the top.

    Meanwhile, even if there is a certain amount of understandable schadenfreude for the Wall Street titans and auto company execs who are taking a beating from members of Congress and the public, they are pulling a lot of innocent people with them on their way down.

    I was struck by two recent stories in The New York Times. One, a business section article of several days ago, quoted a leading labor economist on how the UAW would have a hard time justifying its generous retirement and benefits packages for laid off autoworkers in the current economic crisis. The other, a front-page piece in the National section on Michigan, described a state so hard hit by the auto industry’s woes that “desperation” has spread to every sector of the economy. Some 20 percent of Michigan residents now rely on some form of public assistance.

    The logical outcome of the economist’s argument seems to be that even more people should be on the dole in Michigan.

    Just as unemployment benefits dry up for millions of laid off workers, the UAW is taking a beating for its support for the auto industry bailout and the perceived fat-cat status of union members (not management CEOs who flew to Washington on private jets, mind you, but the line workers who continued to get health care and retirement pay after being laid off).

    There is a danger that the worse off people are, the easier it is to stir up resentment toward the unions and members who benefit from basic security won by the labor movement. The collapse of manufacturing and the mismanagement and shortsightedness of the auto industry have driven Michigan into the ground. The rampant greed and speculation on Wall Street have destroyed the housing market and left us with a lot of poor people facing home foreclosures. To make matters worse, a race-to-the-bottom mentality — that if some people are suffering, no one should have job security or health care benefits– is toxic. If that sort of sentiment, often stoked by the right, grows, it will only make the rest of the country look more like Michigan.

    There’s a lot to think about while you are not out shopping on Friday. How do we build a more sustainable, humane, and just economy? And how do we push an Administration loaded with the architects of the current disaster to do the right thing?

    Iraq: Security pact ‘puts detainees at risk of torture’

    0

    Baghdad, 27 Nov. (AKI) – Thousands of Iraqis detained by US forces will be at risk of torture or even execution if they are handed over to the Iraqi authorities, top rights Amnesty International warned on Friday. The warning came as the Iraqi Parliament overwhelmingly ratified a controversial security pact with the US under which around 16,000 prisoners held by the US will be transferred to Iraqi custody from the end of the year.

    The pact (Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA) allows American troops to remain in the country for three more years. It has already been approved by the Iraqi Cabinet.

    “The SOFA does not provide any safeguards whatsoever for prisoners transferred to Iraqi custody,” said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.

    “These prisoners will potentially be moving from the frying pan into the fire,” said Malcolm Smart.

    “We receive persistent reports of gross human rights violations — including torture — taking place in Iraqi prisons and detention centres. The US must ensure that no one is transferred to Iraq custody if they would face a real risk of torture or other human rights violations.”

    The Iraqi authorities are already holding thousands of people, many without charge or trial, and often in appalling conditions, Amnesty said.

    Many of these prisoner have no access to lawyers, while others have been sentenced to death after trials which failed to meet international fair trial standards, Amnesty stated.

    The US is currently reported to hold around 16,000 prisoners in Iraq. Most are detainees who are held without charge or trial, some for more than five years and without recourse to any independent review of their detention.

    Prisoners include former Baath party officials and former members of Saddam Hussein’s regime who could be at particular risk.

    Ali Hassan al-Majid and two others sentenced to death for crimes committed under Saddam Hussein’s rule are likely to be executed if handed over to the Iraqi authorities.

    Amnesty said it is also concerned that the agreement contains no reference to the more than 2,000 Iranians living in Iraq who are opponents of Iran’s hardline government.

    The Iranians belonging to the People’s Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), are based at Ashraf Camp in northern Iraq, where they have been under the protection of US forces for several years.

    Some Iraqi officials have suggested that the Iranians will be forcibly expelled if they fail to comply with orders from the Iraqi government to leave the camp by 31 December 2008.

    You Cannot Pardon a Crime You Authorized

    0

    Statement from the Steering Committee for the Prosecution for War Crimes of President Bush and His Subordinates

    Never before has a president pardoned himself or his subordinates for crimes he authorized. The closest thing to this in U.S. history thus far has been Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence. Bush is widely expected to follow that commutation with a pardon. Not only did Libby work for the White House, but he was convicted of obstruction of justice in an investigation that was headed to the president. Evidence introduced in the trial, including a hand-written note by the vice president, implicated Bush, and former press secretary Scott McClellan has since testified that Bush authorized the exposure of an undercover agent, that being the crime that was under investigation.

    There are widespread concerns that Bush might pardon other subordinates for various other crimes that he authorized, potentially including torture, warrantless spying, a variety of war crimes, taking the nation to war on fraudulent evidence, and the abuses of the politicized Justice Department. Voices in the media advising Bush to issue such pardons include: Stuart Taylor Jr. (Newsweek 7/12/08) and Alan Dershowitz (Wall St Journal 9/12/08), while many additional voices have urged Obama to commit to not prosecuting.

    The idea that the pardon power constitutionally includes such pardons ignores a thousand year tradition in which no man can sit in judgment of himself, and the fact that James Madison and George Mason argued that the reason we needed the impeachment power was that a president might some day try to pardon someone for a crime that he himself was involved in. The problem is not preemptive pardons of people not yet tried and convicted. The problem is not blanket pardons of unnamed masses of people. Both of those types of pardons have been issued in the past and have their appropriate place. The problem is the complete elimination of any semblance of the rule of law if Bush pardons his subordinates for crimes he instructed or authorized them to commit.

    If Bush attempts this, here are possible responses:

    1. Immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney and various pardonees, even if they are out of office. (Here are arguments for the permissibility of such impeachments: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/37834 )

    2. Overturning of the pardons by the new president or by Congress, as Bush’s lawyers told him he could do to Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, which was a far more minor abuse of the pardon power.

    3. Legislation banning self-pardons and pardons of crimes authorized by the president.

    4. A Constitutional Amendment banning self-pardons and pardons of crimes authorized by the president.

    5. Refusal by the courts to honor the supposed pardons.

    6. Prosecution of Bush, Cheney, and their subordinates for their crimes.

    With thanks to all who have aided over the past millennia in the establishment of the rule of law.

    ***

    Lawrence Velvel, Dean of Massachusetts Law School, chairs the Steering Committee whose members include Ben Davis, Marjorie Cohn, Chris Pyle, Elaine Scarry, Peter Weiss, David Swanson, Kristina Borjesson, Colleen Costello, Valeria Gheorghiu, and Andy Worthington.

    Lord Bingham says Iraq invasion was a violation of international law

    1

    By Robert Stevens | Lord Bingham used the occasion of his first major speech since his retirement as a senior law lord to describe the 2003 invasion of Iraq as “serious violation of international law”.

    Bingham, a former Lord Chief Justice, gave the annual Grotius Lecture at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on November 17. His speech was a devastating judicial refutation of the lies concocted by the British government and its legal advisors in order to justify the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

    His legal stance directly contradicts that of the attorney general at the time, Lord Goldsmith, and Jack Straw, now Justice Secretary and then Foreign Secretary.

    Bingham has been Britain’s most authoritative legal figure over the past 15 years. Even as he stated his disagreement with Bingham’s speech, Straw felt forced to acknowledge that he was the “finest jurist of his generation”.

    Bingham also condemned some of the atrocities that have been carried out by the United States and British occupying powers in Iraq. He said the British occupation had been, “sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr. Baha Mousa [a hotel receptionist]”.

    He added that whereas he felt that such crimes were not a result of deliberate British government policy, “This contrasts with the unilateral decisions of the US government that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the detention conditions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to trial of Al-Qaeda or Taliban prisoners by military commissions, that Al-Qaeda suspects should be denied the rights of both prisoners of war and criminal suspects and that torture should be redefined, contrary to the Torture Convention and the consensus of international opinion, to connote pain, where physical, ‘of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure’.”

    “Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration”.

    Bingham stated that, in his opinion, the invasion of Iraq was carried out in violation of international law established following the end of the Second World War and the downfall of the Nazi regime in Nazi Germany.

    Bingham said, “If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the [United Nations] Security Council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.

    “For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the Security Council.”

    He continued, “The current ministerial code, binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to ‘comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations’.”

    Commenting on this “serious violation of international law”, he said, “The moment that a state treats the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rests is broken”.

    Bingham cited a comment made by a leading academic lawyer, Professor Vaughan Lowe QC, in relation to the consequences of this tearing up of established international law. “It is, as has been said, ‘the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante’.”

    In his remarks, Bingham gave a careful rebuttal of the legal arguments made by Lord Goldsmith immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq. He described Goldsmith’s arguments as “flawed in two fundamental respects”.

    Bingham quoted from the conclusion to Lord Goldsmith’s parliamentary written answer on March 17, 2003.

    The extract Bingham read from Goldsmith’s answer states:

    “Resolution 1441 would, in terms, have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.”

    Answering this argument Bingham replied, “First, it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had: Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months.”

    Goldsmith’s arguments were also flawed, said Bingham, as they had not said that military action had to be authorised by the United Nations Security Council.

    “Secondly, it passes belief that a determination whether Iraq had failed to avail itself of its final opportunity was intended to be taken otherwise than collectively by the Security Council.”

    Bingham also rebutted the written legal advice Goldsmith sent to Tony Blair on March 7, 2003. This advice was not made public at the time.

    In that communication Goldsmith stated that he considered resolution 1441 could, in principle, revive the authority to use force against Iraq contained in resolution 678.

    Answering Goldsmith’s reasoning, Bingham said, “A reasonable case could be made that resolution 1441 was capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in resolution 678, but the argument could only be sustainable if there were ‘strong factual grounds’ for concluding that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity. There would need to be ‘hard evidence’.”

    Bingham also cited three senior legal figures who had opposed Goldsmith’s line of argument. Lord Alexander QC had described it as “unconvincing”. Professor Philippe Sands QC, as a “bad argument” and Professor Vaughan Lowe QC said it was “fatuous”.

    Bingham sent copies of his speech to Goldsmith and Straw before he spoke in order to allow them to respond.

    Straw said, “I do not accept Lord Bingham’s conclusions, which do not, I am afraid, take proper account of the text of Security Council Resolution 1441, nor its negotiating history”.

    Goldsmith attempted to downplay the significance of Bingham’s comments stating, “I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view. Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully.”

    Goldsmith’s comments are an attempt to whitewash the historical record.

    The illegality of the war was widely recognised by many international legal experts before the invasion. The World Socialist Web Site consistently drew attention to the perfidious nature of the war preparations and detailed in many statements and articles how the US and Britain were determined to carry out their criminal agenda of war at all costs. (See “WSWS Chairman David North denounces Iraq war at Dublin debate” and “The war against Iraq and America’s drive for world domination“.)

    Goldsmith was well aware of such international opinion at the time. As far back as July 2002, Goldsmith himself warned cabinet ministers that a war against Iraq could not be justified on self-defence or humanitarian grounds, and that the goal of regime change would be unlawful.

    On March 7, 12 days before the war against Iraq started, Goldsmith authored a 13-page memo in which he advised Prime Minister Tony Blair that the government’s case for invasion could be declared illegal if it ever came before a court of law on as many as six counts.

    Despite this advice he stated that, while a second UN resolution would be safer, in his opinion it was legal to go to war on the basis of resolutions 1441, 678, and 687.

    Finally, on March 13, Goldsmith met with two Blair government officials–Baroness Morgan, Blair’s director of political and government relations, and Lord Falconer, a Home Office minister. It was at this meeting that Goldsmith abandoned all his previous warnings and approved the legality of the government’s position.

    Goldsmith’s stance was attributed by a number of opposition politicians, commentators and political analysts as being the result of massive pressure placed on him by the Blair government. His written answer to parliament on March 17 contained no reference to any of his previous ambivalent legal advice to the government.

    The full truth is yet to emerge about the preparation and instigation of the war against Iraq. Those responsible, the US and British governments, are continuing to utilise every possible means to ensure they are not brought to justice for a war of aggression. The Information Tribunal in Britain is presently hearing the government’s appeal against the information commissioner’s ruling that it should release cabinet minutes covering when the legality of the Iraq invasion was discussed.

    Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell, Britain’s most senior civil servant is representing the government in seeking to overturn Richard Thomas’s order to disclose because of the “gravity and controversial nature” of the subject and the controversy over the attorney general’s advice.

    The government appealed to the Information Tribunal, where O’Donnell is expected to argue that the release of the minutes would prevent ministers from having frank discussions and would undermine the principle of collective cabinet responsibility.

    Thomas has argued that cabinet minutes are not automatically withheld from the Freedom of Information Act.

    While Bingham was able to dismantle the legal arguments of Goldsmith and the British government, he was doubtful that there would be any prosecution of those responsible. He concluded that, although these states had not been “hauled before the International Court of Justice or any other tribunal to answer for their actions, they have been arraigned at the bar of world opinion, and been judged unfavourably, with resulting damage to their standing and influence.”

    This is not enough. In the conclusion of a three part statement published on May 22, 2007, “The US war and occupation of Iraq–the murder of a society”, the World Socialist Web Site insisted, “The premeditated destruction of an entire society carried out on the basis of lies and in pursuit of the financial and geo-strategic interests of America’s ruling elite constitutes a war crime of historic proportions, punishable under the same statutes and on the basis of the same principles as those used to condemn leading figures of Germany’s Third Reich at Nuremberg…

    “For these crimes to go unpunished and those responsible to continue acting with impunity would have fatal implications for the political, social and indeed moral life of the US and indeed the world. It would only render the next round of war crimes and atrocities that much easier and more inevitable.

    “The struggle against the war in Iraq must be waged on the basis of the demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops, the implementation of a massive program of humanitarian and economic aid to the Iraqi people, and the prosecution of all those responsible for this war before an independent and international tribunal”.

    Watchdog wants BNP to be denied right to teach

    1

    Via http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com |

    Members of the British National Party (BNP) working in universities should not be allowed direct contact with students, the higher education equality watchdog has said.

    Several higher education staff were among BNP members whose details were recently leaked on the internet.

    Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), said this week that while “primacy of freedom of speech is fundamental”, universities had legal obligations to promote good race relations on campus. “It is hard to see how institutions can reconcile their duty to promote good race relations with staff being members of the BNP. Institutions may therefore consider that it is inappropriate for BNP members to have teaching and/or pastoral care responsibilities, or other direct contact with students,” she said.

    Academics named as members of the far-Right party included Arthur Nightingale, head experimental design engineer at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Industrial Photonics. The university said staff political affiliations were “a matter for them” as long as they did not affect the workplace, so no action would be taken.

    Strathclyde University, whose estates manager William MacLachlan appeared on the list, said that political beliefs were “a personal matter” but it would consider its position if “such beliefs should impinge on a staff member’s professional activity”.

    Dennis Hayes, founder of Academics for Academic Freedom and head of the Centre for Professional Learning at Canterbury Christ Church University, said the ECU recommendation was “an improper restriction of a democratic right … and a new stage in the attack on academic freedom. These people have not said or done anything – they are being punished for existing.”

    Dr Hayes said discrimination should be tackled as it occurred.

    Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire, said: “It’s the views rather than the party membership that’s crucial. If somebody espouses openly racist views it’s difficult to see how they can be in a lecturing position in a university where they may have students from a whole variety of ethnic groups.”

    Adding New Floors to the Bailout House of Cards

    1

    By Phil Mattera | Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have added a few more floors to their ever-expanding bailout house of cards. Their two agencies kicked in another $800 billion in the latest frantic effort to ward off financial collapse. The Fed is putting up $600 billion to buy mortgage-backed securities and mortgages held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This seems, at least initially, to have brought down mortgage rates–assuming anyone is in a position these days to buy a house.

    The plan for the other $200 billion is more dubious. Treasury and the Fed are going to use those funds to make loans to consumer finance companies, which in turn would be in a position to provide more auto loans, student loans and credit cards. Yet, as with the bailout of the banks, there seems to be no actual requirement that the finance companies use their new liquidity to open the spigots to consumers. We are apparently supposed to take it on faith that these lenders will in fact lend, even though it’s now clear that many of the banks used their federal assistance for other purposes.

    Another questionable assumption in the plan is that consumers are aching to borrow more money. With unemployment soaring and the value of retirement savings dwindling, most people are opting for austerity, not seeking to add to their already heavy debt load. Creating more jobs and boosting household income are more urgent than allowing people to go further into hock.

    And finally, it is worth recalling that many of the consumer finance companies have been as predatory in their lending as the unscrupulous subprime mortgage lenders. Nowhere is this truer than in the credit card business. These are the companies that, thanks to deregulation in their industry, have been gouging consumers with usurious interest rates and punishing fees.

    The idea that bailing out these firms is the way to help consumers is yet another indication of the warped thinking of Paulson and Bernanke. It does not occur to them that the solution might be to lessen the hold that the card companies have on consumers–through measures such as interest rate reductions–rather than intensifying it. But what can you expect from what has become a government of the financial institutions, by the financial institutions and for the financial institutions.

    Check out more from the awesome Dirt Diggers Digest

    ALEXANDER COCKBURN: The Honeymoon is Looking a Bit Wan

    1

    By ALEXANDER COCKBURN |

    Two years without a single leak and suddenly, last week, Obama’s operation was like a sieve. That’s what happens when you pick up the phone and call one of the Clintons. Or, to put it another way, that’s what happens when someone claims you, the president elect, picked up the phone and called Mrs Clinton to ask whether she’d like to be secretary of state.

    Out the window goes the sense of purposeful strides towards a new-look Administration. In comes a dreadful feeling that somehow we’ve slipped a dimension in the space-time continuum and are heading back into the Clinton era. A couple of more weeks and the Republicans will be calling for a special prosecutor.

    I’ve had people try to explain to me the political logic of Obama offering his erstwhile Democratic rival a top position in his cabinet. Better to have her inside the tent. Send her off on bouts of futile shuttle diplomacy, like Condoleezza Rice.

    It still doesn’t add up. Why march back briskly into Clintontime? Besides, she’d make a lousy Secretary of State. Mrs Clinton has never displayed any talent for negotiation, nor even any conspicuous appetite to find out what is going on in the world, let alone come up with a new vision of America’s role in the 21st century. She’s an interventionist by instinct, her finger twitching over the Bomb Release lever. She voted yes on the Iraq war. She was an ardent advocate of NATO’s onslaught on Yugoslavia. If we do get Hillary at State we may get Madeleine Albright as one of her sidekicks — the woman who said in the late 1990s that starving half a million Iraqi children was “worth it”, probably the line that the 9/11 al Qaeda hijackers were muttering to themselves when they sped on their mission of revenge towards the Twin Towers. This is change?

    The answer of course is that there has to be a good deal of similarity between the Clinton and Obama administrations, because Obama is a neoliberal interventionist like Bill, and because the 45 and 50-year old veterans of the two Clinton administrations who have been cooling their heels in law firms and think tanks for eight years make up a high percentage of those in the hiring line, particularly those who placed an early bet on Obama. To round off the symmetry the new White House counsel will be Greg Craig, who defended Clinton during his impeachment.

    And the cabinet members Obama has announced or who are being bandied about are not inspiring. They’re dull like former Democratic senator Tom Daschle getting Health and Human Services. Howard Dean, who was a doctor and who had hands-on time grappling with health insirance when he was governor of Vermont, would have been a much better choice. Janet Napolitano, the Arizona governor slated to be head of Homeland Security, horrified labor organizers at one meeting earlier this year listening to her boasting about kicking migrant workers back into Mexico. One nominee headed towards a Republican roasting in his hearings is Eric Holder, named to be Attorney General. As number 2 in Clinton’s Justice Department, Holder played a grimy role in one of the most scandalous affairs of Clinton-time, the last minute pardon by Clinton of billionaire trader and denizen of the FBI’s most wanted list, Marc Rich. (See Jeffrey St. Clair’s account of the pardons for Holder’s central role in the affair.) Early in 2002 Holder gave CNN his views on the treatment of captured terrorists: “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention . . . you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people. It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.”

    Other possible appointments are not demonstrative of a resolute change of pace. The talk is of keeping Robert Gates on as Defense Secretary, although Gates has made no significant mark on the vast pork barrel beside the Potomac. The conversion of this mucky schemer of yesteryear into revered emblem of sound governance is one of the many marvels of our age. Somewhere don the road we’ll probably end up with another slimy fellow, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who counts among his regular roosts CSIS and the Center for A New American Security, also decorated by the odious Robert Kaplan and Dr John Nagl.

    The most significant appointment will be Treasury Secretary. On current form Obama will play it safe with the top nominees to run this Department, starting with Geithner of the New York Fed, with Larry Summers somewhere in the mix. The trouble here is that there is no safe option and the usual suspects will have the usual limited perspective.

    In sum, this looks like a standard issue, business-as-usual cabinet in the making, about as exciting as looking at one of the regular network panel shows on a Sunday morning. Can’t they find anyone under 40 who looks like they might want to do things different and shake things up?

    The Golden Age of Eating was….

    But first a quotation.

    “The Korean War ended 55 years ago, and the US still has troops in Korea.  

    “Germany was defeated in 1945, and the US still has troops in Germany.

    “A country that must go hat in hand to its creditors must first look to where costs can be cut. Annual military spending of $700 billion is certainly a good place to start.

    “But the US government has far more hubris than intelligence and is on its way to being a failed state that has to print money to pay its bills.

    “It is not too late for the US to save itself and the dollar standard, but it would require a rapid transition from arrogance to humility. The rest of the world can bring America down by not lending to us, in which case neither the trade nor budget deficits could be financed.”

    That’s Paul Craig Roberts, on this website Thursday. In the latest edition of our subscriber only newsletter Roberts lays out the big economic picture with bleak and compelling vigor. It’s must reading if you want to know the shape America is really in.  Subscribe to read his powerful essay.

    Subscribe too, and read Judy Gumbo Albert’s risposte to Sarah Palin. Judy writes a great memoir of the late Sixties, from the Yipster perspective of one who famously said, when the Weathmen blew up a lavatory in the Capitol, “We didn’t do it, but we dug it.”

    You also get co-editor Cockburn writing about food in the modern age, so different from those exalted moments in the history of balanced diet which I describe in the newsletter, “with Australopithecus healthily subsisting on ‘fruits, leaves, larvae and bugs,’ along with modest gobbets of carrion. ‘His large teeth, powerful jaws and oversize gut were all adapted to coarse, fibrous plant matter … Even his small size — he stood barely four feet tall and weighed forty pounds — was ideal for harvesting fruit among the branches.’ Three million years later, we arrive at the far end of an inexorably descending arc, with 400-pound, low-income specimens of Homo sapiens swollen by excessive intake of calories, their guts compromised by lack of fiber, many of them diabetic, draped over their scooters, harvesting the aisles of Albertsons or Safeway for sugar, salt and fat-saturated snacks that will hike their blood pressure, clog their arteries, and propel them to an early grave.”

    Noam Chomsky on the election

    0

    There was meeting on November 7, I think of a group of couple, of a dozen advisers to deal with the financial crisis. Their careers were, records were reviewed in the business press, and Bloomberg News had an article reviewing their records and concluded that these people, most of these people shouldn’t be giving advice about the economy. They should be given subpoenas.

    DemocracyNow
    AMY GOODMAN: President-elect Obama and vice president-elect Joe Biden are holding a news conference in Chicago to formerly announce their team of economic advisers and their plans to rebuild the faltering economy. But as Obama assembles his cabinet and prepares to take over the reins from President Bush, more questions are being raised about the kind of change he will bring to Washington and the world.

    Progressives who supported Obama’s candidacy and celebrated his historic victory are dismayed by his consideration of Clinton-era figures as his key advisors, many of whom championed financial deregulation and are hawkish on foreign policy.

    World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discussed the meaning of Obama’s victory and the possibilities ahead for real democratic change at a recent address in Boston. Chomsky has been a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for over a half-century and is the author of dozens of influential books on US foreign policy, the role of intellectuals, and the function of mass media. In his first public appearance since the election Professor Chomsky spoke last week to a packed audience in Boston at an event organized by “Encuentro 5.” His talk was titled “What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World.”

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, let’s begin with the elections. The word that the rolls off of everyone’s tongue is historic. Historic election. And I agree with it. It was a historic election. To have a black family in the white house is a momentous achievement. In fact, it’s historic in a broader sense. The two Democratic candidates were an African-American and a woman. Both remarkable achievements. We go back say 40 years, it would have been unthinkable. So something’s happened to the country in 40 years. And what’s happened to the country- which is we’re not supposed to mention- is that there was extensive and very constructive activism in the 1960s, which had an aftermath. So the feminist movement, mostly developed in the 70s-—the solidarity movements of the 80’s and on till today. And the activism did civilize the country. The country’s a lot more civilized than it was 40 years ago and the historic achievements illustrate it. That’s also a lesson for what’s next.

    What’s next will depend on whether the same thing happens. Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below. And the answer to what’s next depends on people like you. Nobody else can answer it. It’s not predictable. In some ways, the election–the election was surprising in some respects.

    Going back to my bad prediction, If the financial crisis hadn’t taken place at the moment that it did, if it had been delayed a couple of months, I suspect that prediction would have been correct. But not speculating, one thing surprising about the election was that it wasn’t a landslide.
    bq. By the usual criteria, you would expect the opposition party to win in a landslide under conditions like the ones that exist today. The incumbent president for eight years was so unpopular that his own party couldn’t mention his name and had to pretend to be opposing his policies. He presided over the worst record for ordinary people in post-war history, in terms of job growth, real wealth and so on. Just about everything the administration was touched just turned into a disaster. [The] country has reached the lowest level of standing in the world that it’s ever had. The economy was tanking. Several recessions are going on. Not just the ones on the front pages, the financial recession. There’s also a recession in the real economy. The productive economy, under circumstances and people know it. So 80% of the population say that the country’s going in the wrong direction. About 80% say the government doesn’t work to the benefit of the people, it works for the few and the special interests. A startling 94% complain that the government doesn’t pay any attention to the public will, and on like that. Under conditions like that, you would expect a landslide to a opposition almost whoever they are. And there wasn’t one.

    So one might ask why wasn’t there a landslide? That goes off in an interesting direction. And other respects the outcome was pretty familiar. So once again, the election was essentially bought. 9 out of 10 of the victors outspent their opponents. Obama of course outspent McCain. If you look at the–and we don’t have final records yet from the final results, but they’re probably going to be pretty much like the preliminaries a couple of months ago. Which showed that both Obama and McCain were getting the bulk of their financing from the financial institutions and for Obama, law firms which means essentially lobbyists. That was about over a third a few months ago. But the final results will probably be the same. And there is a–the distribution of funding has over time been a pretty good predictor of what policies will be like for those of you who are interested, there’s very good scholarly work on this by Tom Ferguson in Umass Boston, what he calls the investment theory of politics. Which argues essentially that elections are moments when groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state and has quite the substantial predictive success. Gives some suggestion as to what’s likely to happen. So that part’s familiar. The–what the future is as I say, depends on people like you.

    The response for the election was interesting and instructive. It kept pretty much to the soaring rhetoric, to borrow the cliché, that was the major theme of the election. The election was described as an extraordinary display of democracy, a miracle that could only happen in America and on and on. Much more extreme than Europe even than here. There’s some accuracy in that if we keep to the West. So if we keep to the West, yes, it’s probably true. That couldn’t have happened anywhere else. Europe was much more racist than the United States and you wouldn’t expect anything like that to happen.

    On the other hand, if you look at the world, it’s not that remarkable. So let’s take the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti and Bolivia. In Haiti, there was an election in 1990 which really was an extraordinary display of democracy much more so than this.

    In Haiti, there were grassroots movements, popular movements that developed in the slums and the hills, which nobody was paying any attention to. And they managed, even without any resources, to sweep into power their own candidate. A populist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That’s a victory for democracy when popular movements can organize and set programs and pick their candidate and put them into office, which is not what happened here, of course.

    I mean, Obama did organize a large number of people and many enthusiastic people in what’s called in the press, Obama’s Army. But the army is supposed to take instructions, not to implement, introduce, develop programs and call on its own candidate to implement them. That’s critical. If the army keeps to that condition, nothing much will change. If it on the other hand goes away activists did in the sixties, a lot can change. That’s one of the choices that has to be made. That’s Haiti. Of course that didn’t last very long. A couple of months later, there was military coup, a period of terror, we won’t go through the whole record. Up the present, the traditional torturers of Haiti, France, and the United States have made sure that there won’t be a victory for democracy there. It’s a miserable story. Contrary to many illusions.

    Take the second poorest country, Bolivia. They had an election in 2005 that’s almost unimaginable in the West. Certainly here, anywhere. The person elected into office was indigenous. That’s the most oppressed population in the hemisphere, those who survived. He’s is a poor peasant. How did he get in? Well, he got in because there were again, a mass popular movement, which elected their own representative. And they are the source of the programs, which are serious ones. There’s real issues, And people know them. Control over resources, cultural rights, social justice and so on.

    Furthermore, the election was just an event that was particular stage in a long continuing struggle, a lot before and a lot after. There was day when people pushed the levers but that’s just an event in ongoing popular struggles, very serious ones. A couple of years ago, there was a major struggle over privatization of water. An effort which it would in effect deprive a good part of the population of water to drink. And it was a bitter struggle. A lot of people were killed, but they won it. Through international solidarity, in fact, which helped. And it continues. Now that’s a real election. Again, the plans, the programs are being developed, acted on constantly by mass popular movements, which then select their own representatives from their own ranks to carry out their programs. And that’s quite different from what happened here.

    Actually what happened here is understood by elite elements. The public relations industry which runs elections here-quadrennial extravaganzas essentially- makes sure to keep issues in the margins and focus on personalities and character and so on—and-so forth. They do that for good reasons. They know- they look at public opinion studies and they know perfectly well that on a host of major issues both parties are well to the right of the population. That’s one good reason to keep issues off the table. And they recognize the success.

    So, every year, the advertising industry gives a prize to, you know, to the best marketing campaign of the year. This year, Obama won the prize. Beat out Apple company. The best marketing campaign of 2008. Which is correct, it is essentially what happened. Now that’s quite different from what happens in a functioning democracy like say Bolivia or Haiti, except for the fact that it was crushed. And in the South, it’s not all that uncommon. Notice that each of these cases, there’s a much more extraordinary display of democracy in action than what we’ve seen—important as it was-here. And so the rhetoric, especially in Europe is correct if we maintain our own narrow racist perspective and say yeah, what happened was in the South didn’t happen or doesn’t matter. The only matters is what we do and by our standards, it was extraordinary miracle, but not by the standards of functioning democracy. In fact, there’s a distinction in democratic theory, which does separate say the United States from Bolivia or Haiti.

    Question is what is a democracy supposed to be? That’s exactly a debate that goes back to the constitutional convention. But in recent years in the 20th century, it’s been pretty well articulated by important figures. So at the liberal end the progressive end, the leading public intellectual of the 20th century was Walter Lippman. A Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy progressive. And a lot of his work was on a democratic theory and he was pretty frank about it. If you took a position not all that different from James Madison’s. He said that in a democracy, the population has a function. Its function is to be spectators, not participants. He didn’t call it the population. He called it the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The ignorant and meddlesome outsiders have a function and namely to watch what’s going on. And to push a lever every once in a while and then go home. But, the participants are us, us privileged, smart guys. Well that’s one conception of democracy. And you know essentially we’ve seen an episode of it. The population very often doesn’t accept this. As I mentioned, just very recent polls, people overwhelmingly oppose it. But they’re atomized, separated. Many of them feel hopeless, unorganized, and don’t feel they can do anything about it. So they dislike it. But that’s where it ends.

    In a functioning democracy like say Bolivia or the United States in earlier stages, they did something about it. That’s why we have the New Deal measures, the Great Society measures. In fact just about any step, you know, women’s rights, end of slavery, go back as far as you like, it doesn’t happen as a gift. And it’s not going to happen in the future. The commentators are pretty well aware of this. They don’t put it the way I’m going to, but if you read the press, it does come out. So take our local newspaper at the liberal end of the spectrum, “Boston Globe,” you probably saw right after the election, a front page story, the lead front page story was on how Obama developed this wonderful grassroots army but he doesn’t have any debts. Which supposed to be a good thing. So he’s free to do what he likes. Because he has no debts, the normal democratic constituency, labor, women, minorities and so on, they didn’t bring him into office. So he owes them nothing

    AMY GOODMAN: M.I.T. professor, author, political dissident, Noam Chomsky. We’ll come back to this interview in a minute. You can get a copy of our show at democracynow.org. Stay with us.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman. As we return now to professor Noam Chomsky’s address in Boston. The election, the economy, and the world.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: What he had was an army that he organized of people who got out the vote for Obama. For what the press calls, Brand Obama. They essentially agree with the advertisers, it’s brand Obama. That his army was mobilized to bring him to office. They regard that as a good thing, accepting the Lippman conception of democracy, the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders are supposed to do what they’re told and then go home. The Wall Street Journal, at the opposite end of the spectrum, also had an article about the same thing at roughly the same time. Talked about the tremendous grassroots army that has been developed, which is now waiting for instructions. What should they do next to press forward Obama’s agenda? Whatever that is. But whatever it is, the army’s supposed to be out there taking instructions, and press work. Los Angeles Times had similar articles, and there are others. What they don’t seem to realize is what they’re describing, the ideal of what they’re describing, is dictatorship, not democracy. Democracy, at least not in the Lippman sense, it proved- I pick him out because he’s so famous, but it’s a standard position. But in the sense of say, much of the south, where mass popular movements developed programs; organize to take part in elections but that’s one part of an ongoing process. And brings somebody from their own ranks to implement the programs that they develop, and if the person doesn’t they’re out. Ok, that’s another kind of democracy. So it’s up to us to choose which kind of democracy we want. And again, that will determine what comes next.

    Well, what can we anticipate if the popular army, the grassroots army, decides to accept the function of spectators of action rather than participants? There’s two kinds of evidence. There’s rhetoric and there’s action. The rhetoric, you know, is very uplifting: change, hope, and so on. Change was kind of reflective any party manager this year who read the polls, including the ones I cited, would instantly conclude that our theme in the election has to be change. Because people hate what’s going on for good reasons. So the theme is change. In fact, both parties put both of them, the theme was change. So the theme is change. In fact both parties, both of them the theme was change. You know, break from the past, none of old politics, new things are going to happen. The Obama campaign did better so they won the marketing award, not the McCain campaign.

    And notice incidentally on the side that the institutions that run the elections, public relations industry, advertisers, they have a role–their major role is commercial advertising. I mean, selling a candidate is kind of a side rule. In commercial advertising as everybody knows, everybody who has ever looked at a television program, the advertising is not intended to provide information about the product, all right? I don’t have to go on about that. It’s obvious. The point of the advertising is to delude people with the imagery and, you know, tales of a football player, sexy actress, who you know, drives to the moon in a car or something like that. But, that’s certainly not to inform people. In fact, it’s to keep people uninformed.

    The goal of advertising is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. Those of you who suffered through an economics course know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. But industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to undermine markets and to ensure, you know, to get uninformed consumers making irrational choices.

    And when they turn to selling a candidate they do the same thing. They want uninformed consumers, you know, uninformed voters to make irrational choices based on the success of illusion, slander, and effective body language or whatever else is supposed to be significant. So you undermine democracy pretty much the same way you undermine markets. Well, that’s the nature of an election when it’s run by the business world, and you’d expect it to be like that. There should be no surprise there. And it should also turn out the elected candidate didn’t have any debts. So you can follow Brand Obama can be whatever they decide it to be, not what the population decides that it should be, as in the south, let’s say. I’m going to say on the side, this may be an actual instance of a familiar and unusually vacuous slogan about the clash of civilization. Maybe there really is one, but not the kind that’s usually touted.

    So let’s go back to the evidence that we have, rhetoric and actions. Rhetoric we know, but what are the actions? So far the major actions are selections, in fact the only action, of personnel to implement Brand Obama. The first choice was the Vice President, Joe Biden, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq in the Senate, a long time Washington insider rarely deviates from the party vote. In cases where he does deviate they’re not very uplifting. He did break from the party and voting for a Senate resolution that prevented people from getting rid of their debts by, individuals, that is, from getting rid of their debts by going into bankruptcy. It’s a blow against poor people who’ve caught in this immense debt that’s a large part of the basis for the economy these days. But usually, he’s a, kind of, straight party-liner with the democrats on the sort of ultra naturalist side. The choice of Biden was a, must have been a conscious attempt to show contempt for the base of people who were voting for Obama, or organizing for him as an anti-war candidate.

    Well, the first post-election appointment was for Chief of Staff, which is a crucial appointment; determines a large part of the president’s agenda. That was Rahm Emanuel, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq in the House. In fact, he was the only member of the Illinois delegation who voted for Bush’s effective declaration of war. And, again, a longtime Washington insider. Also, one of the leading recipients in congress of funding from the financial institutions hedge funds and so on. He himself was an investment banker. That’s his background. So, that’s the Chief of Staff.

    The next group of appointments were the main problem, the primary issue that the governments’ going to have to face is what to do about the financial crisis. Obama’s choices to more or less run this were Robert Rubin and Larry Summers from the Clinton–Secretaries of Treasury under Clinton. They are among the people who are substantially responsible for the crisis. One leading economist, one of the few economists who has been right all along in predicting what’s happening, Dean Baker, pointed out that selecting them is like selecting Osama Bin Laden to run the war on terror.

    Yeah, I’ll finish. This saves me the problem of what’s coming next, so I’ll finish with the elections. Let me make one final comment on this. There was meeting on November 7, I think of a group of couple, of a dozen advisers to deal with the financial crisis. Their careers were, records were reviewed in the business press, and Bloomberg News had an article reviewing their records and concluded that these people, most of these people shouldn’t be giving advice about the economy. They should be given subpoenas.

    Because most of them were involved in one or other form of financial fraud, that includes Rahm Emanuel, for example. What reason is there to think that the people who brought this crisis about are some how going to fix it? Well, that’s a good indication of what’s likely to come next, at least if we look at actions. We couldn’t, but it won’t. You can bring this up. Ask what we expect to see in particular cases. And there’s evidence about that from statements from Obama’s website. I’ll mention just one thing about Obama’s website, which gives an indication of what’s happening. One of the major problems coming is Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s pretty serious. Take a look at Obama’s website under issues, foreign policy issues. The names don’t even appear. I mean, we’re supposed to be ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. We’re not supposed to know what Brand Obama is. So you can’t find out that way. The statements that you hear are pretty hawkish. And it doesn’t change much as you go through the list. I’ll wrap up here. So it’s up to you to continue.

    UNKNOWN: There you go.

    AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, MIT. Professor, world-renowned linguist, author of more than 100 books, his first major address since the elections. He gave it last week in Boston.

    Why Obama should end the criminal “war on terror”

    2

    By Gary Kamiya | Barack Obama will confront a daunting list of priorities when he takes office on Jan. 20. Rescuing the nation’s economy — if there’s anything left to rescue by then — will obviously be at the top of the list. But it is just as important that Obama immediately declare an end to the “war on terror,” and reverse all of the policies that have been carried out in its name.

    George W. Bush’s “war on terror” has been an unmitigated disaster. First, it is unwinnable. Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic as old as humanity, and until the lion lies down with the lamb, it will continue to exist. Waging a war on terror is a category violation, like waging a war on violence. Second, it is self-defeating. By invading Iraq to preempt an alleged terrorist threat, the U.S. greatly increased that threat. And by elevating terrorist groups, which pose no existential threat to America, to the status of state actors, the Bush administration enhanced their prestige. The number of terror attacks around the world has risen greatly since Bush started his “war,” and hatred of the U.S. in the Arab-Muslim world has metastasized.

    In a subtler way, the “war on terror” has degraded our national psyche. It encourages the U.S. to remain in a psychological state that is simultaneously fearful and aggressive — an infantile state, one that prevents us from thinking clearly about how to address our real foreign policy challenges. The U.S. is too powerful and self-confident to act like a three-year-old having a permanent tantrum. One successful terrorist attack, no matter how horrific, should never have led to a fundamental change in America’s geopolitical strategy. A good general cannot allow his battlefield moves to be dictated by emotion, any more than a boxer can allow himself to drop his guard in a futile effort to land wild haymakers.

    Of course, Obama should not abandon the fight against international terrorism, but adopt more effective tactics. He should treat al-Qaida and its ilk as criminals rather than armies. Quiet intelligence work, coordination with allies and law enforcement should be used as much as possible. There may be times when military action is needed, but it should be minimized because of its negative effects. Obama should make it a top priority to address the conditions that fuel anti-American hatred. In Afghanistan, this means rebuilding the country; in Pakistan, not propping up unpopular despots like Musharraf; in Israel and the Palestinian territories, throwing the full weight of American diplomacy behind a two-state solution. When it comes to fighting terrorism, America’s most powerful weapon is not its army, it is its brain.

    Fortunately, we are about to get a president who has a brain and is not afraid to use it. Obama famously said that he didn’t just want to end the war in Iraq, he wanted to end “the mind-set that led to war.” And the ultimate expression of that mind-set is the “war on terror.”

    Unfortunately, Obama has given some mixed messages about whether he is going to end the “war on terror” and the wrongheaded policies that have resulted from it. His most troubling statements concern Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. In his debates with McCain, Obama consistently charged that the U.S. had “taken its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan and had failed to make capturing or killing bin Laden its top priority. These arguments, while not untrue, implicitly legitimize the “war on terror,” and simply critique Bush for fighting it in the wrong way.

    Obama’s proposal to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan, though qualified by his greater emphasis on rebuilding the country, seems to indicate that he believes the Taliban can be defeated militarily. This is a recipe for failure: As former British Foreign Service officer Rory Stewart noted in the New York Times, the U.S. military buildup in Afghanistan has inflamed the Taliban resistance and made the situation worse. In a recent interview on “60 Minutes,” Obama said he would make capturing or killing bin Laden a top priority, and he has threatened to strike terrorist targets inside Pakistan if the Pakistan government proved unwilling or unable to do so.

    Killing or capturing bin Laden is obviously desirable. But as Mideast expert and Salon contributor Juan Cole has pointed out, achieving that goal may come at too high a price. A major U.S. military campaign in the tribal agencies on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding, would anger Pakistanis and weaken the Pakistan government. It’s not clear this is an acceptable trade-off.

    Further doubts about whether Obama intends to fundamentally change Bush’s foreign policy have been raised by his choice of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Clinton represents that sizable wing of the Democratic Party that went along with Bush’s “war on terror.” She voted to authorize force in Iraq, voted to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization — a vote widely seen as giving Bush a green light to attack Iran — and has been unswervingly “pro-Israel.” (In fact, as the progressive American Jewish organization J Street has pointed out, “pro-Israel” politicians, invariably ones who toe the Israel lobby’s line, are not actually acting in Israel’s best interests.)

    Despite these developments, there is still reason to believe that Obama’s approach to fighting terrorism will be radically different from Bush’s. He has consistently called for robust Mideast diplomacy, including talking with Iran. In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski called for Obama to make resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis a top priority. Scowcroft, an eminent member of the realist wing of America’s bipartisan foreign policy establishment, has advised Obama on national security issues. In general, Obama’s Mideast views seem to track closely with the realist, diplomacy-driven policies recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which Bush famously ignored.

    As for Obama’s hawkish remarks on Afghanistan, they were probably driven by political concerns. During the campaign, Obama needed to shore up his national-security credentials, and talking tough on Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaida gave him a free chance to do so. (In one of the odder ironies of the campaign, McCain came across as more measured and diplomatic on Pakistan than Obama.)

    To a lesser degree, the same thing is probably true of Clinton. Following the traditional Democratic playbook, she felt she had to lean to the right on national security issues, and some of her “pro-Israel” and anti-Iranian tilt can be explained by her perceived need to cater to her New York constituents. In any case, Obama likely realized the more hawkish Clinton will make a more effective, bulletproof emissary of change. Who better to get tough with Israel in negotiations than the woman who threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on the Jewish state? Nixon in China, meet Hillary in Jerusalem.

    Finally, beyond political tea-leaf reading, there’s the simple matter of effectiveness. Everything we know about Obama indicates that he is driven above all by pragmatism. His nuanced approach to America’s economic crisis and his choices of highly experienced Washington insiders as his top advisors make it clear that he wants results. And the “war on terror” is simply not working.

    There are dozens of reasons why it is not working, but the most important one is brutally simple: It is not in America’s interests to have U.S. troops in Arab/Muslim countries. Whatever good they do — and the U.S. troops in Iraq have done a lot of good — is outweighed by the inadvertent harm they do, the ill will they engender and the insupportable burden they place on the U.S. economy. It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld who acknowledged this problem, when he famously asked, “Are we creating more terrorists than we’re killing?” It has become increasingly apparent that we are.

    Declaring that the “war on terror” was over would have immediate positive effects. Our European allies would rejoice. Al-Qaida, already so worried about the PR fallout from Obama’s election that its number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, ludicrously accused him of being a “house slave,” would be further discredited in the Arab/Muslim world. It would be easier to begin negotiations with the Taliban and Iran. It would send a strong signal to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that America’s new president is unequivocally committed to a two-state solution and is breaking with Bush’s approach. It would make clear to the entire world, still reeling from the high-handed Bush years, that the real America is back — an America strong and confident enough not to feel the need to swagger through the world smashing things.

    Domestically, it would reenergize Obama’s core supporters, who are growing slightly uneasy as he makes one efficient-but-Establishment move after another.

    At the same time, Obama faces serious institutional and ideological obstacles to ending Bush’s approach. The powers that be are loathe to admit that there are problems for which there are no military solutions — especially with troops in the field. Patriotism, politicians’ need to appear “tough,” an unwillingness to admit that American lives were wasted and delusional hopes that victory is just around the corner make it hard for Obama to end the “war on terror” and the mind-set that led to it. In a larger sense, ending the “war on terror” means reappraising the entire vast American military empire, and the strategic and economic consequences of our role as global policeman. This is not just a change of tactics, it’s a paradigm shift.

    It won’t be easy for Obama to make this fundamental change. But until he does, we will continue to thrash about — and find ourselves sinking deeper into the Middle East quicksand.

    A catalogue of NHS data breaches

    0

    By Leo King | The NHS has lost confidential medical records and personal details of thousands of patients it has emerged in an investigation into how the health service handles data.

    Research showed that a series of losses and thefts had potentially exposed the private details of 10,000 patients around the country. The figures, obtained through a Freedom of Information request made by the Liberal Democrats, revealed incidents of data loss dating back as far as 2006.

    In some cases, the patient record loss was so serious that 25 patients were visited by the police and NHS management.

    In one instance, a back-up tape of an entire system was stolen from a general practice in the East of England this year. In other incidents, a laptop containing more than 5,000 patients’ details was stolen, and a memory stick containing 4,000 patients’ records was lost. A total of 135 cases have been reported since 2006, including the loss and theft of diaries, briefcases, CDs, laptops, memory sticks, and, in one case, a vehicle containing patient records.

    In the last year alone, 75 NHS data breaches have been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), according to a report released today. Jonathan Bamford, assistant information commissioner, urged the public sector and businesses to take data security more seriously.

    Liberal Democrat shadow health secretary, Norman Lamb, said there must be a “fundamental re-examination of how the NHS deals with personal data”. He called for better security around mobile devices, and once again said the NHS’ National Programme for IT should be abandoned.

    “We already know from the Information Commissioner that the NHS is among the worst offenders for data loss, reporting as many incidents as the entire private sector,” he added.

    Speaking on the data losses on ITV’s News at Ten programme, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, IT representative at the British Medical Association, said: “A lot of this is because doctors need access to mobile information about patients. That is there to help patients, however, we do believe there need to be serious safeguards.”

    The Department of Health said the NHS chief executive David Nicholson had written to all senior health managers at local NHS trusts to remind them about their responsibilities around protecting data. “The NHS locally has legal responsibility to comply with data protection rules. They are expected to take data loss extremely seriously, be open about incidents and about the action taken as a result,” a departmental spokesperson said.

    In another twist, two trusts – NHS Tayside and NHS Lanarkshire – were found in breach of the Data Protection Act by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The watchdog said confidential health records were found in abandoned buildings on the site of former hospitals in Dundee and Carluke, Scotland. The ICO has demanded that both health boards sign an agreement to follow the Data Protection Act and stick to recommendations made recently by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to make sure it does not happen again. If the trusts fail to comply, they risk further enforcement action and possible prosecution.

    Britain cannot afford ID cards

    1

    Telegraph | For the first time since 1952, the British government is issuing identity cards. In order to test the system and ease its introduction, there is to be a cynical requirement for foreign nationals resident in the UK to register.

    To begin with, this will affect students and the foreign spouses of British citizens. The fact that they already possess an identity document – a passport and/or a visa – does not seem to enter into the Government’s thinking, principally because they are guinea pigs. Over time, residents from outside Europe will be fingerprinted and have to account for their movements. Starting in 2010, so will the rest of us.

    We have many objections to this proposal, which is the latest manifestation of an intrusive state that wants to track the movements of its citizens. However, it is not necessary to have civil liberty scruples to oppose it. It is questionable on practical grounds, too.

    Every argument given for requiring ID cards – they will prevent crime, stop illegal immigration, deter terrorists or eradicate fraud – has been demolished. Ministers have subsequently sought to turn this into a debate about efficacy, maintaining that the lives of British citizens will be made easier by the possession of an ID card.

    But the greatest beneficiary of an ID scheme is not the ordinary individual; it is the state, since its agencies gain access to information they would not otherwise have.

    Even if the Government is unwilling to heed any of these arguments, there is one that should put an end to this ill-starred and un-British venture, and that is the cost. This is estimated by the Government at £5.8 billion over 10 years – but that is just for the Home Office.

    Some forecasts suggest the total cost to the public sector could be at least three times that sum. Presumably this does not matter to a Government that has plunged the country deeper into the red than any in peacetime and seems not to care about spending even more on wasteful public projects.

    Instead of driving us further into penury, the Chancellor should announce he is scrapping the ID scheme because he cannot justify the expense.

    Rumsfeld’s Attempts to Rewrite Himself on the Right Side of History Are Laughable

    1

    By Gary Brecher |

    The failed defense secretary pens a historical cover-up on Iraq and reveals more wild stupidity with his advice on Afghanistan.

    I’ve been following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from Go to Oh-No, and by far the biggest surprise has been how many whopping lies you can get away with. The biggest whoppers I’ve seen lately were in a Nov. 23 op-ed piece by Donald Rumsfeld for the New York Times, “One surge Does Not Fit All.”

    Rumsfeld’s main point is that the “surge” that supposedly worked so well in Iraq might not work in Afghanistan. But Rumsfeld spends most of the essay talking about what he did, or didn’t do, in Iraq. He claims he’s been “…occasionally — and incorrectly — portrayed as an opponent of the surge in Iraq.” This is a classic example of Rumsfeld in full denial mode. For proof that he was in fact opposed to the surge, here’s Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard saying outright that Rumsfeld opposed the surge:

    “In September [2006], Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter] Pace. Keane insisted the “train-and-leave” strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced.”

    You may not be surprised that Rumsfeld is changing his story to cover himself; after all, that’s what ex-cabinet types generally do in these articles. They didn’t oppose the surge because they grudged a few more troops, a few billion more taxpayer dollars. The Bush administration was never known for being either squeamish or penny-pinching. Their problem was pure denial: The people at the top, Rumsfeld among them, were too cowardly to admit that a big chunk of the Iraqi people we had “liberated” weren’t grateful but were out for our blood.

    The key phrase in that quote from the Weekly Standard is the distinction between two kinds of strategy: the “train-and-leave” favored by Bush and Rumsfeld, and the “counterinsurgency strategy” the Army was desperately trying to get the administration to adopt. Letting U.S. forces in Iraq implement a counterinsurgency strategy meant admitting that there was an insurgency. That was the problem, not finding enough troops or money.

    I’ve studied war all my life, but I can’t think of another example where one side refused to admit it was in a war at all. And when you won’t admit you’re in a war, you’re not likely to win. Rumsfeld was part of that chorus of denial, but the prize for most advanced case has to go to Vice President Dick Cheney, who said in May 2005 that the Iraqi insurgency was “… in the last throes, if you will.” In May 2005, 80 American soldiers died in Iraq, a rate of three dead (and dozens wounded) every day.

    For the whole of 2005, American losses were horrific: 846 dead. American dead for 2004 had been almost the same number, 849. At the end of the year, President Bush summed it all up as only he could: “2005 was a fascinating year [in Iraq].” That was the official story from the Bush administration, and they gave absolute priority to maintaining it. That’s why Rumsfeld wouldn’t listen to any talk about adopting counterinsurgency tactics, rather than sticking with the fantasy that we were only there to “train” the local forces and then “leave.”

    Rumsfeld purposely misses this point when he claims that there had been earlier “surges” before Gen. David Petraeus’ 2006 surge:

    “In 2005, troop levels in Iraq were increased to numbers nearly equal to the 2007 surge — twice. But the effects were not as durable, because large segments of the Sunni population were still providing sanctuary to insurgents, and Iraq’s security forces were not sufficiently capable or large enough.”

    It didn’t work because the problem was strategy, not troop numbers. Rumsfeld wasn’t alone in refusing to think about counterinsurgency. Most of the Army officer corps associated “counterinsurgency” with Vietnam and wanted nothing to do with it, as Lt. Col. John A. Nagl acknowledges: “It is not unfair to say that in 2003 most Army officers knew more about the U.S. Civil War than they did about counterinsurgency.” Counterinsurgency tactics are the exact opposite of the “shock-and-awe” strategy Rumsfeld had been pushing in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s notion of war involves maximum firepower; counterinsurgency warfare stresses getting to know the locals instead of firing blindly every time a patrol is ambushed. Counterinsurgency is slow, people-centered and low tech.

    Naturally Rumsfeld, a lifelong advocate of high-tech, airpower-based warfare, opposed it until 2007, when the situation was so bad Petraeus finally got his chance.

    When Petraeus finally took command, most of his moves were counterinsurgency basics that would have been put in place years ago by any other occupying army in history. One of the first moves was starting neighborhood census programs so troops could start sorting out who was who, who was new, who didn’t belong in the area. The worst of it is that Rumsfeld isn’t content to skew the Iraq story in his own favor. His essay in the Times shows he’s still pushing denial as a way of dealing with Afghanistan, by insisting we can’t talk to the Taliban: “The current suggestion of ‘opening negotiations’ with the Taliban may well win over some low- and midlevel supporters, but if history is any guide, offering the hand of peace to hardened fanatics is not likely to prove successful.”

    I remember when I was a kid, the same argument was used to prove we can never talk to “Red China”: they’re evil fanatics! You can’t talk to them! So the United States pretended there was no China for decades, and dealt with Taiwan as if it was a little island in the middle of nowhere.

    Then Nixon, a guy nobody ever accused of naïveté, changed everything by pointing out, while on his way to shake Mao’s hand, that evil or not, those “evil” Red Chinese controlled a fourth of the world’s population and weren’t going to go away. 

    Denial didn’t work then, didn’t work in Iraq and won’t work in Afghanistan. Whether the Taliban are “evil” or not I have no idea, but the fact is that they represent most of the Pashtun in Afghanistan. Sure, the Pashtun have some strange ideas, but if we’re going to call them “evil” I guess it’s time to wipe them out. If we’re not going to do that — and obviously we’re not — then sooner or later, we’re going to have to talk to them.

    Rumsfeld’s giant blind spot about counterinsurgency warfare keeps him from seeing this. Conventional warfare, the kind he understands, is binary: either you’re at war, or you’re at peace. Counterinsurgency warfare is a lot murkier. It always comes down to negotiating with some faction of locals, but that doesn’t mean “offering the hand of peace.” It’s more about bribing the greedy, provoking the paranoid and making a deal with the rest. That’s what we’ve done in the Sunni Triangle: bribed some Sunni factions, and encouraged the hostility that other local factions had developed toward the foreign fighters in al-Qaida to flare into open war between Iraqis and foreign jihadists.

    Beyond that, the surge worked, if you can say it worked at all, because the Shiites used American protection to finish the job of ethnic cleansing, especially in Baghdad. Baghdad’s a Shiite city now, with a few Sunni enclaves. The killing has declined because the boundaries have been set, at least for now. It’s not a pretty picture, close up, and it has nothing to do with the silly dreams Bush and Rumsfeld were pushing when they persuaded us to go to war.

    And even the slight improvement that the surge managed came with Rumsfeld kicking and screaming, resisting the change all the way, because the man is in complete denial about counterinsurgency warfare, about the fact that we aren’t beloved liberators in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about the notion that the world doesn’t divide neatly into good people that we can talk to and bad people we pretend aren’t there. So whatever needs to be done in Afghanistan, you can be absolutely sure of one thing: It won’t have anything to do with whatever Donald Rumsfeld recommends.  

    No Amnesty for Bush Administration, Say Torture Opponents

    0

    By Ali Gharib | Judging by the rare leaks from President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, investigations and prosecutions of high-level George W. Bush administration officials for torture and war crimes are a distant prospect. But likely or not, that won’t stop pundits from debating the question of whether those officials responsible should be held accountable.

    Irrespective of whether Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, or others are dragged before juries, one glaring change seems absolutely certain: Obama stands unequivocally against torture, and the practice is likely to come to an end under his administration.

    “Even though I’ve been disappointed in other presidents in the past, I do listen, and I do believe Obama when he says we won’t torture. I think that’s crucial,” said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

    But forswearing controversial and harsh interrogation methods may not be enough to permanently reestablish the moral high ground that the Obama administration has promised to bring back to the U.S.’ interactions with the rest of the world.

    If Obama doesn’t take on torture that occurred, as opposed to simply discontinuing the practice, the door may be left open for future administrations to resurrect the harshest of interrogation techniques, said Ratner at a recent forum at Georgetown University Law School.

    “If Obama really wants to make sure we don’t torture, he has to launch a criminal investigation,” said Ratner, the author of The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book.

    He said that the targets of such an investigation would be the easily identifiable “key players” and “principals” in the Bush administration who hatched plans to allow and legally justify harsh interrogation methods that critics allege are torture, including the controversial “waterboarding” simulated drowning technique.

    Those pursued, said Ratner, would include high-ranking administration officials such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and former Central Intelligence Agency chief George Tenet, as well as the legal team that drummed up what is now regarded as a sloppy legal justification for torture.

    Key Bush administration lawyers involved in providing legal cover to harsh practices, including the roundly criticized “torture memo” from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), include former attorney general and earlier White House counsel Alberto Gonzales; Cheney’s chief of staff and former legal counsel to the vice president’s office David Addington; and the University of California, Berkeley law professor and former OLC lawyer John Yoo.

    If the characters behind the questionable techniques are not held accountable for violating U.S. and international laws, said Ratner, presidents after Obama may simply say “well, in the name of national security I can just redo what Obama just put in place. I can go torture again.”

    Ratner also spoke to the concern that, from the view of the rest of the world, “to not do an investigation and prosecution gives the impression of impunity.”

    But opposing Ratner on the dais, Stewart Taylor Jr. argued that an investigation and prosecution were not appropriate.

    “The people who are called ‘war criminals’ by [Ratner] and others do not think they acted with impunity,” said Taylor, a Brookings Institution fellow and frequent contributor to Newsweek and the National Journal.

    In the July 21 edition of Newsweek, Taylor called for Bush to preemptively pardon any administration official who could be held to account for torture or war crimes. Taylor’s rationale was that without fear of prosecution, a full and true account of what he called “dark deeds” could never come to light.

    Furthermore, at the Georgetown Law event Taylor said investigation and eventual prosecution would “tear the country apart.”

    That may be the thinking of Obama, who, in addition to hints he wouldn’t investigate Bush administration malfeasance, declared his intention to govern as a political reconciliation president in his election victory speech.

    In Grant Park in Chicago on Nov. 4, Obama rehashed a quote from slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., but instead of rhetorically bending the “arc of history” toward “justice,” as King did, Obama called for it to be bent “toward the hope of a better day.”

    But Ratner said that the country was already divided, and that divide is exactly what a future administration could politically exploit to reinstate torture. He said that Obama must close the divide and doing so is not rehashing the past.

    “You’re making sure that in the future, we don’t torture again,” Ratner said. “This is not looking backward.”

    Another potential problem with investigation and prosecution, says Taylor, is that the Bush administration officials ostensibly had sought to find out whether the methods they were about to approve were justified, and, indeed, they were told they were in the legal clear.

    “There is no evidence that high-ranking officials acted with criminal intent,” he said. “They were relying in good faith on the advice of legal counsel.”

    Taylor said that since the legal advice originated from the Department of Justice, it would be wrong for the same Justice Department to “turn around” and prosecute people for actions that its previous incarnation had explicitly told were legal.

    But Taylor’s point misses two issues: that the crimes were allegedly given a legal green light because of collusion with the White House, and that Ratner proposes to investigate those same Justice officials who were involved in giving approval.

    Despite referring to John Yoo as a “gonzo executive imperialist,” Taylor said that “those officials, like them or not, were honorably motivated” because they were “desperately afraid” of another terrorist attack.

    Ratner insists that the officials, part of a “group, cabal, or conspiracy,” may be culpable because they were “aiders and abettors.”

    “[OLC] was not giving independent counsel,” insisted Ratner. “They were shaping memos to fit a policy that had already been determined.”

    And while Taylor was quick to point out that many U.S. administrations had been accused of war crimes by various sources, Ratner replied that it was the first time that any administration had actually “assaulted the prohibition on torture.”

    That could be one reason why, if the U.S. does not take care of its own house, Bush administration officials will likely be pursued on charges in Europe and elsewhere.

    In international courts, said Ratner, those officials will not be able to hide behind the legal shields of internal government memos or executive decrees.

    “They have no defense in international law,” he said. “They’re finished.”

    (Inter Press Service)

    Obama, Bush & The War Crimes

    0

    By Ari Melber | Many Washington Republicans and Democrats agree on one maxim for President-elect Barack Obama: This is no time to look back at the past administration’s rocky record on executive power and the rule of law.

    Republicans caution against protracted, “partisan” investigations. Democrats urge Obama to tackle pressing economic and foreign policy challenges — if that leaves an unusually powerful executive branch in place, so be it. Both camps are wrong.

    Obama must scrutinize and disassemble the post-Sept. 11 imperial presidency, even if he reduces his own power in the process.

    The Bush administration opened several lines of attack against the rule of law and the integrity of an independent Justice Department. The scandals are so famous that they’ve been reduced to shorthand: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, NSA, Attorneygate.

    No matter what, these incidents will remain a blot on our nation’s history. But we can achieve a measure of closure and justice by pursuing legal accountability for anyone involved who broke the law. The initiation of proper legal proceedings — both investigations and prosecutions — simply cannot depend on whether the accused are powerful.

    The bipartisan immunity lobby, however, insists that route could divide the country. The image of government officials going to jail, they say, is simply unthinkable.

    It is a remarkably unserious argument — as if our laws and Constitution are a distant second to the imagined trauma of watching politicos go to jail like any other lawbreaker. It is especially odd now, coming after several politicians have been prosecuted, defeated and imprisoned on corruption charges.

    The immunity crowd has one more card to play. Crimes committed on behalf of national security, they say, are different. On closer inspection, that claim also dissolves into an elitist pitch for the powerful.

    The fact is that there are U.S. soldiers sitting in jail right now for what happened at Abu Ghraib.

    The question is not whether to prosecute those crimes; that process has already begun. The question is whether the Bush administration correctly prosecuted the people actually responsible for the conduct — or whether the entire episode was blamed on those low on the chain of command.

    Likewise, the politicization of the Justice Department is already a live issue in court. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is currently fighting a civil suit alleging that he politicized the Justice Department. In fact, taxpayers are even footing the bill for his private lawyers. (Up to $24,000 a month, under an arrangement with the Bush administration.)

    The new administration, however, cannot afford to sit on the sidelines as private parties fight over Gonzales’ sins. There is an overwhelming public interest in accountability for and a complete investigation into the U.S. attorney firings, including, potentially, criminal penalties for any senior officials who broke the law.

    As Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, recently explained, Bush officials undermined the “credibility and effectiveness of the Justice Department” by politicizing their roles. Regardless of who won this election, any new inhabitant of the Justice Department would have to rebuild that credibility. It starts at home. After all, why should citizens have faith in the department’s new leaders if their first act is to join in the whitewashing abuse by their predecessors?

    The New York Times recently captured this problem: “Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure.”

    This is one time, however, that the new president cannot afford to look like every other self-serving chief executive. Obama can show that America’s promise of equality not only means that anyone can reach the highest office in the land — it also means that everyone is equally subject to the law.

    Experts and leaders in both parties herald the work of the 9/11 Commission, which bored down into a period many would rather not relive. Now what we need is a Response to 9/11 Commission — a subpoena-powered investigation of the torture, rendition, detention and spying that was presented as an essential response to terrorism. Obama should also assign a special prosecutor to explore the related crimes and take necessary action, independent of the new attorney general’s agenda.

    Once the legal process is complete, of course, the president retains the right to commute or pardon convicted criminals. In some cases, there may be good reason to do so. But under the rule of law, there is never a reason to immunize government officials in advance, removing the most critical check on the power they wield in our name. The past eight years reveal the grave costs of that approach, and it is past time for a change.