Bush ‘war crimes conference’ to convene in Mass

0

By Stephen C. Webster | On September 13-14, 2008, Lawrence Velvel, the dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, plans to convene a ‘convention’ at the school’s facilities; the attendees of which will plan strategies to prosecute members of the Bush administration for war crimes.

“This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred,” stated Velvel in a press release. “It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth.

“We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice. And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940’s.”

The dean specifically criticizes Justice Department officials who wrote legal opinions designed to provide political cover for administration figures to carry out torture. However, Velvel’s sharpest words were saved for President Bush, according to a passage from ABA Journal.

“The man ultimately responsible for the torture had a unique preparation and persona for the presidency,” wrote Velvel. “He is a former drunk, was a serial failure in business who had to repeatedly be bailed out by daddy’s friends and wanna-be-friends, was unable to speak articulately despite the finest education(s) that money and influence can buy, has a dislike of reading, so that 100-page memos have to be boiled down to one page for him, is heedless of facts and evidence, and appears not even to know the meaning of truth.”

MORE:

PRESS RELEASE

Congress wrestles over spying bill

0

Congress is on the verge of ending a year-long struggle with the White House over a contentious intelligence surveillance bill.

In one of the toughest votes of the 110th Congress, the House on Friday backed a compromise that expands the government’s capacity to eavesdrop without a warrant. The Senate this week is expected to do the same.

Most House Democrats did not back the compromise. But in a break with previous statements, their leaders did.

“So again, a difficult decision for all of us,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a floor statement before the vote. “If not good enough for some,” the bill is “certainly preferable to the alternative that we have, which is the Senate bill, which must be rejected,” she said.

At issue between the Senate and House versions is whether to grant legal immunity to telecommunication companies for their role in the secret surveillance program after the 9/11 attacks — a key White House demand. The Senate version of the bill includes immunity for telecoms.

Under the terms of the House bill, a federal district court will decide whether immunity is granted. Only companies, not government officials, could be shielded.

“The issue really was whether we would have a compromise that would involve the court in determining whether or not the telecom companies had received justification … or simply a bill that gave them immunity,” said House majority leader Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland after Friday’s vote.

The bill would protect companies that can show they had received assurances from the executive branch that the program was legal and authorized by the president.

The bill passed by a vote of 293 to 129, with 105 House Democrats joining all but one Republican in favor of the bill and 128 Democrats, including most committee chairs, opposing it.

“This bill is a fig leaf, granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for possibly illegal acts without allowing the courts to consider the facts or the law,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D) of New York, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, in a statement after the vote.

Trolling the aisles during the vote. Rep. José Serrano (D) of New York, who opposed the bill, told colleagues voting for it: “Don’t worry, government will give us back our freedoms later.”

“I was in New York when the terrorists attacked the towers,” he said afterward. “If they terrorize us into stepping on the Constitution and throwing it away, don’t they win?”

On the Senate side, opponents of the House bill see little prospect of stopping it. “It’s the election cycle that we’re in,” explained Sen. Christopher Dodd (D) of Connecticut. “Senators are thinking about November and January next.”

On the campaign trail, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, endorsed the House compromise, as expected. “For months, House Democrats, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation’s terrorist surveillance laws. Today, the House passed a compromise bill to end this impasse,” he said in a statement.

Sen. Barack Obama (D) of Illinois, in a break with many liberal party activists, said he would support it.

“Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay,” he said in a statement after the House vote.

“So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program,” he added.

The votes in favor of the bill by top House Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi, majority leader Hoyer, and majority whip James Clyburn (D) of South Carolina, could lend Senator Obama political cover in this week’s vote, say aides on both sides of the aisle.

In the end, House Democrats didn’t have the votes to keep a compromise off the floor indefinitely.

In the run-up to the vote, 21 conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats sent party leaders a letter insisting on immunity for telecom companies.

With the Blue Dogs, “there were 230 votes to bring the Senate bill [including immunity] to the floor,” said Hoyer after the vote. That calculus forced a compromise that many party leaders had been reluctant to make.

“They didn’t have the votes to keep the Senate bill off the floor indefinitely,” said Rep. Roy Blunt (R) of Missouri, the Republican whip.

Democrats, including their likely presidential nominee, are “very hesitant to reinforce the post-Vietnam era image that Democrats are not prepared to defend the country,” said Mr. Blunt, the lead Republican negotiator on the bill.

Another element that sealed a compromise deal was the inclusion of language declaring the “exclusivity” of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as a legal basis for surveillance for intelligencegathering purposes. This provision, first introduced by Reps. Adam Schiff (D) of California and Jeff Flake (R) of Arizona, aimed to rein in President Bush’s claim of constitutional authority to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval — and in violation of the FISA law.

“Congress is set to pass a measure that says otherwise,” says Congressman Schiff.

On the Senate side, the chief opponent of the House compromise, Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, says that while there are some improvements in the bill, “The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.”

NATO: 6,000 troops urgently needed in Afghanistan

1

BERLIN (Reuters) | Up to 6,000 additional troops are urgently needed in Afghanistan and a failure to deploy them will only prolong the presence of Western forces in the country, a German NATO general said on Sunday.

Egon Ramms told public radio station Deutschlandfunk that alliance members would end up paying a price later if they did not boost troop numbers now.

“We are talking about a total of 5,000, 6,000 soldiers,” Ramms said. “We need these soldiers now, very soon, because we need to hold specific areas, we need to win over Afghanistan’s citizens and because at some point, in 2010, 2011 or 2012 we will want to hand over responsibility to Afghan forces.

Roughly 60,000 foreign troops are in Afghanistan, most of them part of the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), but security has deteriorated over the past two years.

Some 6,000 people were killed in 2007, the deadliest year since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2007.

“The troops that I don’t have now could lead to delays in the withdrawal of NATO and ISAF,” Ramms said. “In other words, the costs that are not being paid now will have a negative impact on the bottom line at some point.”

Ramms declined to say how many additional German troops he thought were necessary, but said Germany should increase the number of troops it can send to Afghanistan from a fixed ceiling of 3,500.

The parliamentary mandate for German troops operating in Afghanistan is due to expire in October and Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung is expected to request an increase of at least 1,000 in the troop limit.

(Writing by Noah Barkin)

Lib Dems criticise gov’t over latest data losses

0

libdems.jpgBy Tom Espiner | The Liberal Democrats have taken the government to task following this week’s round of high-profile official data losses, suggesting the breaches show the government could not safely administer an ID card database.

The revelation on Tuesday of the loss of a personal computer from cabinet minister Hazel Blears’s Salford office, coupled with two instances of civil servants leaving top-secret documents on trains from Waterloo this week, calls into question the government’s ability to look after sensitive data, according to the Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary, Chris Huhne.

Huhne said the proposed National Identity Register behind the ID cards scheme could not be adequately administrated by the government.

“Three significant data losses in the space of a week have demonstrated just how lax this government’s attitude is towards data-security issues,” Huhne told ZDNet.co.uk on Wednesday. “Given that ministers continue to lurch from one data fiasco to another, it is hard to believe that they can be trusted with something as large and as invasive as the proposed National Identity Register.”

However, the Home Office claimed data controls for the National Identity Register (NIR) will prevent information leaks.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We understand public concern about security of personal data and one of the most important benefits of the scheme will be to improve the individual’s protection against fraudulent use of personal information. The link between your unique biometric information and limited data identity held will make it incredibly difficult for anyone to try to use your personal information fraudulently.”

“IPS will make the register as secure as possible, building on an excellent track record with the current passport database, which has 80 million records,” the Home Office’s spokesperson added. “The level of security classification will match some military databases.”

Blears had a personal computer stolen from her constituency office in Salford on Saturday. A spokesperson for the department of communities and local government, which Blears heads, said on Tuesday that while the PC contained “some restricted information” the data on it was not top-secret.

However, it emerged on Tuesday that the restricted documents on the stolen PC had been sent to Blears in an apparent contravention of government practice. Communities and local government permanent secretary Peter Housden said: “It is clear that papers have been sent to Hazel Blears in a way that is not fully consistent with the departmental guidance. I have instructed my officials that departmental procedures, guidance, and the awareness and accessibility of that guidance, are now strengthened to ensure this does not happen again. I take full responsibility for ensuring this is done.”

The Conservative Party called for the issue of the data loss from the department of communities and local government to be discussed in Parliament, and for the government to clarify what had occurred.

“The news that a government minister may have been directly responsible for the loss of data relating to extremism is extremely alarming,” said shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve. “It comes after a series of security breaches over which government appears not to have regained control. The government must urgently clarify what happened in this case. If Hazel Blears has breached security rules in relation to material she has handled, Parliament must be told exactly how and why this has occurred.”

Security vendors pointed out that password protection is easy to crack, and recommended that all organisations encrypt sensitive data.

“Once again this drives home the real risks of data losses and the impact these can have, even when you think the data is secure,” said Nick Lowe, Check Point’s regional director for Northern Europe. “It’s vital to go the extra mile and secure data not just with lock and key, but by cryptography.”

Blackwater is Still in Charge, Deadly, Above the Law and Out of Control

1

blackwater3.jpgOn June 3, Jeremy Scahill’s bestselling Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army was released in fully revised and updated paperback form. The new edition includes reporting on the now-famous Nisour Square massacre on Sept. 16 of last year, in which Blackwater mercenaries opened fire in a Baghdad neighborhood, brutally murdering 17 Iraqi civilians. The killing spree, which the U.S. Army would label a “criminal event,” would reveal the extent of the lawlessnewss enjoyed by private contractors abroad and the lengths the Bush administration will go to protect its private army of choice.

Antonia Juhasz caught up with Scahill on the phone the day the new edition was released. A fellow at Oil Change International and author of The Bush Agenda, Juhasz is also the author of the forthcoming book The Tyranny of Oil: The World’s Most Powerful Industry, and What We Must Do to Stop It. Juhasz and Scahill discussed, among other topics, the story behind Blackwater, congressional inaction, radical privatization, Barack Obama, corporate vs. independent media, GI resistance in the age of private mercenaries, getting real about challenging corporations and the power of dissent.

Antonia Juhasz: I first have to admit that, until now, I had not read Blackwater and that, as someone who had been reading your Nation articles, I had quite erroneously assumed that I knew what you had to say about this company. I could not have been more wrong. This is a fantastic, informative, insightful and critically important book.

Jeremy Scahill: Thank you. I started writing this book by accident. I’d been writing about Blackwater when my [Nation] editors Katrina vanden Heuvel and Betsy Reed sat me down and said, “We’ve published ten articles about one company and you’re doing great work, but you either need to write a book or get a new beat.” Once I began researching the company in the context of a book, I realized that, in many ways, it was a metaphor for so much that was happening with the country, particularly with the privatization agenda of the war machine. So, while there are some parts of the book that are based on reporting I did for the Nation, the vast majority is new investigative research.

AJ: What drew you to Blackwater?

JS: I was in Yugoslavia during the 1999 NATO bombing that Bill Clinton prosecuted … Halliburton and other war contractors, like Dyncorp, were very much present on the ground during the Yugoslavian civil war, primarily in Bosnia. And so that was really my first direct interaction with this sort of parallel army of contractors.

Then the [U.S. attack on] Iraqis in Falluja was very important to me as a reporter, because I had been there many times and had friends inside of Falluja. I remember watching on March 31, 2004, when those four Blackwater contractors were ambushed and killed inside Falluja, and my immediate response after seeing the way it was covered in the press — that they were “civilians” [or] “civilian contractors” — was “Oh my god, Bush is going to destroy that city.”

I began my reporting on Blackwater [in April 2004] based on a very simple question: “How were the deaths of these not-active-duty U.S. soldiers — not civilians, but four corporate personnel working for Blackwater, a mercenary company — how do their deaths warrant the destruction of an entire city?”

I realized that it was a story that spoke volumes to what we were seeing happening in this country with the export of this incredibly violent foreign policy, the connections of political allies of the president to the war industry… [So I began] an in-depth investigation of Blackwater: Who runs the company? What are their connections to the Bush administration and the national security apparatus of the U.S., etc.?

AJ: What did you hope that writing the book would accomplish — and has it?

JS: When I was writing, I wasn’t thinking of it in terms of what I hoped to accomplish. What I was looking at was: Here is this company that was on no one’s map, basically, before March 31, 2004, and even in the weeks and months after that, was really just a blip on the media radar screen. I was hoping to expose this company as something much bigger than just its boots on the ground in Iraq, or its role in Falluja, Najaf and elsewhere — but to explain, in a readable way, that this is a very dangerous trend that has been put on a radical fast track almost overnight.

Once we started to realize just how deeply embedded in the occupation of Iraq Blackwater has been, and its connection to the Bush administration, then the point of the book (became) raising hell in Congress and in the public — saying to people, “We have to wake up and do something about this!”

Continue…

Dems to OK Bush War Funds Without Conditions

0

iraqfunding.jpgBy ANDREW TAYLOR | Democratic and GOP leaders in the House announced agreement Wednesday on a long-overdue war funding bill they said President Bush would be willing to sign. The agreement on the war funding bill, announced by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also paves the way for a quick infusion of emergency flood relief for the Midwest, an extension of unemployment payments for the jobless and a big boost in GI Bill college for veterans.

It would also provide about $165 billion to the Pentagon to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for about a year. That’s enough time for Bush’s successor to set Iraq policy.

“This is an agreement that has been worked out in a bipartisan way that I think is acceptable to both most Democrats and most Republicans and to the White House,” Boehner said.

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the agreement contains several priorities for Democrats in the Senate but stopped short of issuing a direct endorsement, saying Reid needed to consult with his colleagues.

The agreement would require that the Senate would agree to drop most of the more than $10 billion it added last month for programs such as heating subsidies for the poor, wildfire fighting, road and bridge repair and help for the Gulf Coast.

The House is slated to pass the measure Thursday, but the Senate won’t turn to it until next week, Manley said.

The agreement drops restrictions on Bush’s ability to conduct the war and gives him almost all of the funding he sought well over a year ago for Iraq and Afghanistan. But he also backed away from veto threats he issued earlier over Democrats’ insistence on using the Iraq funding bill to carry a generous boost in the GI Bill and a 13-week extension of unemployment payments for people whose benefits have run out.

Democrats dropped a provision to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in states with particularly high unemployment rates.

The war funding bill had bedeviled Democratic leaders for months. Its passage has become more urgent with looming furloughs next month of civilian employees and contract workers.

Conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats are upset that the new GI Bill benefits, with costs tentatively estimated at $62 billion over the next decade, will be added to the deficit instead of being “paid for” as called for under House rules.

But the White House and Republicans insisted that House Democrats’ offset – a one-half percentage point surcharge on wealthier taxpayers – was unacceptable.

Boehner and Hoyer would not immediately release details, saying the verbal agreement had yet to be written in congressional legalese.

The agreement came just a day after the Bush administration urged Congress to provide $1.8 billion in immediate disaster aid for the Midwest and elsewhere. Congress is likely to add a little more, though details had not been ironed out.

A dozen senators in both parties are pressing to add money for levee repair and help for displaced homeowners, among other pressing needs.

Democrats and governors across the country emerged the victors in a battle with the White House to block new Bush administration rules designed to cut spending on Medicaid health care for the poor and disabled.

Letter to Ian Blair by George Galloway

19

galloway1.jpgI write in connection with the police operation surrounding the President George W Bush to Downing Street today. I am not a habitual complainer about the police, as a scan of the public record and my history of cooperation with Tower Hamlets police and the Muslim Support Unit will quickly show. But I must say I witnessed scenes today, some of them inches from my face, which were both deeply shocking and completely unnecessary.

I was asked by the chairman of the Stop the War Coalition as the only member of parliament present at the demonstration in Parliament Square to march to the police barricade in Whitehall symbolically to demonstrate the outrageousness of the government’s decision to forbid marchers to enter Whitehall . As one of the leaders of the Stop the War Coalition I felt it was my duty to comply with his request, although it was Fathers Day, I had my children with me and had intended to leave Parliament Square shortly after my speech.

I made my way to the front of the putative march and purely by chance found myself in the hottest spot of the confrontation which followed. I was trapped there for the best part of an hour and a half, unable to move forward, back or sideways. Consquently, I was both closer to and for longer exposed to the events as they unfolded.

A considerable line of uniformed officers were in full control of the situation for a substantial part of this time. Most of the officers were impassive throughout. Some did their best to defuse the situation, which was clearly the proper tactic in the circumstances. But a number of your officers behaved with a viciousness and lack of control such as I have not witnessed since the miners strike of 1984-85. Batons were drawn at least prematurely and were used with a level of aggression which frankly took my breath away.

These were not hardened trouble-makers they were facing who’d come for a fight with the police. They were young, peaceful, allbeit frustrated and angry anti-war protesters. You will know that there has never been any trouble on the score of Stop the War marches that London has scene hitherto. One particular officer, I will not give his number at this stage as I intend to make a formal complaint about his conduct and I am releasing this letter to the press, was quite simply out of control. He assaulted a young woman; he deployed his metal baton in a frenzied way; he ripped placards from the hands of several demonstrators when I can assure you the demonstrators in question were not using these cardboard placards in any improper way. He was standing next to a sergeant, whose number I also have, who if he tesitfies truthfully will bear out what I am saying.

A senior officer – I could see no identifying number, but I know he was senior because he was giving out orders – was actually taunting the demonstrators, including me in a display of political partiality such as I have never witnessed.

But the most serious mistake is one I believe you have a duty toinvestigate, and that was the tactical decision to deploy the black-boiler-suited riot squad – when there was clearly no riot. This decision, however, was one which appeared designed to start one. Given the small number of demonstrators involved – far less than the number of revellers on an ordinary Friday night in Romford – it was an unnecessary and provocative overreaction and served as nothing other than a provocation compounding the protesters’ feelings about the denial of what they and I regard as their rights as citizens in a free country.

This squad behaved intolerably. It was as if they were facing a dangerous crowd of molotov cocktail throwing, pike wielding insurrectionists. It was a scene redolent of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and cannot possibly be justified by the scale of this incident. This squad proceeded to deal out a shocking level of violence against unarmed civilan protesters, overwhelmingly young and many of them female. I have no doubt the large number of press photographers present and taking pictures of the scenes will bear this out.

This was not the Metropolitan Police’s finest hour, Commissioner. It was a sledgehammer to crack a nut and did harm to the reputation of your officers and their commanders, and I believe you have a duty to investigate it.

I look forward to a swift reply,

Yours sincerely,

George Galloway MP

Republicans’ Offshore Drilling Plan Would Expand Dysfunctional System

0

drillingofroil.jpgBy Phil Mattera | The response to the politically opportunistic call by the Bush Administration and John McCain to expand offshore oil drilling is being framed primarily in environmental terms. The drilling, which would do nothing in the short term to address soaring gasoline prices, would indeed create serious risks for the coastlines of Florida and California and would worsen global warming.Yet there is another compelling reason to oppose the plan: the federal system of offshore leasing has been characterized by gross mismanagement that has allowed big oil companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in royalties. There is no reason to doubt that an expansion of drilling leases would bring more of the same.

For those who missed this particular scandal, here is some background. Commercial offshore oil drilling was pioneered in the late 1940s by Kerr-McGee Corp. While little thought was given to environmental issues at the time, there were disputes between the federal government and coastal states over which should control the leasing process. The 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gave the states control over the first three miles (more for Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida), and the feds took over after that up to the 200-mile territorial limit.

There wasn’t much controversy over offshore drilling until 1969, when an undersea well off the coast of Santa Barbara, California suffered a blowout and leaked 200,000 gallons of oil that contaminated 35 miles of coastline. This led to state and federal restrictions on offshore drilling in new areas. Periodically over the past 30 years, the oil & gas industry and its allies in Congress have tried to ease the limits but were shot down.

Defeated in its effort to get access to more offshore areas, the industry sought to make its existing drilling more profitable by pressing for reductions in the royalties it had to pay the federal government through the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service (MMS). In the mid-1990s, when energy prices were relatively low (oil was at about $16 a gallon), Congress gave in to industry pressure and passed legislation in 1995 providing “royalty relief.”

The law contained safeguards to prevent a windfall for drilling companies by terminating the relief when oil prices rose above a certain level, but Clinton Administration officials failed to include those provisions in some 1,000 deepwater leases it signed in 1998 and 1999.

That oversight would come to haunt the federal government. As oil prices rose in 2004 to the point at which royalty relief should have ended on those leases, the cost to the Treasury in lost revenue rose to billions of dollars. Once the situation became publicly known, thanks to reporting by Edmund Andrews of the New York Times, some oil companies agreed to renegotiate the leases, while others such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron refused.

Complicating the situation, Kerr-McGee (now part of Anadarko Petroleum) later brought a legal challenge against the safeguards, making the dubious argument that Congress never intended to give MMS the authority to impose them. Last year the drillers received a favorable ruling in the case, prompting the Government Accountability Office to estimate recently that, if the decision is upheld, the loss of revenue from leases signed from 1996 through 2000 could be as high as $53 billion.

The federal government is also likely being cheated on leases signed after 2000. In 2006, several MMS auditors publicly charged that they had been pressured by their superiors to terminate investigations of underreporting of royalties related to leases not subject to royalty relief.

This is the dysfunctional system that the Republicans want to expand. One is tempted to ask: Is this really about increasing oil supplies–or creating another giveaway for Big Oil?

CIA Played Larger Role In Advising Pentagon

2

cia-logo.jpgBy Joby Warrick | A senior CIA lawyer advised Pentagon officials about the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay in a meeting in late 2002, defending waterboarding and other methods as permissible despite U.S. and international laws banning torture, according to documents released yesterday by congressional investigators.

Torture “is basically subject to perception,” CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredman told a group of military and intelligence officials gathered at the U.S.-run detention camp in Cuba on Oct. 2, 2002, according to minutes of the meeting. “If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong.”

The document, one of two dozen released by a Senate panel investigating how Pentagon officials developed the controversial interrogation program introduced at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002, suggests a larger CIA role in advising Defense Department interrogators than was previously known. By the time of the meeting, the CIA already had used waterboarding, which simulates drowning, on at least one terrorism suspect and was holding high-level al-Qaeda detainees in secret prisons overseas — actions that Bush administration lawyers had approved.

The new evidence, along with hours of questioning of former Pentagon officials at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, shed light on efforts by top aides to then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to research and reverse-engineer techniques used by military survival schools to prepare U.S. service members for possible capture by hostile forces. The techniques — sensory deprivation, forced nudity, stress positions and exploitation of phobias, such as fear of dogs — would eventually be approved for use at Guantanamo Bay and would spread to U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison. Nearly all were later rescinded.

The newly released documents show that in the summer of 2002, Pentagon officials compiled lists of aggressive techniques, soliciting opinions from the CIA and others, and ultimately implementing the practices over opposition from military lawyers who argued that the proposed tactics were probably illegal and could harm U.S. troops.

The memos and other evidence evoked intense bipartisan condemnation from members of the Armed Services Committee who spent nearly eight hours grilling some of the former and current officials involved with the decisions.

“The guidance that was provided during this period of time, I think, will go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation’s military and intelligence communities,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, asked: “How on Earth did we get to the point where a United States government lawyer would say that . . . torture is subject to perception?”

One of the most explosive memos was the account of the October 2002 Guantanamo Bay meeting in which the CIA’s Fredman joined 10 Defense Department officials and lawyers to discuss how to extract better intelligence from detainees there. Fredman, whose agency had been granted broad latitude by Justice Department lawyers to conduct harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists, listed key considerations for setting a similar program at the Cuban prison. He discussed the pros and cons of videotaping, talked about how to avoid interference by the International Committee of the Red Cross and offered a strong defense of waterboarding.

“If a well-trained individual is used to perform this technique, it can feel like you’re drowning,” he said, according to the meeting’s minutes, which do not provide a verbatim transcript.

Fredman said medical experts should monitor detainees. “If someone dies while aggressive techniques are being used, regardless of the cause of death, the backlash of attention would be severely detrimental,” he was quoted as saying.

CIA spokesman George Little declined to comment on the remarks attributed to Fredman. “The far more important point is the fact that CIA’s terrorist interrogation program has operated on the basis of measured, detailed legal guidance from the Department of Justice,” he said. “The agency program, which has been carefully reviewed within our government, has disrupted terrorist plots and saved innocent lives.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration’s consistent policy has been to treat detainees humanely and within the law. “Abuse of detainees has never been, is not, and will never be the policy of this government,” he said at a news briefing yesterday.

But some of Fredman’s advice was apparently persuasive for top Pentagon officials, who in the following weeks approved the first formal program for harsh interrogations at the facility in Cuba. While the outlines of the Guantanamo Bay program are widely known, the new documents suggest a common interest by the CIA and Pentagon in the use of tactics from a program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. In testimony, officials involved in SERE training acknowledged being asked to write memos for senior Pentagon officials about which techniques had the greatest psychological effect.

Among those questioned yesterday about decisions was William J. “Jim” Haynes II, a former Defense Department general counsel who acknowledged pressing for more aggressive techniques but said the decisions were driven by the administration’s fear of more terrorist strikes.

“What I remember about the summer of 2002 was a government-wide concern about the possibility of another terrorist attack as the anniversary of September 11” approached, Haynes said. He also cited “widespread frustration” among Pentagon officials that summer about the slow progress on obtaining information from Guantanamo Bay detainees.

But Haynes and other Pentagon officials acknowledged that the proposed methods faced opposition at the time from experts in military and international law. Among them was Mark Fallon, deputy commander of the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force. He warned in an October 2002 e-mail to Pentagon colleagues that the techniques under discussion would “shock the conscience of any legal body” that might review how the interrogations were conducted.

“This looks like the kind of stuff Congressional hearings are made of,” Fallon wrote. He added: “Someone needs to be considering how history will look back at this.”

General Accuses White House of War Crimes

0

white-house.jpgBy Dan Froomkin | The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.

In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees.” He called the abuse “systemic and illegal.” And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.

Now, in a preface to a Physicians for Human Rights report based on medical examinations of former detainees, Taguba adds an epilogue to his own investigation.

The new report, he writes, “tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual’s lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

“The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted –both on America’s institutions and our nation’s founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.

“In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. . . .

“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, 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.”

Pamela Hess of the Associated Press has more on the report, which resulted from “the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far” and “found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders.”

The War Council

So if war crimes were committed, who’s responsible?

In today’s installment of a major McClatchy Newspapers series on the U.S. detention system, Tom Lasseter writes: “The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn’t the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers.

“It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.

“The Supreme Court now has struck down many of their legal interpretations. It ruled last Thursday that preventing detainees from challenging their detention in federal courts was unconstitutional.

“The quintet of lawyers, who called themselves the ‘War Council,’ drafted legal opinions that circumvented the military’s code of justice, the federal court system and America’s international treaties in order to prevent anyone — from soldiers on the ground to the president — from being held accountable for activities that at other times have been considered war crimes. . . .

“The international conventions that the United States helped draft, and to which it’s a party, were abandoned in secret meetings among the five men in one another’s offices. No one in the War Council has publicly described the group’s activities in any detail, and only some of their opinions and memorandums have been made public. . . .

“Only one of the five War Council lawyers remains in office: David Addington, the brilliant but abrasive longtime legal adviser and now chief of staff to Cheney. His primary motive, according to several former administration and defense officials, was to push for an expansion of presidential power that Congress or the courts couldn’t check.”

The other members were Alberto Gonzales, first the White House counsel and then the attorney general; William J. Haynes II, the former Pentagon general counsel; former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo; and Timothy E. Flanigan, a former deputy to Gonzales.

For more on Addington’s central role, see my Sept. 5, 2007 column; for more on the relationship between the administration’s legal memos and torture, see my April 2 column.

The Senate Investigation

The Senate Armed Services Committee made news with a hearing yesterday — part of its continuing investigation into the administration’s interrogation policies. (Here’s the C-SPAN video.)

Joby Warrick writes in The Washington Post: “A senior CIA lawyer advised Pentagon officials about the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay in a meeting in late 2002, defending waterboarding and other methods as permissible despite U.S. and international laws banning torture, according to documents released yesterday by congressional investigators.

“Torture ‘is basically subject to perception,’ CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredman told a group of military and intelligence officials gathered at the U.S.-run detention camp in Cuba on Oct. 2, 2002, according to minutes of the meeting. ‘If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong.’ . . .

“Fredman, whose agency had been granted broad latitude by Justice Department lawyers to conduct harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists, listed key considerations for setting a similar program at the Cuban prison. He discussed the pros and cons of videotaping, talked about how to avoid interference by the International Committee of the Red Cross and offered a strong defense of waterboarding.” . . .

“Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, asked: ‘How on Earth did we get to the point where a United States government lawyer would say that . . . torture is subject to perception?’.”

Levin also introduced evidence that proposed methods faced opposition at the time from experts in military and international law. Warrick writes: “Among them was Mark Fallon, deputy commander of the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force. He warned in an October 2002 e-mail to Pentagon colleagues that the techniques under discussion would ‘shock the conscience of any legal body’ that might review how the interrogations were conducted.

“‘This looks like the kind of stuff Congressional hearings are made of,’ Fallon wrote. He added: ‘Someone needs to be considering how history will look back at this.'”

The star witness yesterday was Haynes — the former Pentagon general counsel, “War Council” member and Addington protege.

Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane write in the New York Times that Haynes “sparred at length with senators seeking to pin on him some responsibility for the harsh tactics and the worldwide outrage they provoked.

“Documents released Tuesday show that some of Mr. Haynes’s aides in July 2002 sought out information about aggressive interrogations.

“Mr. Haynes fended off attacks by Democrats and some Republicans, noting that the Defense Department has 10,000 lawyers and saying he had no time to conduct legal research himself on which methods were permitted.

“Moreover, Mr. Haynes said, ‘as the lawyer, I was not the decision maker. I was the adviser.’

“Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, said he thought Mr. Haynes’s advice had led American soldiers drastically astray. ‘You degraded the integrity of the United States military,’ Mr. Reed said.”

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post: “If ever there was a case that cried out for enhanced interrogation techniques, it was yesterday’s Senate appearance by the Pentagon’s former top lawyer.

“William ‘Jim’ Haynes II, the man who blessed the use of dogs, hoods and nudity to pry information out of recalcitrant detainees, proved to be a model of evasion himself as he resisted all attempts at inquiry by the Armed Services Committee. . .

“It was the most public case of memory loss since Alberto Gonzales, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, forgot everything he ever knew about anything. And, like Gonzales, Haynes (who, denied a federal judgeship by the Senate, left the Pentagon in February for a job with Chevron) had good reason to plead temporary senility.

“A committee investigation found that, contrary to his earlier testimony, Haynes had showed strong interest in potentially abusive questioning methods as early as July 2002. Later, ignoring the strong objections of the uniformed military, Haynes sent a memo to Donald Rumsfeld recommending the approval of stress positions, nudity, dogs and light deprivation. . . .

“Haynes mixed his forgetfulness with a dash of insolence. He suggested to [Claire] McCaskill [(D-Mo.)] that ‘it’s important that you understand how the Defense Department works.’ He cut off [Jack] Reed [(D-R.I.)] with a ‘Let me finish, Senator!’ and disclosed that he had been too busy to give more attention to the Geneva Conventions: ‘I mean, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of decisions made every day. This was one.'”

Mark Benjamin of Salon offers up a timeline based on the Senate investigation. He writes that “as more and more documents from inside the Bush government come to light, it is increasingly clear that the administration sought from early on to implement interrogation techniques whose basis was torture.

Phil Carter analyzes the new evidence on washingtonpost.com

Adam Zagorin writes for Time: “Despite years of investigation into alleged abuse and death of prisoners in U.S. custody since 9/11, the only Americans held accountable have been the low-ranking ‘bad apples’ convicted for the worst atrocities at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. No official blame has been assigned to higher-ups for abuses at Guantanamo or in Afghanistan, much less for crimes allegedly committed by U.S. personnel in various secret CIA prisons around the world.”

Tim Rutten writes in his Los Angeles Times opinion column: “Apart from understanding how and why the Bush/Cheney administration tricked the American people into going to war in Iraq, no question is more urgent than how the White House forced the adoption of torture as state policy of the United States.”

Rutten writes that, along with earlier revelations, “the current Senate investigation has established definitively that the drive to make torture an instrument of U.S. policy originated at the highest levels of the Bush administration — mainly in the circle that included Cheney, Rumsfeld and Addington. This group had come to Washington determined to implement its theory of ‘the unitary executive,’ which holds that presidential powers of all sorts have been dangerously diminished since the Vietnam War. The fact that these guys seem to have defined executive branch power as the ability to hold people in secret and torture them pushes the creepy quotient into areas that probably require psychoanalytic credentials.”

Rutten, however, has nothing but scorn for the “handful of European rights activists and people on the lacy left fringe of American politics” who are calling for criminal indictments or war-crime trials.

The White House Line

White House spokesman Tony Fratto repeated the official administration position yesterday: “I’m telling you that abuse of detainees has never been, is not, and will never be the policy of this government. The policy of this government has been to take these detainees and to interrogate them and get the information that we can get to help protect this country, which we have been very successful at doing, and we’ve been very successful at getting the information that has saved lives and prevented attacks on this country and on our allies. . . .

“[W]e do not abuse and we treat detainees humanely and comporting with the law.”

Iraq Watch

Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post: “U.S. and Iraqi officials negotiating long-term security agreements have reworded a proposed White House commitment to defend Iraq against foreign aggression in an effort to avoid submitting the deal for congressional approval, Iraq’s foreign minister said yesterday.

“The alternative under discussion will pledge U.S. forces to ‘help Iraqi security forces to defend themselves,’ rather than a U.S. promise to defend Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said. Although ‘it’s the other way around,’ he said, ‘the meaning is the same, almost.’

“Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed agreement, called the change ‘a distinction without a difference.’ Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers have questioned whether the accord will constitute a defense treaty requiring congressional ratification and have accused the Bush administration of withholding information on the talks. . . .

“In a document he signed last fall with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Bush pledged ‘security assurances and commitments . . . to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.’

“Under sharp questioning from U.S. lawmakers, the administration has insisted that the agreement will be ‘nonbinding’ and can be legally signed by Bush without congressional approval.”

About Those Bases

Kyle Crichton blogs for the New York Times: “In the debate over the future American military role in Iraq, the Bush administration has held firm on one point in particular: there will be no permanent American bases in Iraq. Just last week, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker denied a report in The Independent of London to the effect that the United States was building 50 ‘permanent’ bases.

“But what constitutes a permanent base? Almost anything, it turns out. . . .

“[E]ven though we may never have permanent bases in Iraq, we could very well have some venerable temporary facilities there before we finally depart. . . .

“[A] handful of big bases . . . are already there and looking quite permanent, from the KFC and Burger King outlets, to the car dealerships, to the 6,000- person mess halls.”

Curveball Redux

John Goetz and Bob Drogin write in the Los Angeles Times about catching up with Rafid Ahmed Alwan, the Iraqi informant code-named Curveball.

“[I]n his first public comments, the 41-year-old engineer from Baghdad complains that the CIA and other spy agencies are blaming him for their mistakes. . . .

“It was intelligence attributed to Alwan — as Curveball — that the White House used in making its case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He described what turned out to be fictional mobile germ factories. The CIA belatedly branded him a liar. . . .

“‘I never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, never in my whole life,’ he said. ‘I challenge anyone in the world to get a piece of paper from me, anything with my signature, that proves I said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.'”

FISA Watch

Manu Raju writes in The Hill: “Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they would not stand in the way of a compromise overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), despite their concerns with the impacts of the sprawling measure.

“Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, said some Democrats are ‘not happy with that, but there may be enough to get a majority vote.’ . . .

“Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) predicted Tuesday that there is enough support within the Democratic Conference to approve [the] contentious overhaul. . . .

“The latest development comes after Rockefeller, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and the Bush administration reached an accord late last week to break a weeks-long stalemate over balancing electronic surveillance with the right to privacy for American citizens, according to several people familiar with the talks.”

The New York Times editorial board writes: “In the waning months of his tenure, President Bush and his allies are once again trying to scare Congress into expanding the president’s powers to spy on Americans without a court order.

“This week, the White House and Democratic and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill hope to announce a ‘compromise’ on a domestic spying bill. If they do, it will be presented as an indispensable tool for protecting the nation’s security that still safeguards our civil liberties. The White House will paint opponents as weak-kneed liberals who do not understand and cannot stand up to the threat of terrorism.

“The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.”

Glenn Greenwald of Salon yesterday started raising money for broadcast ads targeting Hoyer and “other Congressional enablers” for their support of the ostensible compromise. Greenwald announced this morning that in the first 16 hours of the campaign, more than $70,000 came in.

Bush on Gas Prices

H. Josef Hebert writes for the Associated Press: “With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea. . . .

“With the presidential election just months away, Bush made a pointed attack on Democrats, accusing them of obstructing his energy proposals and blaming them for high gasoline costs. His proposal echoed a call by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to open the Continental Shelf for exploration. . . .

“Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee, rejected lifting the drilling moratorium that has been supported by a succession of presidents for nearly two decades.

“‘This is not something that’s going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular,’ said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a ‘cynical campaign ploy’ that won’t help lower energy prices.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: “Mr. Bush has long advocated opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling, and in 2006 signed into law a bill that expanded exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. But the topic of coastal drilling has been an extremely sensitive one in the Bush family; Mr. Bush’s father, the first President Bush, signed an executive order in 1990 banning coastal oil exploration, and Mr. Bush’s brother Jeb was an outspoken opponent of offshore drilling when he was governor of Florida.

“Now, though, President Bush is considering repealing his father’s order… [T]wo people outside the White House said such a move was under serious consideration, and a senior White House official did not dispute their account.”

Writes Stolberg: “With oil selling for more than $130 a barrel and no end in sight to high gasoline prices, Mr. Bush, a former oilman from Texas who came into office vowing to address an impending energy shortage, does not want to end his presidency in the midst of an energy crisis.”

Flood Watch

Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: “President Bush pledged housing help and other federal aid to victims of Midwest storms and said he would inspect flood damage in a trip to Iowa on Thursday.

“Briefed on Tuesday by officials involved in the relief effort, Bush also said he would work with Congress on emergency legislation to help replenish a federal emergency disaster fund.”

Safavian Watch

James V. Grimaldi and Del Quentin Wilber write in The Washington Post: “A federal appeals court yesterday ordered a new trial for a former White House aide convicted of obstructing justice and lying, a setback for prosecutors in their four-year-old investigation into the activities of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.”

Karl Rove Watch

Dan Friedman writes for CongressDaily: “House Judiciary Committee Democrats on Monday renewed their demand that former White House political adviser Karl Rove testify publicly on the politicization of the Justice Department but suggested they may accept a compromise in which Rove would be interviewed in private without taking an oath to tell the truth.

“The committee on May 22 subpoenaed Rove to testify at a July 10 hearing on the White House’s role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and his alleged involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama.

“Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said the White House has ordered Rove not to testify.

“But in a letter sent Monday to Luskin, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said Luskin recently suggested to the committee staff that Rove appear ‘without a transcript or oath,’ but without any limit on the committee’s right to seek sworn testimony later.

“Luskin’s proposal diverges from a White House offer to allow former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to appear for a similar interview on the condition the committee not seek future testimony from her, the letter said.

“‘This is an important step forward,’ Conyers and Sanchez said of Luskin’s proposal. ‘We are encouraged by this suggestion,’ they added. . . .

“Nonetheless, the letter by Conyers and Sanchez also called a request by Luskin that the interview covers only the Siegelman matter and not the U.S. attorney firings ‘unacceptable.'”

Peter Stone writes in National Journal: “To judge from his public persona, former White House senior adviser Karl Rove is devoting the lion’s share of his time to analyzing the presidential campaign as an on-air commentator for Fox News and in columns for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and other media outlets; restarting his political consulting firm; writing a book; and giving speeches nationwide.

“Rove has strongly suggested he has largely eschewed dispensing advice to the campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain or to outside political groups seeking to influence the November elections.

“But away from the spotlight, Rove has been busy pitching in by giving informal advice to McCain’s team and spending a considerable amount of time as an outside adviser to Freedom’s Watch, the conservative political group that is expected to spend tens of millions of dollars to help elect House GOP candidates. . . .

“One prominent GOP strategist says that Rove’s various behind-the-scenes efforts for McCain and Freedom’s Watch are aimed at bolstering the Bush administration’s sagging fortunes, helping Republicans in a tough election year, and protecting his own place in history. Rove, who was a key architect of George W. Bush’s presidential victories in 2000 and 2004, is ‘trying to vindicate the Bush administration by electing a Republican president,’ the GOP source said. ‘This is very personal for Karl.'”

Poll Watch

Harris Interactive reports: “The latest Harris Poll finds the nation in a foul political mood. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice all register their worst ratings ever. More people than ever also think the country is on the wrong track. . . .

“President Bush’s latest ratings are 24 percent positive and fully 75 percent negative. Previously, his worst numbers were 26 percent positive and 72 percent negative in April of this year. His ratings are substantially worse than those of any president, except for Jimmy Carter (22%-77% in July 1980), since Harris first started measuring them in 1963.

“Vice President Cheney’s ratings are even worse, 18 percent positive and 74 percent negative, compared to his previous low of 21 percent positive, 74 percent negative last July.”

Sweden passes ‘Big Brother bill’

2

sweden.jpgPress TV | Swedish lawmakers vote in favor of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored over ‘security issues’. Lawmakers voted late on Wednesday on one of the most divisive subjects in Sweden in recent years.

The bill was narrowly passed after a few revisions were made with 143 votes in favor, 138 opposed and one parliamentarian abstaining.

Critics of the bill have slammed the proposal as an attack on civil liberties that would create a “Big brother” state, while supporters say it is necessary to protect the country from foreign threats.

Meanwhile, the new law is due to take effect on January 1, 2009 and will allow the National Defense Radio Establishment (FRA) – a civilian agency despite its name – to tap all cross-border Internet and telephone communication, AFP reported.

However, even though the government has said that only cross-border communications would be monitored, all communications risk getting caught in the net since some internet servers are located abroad and FRA would need to check all emails to establish whether they have crossed the border.

At the moment, FRA is only allowed to check military radio communications but with the new law, they will be able to listen in to all cross-border telephone calls, as well as reading people’s emails and text messages.

The Defense Ministry has meanwhile defended the new law by insisting that the new legislation is necessary in today’s changed world, where communications are increasingly transmitted through fiber-optic cables.

Critics of the new law, including human rights activists, journalists, lawyers and even the former head of the Swedish intelligence agency Saepo, had prior to Wednesday’s revision argued that it didn’t go far enough in protecting individual rights.

However the government for its part insists that it has addressed all concerns by its last minute amendments of the law that adds more independent and parliamentary controls to FRA’s work.

SM/RE

Lorry drivers to stage M62 fuel protest

0

fuel-protest.jpgBy Jon Land | Police monitoring a proposed fuel protest by truckers on one of the UK’s busiest motorways said today their primary aim is to keep traffic flowing on the route. Organisers of the demonstration on the M62 in West Yorkshire have predicted up to 170 lorries will take part in the action against high fuel prices.

The hauliers plan the go-slow action from 2pm.

They are expected to start at junction 31, near Castleford, and head westwards to junction 26 south of Bradford.

The route will take the protest along a notoriously congested section of the motorway system, including the M1/M62 junction near Leeds.

One of the organisers, trucker Rob Sweeting, told BBC Radio Leeds: “Hopefully somebody will listen to us – the Government.”

A spokesman for West Yorkshire Police said: “West Yorkshire Police has been in discussion with the organisers of the protest and our partners in the Highways Agency and comprehensive plans are in place to minimise disruption, ensure public safety and deal effectively with any potential problems.

“We will continue to closely monitor the situation.

“Our primary aim is to ensure the continued free flow of traffic on the motorway while allowing lawful, peaceful protest to go ahead.

“Anyone found breaking the law will face prosecution.”

UK is world’s biggest arms dealer

5

ukarms.jpgABC | Britain was the world’s biggest arms seller last year, accounting for a third of global arms exports, the Government’s trade promotion organisation said.

UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) said British arms exporters had added $20.1 billion in new business last year, giving them a larger share of global arms exports than the United States.

“As demonstrated by this outstanding export performance, the UK has a first-class defence industry, with some of the world’s most technologically sophisticated companies,” Minister for Trade and Investment Digby Jones said.

UKTI said the British figures were boosted by orders for Eurofighter Typhoon jets from Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest arms buyer, which imported $32.8 billion in weapons over the last five years.

The United States still tops the world for the last five years with $66.7 billion in total arms exports.

Britain was second with $56.1 billion and Russia third with $35 billion, it said.

Doctors’ Report Finds Evidence of U.S. Torture and ‘War Crimes’

1

torture3.jpgAP | Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group.

For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examined 11 former prisoners. The group alleges finding evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes and accuses U.S. military health professionals of allowing the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators that they then exploited.

“Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred,” said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. “It’s a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was.”

One Iraqi prisoner, identified only as Yasser, reported being subjected to electric shocks three times and being sodomized with a stick. His thumbs bore round scars consistent with shocking, according to the report obtained by The Associated Press. He would not allow a full rectal exam.

Another Iraqi, identified only as Rahman, reported he was humiliated by being forced to wear women’s underwear, stripped naked and paraded in front of female guards, and was shown pictures of other naked detainees. The psychological exam found that Rahman suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had sexual problems related to his humiliation, the report said.

The report came as the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed documents showing military lawyers warned the Pentagon that methods it was using post-9/11 violated military, U.S. and international law. Those objections were overruled by the top Pentagon lawyer.

[McClatchy Newspapers has been publishing since Sunday a multi-part series exposing abuse and wrongful imprisonment of detainees.]

President Bush said in 2004, when the prison abuse was revealed, that it was the work of “a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values.” Bush and other U.S. officials have consistently denied that the U.S. tortures its detainees.

Physicians for Human Rights, an advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., that investigates abuse around the world and advocates for global health and human rights, did not identify the 11 former prisoners to protect their privacy. Seven were held in Abu Ghraib between late 2003 and summer of 2004, a period that coincides with the known abuse of prisoners at the hands of some of their American jailers. Four of the prisoners were held at Guantanamo beginning in 2002 for one to almost five years. All 11 were released without criminal charges.

Those examined alleged that they were tortured or abused, including sexually, and described being shocked with electrodes, beaten, shackled, stripped of their clothes, deprived of food and sleep, and spit and urinated on.

The abuse of some prisoners by their American captors is well documented by the government’s own reports. Once-secret documents show that the Pentagon and Justice Department allowed, at least for a time, forced nakedness, isolation, sleep deprivation and humiliation at both Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and at Abu Ghraib.

Because the medical examiners did not have access to the 11 patients’ medical histories prior to their imprisonment, it was not possible to know whether any of the prisoners’ ailments, disabilities and scars pre-dated their confinement. The U.S. military says an al-Qaida training manual instructs members, if captured, to assert they were tortured during interrogation.

However, doctors and mental health professionals stated they could link the prisoners’ claims of abuse while in U.S. detention to injuries documented by X-rays, medical exams and psychological tests.

“The level of the time, thoroughness and rigor of the exams left me personally without question about the credibility of the individuals,” said Dr. Allen Keller, one of the doctors who conducted the exams, in an interview with the AP. “The findings on the physical and psychological exams were consistent with what they reported.”

Most former detainees are out of reach of Western doctors because they are either in Iraq or have been returned to their home countries from Guantanamo.

World Governments Misleading and Failing Iraqi Refugees

2

iraq-flag2.jpgAmnesty International | The international community is evading its responsibility towards refugees from Iraq by promoting a false picture of the security situation in Iraq when the country is neither safe nor suitable for return, Amnesty International said today.

In its new report, Rhetoric and reality: the Iraqi refugee crisis, which is based on recent research and interviews with Iraqi refugees, the organization said that the world’s richest states are failing to provide the necessary assistance to Iraqi refugees, most of whom are plunged in despair and hurtling towards destitution.

“Governments have done little or nothing to help Iraqi refugees, failing in their moral, political and legal duty to share responsibility for them,” said Amnesty International. “Instead, apathy and rhetoric have been the overwhelming response to one of the worst refugee crises in the world.”

Amnesty International said that the Government of Iraq and states involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, in particular the USA and the UK, highlight “improved” security or “voluntary” returns to Iraq out of political expedience, to demonstrate that their military involvement has been a success.

“Rhetoric cannot hide the reality that the wider human rights situation in Iraq remains dire,” said Amnesty International.

“People are being killed every month by armed groups, the Multinational Force, Iraqi security forces and private military and security guards. Kidnappings, torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary detention pervade the daily lives of Iraqis. People continue to attempt to flee, something that is now very difficult with the recent imposition of visa restrictions on Iraqis by Jordan and Syria.”

According to the latest estimates of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the number of Iraqis who have fled their homes has now reached 4.7 million, the highest since the US-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent internal armed conflict.

While Syria and Jordan have shouldered most of the refugee influx, they have now resorted to drastic measures such as restricting entry and deporting people who may be at risk of persecution, partly due to the lack of support from the international community.

Having exhausted savings, many refugees are now living in complete destitution and facing new dangers, such as being forced into so-called “voluntary” return to Iraq and child labour — many families have been forced to send their children to work in the streets in a desperate bid to help them survive.

For some refugees, the difficulties they are facing in the host country are prompting them to make the difficult and dangerous decision to return to Iraq, either temporarily to collect a pension or food ration or for other such reasons, or more permanently because of their desperate situation, not because they feel they are no longer at risk of human rights abuses in Iraq.

They are making this decision as they feel they have no other option.

A 62-year-old retired Shi’a army officer, Majid, a widower with seven adult children all living in Baghdad, told Amnesty International in February that after attempting to find protection in Syria, with only the 50 lira (US$1) in his pocket, he had to return to Iraq. Even though he was extremely scared, he had lost hope, saying “If I die, I die.” Majid fled Iraq in February 2008 after two of his nephews, Mansour and Sami, aged 17 and 19, were beheaded by members of an armed group north of Baghdad. He exhausted his savings in Syria and was soon left with nothing. Weeping, he explained to Amnesty International that he had no alternative but to return to Iraq.

Many European countries are now attempting to deport Iraqis, sometimes to some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq such as the south and central regions. In addition to taking direct actions forcing Iraqis to return, they are using indirect methods such as cutting off basic assistance and services to rejected asylum-seekers in order to force them to “voluntarily” return to Iraq.

Sweden, which is host to the largest number of Iraqi refugees in Europe and once a positive example to its neighbours, has now changed its approach and is denying the vast majority of Iraqis protection and forcibly returning some to very dangerous areas.

Amnesty International is greatly concerned that the failure to respond to this crisis will worsen an already dire situation. Amongst other things, it is calling on the international community to:
– urgently and substantially raise sustainable financial assistance;
– end practices such as forcible returns that put lives at further risk;
– cease practices that result in coerced “voluntary” returns;
– allow individuals to seek paid employment; and
– extensively increase resettlement places for the most vulnerable refugees to start a new life in a third country.

Amnesty International is also calling on the governments of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, as well as those of other countries in the region, to allow unrestricted access to people fleeing Iraq, cease all deportations to Iraq, and grant refugees access to the labour market.

“The international community must make a true commitment to assist Iraq’s displaced people by substantially boosting sustainable financial assistance, ending forcible returns, stopping practices that result in coerced voluntary returns and offering increased numbers of resettlement places,” said Amnesty International.

Bush’s “ownership society” hits the canvas

bush-ftonline1.jpgBy Mike Whitney | The economy is in tatters. Consumer confidence has plummeted, food and energy prices are soaring, and the housing market is experiencing its biggest crash since the Great Depression. Manufacturing is down, unemployment is up, gasoline is topping $4 per gallon, and tent cities are sprouting up throughout the Southwest. If there’s a silver lining to this mess; it’s not visible from planet earth.

The trillion dollar mortgage-backed securities (MBS) market is barely limping along. Investors are brushing off the higher yields and staying on the sidelines. How bad is it? In the first five months of the year, sales of mortgages repackaged into bonds are down a whopping 89 per cent. The wholesale market is dead. The same is true of commercial paper (CP) which has declined $452 billion in the last 44 weeks alone. There’s no appetite for structured investments of any kind; it’s a broken model. More worrisome, the Fed’s low interest rates have failed to restart the economy or stabilize declining home prices. (Long term interest rates are actually going higher!) While oil and food continue to rise, housing prices have tumbled more than they did during the 1930s. And, even though housing inventory is bulging, it is more difficult than ever to get financing. Bigger down payments are required as well as stricter documentation of earnings. Underwriting standards have tightened overnight.
The days of no down, “no doc”, no collateral mortgages are over.

Last week, Fed chief Ben Bernanke made light of the nation’s economic woes saying:

“Despite the unwelcome rise in the unemployment rate that was reported last week, the recent incoming data, taken as a whole, have affected the outlook for economic activity and employment only modestly. Indeed, although activity during the current quarter is likely to be weak, the risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so…The Federal Open Market Committee will strongly resist an erosion of longer-term inflation expectations.”

“The risks to the economy have diminished over the past month”?

Not bloody likely, Ben.

Bernanke’s remarks were part of a broader public relations campaign to strengthen the dollar by “jawboning”. The objective is to scare-off the speculators from the futures market and (hopefully) bring down the prices of oil and grains. His comments were followed by equally supportive “strong dollar” statements by Bush, Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser and Henry Paulson. Paulson went so far as to say that “intervention was still on the table”.

But why would the Fed threaten to intervene and distort the currency markets rather than simply raise interest rates and send the speculators running for the exits?

Bernanke is bluffing; he has no plan to raise interest rates. It’s all for show. Besides, the Fed doesn’t care about the pain its policies cause to working people; Bernanke even said so in his speech. He discounted the increases in food and oil as insignificant (they are not part of the core inflation) The Fed focuses on the “wage-price spiral”. In other words, the only time the Fed calculates inflation is when working people get a raise to keep up with the soaring cost of living. The consumer price index (CPI) is the most class-based of all the governments figures.

In real terms, inflation is off the charts; anyone whose been to a gas station or the grocery store lately knows that. The Fed responsible for keeping interest rates too low to try to keep the investment banks afloat and the stock market awash in cheap capital. Last week, Sun Zhenyu, China’s ambassador to the World Trade Organization said what most people have already figured out for themselves: “The dollar’s depreciation has further added fuel to the rapid increases of crude oil and food prices and hurt the exports of developing countries.”

Dollar weakness is at the center of the economic malaise that is generating political instability around the world. Spanish truckers are blocking highways outside Madrid and other parts of the country protesting the spike in gas prices. In Malaysia, at least 2,000 protesters marched through Kuala Lumpur to protest this month’s 41% surge in fuel prices. In Haiti, food riots have broken out over rising price of rice. Countries throughout Southeast Asia have banned rice exports and have begun hoarding for anticipated future shortages. Corn, soybeans and wheat futures are at record highs while many basic crops are threatened with blight, floods and weather-related disasters. “Global inventories are at a 24 year low” according to the US Dept of Agriculture while food aid volumes sunk to their lowest levels in 50 years”. (Financial Times) “The World Bank says now that grain, rice and other staples have become so expensive that 100 million people are on the verge of going hunger, joining the 850 million people who already were malnourished.” (Globe and Mail)

It all started at the Federal Reserve with their whacky macroeconomic gymnastics. Now the global financial system is stuck with the task of wringing out the excess credit created by Greenspan’s low interest policy.

A.K. Gupta explains the erratic behavior of the commodities in his article in Z magazine “Market Madness: How Speculators are Manipulating and Profiting from the Global food crisis”:

“One striking aspect of the rising commodity prices is that when charted, they look similar to the Internet stock mania a decade ago or the charts of soaring (and plunging) home prices of late. This is no mere coincidence. One of the main factors in accelerating commodity and food costs is financial speculation. The same Wall Street banks and hedge funds that gave us the stock bubble and the housing bubble are reportedly throwing billions of dollars at the commodity markets, betting they can make a fast buck. One analyst interviewed by the Wall Street Journal estimates that “investors have poured roughly $175 billion to $200 billion into commodity-linked index funds since 2001.” The Journal explained, “As with energy markets a few years ago, pension funds and hedge funds have flocked to grain investments as the supply of farm acreage and crop output shrinks relative to the growing global population and new demands for crops for biofuels and food. Many such investors make predominantly bullish bets,” that is, expecting the price to rise.

The daily fluctuations on commodity exchanges are at times greater than used to occur in an entire year. On February 25 alone, at the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, one type of wheat jumped 29 percent. On a single day in March, “the price of cotton jumped 15 percent despite reports showing cotton supplies were at near record highs,” according to the Toronto Globe and Mail. During the CFTC hearings, commodity producers laid the blame for soaring prices at the speculators’ door. A representative of the National Grain and Feed Association testified, “Sixty percent of the current [wheat] market is owned by an index fund. Clearly that’s having an impact on the market,” while a cotton producer stated, “The market is broken, it’s out of whack.” (A.K. Gupta “Market Madness: How Speculators are Manipulating and Profiting from the Global food crisis”, Z Magazine)

Oil and commodities prices won’t normalize until the Fed stops flushing cheap money into the financial system. As long as Bernanke fixes interest rates below the rate of inflation, investors will continue to trade their paper assets (US dollars) for raw materials that promise to maintain their value. Its as simple as that. Bernanke has fooled the bond market into believing that he will raise rates at the Fed’s August meeting, but others are not so easily convinced.

Tom Petruno of the LA Times believes that Bernanke is just “saber-rattling” and that surging unemployment (5.5%) and a crashing real estate market will keep the Fed from following up its threats of credit tightening. Petruno is right; Bernanke is just blowing smoke. There’s no chance of a rate hike unless the world’s central banks decide they’ve had enough of the Fed’s misguided approach to monetary policy and trigger a global run on the dollar. But we’re not quite there yet. So the dollar is likely to strengthen temporarily from the Fed’s “tough talk” until investors realize that its all hot air. The Fed has no intention of raising rates and driving a stake through the heart of the banking system. That will NOT happen.

The Fed is currently in panic-mode because it doesn’t have the tools or resources to fix the problems its facing. Its already eaten through more than half of its $900 billion balance sheet and has traded away hundreds of billions in US Treasuries for worthless MBS and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which are steadily losing value every month. The Fed is trying to revive the moribund banking system which has lost its main sources of revenue (structured financial investments) and is teetering on the brink of insolvency from its steadily wilting assets, a collapse in commercial and residential real estate, and a rise in corporate defaults. Bernanke has the banks on life support by stealthily providing liquidity via rotating loans (repos), but the banks have been forced to sluice the money into other “less conventional” areas of investment in search of revenue. According to Bloomberg News: “Trading in derivatives, led by short-term interest-rate futures, climbed 30% to a record $692 trillion in the first quarter… the Bank for International Settlements said. The value of short-term interest-rate futures traded on exchanges rose to $548 trillion…” The larger question is whether the investment banks—faced with a frozen bond market and ravaged balance sheets—are diverting the money they’re getting from the Fed into commodities (via the hedge funds) driving the prices upward and triggering political turmoil around the world?

The Fed knows, but they’re not saying.

Over the weekend, the G-8 ministers called on national authorities to examine the commodity futures markets and take “appropriate measures as needed.”…There are serious concerns among some G-8 members such as France, Germany and Italy that speculators have been a key driving force behind recent record-high oil prices of nearly $140 a barrel on the futures market.” According to Bloomberg News:

“Goldman [Sachs] and Morgan Stanley are expected by analysts to report the best second-quarter earnings of the world’s biggest securities firms this week, having limited their losses from the collapsing credit market….They also lead Wall Street in commodities trading, where crude oil futures doubled in the past year and the price of products from gold to corn soared to record highs.”

Ah ha! So the investment giants ARE playing the commodities market. Could we be in the early phase of another Dot.com bubble?

In one year, oil has jumped from $65 per barrel to $135 per barrel at Friday’s close. At the same time mortgage equity withdrawals (MEW) have declined from their peak of $576 billion in the second quarter of 2006 to $114 billion in the first quarter of 2008. That is $462 billion less that will be spent at the malls and home improvement stores; another blow to the flagging consumer-driven economy. (Keep in mind that the loss in MEWs far exceeds Bush’s “stimulus package” by a margin of 3 to 1) As consumers continue to wither from the loss of home equity, stagnant wages and unsustainable credit card debt; the economy is bound to contract dramatically leaving Bernanke with no other option than to lower rates to 1 per cent or less.

That’s right; interest rates are going down not up. Goldman Sachs has arrived at the same conclusion saying in a recent statement:

“We still believe that tightening is both inappropriate and unlikely anytime soon. It is inappropriate because: (1) the economy is fundamentally weak, with tax rebates driving the surge in retail sales; (2) financial markets remain fragile; and (3) worries about inflation are overdone … ” (Calculated Risk)

So, in the short-term, Bernanke is hoping he can rattle the commodities speculators and bring down oil prices by jawboning. But what he is really focussed on is the deflationary hurricane that is about to touch down and ravage the economy. Good luck.

Economist, Nouriel Roubini, also believes that the Fed will keep rates at 2 per cent adding:

“More persistent factors will bear negatively on consumption over the summer and especially the fall: the fall in home prices and the collapse of home equity withdrawal (with their wealth effect on spending); the stressed balance sheets and high debt ratios of the household sector (such debt is up to almost 140% of disposable income); the credit crunch in mortgage markets that is now spreading to unsecured consumer credit (credit cards, student loans, auto loans); the rise in debt servicing ratios (following the reset of mortgage rates, and higher interest rates on mortgages and consumer credit); the sharp rise in gasoline and energy prices that is a serious shock to real incomes; the further erosion of real wages through the rise in the inflation rate; the sharp fall in consumer confidence; the drop in employment (now five months in a row) and thus in income generation; the negative wealth effect of the correction in equity markets and the fall in the net worth of the household sector. All these factors will have — over time — a much more significant negative effect on consumption than the temporary boost given by the tax rebates.”

As housing continues to search for a bottom and foreclosures rise, the corporate bond market will struggle and corporate defaults will increase. This will send shockwaves through the bond market and put the derivatives dominoes in motion. New York Fed chief timothy Geithner huddled with industry leaders last week to make contingency plans for an expected breakdown in the $62 trillion credit default swaps(CDS). The meeting called together 17 senior executives and dealers “to discuss ways to quickly address weaknesses in the infrastructure of the derivatives market” and (hopefully) avoid an system-wide meltdown in over the counter swaps. There is growing probability of major crisis emerging from the “unregulated” shadow banking system, where over $500 trillion of counterparty contracts are traded beyond any government supervision. As business defaults increase and derivatives bets unwind, a doomsday scenario affecting the global economy becomes more and more likely.

The present storm in the financial markets is the result of loose monetary policies which increased the amount of credit in the system. For a while, the explosion in credit was mistaken for genuine wealth creation in the form of higher home prices and the high-flying stock market. In fact, rising real estate prices were just confirmation of “uneven” asset inflation. Now that the bubble has burst, trillions of dollars are sloshing about the system looking for a new home and driving up commodities in the process. The Fed’s job is to mop up the excess credit so the markets can rebalance and start anew. Everything Bernanke is doing is designed to inflate another speculative equity bubble. Its a good example of how the Fed works at cross-purposes with the people it is supposed to serve.

Commodities prices (including oil) are particularly hard to control because Congress abandoned its responsibility to regulate the futures markets during the Clinton Administration. Congress passed what is known as the Enron Loophole which allows speculators to game the market beyond the reach of the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) Futures trading is now the purview of high-stakes gamblers who are now sending prices into the stratosphere. As William Engdahl notes in his article “The Real Reason behind High oil Prices” (Global Research):

“A conservative calculation is that at least 60% of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today’s price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.”

Supply and demand don’t explain the sudden doubling and sometimes tripling of grain and oil prices on the futures market. The flagging dollar and lack of oversight have unleashed speculative forces which are out of control leading to food riots, massive protests and starvation. The market cannot self-correct as long as interest rates on the world’s reserve currency are kept artificially low. The global financial crisis radiates from Washington, which is where the solution lies.

But the real problem goes beyond Wall Street’s exotic debt-instruments or the Federal Reserves low interest funny-money. Overcapacity is the result of slacking demand which naturally arises when workers wages stagnate as they have for the last 30 years. When that happens, the only way the economy can grow is by easing lending standards and expanding credit. That’s why Greenspan and his fellows were so enthusiastic about all the complex derivatives and shaky subprime mortgages; it all fit with their class-based view that wages must remain low (to fight inflation) while debt is expanded ad infinitum. This is the blueprint for the New Economy that Maestro touted. While banks were keeping less than $1 dollar in capital for every $10 they lent to mortgage applicants; the investment banks and hedge funds were amplifying that debt many times over by taking those dodgy mortgages and borrowing 20 to 30 times the value of the underlying asset to maximize their profits. Then trillions of dollars in credit default swaps were used as a way to hedge against possible default on the over-inflated bonds. Voila; the biggest equity bubble in history created by some of the smartest guys on Wall Street.

Now the underlying collateral (housing) is quickly deteriorating causing a system-wide deleveraging and a flight to safety (US Treasuries, foreign bonds). The dollar is in free fall, credit is tightening, and the banks are only able to stay open due to the generosity of the Federal Reserve.

According to economist and author Henry Liu, the same thing happened just prior to the Great Depression:

“The problem in 1929 was, as it is in 2008, that asset prices buoyant by speculation had outstripped the purchasing power of stagnant income of consumers. Assets and commodities in the economy were valued at price levels that aggregate wage income could not sustain. The solution was not to inject more useless liquidity to sustain inoperative price levels, which will only make the problem worse, but to INTRODUCE DEMAND MANAGEMENT THROUGH FULL EMPLOYMENT AND LET WAGES QUICKLY RISE BACK UP TO THE LEVEL OF WAGE-PRICE EQUILIBRIUM. This was the policy objective of Roosevelt’s New Deal Program, an objective not yet recognized by policymakers in 2008 even amid a revival of populist rhetoric.

Are you listening, Barak Obama?!?

There is no way to escape the day of reckoning now facing the financial system; the hundreds of bank failures, the corporate defaults, the meltdown in real estate, the massive loss of jobs, the dreary contraction of credit, the tumbling stock market, and the blow to our national confidence. But there is a way to rebuild, to reassert control over our own currency; to “even the playing field” and recommit to a strong middle class; to smash the system that diverts the greatest portion of the nation’s wealth to a handful of unelected oligarchs whose main objectives are to expand their own personal power and subvert the democratic process. The existing system cannot meet the challenges of the new century. It’s gotta go.

PBS journalist Bill Moyers summed it up like this at a recent Media conference in Chicago:

“Capitalism breeds great inequality that is destructive, unless tempered by an intuition for equality, which is the heart of democracy. When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people who have neither power nor privilege, you can no longer claim to have a representative government.”

You tell ’em, Bill.

How powerful is the mass media?

massmedia.jpgSocialist Worker | Our rulers can’t fool all of the people all of the time, argues Sadie Robinson. The idea that the mass media controls our ideas is a very common one. According to this theory, the media acts as a kind of syringe that injects propaganda directly into our minds.

People are seen as sheep that follow the media more or less unthinkingly. The conclusion is that we are powerless in the face of mass propaganda that brainwashes us into compliance.

This view of the media does not just exist at the margins of society. It’s also a dominant idea within mainstream politics. Leading figures in all the main political parties see winning over the mass media as the key to winning elections — rather than having decent policies that ordinary people could support.

The notion that the media is all-powerful is also used to write off any sense that people can fight back against the system, or that they can be won away from racist or sexist ideas.

All this raises two questions. Who actually controls the mass media? And how much impact does it really have on the ideas people hold?

Under capitalism the mass media is owned by a handful of rich and powerful people that form part of the “ruling class” — the tiny number of people at the top of society who own the factories, offices and other workplaces.

Rupert Murdoch, for instance, owns over 175 print publications across the world, including the Sun, the Times and the News of the World here in Britain.

Status quo

The ruling class has a clear interest in promoting ideas that justify the status quo and endorse the global system that it benefits from. That is why there are so many clear instances of the mass media pushing propaganda on behalf of the bosses.

In 2002 and 2003, when Britain and the US were preparing to wage war on Iraq, the Sun newspaper gave pages over to detailing how Saddam Hussein’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” could hit British troops in Cyprus within 45 minutes of being fired.

It either ignored or attacked anti-war activists and provided “support our boys” posters for readers to display in their windows.

But media bias towards the ruling class can also be seen in less extreme times. After the National Union of Teachers (NUT) conference earlier this year sections of the media ran hysterical articles condemning the teachers’ decision to strike over pay and conditions.

The Daily Telegraph declared that it was “time to crush the NUT like the miners” — referring to the Miners’ Strike of 1984-85.

This bias goes wider than simply attacking strikers or building support for war. The mass media operates within an ideological framework that accepts and promotes the dominant ideas in society — such as the idea that capitalism is the only way to organise society.

The bias does not exist only in the openly right wing media, but also in media outlets that pride themselves on being “neutral” or “liberal”.

The Guardian newspaper recently ran a week-long series of articles on the global food crisis. This was presented as in-depth, serious analysis. Yet it reiterated some of the worst myths about the food crisis, myths that would rather blame the Chinese for eating too much meat than suggest there might be something wrong with the free market.

The revolutionaries Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote in the 19th century that “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas”. But this doesn’t arise out of some kind of shady conspiracy within the ruling class.

It’s true that owners sometimes intervene directly in the running of their media franchises. Murdoch is well known for regularly intervening in the editorial decisions of the Sun newspaper.

In May this year Murdoch was asked if he had anything to do with the New York Post’s support for Barack Obama in the US Democratic presidential run off. He answered simply, “Yes.”

Assumptions

But for the most part owners rely on well-paid senior managers and editors who are closely tied to the capitalist class and so share their assumptions and ideas about the world.

If the mass media is owned by an elite that tries to use it to back up their system, how do we explain political differences in the message put out by different media outlets? The point here is that the ruling class is not a homogenous group. There are divisions within it — and the media reflects these.

The Daily Mirror’s stance in the run up to the Iraq war is a good example of this. It took an anti-war position in the context of divisions among the ruling class and an unprecedented mass movement against the war. So it reflected the fact that the ruling class was divided — but it also knew that there was an audience for an anti-war newspaper.

The profit motive can sometimes pull the mass media in different directions and make it appear that it is posing a challenge to the dominant ideology.

For instance, the Daily Mail has recently run several front pages on the rising cost of living in Britain. These rising costs are real. But the Daily Mail’s explanation for them is one that diverts people’s anger away from the bosses and towards immigrants.

Although the ruling class owns the mass media, it does not always completely control it.

The media needs workers to get produced in the first place. And media workers can and have refused to produce some of the worst excesses of racism and anti-union propaganda.

In 2006, workers at the Daily Star prevented the printing of an anti-Muslim page titled, “How Britain’s fave newspaper would look under Muslim rule.” Planned features included “Burqa Babes” and a “censored” editorial.

Workers in the National Union of Journalists called an emergency meeting and forced the Daily Star management to pull the page.

Similarly, during the Miners’ Strike printers at the Sun refused to print a front page of miners’ leader Arthur Scargill that made him look as if he was giving a Nazi salute.

How much notice do people really take of the mass media? It is certainly important as a major source of information and news for many people.

So it isn’t true to suggest that the media has no influence on people’s ideas. But the way our ideas are shaped by the media is much more complex than the simplistic “syringe” theory.

Our consciousness is shaped by our experiences of the world. Marx and Engels argued, “Consciousness does not determine life, but life consciousness.” People’s ideas are shaped by the material reality of their lives.

The majority of people that the mass media is sold and marketed to are working class. There is a huge gulf between the reality of their lives and the dominant ideology of capitalism. That gap can open up a space for that ideology to be questioned, challenged or rejected.

In the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, 96 people were killed after police allowed too many Liverpool football fans into overcrowded terraces.

The Sun newspaper ran a front page condemning the fans, claiming that they were drunken hooligans who stole from the dead. In fact the fans were key to helping the injured.

The scandal of the Sun’s coverage led to a boycott of the paper by newsagents across Liverpool. Sales plummeted and have never recovered. In 2004, the average circulation for the Sun in Liverpool was 12,000 copies a day — 200,000 less than before it printed the Hillsborough story.

Yet the dominant ideology remains and is promoted not just by the media, but by all of the major institutions in our society — including the education system and the legal system.

This leads to a situation where people hold contradictory ideas. People can have anti-immigrant opinions, but also support anti-deportation campaigns that involve someone they know personally.

Although people may reject obvious propaganda in the media, over time it can have an impact in generating racist or sexist assumptions. The mass media can reinforce backward ideas and it’s important that we challenge this.

But the mass media is not the fundamental reason why bigotry persists. Racism and sexism exist because of the kind of society that we live in.

Ideology

They form part of the dominant ideology of our society because the ruling class uses such ideas to divide and weaken the working class — and thereby preserve ruling class power.

Faced with ruling class bias in the mass media, many people turn to “alternative” sources of media. This is a positive development. Anti-war websites or other alternative media outlets can give people the facts and figures to argue their case with others. They can increase their understanding of the world and their confidence to fight back.

Revolutionaries have always seen producing socialist newspapers such as Socialist Worker as important.

But we recognise that these papers should do more than challenge the ideology of the ruling class — they should act as a tool for organising the struggle against the system.

The Russian revolutionary Lenin described the revolutionary paper as the “scaffolding” around which a revolutionary organisation is built. The scaffolding is clearly important. But it is there for a reason — to build up networks and organisation of people on the ground who can take on the system.

Research has found that the mass media has the biggest impact on those with no political affiliation. The mass media is most powerful when people are politically passive. Building resistance to capitalism can lead millions to question dominant ideas — and can see the power of that mass media melt away.

Zimbabwe Government Blocks Aid for Six Million In Need

0

zimbabwe.jpgBy Ephraim Nsingo | Sixty-six year old Gogo Lethiwe Ncube gazes at a distant truck cruising towards the Avoca Shopping Centre in Insiza, Matabeleland South Province and starts smiling.

“Why does that vehicle not appear to have a long aerial on it?” she asks, shading her eyes to get a better look at the speeding Toyota. On realising that the truck truly does not have a long radio antenna, the smile on Gogo Ncube’s face suddenly disappears.

The antennas are meant to keep aid workers in touch with their colleagues, but for Gogo Ncube and other residents of rural Matabeleland South, they have another function: they announce that relief supplies have arrived — they are found only on food aid trucks.

One of the people at the shopping centre informs Gogo Ncube that she’s unlikely to see the cars with long aerials in the village before the elections scheduled for the end of June, on the orders of the government.

After several minutes of silence and pondering, she finally opens up and says: “It has been over a month now since we last had supplies from World Vision. They should be arriving any time from now. If they do not come, then I will die. Who will give me food? How will I feed my three grand children? What will I give to the sick girl?”

The list of her worries seems endless. Gogo Ncube lives with her three grandchildren — Themba (9), Mandla (7) and Bongiwe (4). The three youngsters were orphaned three years ago when their parents died of AIDS-related sickness within a month of each other. The youngest of the three, Bongiwe, is also sick from what Gogo Ncube says “is the same as what took my son and his wife.”

Gogo Ncube is one of many villagers in Matabeleland South — a drought-stricken province in the southern part of Zimbabwe — who have been left helpless by the government’s suspension of non-governmental organisations that carry out field operations in rural areas. Most people in this semi-arid region have for the last few years survived only thanks to food aid from agencies like the World Food Programme, Care International, and World Vision. Every month, each household receives 50 kilogrammes of maize, 25 kg of barley, 2 litres of cooking oil, 5 kg of beans and 500 g of salt.

Most able-bodied people of working age have left the Avoca village to try their fortunes panning gold in the Insiza and Umzingwane Rivers, about 25 and 40 kilometres to the west of the village respectively. Others have crossed into South Africa in search of work. Those left behind explain how they have managed to survive on relief food from international humanitarian organisations for the past five years.

Last year, the World Food Programme (WFP) said that more than four million Zimbabweans relied on food aid, and following the failure of the last growing season the number is likely to increase. Zimbabwean civil society organisations, among them Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe (ROHR Zimbabwe) — a human rights organisation established in 2006 and involved mostly in humanitarian work — say more than six million Zimbabweans are currently in need of food following the failure of crops in the last farming season.

But in a circular to non-governmental organisations dated June 4, Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Minister Nicholas Goche said “a number of NGOs involved in humanitarian operations are breaching the terms and conditions of their registration”.

“As the regulatory authority, before proceeding with the provision of Section (10) sub-Section (c) of the Private Voluntary Organisations Act (Chapter 17:05), I hereby instruct all PVOs/ NGOs to suspend all field operations until further notice.”

Goche was later quoted in the state-run Herald newspaper saying NGOs were using food aid to meddle in Zimbabwe’s politics, and that some of them were campaigning for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai who faces the incumbent Robert Mugabe on June 27 in a run-off presidential election.

The National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (NANGO), which represents both local and international NGOs operating in Zimbabwe, denies the government’s claims.

“Different organisations have codes of conduct. This code of conduct bars an organisation or anyone acting on its behalf to engage in political activities,” said NANGO spokesperson, Fambai Ngirande.

“This will leave thousands of people without any source of food, thereby condemning them to starvation. This is a contravention of the PVO Act that protects the rights of the NGOs. The country at the moment does not have the capacity to feed its population. What is sad is that the ban will affect the most innocent of the country’s citizens.”

But in an interview with IPS, Goche appeared relentless about the ban. “Some of these organisations were capitalising on the plight of our people to campaign for the opposition. It is not true that there is starvation in the rural areas. In fact, the situation has now improved as the government is now handling all food distribution through our local government structures,” said Goche.

Food aid is now being distributed by traditional chiefs and headmen, who are viewed by the opposition and civil society organisations as being mostly supporters of the governing Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF).

MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa said his party had irrefutable evidence that ZANU-PF was now distributing food only to its supporters. “This is yet another desperate attempt by ZANU PF to reverse the people’s will as expressed on March 29. War veterans and ZANU PF militias have virtually taken over food distribution in rural areas, and our supporters are being forced to first denounce the MDC before they can get aid,” said Chamisa.

The ban could also render hundreds of Zimbabweans jobless. A week after the ban, a Care International official said they had recalled more than 300 of the organisation’s field workers in Chivi, Mberengwa, Shurugwi, Gutu, Zaka, and Bikita.

ROHR Zimbabwe deputy President Stendrick Zvorwadza said the ban on humanitarian aid organisations was unlawful and an attempt by the government to shut out dissenting voices.

“Humanitarian organisations are being closed at a time when people in Zimbabwe need humanitarian aid more than ever. More than 6 million Zimbabweans are in need of food aid; thousands have been internally displaced by ZANU PF violence and homes have been burnt therefore effectively terminating their hopes of livelihood. People living with HIV/AIDS were depending on NGOs for access to anti-retroviral drugs which are not easily available in Government hospitals and clinics,” said Zvorwadza.

US spy base to be built in Western Australia

2

wa.jpgBY PHILIP DORLING | Australian defence support for United States military operations in the Middle East will be boosted by construction of a new top-secret US military communications base in Western Australia. Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon revealed yesterday that work would begin in July or August this year on a satellite ground station for the United States Mobile Users Objective System, a new satellite communications system being deployed by the US Navy.The new US defence facility will be located with the existing Australian satellite signals intelligence facility at Geraldton, Western Australia. The base will be linked to a network of communications satellites that will provide front-line US military units with instant access to high-grade intelligence and tactical information.

Once operational, the new facility will automatically provide communications support for US military operations in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

Indeed, it will also automatically provide communications support for US military operations in much of the Asia-Pacific region.

The Defence Department announced late last year that it had finalised an agreement with the US Navy for the new satellite communications centre.

Mr Fitzgibbon’s confirmation that construction will proceed comes shortly after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s withdrawal of the bulk of Australian combat troops from Iraq.

The new Geraldton facility will be the first major US defence base to be established in Australia since the construction in the 1960s of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory and the now closed early-warning satellite ground station at Nurrungar in South Australia.

In answering a question on notice by Labor backbencher Daryl Melham, Mr Fitzgibbon also revealed the US Navy had contracted Boeing Australia to provide construction services for the new Geraldton base. Boeing Australia already provides operational support for the existing facility at Geraldton, another Australian signals intelligence facility at Shoal Bay near Darwin, the Australian Navy’s communication station at North West Cape near Exmouth, and the Defence Communications Network facility at Deakin, ACT.

About 70 Australian contractors are working on the design of the new Geraldton building and up to 20 United States staff and 100 Australian contractors will be involved in the construction phase.

The ground station will comprise three buildings housing sophisticated electronic infrastructure, three 18m satellite dishes and two smaller antennas.

Once complete, the base will be fully automated and will require only call-out maintenance support. All costs will be carried by the US.

Informal discussions on the possible location of the facility in Australia began in 2003.

The Defence Department and the US Navy signed a classified memorandum of understanding setting out the governing arrangements for the station in November last year.

The conclusion of a secret memorandum of understanding rather than a formal treaty means the agreement has not been reviewed by Federal Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Mr Fitzgibbon has said the ground station will be operational by 2011.

Pentagon: Shooting of Reuters journalist in Iraq justified

waleed-khaled.jpgBy LOLITA C. BALDOR | The 2005 shooting death of a Reuters journalist in the midst of a firefight in Baghdad was justified because U.S. soldiers believed the camera protruding from an unmarked car was a rocket propelled grenade, the Pentagon’s internal watchdog has concluded.

In an 82-page report, the Defense Department’s inspector general also said that Reuters safety practices contributed to the death of sound technician Waleed Khaled, and the wounding of cameraman Haider Kadhem.

While the report was critical of how the initial investigation was conducted – saying the military unit’s investigating officer did not follow correct procedures – it nevertheless concluded that a “preponderance of evidence establishes that the cameraman and driver took actions during the incident that reasonably led U.S. soldiers to believe they were confronting hostile intent.”

Reuters Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger said he believes the inspector general took the case seriously and came up with positive recommendations.

“We are never satisfied when a journalist is killed in the course of covering a story,” he said. “I welcome the recommendation that the military and media engage together to better ensure the safety of journalists on the front line.”

He said Reuters will examine its safety procedures, and noted, “Better training for journalists and for the military, clear rules of engagement and a closer dialogue are essential in order to prevent further tragedies occurring.”

According to the report, U.S. soldiers responding to an ambush on Iraqi police, saw the car with the Reuters journalists inside, and mistook Kadhem’s handheld camcorder and microphone for a weapon. The soldiers fired warning shots at the car.

Following Reuters’ safety procedures, the crew put the car in reverse and began to back away – an action the military is trained to interpret as an insurgent’s combat tactics.

The soldiers fired shots to disable the car, killing and wounding the journalists. A contributing factor, the inspector general said, was the Reuters policy that allows journalists to work without wearing protective equipment, and in unmarked cars.

“We understand Reuters’ concern for employee safety, and their employees’ desire to reduce their visibility or profile in violent environments,” the report said, “but the actions of the Reuters journalists reduced the soldiers’ ability to distinguish them from combatants during a battle.”

According to the report, the military unit’s investigating officer did not follow correct procedures – the officer didn’t interview all personnel at the scene, did not get written statements from the shooting team members, and did not fully investigate the scene.

Later, the video of the incident, which was taped by Kadhem, was accidentally lost when the investigating officer mistakenly took it home to Louisiana with him. It was mailed back to Iraq, but never arrived there.

The report recommended that corrective action be taken against the investigating officer for failing to preserve evidence, and that officers receive additional training on how to conduct investigations. It also recommended that the U.S. military in Iraq review procedures with the media so they can safely respond in such encounters.

V.A. Using Iraq Vets as Guinea Pigs in Drug Tests

1

vets.jpgBy Greg Mitchell | As if the “soldier suicide” problem wasn’t bad enough already, word has just emerged from ABC News and The Washington Times that our government is testing drugs with severe side effects, including promoting suicidal behavior, on hundreds of vets.

In one case, the V.A. took three months to alert the veterans to the severe mental effects caused by one of the drugs, the controversial Chantix, used to halt smoking.

They are even using cash payments to attract patients into medical experiments “that often target distressed soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan,” the newspaper puts it today.

The Chantix warning did not come “until after one of the veterans taking the drug had suffered a psychotic episode that ended in a near lethal confrontation with police,” the Washington Times reports.

ABC aired an interview today with that man, James Elliott, an Army sharpshooter who suffers from PTSD after serving 15 months in Iraq.

“You’re a lab rat for $30 a month,” Elliott said.

Sen. Barack Obama has already offered a protest: “It is outrageous and unacceptable that our government would irresponsibly endanger veterans who have already sacrificed so much for our country. Our veterans – particularly those suffering from mental health injuries – should have the very best health care and support in the world, they should never be needlessly exposed to drugs without proper notification of the dangers involved or effective monitoring of the side effects. I will immediately be asking for a full and thorough investigation of how our government could yet again let down our veterans and their families who have given so much to their country, and who have paid so much for the failures of civilian leadership in Washington. It is time to demand accountability and to ensure that this kind of breach of trust never takes place again.”

More from the Washington Times report follows.
*
One of the nation’s premier medical ethicists said the VA’s behavior in the anti-smoking study violated basic protections for humans in medical experiments.

“When you’re taking advantage of a very vulnerable population, people who have served the country, and the agency that’s responsible for their welfare isn’t putting their welfare first, that’s a pretty serious breach of ethics,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

n all, nearly 1,000 veterans with PTSD were enrolled in the study to test different methods of ending smoking, with 143 using Chantix. Twenty-one veterans reported adverse effects from the drug, including one who suffered suicidal thoughts, the three-month investigation by The Times and ABC News found.

Mr. Caplan, who reviewed the consent and notification forms for the study at the request of The Times and ABC News, said the VA deserved an “F” and that it has an obligation to end the study, given the vulnerability of veterans with PTSD and the known side effects of Chantix. “Continuing it doesn’t make any ethical sense,” he said.

The VA continues to test Chantix on veterans, even as reported problems with the drug increase and have prompted at least one other federal agency to take action. On May 21, the Federal Aviation Administration banned airline pilots and air traffic control personnel from taking Chantix, citing the adverse side effects.

http://washingtontimes.com/
*
Greg Mitchell’s new book includes several chapters on soldier/vet suicides. It is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq.

‘Random’ searches of passengers on Metrolink

0

metrolink.jpgLA Times | Random searches of passengers and their belongings will begin next week on Metrolink commuter trains, the agency announced Thursday. Passengers got the news via a flier left on train seats. Sheriff’s deputies will be setting up random screening stations at random times. “Access to the station platform will be restricted; passengers must pass through the checkpoint to gain access to the station platform,” stated the flier.

The release goes on to say that some passengers will be selected from those lines and have their baggage searched. Anyone who refuses to be searched won’t be allowed to get on the train. Deputies are looking for “explosives” or other “dangerous items.”

Metrolink spokeswoman Denise Tyrrell told me this morning that the searches are not in response to any threats that have been made against trains.

“It’s more in response to what has become standard procedure at other commuter rail agencies across the country,” she said. “We were one of the few who wasn’t doing this, and we thought it would be a good idea to step up the security a little bit.”

She said police are primarily looking for explosives, but won’t turn a blind eye to other issues. “They are police officers,” Tyrrell added. “If you have a half a pound of hash in your book bag, they are going to arrest you. I would suggest if that’s the case you are one of the people that wants to walk away.”

One reader already e-mailed me with a salient question: If the searches are random and skip from station to station, then couldn’t a terrorist with a bomb simply get on the train at a station where random searches aren’t being done?

Tyrrell said that there will also be more security officers on trains. “We have 55 stations so we can’t be at every station” with a random search, she said. “What we’re trying to do is make it uncomfortable for someone to harm our passengers by having a greater level of security.”

As for the meaning of “dangerous items,” Tyrrell said that means guns or items that are obvious threats — large amounts of toxic materials, for example.

–Steve Hymon

A question for Bottleneckers: How do you feel about this? Is it a good idea? Leave a comment below.

Police attack anti-Bush protestors

1

bush-protest.jpgBy Stewart Office | The ban on the demonstration down Whitehall to protest the visit of war criminal George Bush was enforced with violence by the Metropolitan police. Two protestors were hospitalised by baton weilding police. Stop the War Coalition have organised over 20 national protests all of which have been peaceful. We have written a letter of protest to the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.

GeorgeGalloway MP, a vice president of the Stop the War Coalition, has also written a letter of protest to the Commissioner of Police, Sir Ian Blair. Images of the demo can be found here and here.

Police Brutality

Two protestors were hospitalised after police batoned those who approached the security fence around the protest free ‘green zone’. The image below shows one hospitalised protestor being pulled towards the police before being struck on the head and back.

Image

Civil liberties another casualty of war

Prominent supporters of Stop the War Coalition condemned police violence. Human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger said, “Our civil liberties are becoming another casualty of the ‘war on terror’. I was born in a dictatorship and look with great concern at recent erosions of our liberties. At the demonstration today all I wanted to do with others was to peacefully deliver my letter to the Prime Minister. I was prevented from doing so and instead witnessed brutality towards the demonstrators.”

Andrew Murray, Chair of StWC, said, “We condemn the decision of the British government and police to deny the British public the right to peacefully demonstrate while acting on behalf of the criminal administration in the USA. We also denounce the brutal conduct of many police officers towards demonstrators in Whitehall. This evening’s events highlight both the growing menace to freedoms in Britain and also the fear that George W Bush and Gordon Brown have of being held to account for their disastrous war policies.”

More Media Reports

BBC VIDEO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7455206.stm
GUARDIAN: http://tinyurl.com/4nl4uq
EVENING STANDARD: http://tinyurl.com/6nbtw7

Senate probes Pentagon-Guantanamo contacts

0

gitmo-wire.jpgIt is no secret that American military personnel at Guantanamo Bay and other US-run prisons have stripped detainees naked, used dogs to scare them, hooded them, and deprived them of sleep. But an 18-month-long US Senate investigation has been trying to get to the bottom of who thought of these techniques, and who authorised them.

Documents have been uncovered showing that senior Pentagon officials played a more active role than previously thought in developing some of the methods.

A senior staffer for Vice-President Dick Cheney also went to Guantanamo Bay to discuss how interrogations were conducted.

But the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrat Carl Levin, says it is not simply a case of a few bad apples acting on their own.

“The truth is that senior officials in the US Government sought information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorised their use against detainees,” Senator Levin said.

The Senate investigation shows that military officials, including psychologists, who had the job of training US troops to resist enemy interrogations, were asked to give Pentagon lawyers a list of tactics that could be used in prisons like Guantanamo Bay.

Previously secret memos also show that in July 2002 the Pentagon’s former top civilian lawyer directed his staff to start researching the use of practices like stress positions and sensory deprivation.

William Haynes then went to Guantanamo a few months later, with the vice-president’s senior counsel, to talk about the techniques.

A month later, the top US military lawyer at the prison wrote a memo recommending the use of interrogation methods like removing clothing, forcing shaving of facial hair, and the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce fear of suffocation.

Now retired, Colonel Diane Beaver says she was “shocked” that no one questioned her recommendation and that many of her suggestions were approved in late 2002 by the then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“I never received a phone call; I never received an email; I never received anything. Asking me anything, like are you a lunatic? What were you thinking? Or great opinion,” Colonel Beaver said.

Senator Levin was scathing in his appraisal of what the new techniques led to.

“When Secretary Rumsfeld approved the use of abusive techniques against detainees he unleashed a virus which ultimately infected interrogation operations conducted by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Senator Levin said.

While it has been known for some time that military lawyers voiced strong objections to the harsh interrogation techniques in early 2003, for the first time the new memos show that those concerns were being raised in November 2002 before Mr Rumsfeld officially approved them.

The White House says the abuse of detainees has never been the policy of the Bush administration and that all detainees have been treated humanely, and in accordance with the law.

–Adapted from an AM report by Kim Landers

Now experts say cannabis should be legal

3

cannaleaf.jpgBy David Maddox | CANNABIS should be legalised and taxed, an influential Scottish think tank recommended yesterday, just weeks after the Government hardened its attitude towards the drug, reclassifying it as a class B substance.

The Scottish Futures Forum yesterday published a report on drugs and alcohol in Scotland, saying one way to tackle the problem of addiction to harder drugs was to tax and regulate cannabis.

Forum chairman Frank Pignatelli said studies of San Francisco, where cannabis is illegal, and the Netherlands, where it is decriminalised, showed that the idea is worth considering because it breaks the link with class A drugs. In the Netherlands, only 17 per cent of cannabis sellers were also selling drugs such as crack, cocaine and heroin, while in San Francisco it was more than 50 per cent.

The idea was one of several aimed at halving drug addiction in Scotland by 2025.

This included introducing shooting galleries, where heroin addicts can go and take drugs in supervised surroundings, as revealed in yesterday’s Scotsman.

The forum’s vice-chairman, Tom Wood, former deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders, said that there are “no easy options” and insisted that a different and sometimes uncomfortable approach was needed to tackle Scotland’s drug problems.

He said: “Where we are now is living in a country where there is one of the highest prevalences for drugs.

“We’re living in a country where we have the highest drug death rate, we’re living in a country which has one of the highest hep C rates in Europe. So we’re hardly in a good place now. A lot of the things we’ve done in the past clearly have not worked and so we have to move, and I think we are moving in the right direction, but we have to move quite radically.”

Just last month the Home Office announced it was reclassifying cannabis to class B, reversing a decision in 2004 to lower it to class C.

The decision was made because stronger forms of cannabis such as skunk are becoming more readily available and there is new evidence linking the drug to psychiatric problems.

Both the Home Office and the Scottish Government have made it clear that they do not support the idea of legalisation.

The community safety minister Fergus Ewing, who last week unveiled a new drugs strategy, welcomed upgrading cannabis to class B.

There were two failed efforts to open cannabis cafés in Edinburgh. Scottish Socialist Party member Kevin Williamson almost bankrupted himself trying to open one in Haymarket and Paul Stewart was forced to quit for Amsterdam after being fined for selling cannabis at his café Purple Haze in Leith.

The forum’s suggestion has been welcomed by the Legalise Cannabis Alliance UK, which claimed Scotland is leading the way on the issue.

Don Barnard, a spokesman, said: “The Scots seem to have been taking a more mature view and I hope the recommendation is taken seriously.”

The idea has also been backed by the Greens. Patrick Harvie, MSP, said: “The current approach to criminalising drug users has been one of the most obvious failures of social policy over the last 50 years, and the Futures Forum should be thanked for their efforts to move the debate on. We broadly welcome their report.”

But the Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie, who persuaded the SNP to produce a drugs strategy as part of a deal on supporting its budget, described the forum’s report as “flawed”.

She added: “The taxing and regulation of cannabis is akin to legalisation. This will not decrease use of this extremely harmful substance. Fortunately the long-term consequences of cannabis usage are now universally acknowledged and there is a consensus at Westminster that the damaging downgrading of cannabis to a class C substance should be reversed.”

Hacker Appeals To House Of Lords

parliment.jpgBy Christopher Nickson | A British hacker accused to accessing US military and Nasa computers has taken his case against extradition to the House of Lords, arguing it would breach his human rights. Gary McKinnon, known as Solo, has never denied that he hacked into 97 US military and Nasa computers from his London home in 2002. It was called the “biggest military computer hack of all time” and McKinnon was arrest — but never charged in the UK. He always claimed he did it because he was curious, and it was only due to the lax security that he was able to infiltrate the networks.

Now he’s taking his case against extradition to the final court of appeal — the House of Lords — claiming having to face trial in the US would breach his human rights.

In the High Court, McKinnon’s solicitors unsuccessfully argued that he’d face a lengthy pre-trial detention with no prospect of bail, and that his sentence could amount to over 45 years, and that he wouldn’t be allowed to serve any of it in the UK, but judges weren’t moved.

In this appeal, the Law Lords will examine supposed threats to McKinnon from US authorities, including one by a New Jersey prosecutor who reportedly told him he would “fry.” They also allege that the former FBI legal attache and a legal representative of the US government attempted to coerce him into waiving his extradition rights during 2003.
McKinnon’s solicitor, David Pannick, told the court:

“The US had attempted to secure [McKinnon’s] voluntary surrender and guilty pleas by plea bargain tactics that were coercive and involved threats regarding the duration of his sentence of imprisonment.”
In the US he’s wanted for five counts of “fraud and related activity on government computers”, as well as one other indictment, ZDNet reports.

FBI interviews of Bush, Cheney subpoenaed

1

fbi1.jpgMcClatchy-Tribune | A House committee subpoenaed yesterday records of the FBI’s interviews with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney during the investigation into the leak of a covert CIA officer’s name.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform demanded the documents from Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey days before former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is expected to testify about Cheney’s role in leaking CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity to the news media in 2003.

Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, asked for the transcripts late last year and renewed his request earlier this month after the committee received an unedited transcript of grand jury testimony in which former Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was quoted as saying it was “possible” that Cheney had told him to leak Plame’s name.

Waxman said that McClellan’s book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, also raised questions about whether Cheney had directed McClellan to “mislead the public.”

Waxman also wants the unredacted transcripts of FBI interviews with McClellan, former White House political adviser Karl Rove, Libby and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the department was reviewing the subpoena to determine how to respond. The committee set a deadline of noon Monday.

Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, has accused high-level White House officials of leaking his wife’s identity to retaliate for his criticism of the Iraq war.

After a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby was indicted and convicted in connection with the leak on charges of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI. After Bush commuted Libby’s 2 1/2 -year sentence and Fitzgerald acknowledged that he didn’t anticipate indicting Rove, the investigation was seen as essentially over.

McClellan, who’s expected to testify Friday before the House Judiciary Committee, renewed questions about the leak with his book. He wrote that Bush and Cheney directed him to “exonerate” Libby in his daily news briefings and that Cheney may have been among the senior White House officials who knew the truth but encouraged the former spokesman “to repeat a lie.” McClellan also contended that Bush told him he had authorized the leak of Plame’s name.

Bush said in a 2004 news briefing: “If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”

Last week, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Keith Nelson turned down the committee’s request for the FBI reports on Bush and Cheney, saying that the committee’s request “raises serious separation of powers” and confidentiality concerns.

But Waxman said there were “no sound reasons” that the Justice Department couldn’t release the documents. He has accused the Justice Department of blocking Fitzgerald from turning over the documents.

Tougher terror laws actually enhance freedoms, claims Brown

1

borwn10p.jpgBy James Kirkup | The Prime Minister used a speech in London to defend his Government’s record on civil liberties in the light of last week’s Labour rebellion over the detention of terror suspects and the high-profile challenge being mounted by David Davis, the former Tory front bencher.

Some 36 Labour MPs last week voted against the Government’s plans to hold terror suspects without trial for up to 42 days, with Mr Davis subsequently announcing that he would resign and fight a by-election on the issue.

Mr Brown began his premiership last year promising to extend legal freedoms, but has faced growing criticism over his actions in office.

Today, he attempted to answer those criticisms, insisting he remains committed the cause of freedom and arguing that he has taken some of his most controversial decisions because of a “fundamental responsibility – to take the actions that are necessary.”

Critics including Mr Davis have said that the 42-day plan is a fundamental violation of the right to be free of arbitrary state power.

Mr Brown today partly answered that charge by pointing to the judicial and parliamentary scrutiny of detention powers, but mainly by arguing that they are necessary to protect the majority from attack.

“The challenge is how to match a change in our laws with stronger safeguards, so we protect both the civil liberties of the individual and the security needs of all individuals,” the Prime Minister said.

Pointing to changes in technology, travel and communication systems, Mr Brown suggested that notions of liberty and security must be updated.

He said: “New challenges require new means of addressing them. But at all times the enduring responsibility remains the same – both protecting the security of all and safeguarding the individual’s right to be free.”

He cited plans for a national ID card as an example, claiming that the system will actually enhance basic rights by protecting individuals from fraud and theft.

“Opponents of the identity card scheme like to suggest that its sole motivation is to enhance the power of the state – but in fact it starts from a recognition of the importance of something which is fundamental to the rights of the individual: the right to have your identity protected and secure.”

Speaking to the Institute for Public Policy Research, Mr Brown pointed out that MI5 is monitoring 2,000 terror suspects in the UK, in 200 networks with 30 current plots.

Mr Brown said: “The modern security challenge is defined by new and unprecedented threats – terrorism, global organised crime, organised drug trafficking, people trafficking, to name but some.

“This is the new world in which government must work out how it best discharges its duty to protect people.

“New technology is giving us modern means by which we can discharge these duties, but just as we need to employ these modern means to protect people from new threats, we must at the same time do more to guarantee our liberties.

“Facing these modern challenges, it is our duty to write a new chapter in our country’s story – one in which we both protect and promote our security and our liberty, two equally proud traditions.”

Read the Government Report On Slavery and Iraq

irregulartimes.jpgIrregular Times | There is a report that was released by the U.S. State Department just at the end of last week, and it’s something that every American ought to take at least a short look at: It’s the Trafficking in Persons Report for 2008, a document that summarizes the problem of slavery around the world.

Sadly, there are many, many nations where trafficking in slaves is a problem. Even the Bahamas is under suspicion as a place through which slaves are transported.

In terms of U.S. foreign policy, there’s one country in particular that ought to receive special scrutiny when it comes to the slave trade: Iraq. Like Colin Powell said years ago, we broke it, and now we own it.

George W. Bush, John McCain and their Republican colleagues say that it’s still possible to make Iraq into a shiny, happy place that will make all the death and mayhem there resulting from their war worthwhile. That’s not the image of Iraq that’s given by the Trafficking in Persons Report, however. The report says of Iraq,

” Iraq is a source and destination country for men and women trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude. Iraqi children are trafficked within the country and abroad for commercial sexual exploitation; criminal gangs may have targeted young boys, and staff of private orphanages may have trafficked young girls for forced prostitution. Iraqi women are trafficked within Iraq, as well as to Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Iran for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. Iraq is also a destination for men and women trafficked from Georgia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, and Sri Lanka for involuntary servitude as construction workers, cleaners, and handymen. Women from the Philippines and Indonesia are trafficked into the Kurdish territory for involuntary servitude as domestic servants. Some of these workers are offered fraudulent jobs in Kuwait or Jordan, but are then tricked or forced into involuntary servitude in Iraq instead; others go to Iraq voluntarily, but are still subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude after arrival. Although the governments of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Philippines have official bans prohibiting their nationals from working in Iraq, workers from these countries are coerced into positions in Iraq with threats of abandonment in Kuwait or Jordan, starvation, or force. Iraq did not take any meaningful action to address trafficking in persons over the reporting period. Although it has a functioning judiciary, the government neither prosecuted any trafficking cases this year nor convicted any traffickers. Furthermore, the government offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons, and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country.”

This is the diagnosis from the Bush Administration itself: “Iraq did not take any meaningful action” to stop the slave trade going on within its borders.

This Iraqi government is what American soldiers are fighting and dying to protect. This Iraqi government is what we are spending trillions of dollars to prop up.

The American-supported government in Iraq is not lifting a finger to stop the slave trade going on right under its nose. Even when little boys and girls are being sold as slaves, into sexual servitude, the government of Iraq is doing nothing to stop it.

Is this haven for slavery what John McCain insists the United States needs to keep fighting to protect?

U.S. School District to Begin Microchipping Students

32

microchip.jpgBy David Gutierrez | A Rhode Island school district has announced a pilot program to monitor student movements by means of radio frequency identification (RFID) chips implanted in their schoolbags.

The Middletown School District, in partnership with MAP Information Technology Corp., has launched a pilot program to implant RFID chips into the schoolbags of 80 children at the Aquidneck School. Each chip would be programmed with a student identification number, and would be read by an external device installed in one of two school buses. The buses would also be fitted with global positioning system (GPS) devices.

Parents or school officials could log onto a school web site to see whether and when specific children had entered or exited which bus, and to look up the bus’s current location as provided by the GPS device.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has criticized the plan as an invasion of children’s privacy and a potential risk to their safety.

“There’s absolutely no need to be tagging children,” said Stephen Brown, executive director of the ACLU’s Rhode Island chapter. According to Brown, the school district should already know where its students are.

“[This program is] a solution in search of a problem,” Brown said.

The school district says that its current plan is no different than other programs already in place for parents to monitor their children’s school experience. For example, parents can already check on their children’s attendance records and what they have for lunch, said district Superintendent Rosemary Kraeger.

Brown disputed this argument. The school is perfectly entitled to track its buses, he said, but “it’s a quantitative leap to monitor children themselves.” He raised the question of whether unauthorized individuals could use easily available RFID readers to find out students’ private information and monitor their movements.

Because the pilot program is being provided to the school district at no cost, it did not require approval from the Rhode Island ethics commission.

Why Are Corporate Journalists So Afraid of Questioning Authority?

2

tv-news.jpgBy Scott Ritter | “I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that. The right questions were asked. I think there’s a lot of critics — and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one — who think that, if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, ‘This is bogus,’ and ‘You’re a liar,’ and ‘Why are you doing this?’ that we didn’t do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role.”

That was NBC correspondent David Gregory, appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews.” He was responding to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s new book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” McClellan has challenged the role of the U.S. media in investigating and reporting U.S. policy in times of conflict, especially when it comes to covering the government itself.

As a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, especially when unsubstantiated allegations of weapons of mass destruction are used to sell a war, I am no stranger to the concept of questioning authority, especially in times of war. I am from the Teddy Roosevelt school of American citizenship, adhering to the principle that “to announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Some may point out that Roosevelt made that statement in criticism of Woodrow Wilson’s foot dragging when it came to getting America into World War I, and that it is odd for one opposed to American involvement in Iraq to quote a former president who so enthusiastically embraced military intervention. But principle can cut both ways on any given issue. The principle inherent in the concept of the moral responsibility of the American people to question their leadership at all times, but especially when matters of war are at stake, is as valid for the pro as it is the con.

The validity of this principle is not judged on the level of militancy of the presidential action in question, but rather its viability as judged by the values and ideals of the American people. While the diversity of the United States dictates that there will be a divergence of consensus when it comes to individual values and ideals, the collective ought to agree that the foundation upon which all American values and ideals should be judged is the U.S. Constitution, setting forth as it does a framework of law which unites us all. To hold the Constitution up as a basis upon which to criticize the actions of any given president is perhaps the most patriotic act an American can engage in. As Theodore Roosevelt himself noted, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.”

Now David Gregory, and others who populate that curious slice of Americana known as “the media,” may hold that they, as journalists, operate on a different level than the average American citizen. As Mr. Gregory notes, it is not their “role” to question or debate policy set forth by the president. This is curious, coming from a leading member of a news team that prides itself on the “investigative” quality of its reporting. If we take Gregory at face value, it seems his only job (or “role”) is to simply parrot the policy formulations put forward by administration officials, that the integrity of journalism precludes the reporter from taking sides, and that any aggressive questioning concerning the veracity, or morality, or legality of any given policy would, in its own right, constitute opposition to said policy, and as such would be “taking sides.”

This, of course, is journalism in its most puritanical form, the ideal that the reporter simply reports, and keeps his or her personal opinion segregated from the “facts” as they are being presented. While it would be a farcical stretch for David Gregory, or any other mainstream reporter or correspondent, to realistically claim ownership of such a noble mantle, it appears that is exactly what Gregory did when he set forth the parameters of what his “role” was, and is, in reporting on stories such as the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration’s case for war. For this to be valid, however, the issue of journalistic integrity would need to apply not only to the individual reporter or correspondent, but also to the entire system to which the given reporter or correspondent belonged. In the case of Gregory, therefore, we must not only bring into the mix his own individual performance, but also that of NBC News and its parent organization, General Electric.

As a weapons inspector, I was very much driven by what the facts said, not what the rhetoric implied. I maintain this standard to this day in assessing and evaluating American policy in the Middle East. It was the core approach which governed my own personal questioning of the Bush administration’s case for confronting Iraq in the lead-up to the war in 2002 and 2003. I am saddened at the vindication of my position in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not because of what I did, but rather what the transcripts of every media interview I conducted at the time demonstrates: The media were not interested in reporting the facts, but rather furthering a fiction. Time after time, I backed my opposition to the Bush administration’s “case” for war on Iraq with hard facts, citing evidence that could be readily checked by these erstwhile journalists had they been so inclined. Instead, my integrity and character were impugned by these simple recorders of “fact”, further enabling the fiction pushed by the administration into the mainstream, unchallenged and unquestioned, to be digested by the American public as truth.

Scott McClellan is correct to point out the complicity of the media in facilitating the rush to war. David Gregory is disingenuous in his denial that this was indeed the case. Jeff Cohen, a former producer at MSNBC, has written about the pressures placed on him and Phil Donahue leading to the cancellation of the latter’s top-rated television show just before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Katie Couric, the former co-host of NBC’s “Today Show” (and current news anchor for CBS News), has tacitly acknowledged “pressure” from above when it came to framing interviews in a manner that was detrimental to the Bush administration’s case for war. Jessica Yellin, who before the war in Iraq worked for MSNBC, put it best: “I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings.”

Now, one would think that a journalist with the self-proclaimed integrity of Gregory would jump at the opportunity to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and focus on this story line, if for no other reason than to prove it wrong and thereby clear his name (guilty by association, at the very least) and the name of the organization he represents. The matter is simple, on the surface: NBC network executives either did, or didn’t, pressure their producers and reporters when it came to covering and framing stories. Surely an investigative reporter of Gregory’s talent can get to the bottom of this one?

While Gregory certainly does not need help from someone of such humble journalistic credentials as myself, perhaps my experience as a former weapons inspector in tracking down the lies and inconsistencies of the Iraqi government could be of some assistance. The first thing I would do is to frame the scope of the problem. The issue of Iraq as a target worthy of war really didn’t hit the mainstream until the summer of 2002, so I would start there. I would be interested in defining the potential sources of “pressure” that could be placed on NBC as an organization when it came to reporting on Iraq.

We do know, courtesy of the Pentagon, that throughout the summer and fall of 2002, NBC News, via its Pentagon bureau chief and other contacts, worked closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs, on the issue of media access in any potential future conflict with Iraq. We also know that these meetings were an outgrowth of a meeting held on Sept. 28, 2001, when the Pentagon and bureau chiefs, including representatives from NBC News, discussed how to balance the needs of the media to do their job while protecting national security and the safety of military personnel. The issue of embedding media personnel with the military was raised, with the Pentagon emphasizing that “security at the source” was the principle means for which to ensure no security breach occurred. This meant that if journalists were so embedded, they would have to be responsible about what they reported.

This concept of self-censorship is not a new one, nor is it particularly controversial. Ernie Pyle and Joe Rosenthal, two famous journalists from World War II, were able to establish stellar reputations while operating under the conditions of wartime censorship. So were thousands of other journalists, in several wars. In this manner, journalists covering D-Day knew of the invasion long before the American public, or even members of Congress. Were they bad journalists for not reporting what they knew beforehand? Were their parent organizations corrupted by agreeing to censorship as a prerequisite for access? The answer in both cases is clearly “no.”

However, in the interest of establishing a foundation of fact upon which to further any investigation into the possibility of pressure being exerted on NBC reporters and/or correspondents covering a war between the United States and Iraq, an intrepid investigator would want access to documents and records from those early meetings between the Pentagon and NBC News. What were the specific terms spelled out in those meetings? What derivative internal documents were generated inside NBC News, and its corporate master, General Electric, based upon those meetings, and what did those documents discuss? Unlike the situation faced by journalists during World War II, America and Iraq were not yet at war, so did NBC News establish policies on how to balance the operational security needs of the military while reporting on a war which, in the summer and fall of 2002, the Bush administration said wasn’t being planned?

Formal planning for “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (only later renamed “Operation Iraqi Freedom”) commenced early on in 2002. The U.S. Army began working on a public affairs plan early in 2002 and, in June of that year, briefed U.S. Central Command on a concept for large-scale media embedding for ground forces. U.S. Central Command expanded the Army’s plan to include the other services, and by September 2002 had prepared a draft public affairs annex to the overall war plan. Formal public affairs planning for U.S. Central Command was initiated in October 2002, when a planning cell was established. In its first meeting, from Oct. 2-7, the Pentagon reviewed past media operations in time of war, and recommended a break with the past practice of a media pool, and instead suggested a formal embedded media program. These and other media-related issues were consolidated into Annex F (Public Affairs) of the formal “Operation Iraqi Liberation” war plan. It is curious that the Pentagon acknowledges a formal war plan in existence at a time when senior Bush administration officials were telling members of Congress that there were no plans to attack Iraq and that the Bush administration was focusing its efforts on diplomacy.

The embedded media program was formally endorsed by the Pentagon in November 2002. On Nov. 14, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, together with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a message to all military commanders discussing public affairs, and in particular the embedded media program. In it, Rumsfeld addressed how potential future operations [i.e., war with Iraq] could shape public perception of the national security environment, and recognized the need to facilitate access to national and international media to “tell the factual story — good or bad — before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions as they most certainly will continue to do. Our people in the field need to tell the story.”

When did NBC News become aware of this Rumsfeld memo? Were there any reactions to the concept of embedded journalists being targeted by the military as being facilitators for disseminating a pro-Pentagon point of view? The Pentagon states that while no formal meetings about draft public affairs annex content were conducted with bureau chiefs, “informal discussions were held with some key individuals in the media, who provided input for consideration.” The Pentagon also acknowledges that changes to the public affairs annex were made “based on a bureau chief’s recommendation.” Was NBC News part of the “informal discussions” with the Pentagon? Did NBC News provide any recommendations to the Pentagon’s public affairs office based on such meetings? If so, what were the recommendations, who made them, and how was this staffed within the NBC/GE corporate structure?

These are important questions, since balancing the need to maintain secrecy of potential military operations would appear to conflict with any effort undertaken by NBC News to probe Bush administration claims on not only the justification for confronting Iraq, but whether or not there was any plan to attack Iraq to begin with. How did NBC News compartmentalize its knowledge of the Bush administration’s plans to attack Iraq? Was there any crossover in terms of management? Did the same personnel who managed Pentagon relations also manage the reporters whose task it was to press the Bush administration on the veracity of its case for war against Iraq? Did such crossover ever manifest itself in a case of conflict of interest? What is the documentary record of internal discussions within NBC in this regard? Were any policies established on the control of information that touched upon sensitive military activities?

It might appear as if I am on a fishing expedition, so to speak, probing for documents for which there is no evidence that they even exist. Again, I’ll do my best to help focus David Gregory on his investigation. Much has been made of the fact that parent company GE makes a great deal of money from the machinery of war. It is useful, however, to examine a specific case, an instance where the news operation, the corporate parent and the military were all too intertwined.

In November 2002, the Pentagon established formal rules that specifically forbade any journalist to “self-embed” with a given military unit, noting that all requests for embedding would be handled via the Pentagon’s public affairs office. At the same time, in Kuwait, the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division brigade and battalion commanders were experimenting with embedding journalists during short (three to five days) training exercises. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team in particular pushed the embedding concept, getting journalists embedded at the battalion level. From this experience, the 2nd Brigade was able to establish embedding tactics, techniques and procedures that worked for both the media and the commanders. According to the U.S. Army, “The embeds realized they needed to work with their equipment and develop procedures for filing reports. They identified problems with the durability of their equipment and its ability to withstand the elements and a need for power sources for extended periods.”

One of these embeds was NBC News correspondent David Bloom. It should be noted that Bloom tragically died while covering the Iraq war. Bloom was a rising star at NBC, with an eye for a developing story. “Early on,” NBC News President Neal Shapiro said shortly after Bloom’s death, “he said, ‘I want a piece of this war.’ ” Shapiro isn’t specific about the date Bloom made that statement, but since Bloom was dispatched to Kuwait in November 2002, we can assume it was on or about that time. Bloom was one of the embeds who worked closely with the U.S. Army during that time, developing the “tactics, techniques and procedures” for embedded media. In December 2002, Bloom called NBC News from Kuwait, where he had just covered the largest U.S. military live-fire exercise since the first Gulf War. Bloom told his NBC News bosses that he had been given permission to embed with the 3rd Infantry Division, even though official Pentagon policy in place at the time specifically forbade any such action. Bloom already exhibited a familiarity with the war plans of the 3rd Infantry Division, bragging that they were the “tip of the spear.” Not only would Bloom and his cameraman be able to ride with the 3rd Infantry Division, they would be able to broadcast live while doing so. Clearly, Bloom and his 3rd Infantry Division colleagues had perfected their embed “tactics, techniques and procedures.”

The 2nd Brigade Combat Team had offered Bloom the use of a large M-88A1 tank recovery vehicle. Bloom had worked with the Army to mount a camera and a mobile satellite transmission unit on the M-88. The images taken from the camera would be sent back, while the M-88 was traveling at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour, to a radically modified Ford F-450 SuperDuty truck that carried specialized satellite communication equipment built by Maritime Telecommunications Network, and a gyro-stabilizing transmission dish mounted underneath a protective dome on the rear body. This truck would trail the leading elements of the 3rd Infantry’s spearhead at distances of up to two miles. The M-88 carrying Bloom broadcast microwave signals back to the Ford F-450 truck, which in turn transmitted these signals via satellite uplink back to NBC News headquarters.

Bloom was able to provide the specifications of his idea to his NBC bosses, and in just 40 days, engineers from Maritime Telecommunications Network and NBC were able to modify a Ford F-450 to not only withstand the rigors of the Iraqi desert, but also to accommodate the electronics and satellite dish. Four weeks before the start of the war, the vehicle was tested, only to have the signal drop every time the vehicle turned. The engineers worked frantically to fix the problem, and the modified F-450, nicknamed the “Bloommobile,” was airlifted to Kuwait, arriving just days before the start of the invasion.

The cost of the Bloommobile has not been formally revealed, but is thought to run into seven figures. This vehicle would never have been made without the support of GE, which underwrote the cost of its construction. GE also fronted for NBC in negotiating special clearances with the Pentagon and State Department on exceptions to policy and import-export control. The Pentagon’s official policy while the Bloommobile was being built was for embeds to ride in vehicles provided by their respective unit, and that the media were not to provide their own transportation. Clearly, the Bloommobile represented a stark exception to that rule.

Keep in mind that the entire time GE/NBC was investing millions of dollars into building the Bloommobile so they could get crystal-clear live video transmitted from the “tip of the spear,” the Bush administration was playing coy on the subject of war with Iraq. With GE/NBC News so heavily invested in exploiting a war, was there any pressure placed on NBC reporters/correspondents concerning how they dealt with the Bush administration’s case for war? It is a fair question, and one that could best be dealt with through an examination of the internal GE/NBC documents concerning the Bloommobile. Who in GE/NBC served as the project manager for the Bloommobile? Certainly Bloom, the brain trust, was away in Kuwait. Who oversaw the project back in the United States? What did the Bloommobile cost? What was the internal debate within GE/NBC concerning the merits/faults of the Bloommobile? An organization like GE/NBC does not allocate millions of dollars on a whim. There had to be some sort of oversight that was documented. Who in GE/NBC fronted for the Bloommobile with the U.S. government? What is the record of communication between GE/NBC and the U.S. government concerning the vehicle? Did GE/NBC have to provide the U.S. government with any guarantees concerning the use of the Bloommobile?

In investing in the vehicle, GE/NBC News was investing in the war. There are quid pro quo arrangements made every day, and the link between the U.S. government granting NBC News so many exceptions in the creation and fielding of the Bloommobile, and the crackdown within the GE-controlled NBC/MSNBC family on anti-war and anti-administration sentiment, cannot be dismissed as simply circumstantial. But a review of the available documents would clarify this issue.

David Gregory has vociferously defended the role he and NBC News played in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Scott McClellan’s new book, combined with testimony from other sources, including those from within the NBC News family, has called into question the integrity of the operation Gregory serves. An allegation from a credible source has been made, and any denial must therefore be backed with verifiable, documented information. To paraphrase former Secretary of State Colin Powell when talking about Iraq before the invasion, the burden is on NBC to prove that it wasn’t complicit with the Bush administration concerning its reporting on Iraq and administration policies, and not on NBC’s critics to prove that it was.

The old proverb notes that “a fish stinks from its head,” something that aptly describes the GE/NBC News team when discussing the issue of Iraq. I challenge David Gregory to demonstrate otherwise.

The Boys in the Bubble

0

daviddavis.jpgVia Blair Watch | Oh, the Good old Westminster bubble, the small enclosed world of Britain’s political class. We noticed that, almost unanimously they pronounced David Davis as a wild nutcase off on a farcical flight of fancy. Indeed it was remarkable at just how slow to react the major parties were.

Then the polls came in. The Great British Public seemed to take a different view. This is a problem for democracy as the ‘opinion leaders’ and ‘policy formers’ as they like to style themselves have frequently found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. now sometimes this is no bad thing, but when it happens so often, one must wonder if those providing ‘informed comment’ really are informed about anything beyond the bubble.

For politicians to reach out beyond the bubble is vital to keep democracy alive.

This is a general political problem that seems to be some kind on natural phenomenon. In Brussels it is magnified, and so is the problem.

It’s glaring, embarrassingly so. I love Brussels, it’s a vibrant, quirky, multicultural city – frankly underrated in most tourist guides, but the ‘EU Quarter is something very different.

It’s almost entirely white. As I wander around the parliament and various Commission buildings, practically the only non-caucasians I see are the cleaners and the dogbodies moving furniture.

I photograph a lot of conferences and I’m faced with a sea of pleasant, intelligent white men in suits. Not a photographers dream. Frankly the EU bubble is about as diverse as a Ku Klux Klan rally. Secondly, almost everyone involved is taking the EU Shilling in one way or another.

I want to make it plain that I am pro-Europe, but I believe fundamental reform, not just of treaties but of the bubble is the only way forward.

How many innocent people are going out of their minds today?

2

monbiot2.jpgBy George Monbiot | We shouldn’t be surprised to hear that George Bush dined with a group of historians on Sunday night. The president has spent much of his second term pleading with history. But however hard he lobbies the gatekeepers of memory, he will surely be judged the worst president the United States has ever had.

Even if historians were somehow to forget the illegal war, the mangling of international law, the trashing of the environment and social welfare, the banking crisis, and the transfer of wealth from rich to poor, one image is stamped indelibly on this presidency: the trussed automatons in orange jumpsuits. It portrays a superpower prepared to dehumanise its prisoners, to wrap, blind and deafen them, to reduce them to mannequins, in a place as stark and industrial as a chicken-packing plant. Worse, the government was proud of what it had done. It was parading its impunity. It wanted us to know that nothing would stand in its way: its power was both sovereign and unaccountable.

Three days before Bush arrived in Britain, the US supreme court ruled that the inmates at Guantánamo Bay were entitled to contest their detention in the civilian courts. This is the third time the supreme court has ruled against the prison camp, but on this occasion Bush cannot change the law: the court has ruled that the prisoners’ rights are constitutional.

Symbolically the decision could scarcely be more important. Practically it could scarcely be less. The department of defence can transfer its prisoners to an oubliette in another country, where the constitution’s writ does not run. The public atrocity of Guantánamo Bay has provided a useful distraction from something even worse: the sprawling system of secret detention camps the US runs around the world.

We don’t, of course, know much about this programme. Bush first acknowledged it in September 2006. “Of the thousands of terrorists captured across the world, only about 770 have ever been sent to Guantánamo.” Other suspects, he said, were being “held secretly” by the CIA. “Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged.” He went on to claim that all the secret prisoners had now been transferred to Guantánamo Bay.

Several lines of evidence suggest that this claim was false. The CIA appears to have overseen or controlled, and in some cases appears still to be running, black sites in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Macedonia, Kosovo, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand and, possibly, Diego Garcia. The US appears to be using ships as secret prisons. In just two years the CIA ran 283 flights — which the Council of Europe believes were used for transporting secret prisoners — out of Germany alone. It admits that it possesses 7,000 documents about its ghost detention programme. Are we to believe all this was done for the 14 men transferred to Guantánamo Bay? In Iraq, the US now admits to holding 22,000 prisoners without charge in its own facilities, some of whom are known to be kept away from the Red Cross and other visitors.

Apart from those moved to Cuba, hardly anyone, so far, has come out of this system. At the end of last year salon.com interviewed Muhammad Bashmilah, who was arrested and tortured by Jordanian police, handed to the Americans, flown to an unknown country in autumn 2003, and held secretly by the CIA until he was transferred to Yemeni custody in May 2005. He reports that he was kept in a cell about the size of a transit van throughout the 19 months of his confinement, without any human contact except during interrogation. The lights and a source of white noise were left on permanently. Driven mad by isolation and sensory deprivation, he tried to kill himself several times. Eventually, when it became obvious even to the CIA that he had nothing to do with terrorism, he was handed over to the Yemeni government, who held him for another year until he was released without charge.

Lawyers for some of the men transferred to Guantánamo Bay claim that, while in secret detention, their clients were left hanging from the ceiling by their wrists, beaten with electric cables, yanked around on a dog’s leash, chained naked in a freezing cell, and doused with cold water. “The CIA worked people day and night for months,” one prisoner reports. “Plenty lost their minds. I could hear people knocking their heads against the walls and doors, screaming their heads off.”

Could it be worse than this? Yes. In 2003, a US official admitted to the Sunday Telegraph that the CIA was detaining and interrogating children. Discussing two boys aged seven and nine held in secret detention by the CIA, the official explained: “We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children, but we need to know as much about their father’s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care.” According to another prisoner, the boys had already been tortured by Pakistani guards. A former CIA official told the New Yorker that “every single plan [in the secret detention programme] is drawn up by interrogators, and then submitted for approval to the highest possible level — meaning the director of the CIA. Any change in the plan — even if an extra day of a certain treatment was added — was signed off by the CIA director.”

Never mind detention without trial; this is detention without acknowledgement. When men and women disappear into this system, neither they nor their families know where they are. The Red Cross cannot reach them; they are beyond the scope of the law. They have been disappeared in the Latin American sense of that word.

Do I need to explain that this treatment breaks just about every article in the Geneva conventions? Do I need to tell you that — without charges, trials, lawyers, scrutiny or even recognition — it is just as likely to net the innocent as the guilty? In 2006 George Bush maintained that “these aren’t common criminals, or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield — we have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantánamo Bay belong at Guantánamo”. But a new and detailed investigation by the McClatchy newspaper group has found that many of them were indeed either common criminals or bystanders, or men sold to the authorities in order to settle a feud. Who knows how many innocent people are going out of their minds in the CIA’s secret prisons today?

Along with its innocent victims, the US government has locked itself into this system. As the justice department has argued, these prisoners cannot be released in case they describe the “alternative interrogation methods” (the euphemism it uses for torture) the CIA used on them, which could “reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage”. Like almost everything Bush has done, this programme promises to backfire. George Bush will be remembered not only for the lives he has broken, but also for smashing everything he claimed to defend.

Ex-Pentagon Lawyers Face Inquiry on Interrogation Role

1

torturevic.jpgBy MARK MAZZETTI | Senior Pentagon lawyers played a more active role than previously known in developing the aggressive interrogation techniques approved for use in 2002 at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to officials familiar with a Senate investigation.Investigators with the Senate Armed Services Committee have found documents from July 2002 showing that Pentagon lawyers working for William J. Haynes II, then the Defense Department general counsel, gathered information about a program used to train American pilots to withstand captivity, according to the officials.

Some of the techniques used in the program were later approved for use on prisoners in American military custody.

It has been known for some time that Mr. Haynes played a role in recommending that Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was then the defense secretary, approve interrogation techniques beyond what military interrogators were normally authorized to use, which Mr. Rumsfeld did in December 2002.

But the timing of the Pentagon requests for information earlier that year suggest that senior Pentagon lawyers played an active role in developing the aggressive interrogation program.

The military was never authorized to carry out interrogations as aggressive as those approved for use by the C.I.A., which until the end of 2003 included water boarding. The harshest techniques that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in December 2002 were rescinded by him a month later, but Pentagon investigations have found that some were later used without authorization in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is unclear why Mr. Haynes and his staff sought information from officers who ran the pilots’ training program.

But Richard Schiffrin, a former Pentagon lawyer who will testify Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday in an interview that Mr. Haynes and other Pentagon lawyers at the time expressed “great frustration” that the military was not effectively obtaining information from prisoners. “The intelligence being obtained from detainees was deemed insufficient,” he said.

Mr. Schiffrin said that he had requested interrogation information from the senior officers who administered the pilots’ program, based at Fort Belvoir, Va. He said that much of the information he received involved psychological studies about the effects of interrogation, and some studies of how North Korean officers tried mind-control experiments on American prisoners during the Korean War. “It was real ‘Manchurian Candidate’ stuff,” he said.

Mr. Haynes is also scheduled to testify at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday. The committee is planning to issue a report this summer on the military’s development of harsh interrogation practices.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the committee’s chairman, said in a statement that the deliberations on interrogation techniques conducted by senior Bush administration lawyers in 2002 laid the groundwork for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq a year later.

“Senior officials in the United States government sought out information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees,” Mr. Levin said.

Bush threatens Iran with military action

1

iran-weapons1.jpgBy Colin Brown | George Bush has warned Iran that military action is still “on the table” if it fails to respond to tightening diplomatic pressure to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. The EU is planning to announce the freezing of all overseas assets of the main bank in Iran. Sanctions are also to be tightened on gas and oil exports by Iran.

But the US President’s remarks on the last leg of his “farewell tour” of Europe raised fears at Westminster that Mr Bush is determined to take action against Iran before he leaves office in January if the sanctions fail to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Standing alongside the President after more than an hour of talks in Downing Street, Gordon Brown surprised EU council officials by announcing that the EU intends to intensify its sanctions on Iran, including freezing the billions of euros in overseas assets of the Melli Bank of Iran.

But Mr Bush left no doubt that the US is holding military action in reserve. Thanking Mr Brown for keeping together the European alliance “so that we can solve this problem diplomatically”, Mr Bush said: “That is my first choice. The Iranians must understand that all options are on the table, however.”

The EU foreign policy chief Xavier Solana delivered a more generous offer to the Iranian regime at the weekend and is now awaiting its reply. It includes help in developing civil nuclear power and extending economic assistance if Iran stops enriching uranium to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Ali Larijani, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, promised to “carefully study the package”.

EU council officials said tougher sanctions were not on the agenda when Mr Solana briefed his officials but Downing Street insisted sanctions were being prepared. It is likely they will be implemented next week.

Mr Brown said: “Our message to the Iranian people is you do not have to choose the path of confrontation. The latest round of talks with the Iranians took place over the weekend. We put our enhanced offer on the table including political and economic partnership including nuclear technology for civilian use.

“We await the Iranian response and will do everything to maintain the dialogue but we are also clear that if Iran continues to ignore UN resolutions and our offer of partnership, we have no choice but to intensify sanctions.”

A spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition, which protested against Mr Bush’s arrival at Downing Street on Sunday, said: “Bush has been travelling round Europe trying to secure support for sanctions and a possible future attack on Iran.”

Mr Brown also announced that Britain is sending more troops to Afghanistan as the bodies of five soldiers killed in action last week were brought home. About 400 support staff are being withdrawn, but 630 more troops are being flown out.

Mr Brown is due to announce troop withdrawals from Basra before the summer recess of Parliament at the end of next month.

Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions

0

iraq-conditions.jpgBy Richard Cowan | Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday.

Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.

“It’ll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that’s it,” said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation.

The aide was referring to the funding for the unpopular Iraq war, now in its sixth year, and a measure being attached to expand education benefits for combat veterans.

A House of Representatives vote on the war-funding bill was expected this week. Anything the House passes would have to be approved by the Senate before the legislation is sent to Bush.

With the Pentagon running out of money to continue fighting the two wars, Congress is trying to approve new funds before its July 4 holiday recess.

With this bill, Congress will have written checks for more than $800 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going to Iraq.

Since January, 2007, when Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, they have tried to force Bush to change course in Iraq, mostly through troop withdrawal timetables and requirements that U.S. soldiers be more thoroughly trained, equipped and rested before returning to combat.

And while various versions have passed each chamber since then, there have not been enough votes in Congress to enact the war conditions over Bush’s objections.

DEMOCRATS LOOKING TO BUSH SUCCESSOR

The result is that the 110th Congress will wrap up most of its work this fall, before November’s congressional and presidential elections, without forcing any changes to Bush’s open-ended war policy, the defining issue of his presidency.

Anti-war Democrats instead are looking to Bush’s successor, hoping it is fellow-Democrat Barack Obama, to bring at least some of the 147,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Michigan where he was campaigning, Obama said he was “encouraged” by the reduction in violence in Iraq, but underlined the importance of beginning “the process of withdrawing U.S. troops.”

John McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has backed Bush’s opposition to Congress setting timetables.

Democrats enter this campaign season poised to expand their House and Senate majorities.

Instead of Iraq being the dominant issue this campaign season, it has been the U.S. economy, jolted by skyrocketing energy prices and mounting home foreclosures, that has gotten most of the attention.

The war-spending bill has been the staging ground for a Democratic initiative to expand domestic unemployment benefits, in addition to the added veterans benefits.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

Wrongly jailed detainees found militancy at Guantanamo

0

gitmo-pris1.jpgBy Tom Lasseter | GARDEZ, Afghanistan – Mohammed Naim Farouq was a thug in the lawless Zormat district of eastern Afghanistan. He ran a kidnapping and extortion racket, and he controlled his turf with a band of gunmen who rode around in trucks with AK-47 rifles.

U.S. troops detained him in 2002, although he had no clear ties to the Taliban or al Qaida. By the time Farouq was released from Guantanamo the next year, however – after more than 12 months of what he described as abuse and humiliation at the hands of American soldiers – he’d made connections to high-level militants.

In fact, he’d become a Taliban leader. When the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency released a stack of 20 “most wanted” playing cards in 2006 identifying militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan – with Osama bin Laden at the top – Farouq was 16 cards into the deck.

A McClatchy investigation found that instead of confining terrorists, Guantanamo often produced more of them by rounding up common criminals, conscripts, low-level foot soldiers and men with no allegiance to radical Islam – thus inspiring a deep hatred of the United States in them – and then housing them in cells next to radical Islamists.

The radicals were quick to exploit the flaws in the U.S. detention system.

Soldiers, guards or interrogators at the U.S. bases at Bagram or Kandahar in Afghanistan had abused many of the detainees, and they arrived at Guantanamo enraged at America.

The Taliban and al Qaida leaders in the cells around them were ready to preach their firebrand interpretation of Islam and the need to wage jihad, Islamic holy war, against the West. Guantanamo became a school for jihad, complete with a council of elders who issued fatwas, binding religious instructions, to the other detainees.

Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, until recently the commanding officer at Guantanamo, acknowledged that senior militant leaders gained influence and control in his prison.

“We have that full range of (Taliban and al Qaida) leadership here, why would they not continue to be functional as an organization?” he said in a telephone interview. “I must make the assumption that there’s a fully functional al Qaida cell here at Guantanamo.”

Afghan and Pakistani officials also said they were aware that Guantanamo was churning out new militant leaders.

In a classified 2005 review of 35 detainees released from Guantanamo, Pakistani police intelligence concluded that the men – the majority of whom had been subjected to “severe mental and physical torture,” according to the report – had “extreme feelings of resentment and hatred against USA.”

The report warned that unless steps were taken to rehabilitate the men, they had the potential of “becoming another Abdullah Mehsud,” a former Guantanamo detainee who became a high-ranking Taliban commander in the Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. Mehsud killed himself with a grenade last July to avoid being taken prisoner by Pakistani troops.

“A lot of our friends are working against the Americans now, because if you torture someone without any reason, what do you expect?” Issa Khan, a Pakistani former detainee, said in an interview in Islamabad. “Many people who were in Guantanamo are now working with the Taliban.”

According to Afghan authorities, Mohammed Naim Farouq was a rural gangster, not a terrorist.

“He was with a group that was kidnapping people. It was a criminal group. It did a lot of extortion,” said Attorney General Abdul Jabar Sabit, who interviewed Farouq in Guantanamo.

But, Sabit found, Farouq wasn’t linked to the Taliban or al Qaida when the Americans arrested him.

No more. Since Farouq was released from Guantanamo, the Defense Intelligence Agency said, he’s had a relationship with al Qaida and the Taliban and heads a group of Taliban militiamen.

“Naim was a very, very small guy before, but now that he’s been released, he’s a very big problem,” said Taj Mohammed Wardak, a former Afghan interior minister who also served as the governor of Farouq’s province. “It has a really bad effect when these men return to their communities.”

Discussing the effect that Guantanamo had on him, Farouq measured his words.

“Why did the Americans treat me this way?” he said during an interview with McClatchy in Gardez. “I wanted to keep my district peaceful.”

A NETWORK FOR RADICALIZING

In interviews, former U.S. Defense Department officials acknowledged the problem, but none of them would speak about it openly because of its implications: U.S. officials mistakenly sent a lot of men who weren’t hardened terrorists to Guantanamo, but by the time they were released, some of them had become just that.

Requests for comment from senior Defense Department officials went unanswered. The Pentagon official in charge of detainee affairs, Sandra Hodgkinson, declined interview requests even after she was given a list of questions.

However, dozens of former detainees, many of whom were reluctant to talk for fear of being branded as spies by the militants, described a network – at times fragmented, and at times startling in its sophistication – that allowed Islamist radicals to gain power inside Guantanamo:

* Militants recruited new detainees by offering to help them memorize the Quran and study Arabic. They conducted the lessons, infused with firebrand theology, between the mesh walls of cells, from the other side of a fence during exercise time or, in lower-security blocks, during group meetings.

* Taliban and al Qaida leaders appointed cellblock leaders. When there was a problem with the guards, such as allegations of Quran abuse or rough searches of detainees, these “local” leaders reported up their chains of command whether the men in their block had fought back with hunger strikes or by throwing cups of urine and feces at guards. The senior leaders then decided whether to call for large-scale hunger strikes or other protests.

* Al Qaida and Taliban leaders at Guantanamo issued rulings that governed detainees’ behavior. Shaking hands with female guards was haram – forbidden – men should pray five times a day and talking with American soldiers should be kept to a minimum.

* The recruiting and organizing don’t end at Guantanamo. After detainees are released, they’re visited by militants who try to cement the relationships formed in prison.

“When I was released, they (Taliban officials) told me to come join them, to fight,” said Alif Khan, an Afghan former detainee whom McClatchy interviewed in Kabul. “They told me I should move to Waziristan,” a Taliban hotbed in Pakistan.

Most of the 66 former Guantanamo detainees whom McClatchy interviewed were hesitant to talk about their religious and political transformations in prison.

Ilkham Batayev, a Kazakh, described his stay at Guantanamo in bitter, angry terms. “I learned the traditions of many people,” he said. “Of course it changed me inside, but this is something private.” He said that Arab detainees spent a lot of time teaching him Arabic and giving him lessons about the Quran.

Others said that fellow detainees showed them the path of fundamentalist Islam.

Taj Mohammed, an Afghan detainee, said that the time he spent at Guantanamo studying the Quran and discussing Islam with radicals helped him see the world more clearly.

“There were detainees who did not pray or who spoke with female soldiers,” Mohammed said. “We stopped speaking with these men. Sometimes we beat them.”

The U.S. government accused Mohammed of being a member of two insurgent groups in Afghanistan’s Konar province and taking part in an attack on a U.S. military base.

Mohammed maintained that he was a shepherd. Mohammed Roze, an official with the Afghan government’s peace commission in Konar province, said Mohammed was set up by a cousin with whom he was feuding.

U.S. ATTEMPTS AT SEPARATION BACKFIRE

American officials tried to stop detainees from turning Guantanamo into what some former U.S. officials have since called an “American madrassa” – an Islamic religious school – but some of their efforts backfired.

The original Guantanamo camp, Camp X-Ray, was little more than a collection of wire mesh cells in which detainees were grouped together without much concern for their backgrounds.

In April 2002, U.S. officials shifted the detainees to Camp Delta, which grew to include a series of camps organized by security level.

For example:

* Camp One was for better-behaved detainees, who were given toiletry items such as toothpaste and shampoo and more time for outdoor exercise.

* Camp Two was set up for cooperative detainees – especially those who helped interrogators – who still posed a high security threat to guards. They were given time in exercise areas, but were watched carefully.

* Camp Three was a high-security facility where detainees spent most of their time in cells with steel mesh walls and little more than mattresses and copies of the Quran.

* Camp Four was for the best-behaved detainees, and featured communal living spaces, librarian visits and lawns for soccer.

* Camp Five resembled a U.S. maximum-security prison, with automatic sliding cell doors and a central guard station.

The idea was that detainees who presented graver threats and were uncooperative would be separated from those with looser ties to international terrorism.

What the plan overlooked – according to several detainees and a former U.S. defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject – is that even midlevel al Qaida members had been trained in resistance techniques, and that one of them was to avoid calling attention to yourself. An angry cabdriver from Kabul, in other words, may have been more likely to attack a guard and end up in Camp Three than an al Qaida militant was.

As a result, some senior radicals ended up in Camp Four, free to preach their message of international jihad to petty criminals, Taliban conscripts and detainees who had little or no previous affiliation with Islamic militancy.

At times, detainee leaders would order other men to break camp rules so that the guards would send them to higher-security blocks, where they could carry messages from their leaders, said Charles “Cully” Stimson, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs from January 2006 to February 2007.

“The communications network there is like the communications network in any jail,” Stimson said. “When Americans are in captivity, they respect rank. … I suspect it’s no different down there.”

Buzby, the Guantanamo commander, said that he, too, suspected that information flowed freely between militant leaders and their men at Guantanamo’s camps.

“It would be foolish to not believe that there is a hierarchy of information being passed up and down the chain of command,” Buzby said.

Abdul Zuhoor, an Afghan detainee who spent time in Camp Four, said that radical detainees used the system to their full advantage.

Zuhoor said he remembered watching groups of senior Taliban and Arab detainees meet in the exercise yard.

“They considered themselves the elders of Guantanamo,” Zuhoor said in an interview in the Afghan town of Charikar. “They met as a shura (religious) council.”

The group, Zuhoor said, acted in concert with others across Guantanamo to issue fatwas, which then were disseminated by detainees who were being moved to other areas for medical checkups, interrogations or transfers to higher-security blocks.

An attorney for one Arab detainee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared implicating his client, said his client told him at one point that he couldn’t meet with his legal team anymore.

“He said there were five or six detainees who had assumed positions of leadership in the camp, and that he had to deal with them,” the attorney said. “And they said that he would need a fatwa to continue speaking with us, to continue speaking with Americans.”

The fatwa, the shura council told the attorney’s client, couldn’t come from just any imam; it had to be from a senior cleric in Saudi Arabia, a hotbed of fundamentalist Sunni Islam.

In June 2006, Zuhoor said, a Taliban member at Guantanamo bragged to him that there soon would be three “martyrs.”

“The Arabs and some Taliban sat together and issued a verdict,” Zuhoor said. “Three of the men volunteered to kill themselves to get more freedom for the other detainees.”

The next morning, Zuhoor said, the news spread across Guantanamo: Three Arabs had committed suicide.

The Guantanamo commander at the time, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, called the suicides acts of “asymmetric warfare.”

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

LAW SCHOOL TO ORGANIZE BUSH WAR CRIMES TRIAL

0

bushcorruption1.jpgBy Sherwood Ross | A conference to plan the prosecution of President Bush and other high administration officials for war crimes will be held September 13-14 at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover .

“This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred,” said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. “It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth.”

“We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice,” Velvel said. “And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940s.”

Velvel said past practice has been to allow U.S. officials responsible for war crimes in Viet Nam and elsewhere to enjoy immunity from prosecution upon leaving office. “President Johnson retired to his Texas ranch and his Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was named to head the World Bank; Richard Nixon retired to San Clemente and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was allowed to grow richer and richer,” Velvel said.

He noted in the years since the prosecution and punishment of German and Japanese leaders after World War Two those nation’s leaders changed their countries’ aggressor cultures. One cannot discount contributory cause and effect here, he said.

“For Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Yoo to spend years in jail or go to the gallows for their crimes would be a powerful lesson to future American leaders,” Velvel said.

The conference will take up such issues as the nature of domestic and international crimes committed; which high-level Bush officials, including Federal judges and Members of Congress, are chargeable with war crimes; which foreign and domestic tribunals can be used to prosecute them; and the setting up of an umbrella coordinating committee with representatives of legal groups concerned about the war crimes such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, among others.

The Massachusetts School of Law at Andover was established in 1988 to provide an affordable, quality legal education to minorities, immigrants and students from low-income households that might otherwise be denied the opportunity to obtain a legal education and practice law. Its founder, Dean Velvel, has been honored by the National Law Journal and cited in various publications for his contributions to the reform of legal education.

Government caves in to pressure from Bush

bushpoll08.jpgThe real purpose of George Bush’s visit to London became clear this afternoon, as Des Browne was set to announce more British troops are to be sent to Afghanistan, and Bush and Gordon Brown declared their intention to enforce further sanctions on Iran.

The tea in Windsor Castle and dinner in Downing St made the visit look like a social occasion, a farewell tour for an outgoing president. But the real reason for visiting Britain was never tea and cakes with the queen. Bush has been travelling round Europe trying to secure support for sanctions and a possible future attack on Iran, for greater support in Afghanistan and for backing for permanent US bases and occupation in Iraq.

Protesters attempting to highlight opposition to these policies were refused the right to march up Whitehall and were attacked by the police. This government appears to have no shame. It has followed its bribery and bullying
to win the vote on 42 day detention without charge for terrorist suspects with
attacks on our right to protest. It has now added further escalation of the
war
on terror to these attacks on our civil liberties. Gordon Brown is continuing
Tony Blair’s abject loyalty to the most unpopular US president of recent
times.

The Stop the War Coalition has written to the Home Secretary complaining about
the decision to ban protestors from Whitehall and violent police tactics on
the
day.

The letter is below

Jacqui Smith, Secretary of State
Home Office, 3rd Floor, Peel Building
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF

Cc: Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair

16 June

Dear Home Secretary

We are writing to protest in the strongest possible terms concerning the
conduct of the Metropolitan Police at yesterday’s demonstration organised by
the Stop the War Coalition, CND and the British Muslim Initiative.

In particular, we wish to raise two decisions with you. First, the decision
to
ban the march from proceeding peacefully up Whitehall after rallying in
Parliament Square. There can be no justification for this arbitrary
abridgement of our right to peacefully protest. As you may know, the Stop the
War Coalition has organised over twenty major demonstrations in the last seven
years, nearly all of them in London. There has been no disorder, let alone
violence, at any of them. The idea that we could have presented any physical
threat to the President of the United States is laughable. This decision
smacks of a growing authoritarian clamp-down on the right to demonstrate,
bearing in mind that the Metropolitan Police also tried to prohibit our march
in Whitehall last October, and is indicative of your government’s increasingly
cavalier (to put it gently) attitude towards civil liberties. It further
contradicts the Prime Minister’s stated intention, on his accession to office
last summer, to take a more liberal approach to protest around Parliament and
the seat of government.

Second, we ask you to address urgently the violent policing of the
demonstration itself. This arises, of course, from the undemocratic nature of
the decision to ban our march. However, there could under no circumstances be
any justification for the repeated and uncontrolled assault on peaceful
demonstrators who at most were doing no more than attempting to proceed up
Whitehall and in many cases were actually endeavouring to comply with police
instructions. A large number of our supporters, none of whom, of course, were
in any way prepared for any sort of physical confrontation, sustained injuries
from baton-wielding police officers and others were arbitrarily arrested. We
refer you, inter alia, to the attached letter from George Galloway MP to the
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police which details some of the gross and
unjustified brutality which accompanied much of the policing operation.

We hold that this conduct is entirely unacceptable in a democratic country.
The determination of the police to ensure that our voices cannot be heard in
Whitehall on an issue of urgent public controversy, at the apparent behest of
the US President, presents a bleak picture of the government’s priorities.

We are therefore seeking an urgent meeting with you to discuss this issue.
You
will understand that there can be no question of any further co-operation
between the Stop the War Coalition and the Metropolitan Police in regard to
future protests until these concerns are addressed to our satisfaction.

Yours

Andrew Murray
Lindsey German

The Surveillance Society report: DNA discussions

0

1-8002.jpgBy Anthony Hildebrand | The report recognises the National DNA Database as a “valuable investigative tool, particularly in relation to police efforts to solve older cases”

“But the sensitive nature of the information which may be yielded by DNA heightens the degree of responsibility borne by the Government,” it says. “The Home Office must work with the National Policing Improvement Agency and the police to set and observe a regulatory framework which protects individuals from unnecessary invasions of privacy and loss or unauthorised use of their genetic material and information gleaned from it.

“The Home Office should actively support the NPIA in its efforts to reduce the rate of replication on the NDNAD. Inaccuracies in the information on the database must be corrected to enable the police and the public to reap the full benefit of the NDNAD.”

The report is in favour of the Government’s assurances that the National DNA Database won’t be used to “correlate particular genetic characteristics with propensity to commit crime” — genetic profiling, in other words.

“We recommend that the Home Office renew this assurance in conjunction with the Government’s conclusions on the review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act,” the report says. “We recommend that the Home Office make public at the earliest stage any plans to revisit this issue. “

Transparency
It says that Government consultations on the issue should be transparent, and help to clarify “the purposes and processes of DNA collection and retention”.

“There have been calls for an expansion of the National DNA Database to include profiles connected with non-recordable offences and for a ‘universal database’ and for the Government to reconsider its policy on retaining the profiles of those who have been arrested but not charged,” the report says.

“In order to facilitate a full debate and an appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny we recommend that alongside any conclusions of the PACE review the Government introduce primary legislation to replace the current regulatory framework for the National DNA Database. We recommend that this legislation provide for a more accessible mechanism by which individuals can challenge the decision to retain their records on the Database.

“The Government should reconsider the ways in which National DNA database information is collected, handled stored and transferred,” it continues.

“In particular we recommend that in order to minimise the data held, the Home Office and the police should review the identifiers used for samples and the policy of retaining samples.”

Are we losing our civil liberties?

0

civilliberties1.jpgSARAH HALL | New controversial legislation could now be put in place which means anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism can be held without charge for 42 days. And with the government’s apparent determination to press ahead with a national ID card, as well as the huge expansion of biometric data, which means anyone’s fingerprints can be left on a database even if they are innocent, it is one of the most controversial issues in national politics today.

There are fears that foreign nationals will soon need to carry a card, followed probably by students, before others could be encouraged to follow.

There are also concerns databases will not work properly, or remain secure, after several recent government breaches of security.

These moves are seen by many as a gradual erosion of people’s civil liberties but by others as a positive move which, if it becomes law, means Britain will have the toughest anti-terror laws in the Western world.

Norwich North MP Ian Gibson claimed he was offered a key concession on his campaign to end sanctions against Cuba if he supported changing the maximum term a terror suspect can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days.

Dr Gibson, who is also the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Communist state, was told the government would vote against the US-led sanctions in a future motion in Europe, something he has long campaigned for.

But, despite the offer, the Norwich MP was one of 36 Labour MPs to rebel against the government in a Commons poll.

He said: “I think we are turning into an oppressive legal system. ID cards, fingerprinting and the terror detentions are all taking away our basic human rights. None of it is necessary and it is scaring people because we are looking at a Big Brother form of rule and this is not acceptable in this day and age.

“We had 28 days and I think this is too long, I would like to see it go down not up.”

Conservative candidate for Norwich South, councillor Antony Little, said: “We have seen a massive expansion of CCTV; there is pressure on us to get ID cards, and now people can be detained for a long time without charge. The government is cramming in information but how do we know it is secure?”

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said he was worried our civil liberties were being lost.

He said: “Politics used to be divided between left and right but now it seems to be about whether we agree with enforcement or not. The use of ID cards is intrusive but the worst loss of freedom is being able to detain someone without trial and we need to be careful we do not turn into a surveillance society.”

ID cards are to become compulsory this year for non-EU foreign nationals living in Britain, and for 200,000 airport workers and Olympic security staff from next year. Parliament will decide whether the ID cards, which will cost £4.4bn, should be made compulsory for British citizens.

Commons report: British “surveillance society”

0

no2id.jpgQAS | The Commons’ home affairs committee has submitted a report warning of the danger of Britain becoming a surveillance society. The report calls on the government to promise the proposed ID card scheme will not be used to spy on people.

“We recommend that the Home Office produce a report on the intended functions of the national identity scheme in relation to the fight against crime, containing an explicit statement that the administrative information collected and stored in connection with the national identity register will not be used as a matter of routine to monitor the activities of individuals,” the report reads.

ID cards will become compulsory for non-Europeans living in Britain later this year.

Airport workers and Olympic staff will also be issued with them in 2009 and the government will then decide whether to roll the scheme out across all British citizens at a cost of £4.4 billion.

Previous concerns have been expressed about the risks of the cards, which will contain biometric data such as fingerprints, such as identity theft, with many worried that some cards could fall into the wrong hands.

Our Government’s Dirty Little Secrets

6

galloway.jpgBy George Galloway | A Government ready to rely on those friends of liberty, the Democratic Unionist party, to shred the liberties of our own people are almost by definition unembarrassable, but I hope this evening to add to the issues ventilated in a recent Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme to adumbrate the extent to which the tragedy in Somalia, which so many people are now becoming aware of, is another of our Government’s dirty little secrets.

We must start the story in Ethiopia, where 4 million people, according to the United Nations, are facing starvation and 120,000 Ethiopian children have just one month to live, according to last week’s media reports. Television viewers were shocked to see the pictures last week of the widespread suffering redolent of 1984 and the great famine of that year.

The US and Britain immediately pledged $90 million in famine relief. Just one week after its appeal to the international community for famine relief, the Ethiopian Government increased their military budget by $50 million to $400 million. The regime in Addis Ababa–when I knew them in the 1980s, they were pro-Albanian Maoists–are the most militarised and heavily armed in Africa. They are in a state of perpetual war or preparation for war with one neighbour, Eritrea, and they are supporting anti-Government rebels in Sudan, many believe with western connivance.

Most astonishingly of all, the Government of Ethiopia–that starving country whose little children are fly infested, kwashiorkor swollen, famished and famine stricken–have been encouraged, armed, trained, financed and otherwise facilitated to invade and occupy their neighbour, Somalia, and create a reign of terror in that land, which is testified to by this voluminous Amnesty International report, which, if I had time, I would extensively quote from.

Somalia has lost thousands of dead as a result of the Ethiopian invasion. Millions have been displaced. Somalia, under Ethiopian occupation, is the grimmest prison state in Africa–far worse than Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Who has done the encouraging, the arming, the training, the financing and the facilitating? The same US and British Governments who donated the $90 million to the same Ethiopian Government who are burning their money and burning the villages, the neighbourhoods and the people of occupied Somalia.

This Government are never done talking about the shortcomings of African leaders. Just last week in Rome, the Secretary of State for International Development was roaring at Robert Mugabe, yet there has not been a squeak out of him, or any other Minister, about the much bigger crime in which we are ourselves deeply complicit. Is it any wonder that African opinion considers so much of what we have to say about misgovernance in Africa to be the deepest, most cynical hypocrisy?

Two weeks ago, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” team took terrifying risks to bring us the latest from occupied Mogadishu. That was undoubtedly an award-winning documentary. It was memorable for many reasons, not least the scene in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when the Minister of State, Lord Malloch-Brown, his face frozen in horror, was confronted by Aidan Hartley with the central case of the documentary makers. For the benefit of Members who did not see the programme–the Minister will certainly have seen it; she would hardly be sent out to bat on this wicket without being shown it–that central case was that, in the grim prison state of occupied Somalia, the fingerprints of our country and our Government were all over the scene of the crime.

The President of the puppet regime imposed by the Ethiopian army in Somalia turns out to be British. He spends much of his time here–well, it is dangerous in Somalia, after all–and has property and family here. After presiding over a gang of torturers, murderers, grand larceners and extortionists, he flies back to England. Then there is the police chief whose officers kidnap people for ransom, which they extort from people living in our own country–in Leicester, in Birmingham, in London. They torture people, make them disappear, and kill them if their families will not pay. He too is British. As for the former Interior Minister who presides over an interior of mass refugee camps, starvation and misery, and who stands accused of stealing international aid and diverting food for political purposes–why, he is British as well.

Guess who is paying the wages of the murdering, kidnapping, torturing, quisling police force in Ethiopian-occupied Somalia? That’s right: we are. The public dictatorship in Somalia is a very British crime, especially as our own Government–in particular, that pocket-sized Palmerston to whom I referred earlier, the Secretary of State for International Development–are so voluble on the subject of other problems in Africa.

So how did we get here? How did we get into bed with the former pro-Albanian Maoists of the Government in Addis Ababa? I am afraid that the answer is our old friend, our old acquaintance, the policy of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. The policy that has got us into so much trouble, from Afghanistan to Iraq and many other parts of the world, is what lies behind this obscene paradox.

We are supporting the Ethiopian Government’s occupation of Somalia because George Bush told us to: because Somalia is a front line in George Bush’s ill-conceived, counter-productive, utterly discredited, “about to be booted out in the United States” so-called war on terror. We were against the former Government of Somalia because they were an Islamic Government, just as we are against the Government in Sudan because they are an Islamic Government, and just as Ethiopia, on our behalf, opposed the Government in Eritrea because they are an Islamic Government.

This policy, having been such a disaster around the world, is now in full force in Somalia, and but for Channel 4’s “Dispatches” hardly anyone in Britain would know anything about it. No British Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to explain why British taxpayers’ money is being paid to a police force in Mogadishu that is accused of kidnapping people and extorting ransom money from British citizens. No British Minister has come to explain–unless we interpret Lord Malloch-Brown’s frozen face as an explanation–why we are so heavily involved with a puppet regime that is bereft of political and public support in Somalia.

This policy of backing anyone whom Bush tells us to back–this policy of backing anyone who is against those whom we, today, perceive ourselves to be against–is morally utterly vacuous. Arguably worse than that, however, is the fact that it is a total, dismal failure, as we have found in Afghanistan to our bitter, bitter cost, not least this very week. The very mujaheds whom Mrs. Thatcher’s Government lauded, supported and armed are now murdering and killing our soldiers in Afghanistan.

This policy is not only morally bankrupt, it is politically disastrous. Afghanistan is the perfect example, but the Ethiopian Government preside over a country where famine and mass starvation stalk the land. They are being helped militarily to invade, occupy and threaten their neighbours. What can that conceivably do for our standing in Africa, or for our credibility when we lecture the Governments of Sudan or Zimbabwe?

It would be bad enough if our difficulties in that respect were confined to Africa, but the problem is much worse. The Somalians are the tallest people on earth, but they are virtually invisible, politically, on the international stage and in this country. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of Somalians here, either because they have European Union passports or because they are refugees from the very fighting that we initiated and are now fuelling. Increasingly, young Somalis are furious, bitter and angry. They nurse their wrath as they watch–on Somali television or other Muslim channels–the carnage being wrought in their country.

Two million people in Somalia are living as refugees, out of a population of 11 million. That is almost a fifth of the total: to scale it up, in our country that would amount to 12 million people. There are another 1 million Somali refugees in neighbouring countries, and God knows how many hundreds of thousands are scattered across the EU.

In their bitter exile, the sons–and may be the daughters too–of those Somali families are being brought up bitter and furious at the role played by the west in the problems that they see on their televisions screens. We have spent hours this afternoon trying to deal with the problem of terrorism, but we cannot see how that connects with the way that we constantly infuriate young Muslim boys and girls with the double standards and injustices of our policy towards their countries and the countries from which their parents come.

We cannot see the connection between the growth of extremism and our actions. The Government are always looking for a cleric or an organisation to ban or to blame for the radicalisation of Muslim youth in Britain. But those young people do not need a cleric or an organisation to radicalise them: they just have to watch the news and see what our Government are doing in Muslim countries such as Somalia.

I know that the Minister has seen Channel 4’s “Dispatches” programme. She will not claim otherwise, even though she is answering a debate on human rights in Somalia. I hope that she will do a better job than Lord Malloch-Brown did when it comes to explaining how are taxes are being used. Among other things, that tax money could be used to help starving people in Ethiopia. It could be used to keep our pensioners warm in winter or to keep some post offices open.

I see that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is Under-Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister responsible for closing post offices, is standing by your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that that counts as being in the House and that it is therefore in order for me to refer to him.

The British tax money that I have mentioned could have been used for a better purpose, but instead it is being spent on the security forces in Somalia, which Amnesty International, as well as Channel 4, accuses of widespread abuses of human rights–of torture, murder, disappearances, kidnapping, extortion and grand larceny.

Why are we allowing the Interior Minister of Somalia to travel back and forth into our country unmolested when he is accused by aid agencies of purloining international aid–desperately needed emergency aid for hungry people–for himself and for political purposes for his political clan? Why are the Government not stopping him at the border and questioning him about where the money went that was put into Somalia and has disappeared?

Aid agencies will not now, by and large, set foot in Somalia, so catastrophic has the situation there become. I ask the Minister why we are supporting the President, the Interior Minister and the chief of police in Somalia, and allowing them to come and go freely without answering the charges that are being made against them?

When will the Government at least condemn the human rights abuses in Somalia? Amnesty has voluminously recorded them, but not a squeak has come from the Government, which has never done roaring at Sudan or Zimbabwe. Why? Because we are deeply complicit in that. Indeed, we are paying for it; we are paying for the security services that are committing these crimes in Somalia.

The Government might think that because most Somalis in Britain do not, for one reason or another, have votes, they can be ignored–that tall as they are, they can be disregarded. However, the truth is that the Somali community in Britain’s loathing of the actions of our Government is a ticking time bomb in Britain.

I, if not the Minister, am constantly exposed in my constituency, and in Birmingham and Leicester and other places, to the anger of these young Somalis. There is a disaster waiting to happen. I hope that the Minister will announce today that, in the wake of the Channel 4 revelations, she will investigate the allegations properly, and that she will report her findings to the House.

I am talking in my speech tonight about not only the current British Government’s foreign policy towards the horn of Africa and Afghanistan, but about previous Governments’ foreign policies, too. I remember being on the Opposition Benches and accusing the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, of having opened the gates to the barbarians by her support for the so-called mujaheddin in Afghanistan so many years ago. The policy that our Governments have followed of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” has proved to be fatally flawed everywhere that it has been tried, and it is now being tried all over again in Somalia.

Many Somalis will be watching our debate this evening–word is out about it in the Somali community, and it is being shown on Universal TV and other Somali channels. For their sake, I hope that the Minister will come clean about the dreadful problems that exist, and I also hope that she will say some words to the Ethiopian Government.

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Conservative): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having secured this debate. I apologise for having arrived late for it; I was caught somewhat unawares as it began early. What is best for Somalia and its people is, of course, security.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Ethiopian Government are providing security in Somalia at present, and that they want to withdraw from Somalia at the earliest possible moment? Will he also join me in encouraging the United Nations, the African Union Mission in Somalia–AMISOM–and the African Union to ensure that troops are put back into Somalia in order to give Somalis that security, which they need? Ethiopian troops want to return to Addis Ababa.

Mr. Galloway: I do not accept that at all, and it seems that I know the Ethiopian Government rather better than the hon. Gentleman does. As I explained before he came in, I knew them when they were pro-Albanian Maoist guerrillas in the Tigrean People’s Liberation Front. I knew all the leaders–they are now the Government Ministers–and I know that they have no intention of withdrawing from Somalia unless they are forced to do so.

They want to occupy Somalia because they have been paid to do so by the Government of the United States and our own Government. The Ethiopian Government are doing a job for what they imagine to be the western part of the international community. I see the Minister for closing post offices laughing. His constituency contains many Somalis, as does mine, and I hope that the camera caught him laughing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick): I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that I did not laugh at anything that he has been saying so far.

Mr. Galloway: I shall not go further down that track. Perhaps the camera caught the verisimilitude.

The truth is that the Ethiopian Government are carrying out a service for the people who give them weapons, for the people who give them money and for the people who give them diplomatic and political support. They are having a beano in the Ethiopian embassy next week.

Perhaps the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) will go to it; he will certainly get an invitation in the post following his intervention. The Ethiopian Government are having a beano in the Ethiopian embassy in London to celebrate the 17th anniversary of their coming to power, and it is going to be a very grand event.

That event comes at a time when the Ethiopian Government’s own people are starving to death. Their children are starving to death–120,000 children have a month to live–they are invading and occupying their neighbouring countries and nobody says boo about it. In fact, far from saying boo, people are saying, “Here’s some more military and financial aid to do it.”

That is because the Government of President Bush, who are utterly discredited and on their way out, with virtually nowhere to go except Downing street on Sunday for one last photo call, regard the defeat of the former Islamic Government in Somalia as part of their war on terror.

That is what this is all about. Ethiopia is playing the role of hammer in the horn of Africa for the policy of the United States and its war on terror. That is what Ethiopia is doing, so it will not withdraw until a new American Government, hopefully with a Kenyan-affiliated President, tell them that actually this policy is deeply flawed.

The puppet regime of British citizens imposed on Somalia by the Ethiopian invasion would not last five minutes if the Ethiopian forces withdrew–that regime would have to withdraw with them. So, any Government who come to power in Somalia in the future will be filled with hatred of Britain and the United States.

That is the problem that we keep making everywhere; we intervene either to prop up tyrants or to support tyrants because we do not like the tyrants that they are fighting against, and we generate still more problems for ourselves. We wonder why that is, and we agonisingly debate anti-terrorism laws. We wonder why so many people in the Muslim world want to hurt us.

We wonder why so many young people in the Muslim world are so bitter and angry about us that they want to hurt us. Is it any wonder? Can it be any wonder to any sane person? I beg the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to believe me when I say that it is because of the kinds of policies that I have described.

I talk to Somalis all the time, and I know that the rage the Somali community both in Britain and around the world feels about Britain and America’s role in their country generates terrorists. As the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who saved the Government’s bacon earlier this evening, is in his place and as we spent so many hours discussing anti-terrorism, let me spell it out: we are making new terrorists in Britain with our policy towards Somalia, with our double standards and with our hypocrisy.

Mark Pritchard: While the Government of Ethiopia are not perfect–indeed, there are Governments closer to home who are not perfect–it is right that human rights abuses by the Somali security services are fully investigated. Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman accept that if Ethiopian troops withdrew, it would create a security vacuum in which terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, would create mayhem in the horn of Africa, which is a key strategic location, and that would come back to haunt us?

Mr. Galloway: I said in this House when it was recalled a few days after the atrocity of 9/11 that if we handled it the wrong way we would make 10,000 new bin Ladens. We have handled it the wrong way, and we have made 10,000 new bin Ladens. The problem of al-Qaeda in Somalia has been made worse by the western intervention and the Ethiopian invasion. Far more people have been recruited to a narrow, fundamentalist, separatist, violent Islamism by our policy than ever would have been if that policy had never been formed.

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the Amnesty International document. The Ethiopian forces are not providing security: they are providing mass murder and terror in occupied Somalia. The refugee camps are full with 2 million people. No one can walk on the streets of Mogadishu. Channel 4’s reporters were almost killed making their programme. Some of the team on the same vehicle with them were shot dead live on television–

Mark Pritchard: By Somalis.

Mr. Galloway: I do not know if they were shot by Somalis or Ethiopians. The point is that the country has been plunged into utter lawlessness, and to pretend that the Ethiopian Government are providing security is completely ridiculous. The words Somalia and security should not even be mentioned in the same sentence.

There may be a need for African Union forces or Arab League forces. This conflict will go on and I hope that the Minister will not claim that the deal reached this week is any kind of solution to the problem. The people who are doing the fighting are not involved in the deal. It is like a peace process in the north of Ireland that excluded the people who were doing the fighting. That is what has happened in relation to Somalia in the past few days.

I am grateful for the extra time that I had for this debate, and I apologise for my churlish point of order, which turned out to be entirely misconceived. I hope for some answers from the Minister this evening.

Change, What Change?

0

obama11.jpgCounterPunch | On Tuesday June 3 Barack Obama claimed the greatest prize the Democratic Party can offer, namely his nomination as its candidate for the presidency. The very next day the salesman of “change” raced from Minnesota back to Washington and publicly abased himself at the feet of an organization whose prime mission is to ensure that change unpalatable to the state of Israel will never be pressed by the United States government. The terms of Obama’s surrender exploded like rhetorical cluster bombs across the Middle East. To Israel and its Arab neighbors it surely signaled that whoever moves into the White House next January, there will be no swerve from Bush’s role as guarantor of Israeli intransigeance.The conferences of the American Israel Public Committee have become showcases for the political clout of this lobbying group. The clout is real . A politician angering the Lobby can see campaign funds dry up and surprise challenges by well financed opponents. Back in September, 1991 President George Bush Sr, took on the Lobby pointing out that the U.S. spends nearly $1,000 a year for every Israeli and suggested this was extortion at the hands of AIPAC. “I’m up against some powerful forces,” he said at his press conference. “They’ve got something like 1,000 lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We’ve got one lonely little guy here doing it.” He want that particular battle, but some count the resultant enmity of AIPAC as a serious factor in his defeat by Clinton the following year. If so, George Jr took the lesson to heart.As US reps and senators and their staffs crowded the back of the convention center, the audience of 7,000 from across the US cheered as politician after politician marched to the rostrum for the politically rewarding declarations of loyalty to Israel.

Before he began his drive to the nomination Obama took good care to get the support of influential American Jews in Chicago like the Crown family, associated with the aerospace firm, General Dynamics.

As I wrote here back in February, a notorious scandal of the Kennedy years was JFK’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, overruling all expert review and procurement recommendations and insisting that General Dynamics rather than Boeing make the disastrous F-111, at that time one of the largest procurement contracts in the Pentagon’s history. The suspicion was that Henry Crown of Chicago was calling in some chits for his role in fixing the 1960 JFK vote in Cook County, Illinois, to the impotent fury of the teenage Hillary Clinton, who was a poll watcher for Nixon. Crown, of Chicago Sand and Gravel, had $300 million of the mob’s money in General Dynamics’ debentures, and after the disaster of the Convair, General Dynamics needed the F-111 to avoid going belly-up, taking the mob’s $300 million with it.

Henry Crown has passed on to the great pork barrel in the sky, but his descendants in the Crown clan are devoted contributors to Obama, giving him tens of thousands of dollars, as a glance at the website of the Center for Responsive Politics swiftly attests. The Crown family is still deeply involved in the affairs of General Dynamics. Lester and James Crown have both had seats on the company’s board in recent years. General Dynamics has ties to Israeli military contractors. A 2003 General Dynamics corporate handout cited by Chicago Indymedia proclaimed “a strategic alliance with Aeronautics Defense Systems, Ltd.,” an Israeli firm based in Yavne. Aeronautics Defense Systems Ltd. is the firm that developed the Unmanned Multi-Application System (UMASa) aerial surveillance tool which the Israeli military uses to “provide a real-time ‘bird’s eye view’ of the surveillance area to combatant commanders and airborne command posts.” The Indymedia story quoted then-Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,as saying the agreement between General Dynamics and Aeronautics Defense Systems to bring together “both companies’ state-of-the art technologies in defense and homeland security” was “additional proof of the technological and commercial benefits that alliances between industries from the U.S. and Israel can produce.” An eye in the sky over Gaza ends up as a dollar in Obama’s war chest.

On January 11 of this year, hot on the heels of an editorial praising Obama as a Friend of Israel in the rabidly Zionist New York Sun, Lester Crown circulated a testimonial through the Jewish community, expressing his eagerness “to share with you my confidence that Senator Barack Obama’s stellar record on Israel gives me great comfort that, as President, he will be the friend to Israel that we all want to see in the White House-stalwart in his defense of Israel’s security, and committed to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors. Few public figures inspire as much hope and optimism as Barack Obama. Please pass on this message to all who are interested.”

Worried about rumors fanned by the Clinton campaign that he was still a secret Muslim, Obama insisted that before the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania, a state with a politically significant Jewish vote, his campaign start a Hebrew-language blog in Israel.

So Obama came to this year’s AIPAC conference determined to dispel all remaining doubts that he’s a Friend of Israel. “We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran,” he assured AIPAC.” I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything and I mean everything.” He swore he wouldn’t talk to the elected representatives Palestinians, Hamas. To thunderous applause he declared, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,”

As Uri Avnery, the veteran Israeli writer and peace activist expostulated here furiously in the wake of this last sentence: “Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan ‘Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity’. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared – quietly, almost secretly – from the arsenal of official slogans. No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict. On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up.”

Obama’s foreign policy advisors were tearing their hair out and the next day his campaign issued a clarification. “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.” All the same, they insisted, Jerusalem in Obama’s eyes must be the capital of Israel.

Obama’s most egregious talent is the ability to adapt his rhetoric with ominous speed, to allay any suspicion among the powerful, that he really will rock the boat in a way they might not care for. Earlier in the campaign he was criticized for not wearing the American flag as a lapel pin. At the AIPAC event he wore a double lapel pin, with both the US and Israeli flags. Is there a “real Obama” waiting to emerge, once the messy business of pleasing the voters is over? Not really.The making of the “real” Obama is an ongoing project, ad the AIPAC an important marker in the evolution of “change”.

Although Obama’s groveling got wide coverage across the Middle East, the press here, from the New York Times to Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” (see Muhammad Idrees Ahmad’s piece on this site last week) kept silent. It was evidently taken as a given, unworthy of editorial remark, that a man who might very well be the next president, was de-activating the policy of “change” precisely where it is most needed at the behest of the men Jon Stewart edgily derided on his show as “the elders of Zion”. Stewart fired off some pretty sharp comments about AIPAC, on the grovelfest, somewhat to my surprise, since I’m not a big Stewart fan, having found that it has become a cultic affair, devoted to the greater glory of Stewart, somewhat in the same manner as “Democracy Now” for Goodman’s devotees, who approach her broadcasts as yet one more variety of religious experience.

The sequestration of the American people from important world news is one of the prime tasks of the press here. A couple of weeks ago Patrick Cockburn had two very important scoops,
(www.counterpunch.org/patrick06052008.html &
www.counterpunch.org/patrick06062008.html
) outlining the precise terms of the secret “agreement” the US is trying to ram down the throat of the Iraqis on permanent military bases. It was a huge political story in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. It was covered in Europe. I found a detailed account of Patrick’s scoops, with intelligent comment, in Trinidad’s leading paper. But I found almost nothing here. Not in the New York Times, not in the Washington Post, not on the networks. On June 12 Goodman and Gonzalez did have Patrick on “Democracy Now” and did a useful interview with him. And on Friday June 13, CSPAN had Patrick on its Washington Journal program and CSPAN’s viewers learned what their government is up to.

Asian Fury at Laura Bush

First Ladies are expected to pick an issue and make it their own. Ladybird Johnson toiled to make America more beautiful. Nancy Reagan said No to drugs. Laura Bush has taken Myanmar, aka Burma, to her heart. But now she’s put her foot in it. 

In the wake of the terrible cyclone the First Lady said the United States would consider sending relief assistance to Burma only if the Burmese military junta accepts a U.S. disaster assistance response team to assess the scope of the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis. Many in the region think the prime role of such a team would be to prep international opinion for “humanitarian intervention”. “‘The U.S. first lady’s political demands were inappropriate,’ said Aung Naing Oo, an exiled Burmese political analyst. ‘This is a time when people are dying and suffering to a horrible degree, so if the U.S. really wants to help, it can help without making political demands,’ “

The cynical way the US has responded to the killer cyclone and the resentment this has caused in Asia is the subject of Peter Lee’s fascinating report in the new crackerjack edition of our newsletter. 

Here also are terrific pieces by Kevin Alexander Gray and Jeffrey St Clair.

A taster from Kevin, on “Why Blacks Keep Quiet About Obama”:

“Black people always have to navigate race fear; the long Democratic primary season has just underlined that. Joking, comedian Jon Stewart asked Obama, if elected, “Will you pull a bait and switch and enslave the white race?” Kinda funny. Except that’s precisely the sentiment that underlies white race fear. I’ve heard the same thing said in seriousness by more than one white person. “If Obama gets the White House what will they want next?” Or, “if Obama wins, blacks will think they’re running things.”. . .Give a listen to the corporate media, and it’s pretty clear what tune black voices are supposed to be singing. Obama is constantly called on to swear allegiance to America — to prove he isn’t swearing allegiance to blacks. The other way to say that is he’s supposed to swear allegiance to white, not black, America. Meanwhile, the back end of that deal is that black Americans are required to substitute Obama for real structural racial progress. As in, “You got your nominee. See, we’re not so racist or bad after all. Now shut up!”

Jeffrey St Clair writes on Los Angeles’ weapon of mass destruction: air. By the time average L.A.-born kids reach eighteen, they will have breathed enough toxic air to place them 344 times over what the EPA considers an acceptable lifetime exposure to these contaminants.
All this in the new CounterPunch newsletter, for subscribers only.

Footnote: A shorter version of the first item in this Diary ran on The First Post last Friday. Alexander Cockburn can be reached at alexandercockburn@asis.com

Can Technology Improve Your Memory?

0

memory.jpgBy Laura Weldon | You have everything you need to keep you informed. Technology provides you with answers to almost any question instantly. If you need reminders, you can program devices to prompt you to remember your appointments and to-do list. Yet, you keep forgetting things. Right now you may not be sure where you put your BlackBerry charger or whether you took your vitamins that morning. You also may not be sure if it’s your turn to pick up the kids today.

While technology saves us the burden of remembering endless details, it also adds to our memory problems. In part, that’s because we need to remember random codes like passwords, logins and user names. These strings of numbers and letters become useful as codes precisely because they are confusing and meaningless. But that’s also what makes them hard for our brains to access.

Memory works best when it interconnects. We create neural pathways in our brains as we connect a new piece of information with sensory details, recollections and knowledge — forming a meaningful memory that we can easily retrieve. For example, you may be standing outside and notice a bird you haven’t seen before. Someone tells you the tiny songbird is a barn swallow known as a traveler. It flies hundreds of miles a day in search of food, and each year migrates up to 14,000 miles. You may feel a sudden kinship with this energetic creature since your life keeps you constantly busy as well. When and where you hear facts, how you feel at the time, and the way you link the details with other information in your mind — this all plays a part in memory. Chances are you will remember the sunny warmth of the day when you first saw the barn swallow and the insight gained as you thought about your own life ‘on the fly.’

Another problem with technology is the obvious way that it interrupts us. Details are locked into our memories when we pay careful attention to them. That makes them more easily retrieved as well. How often do you have a full half hour, let alone a full five minutes to concentrate on any one thing without email, text messages or other distractions? Yet without concentration, recall is challenged. A meal is much more memorable at a new elegant restaurant because of the attention paid to it and the time devoted to it. You are fully aware of the novelty as you savor each mouthful, and thus remember the experience. Contrast that with a meal eaten at your desk while finishing a project. The food you ingest is hardly tasted let alone memorable. A few weeks later you can recall one meal while the other has been completely forgotten. It isn’t the food eaten quite so much as the attention you paid to it that made the difference.

We also have to admit that technology removes some of the mental discipline that every generation before us had to practice. We may be weakening ourselves over time because we don’t have to do the work of memorizing information, navigating roads or keeping track of upcoming events now that digital devices handle those tasks for us. What evidence do we have? Technology not only affects the way we process information, taken to an extreme it may also diminish memory. In the book, “Carved in Sand: When Attention Fails and Memory Fades in Midlife,” author Cathryn Jakobson Ramin says that there’s a name in Japan for those who constantly click away at keypads. They’re called “oyayubizoku,” or “thumb tribe.” Researchers at Japan’s Hokkaido University School of Medicine studied a group of oyayubizoku whose lives are consumed by electronic organizers, cell phones and laptops. They found that about ten percent of them had lessened the brain’s capacity to learn and store information. One neurobiologist commented that these individuals had “lost the ability to remember new things, to pull out old data or to distinguish between important and unimportant information.”

Of course, when you are concerned about your memory you’re often told that the remedy is more technology. To some extent that may be helpful if you use reminder and calendar functions. As baby boomers approach the geriatric decades, the market is filling with technology promoted to enhance memory. Video “brain games” are said to guarantee results in a few minutes a day. There’s not much solid research to back up these claims. Some of these products are engaging and could do a passable job of stimulating thinking, especially if used more than a minute or two. But building mental fitness requires the same kind of practice and dedication as physical fitness. Long-term use of such games may be useful, yet there are many other ways to improve your memory without spending time and money on mental gymnastics.

Attitude

It’s common to notice an occasional lapse in memory, after all, forgetfulness isn’t something you appreciate. You may even begin to humorously identify yourself as someone with a failing memory. But when you highlight these very normal mistakes, you aren’t helping the problem. That’s due to what psychologists call “self-talk,” the ongoing internal conversation we have with ourselves. If your self-talk includes the idea that you have a “brain like a sieve” or “error — memory leak” is your mode of operation, you will notice more and more evidence that supports this negative concept. Unintentionally you are reinforcing traits like inattention and confusion. Instead, cultivate an attitude of appreciation for your mind and body. Notice the amount of high-level thinking that you do. Adopt a healthier mindset by regarding memory lapses as incidents which are warning that it’s time to slow down and start savoring your life more.

Meditation

Studies indicate that people who meditate have an improved outlook and increased concentration. They also have somewhat better memories. Research at Massachusetts General Hospital shows that regular meditation increases blood flow to the cerebral cortex, thickening that area of the brain. It’s thought that this physical change enhances focus, memory and attention span. Meditation allows you to access the stillness beyond your thinking mind, to enter a state of peaceful awareness that simply observes. There are many forms of meditation. Develop a practice that fits into your life and enjoy benefits that go well beyond improved memory.

Movement

When we exercise, our muscles generate proteins that enter the brain. These proteins support learning and recall. One such protein is called brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which promotes the sort of brain development necessary for long-term memory and higher-level thinking. Exercise also increases blood flow to the brain, essential to thought processes. And we know that an active lifestyle stimulates neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine that are essential to attention, learning and positive emotions.

As Dr. John J. Ratey explains in Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain, ” In addition to priming our state of mind, exercise influences learning directly, at the cellular level, improving the brain’s potential to log in and process new information.” That means when we play a fast paced game of tennis or master complex yoga moves, our brains are improving along with the rest of our bodies. So build regular, sustained movement into your daily life. Try varying your activities to keep up your interest level and provide continuing challenges.

Nutrition

Adequate water intake is essential for proper brain function. Take water along in your own water bottle so you don’t need to resort to soda, energy drinks or other less healthful liquids. A healthy diet is also vital. Food containing adequate omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants have been shown to support concentration and recall. It’s best to avoid spikes and dips in blood sugar, as this has a negative effect on brain function. Eating smaller amounts in regularly spaced snacks, choosing whole foods, avoiding sugars and refined grains, paying attention to food intolerances and eating a wide variety of foods are helpful strategies. Some studies have shown that the supplements ginkgo biloba and phosphatidylserine may improve memory.

Timing

Each person has an optimal time of day for thinking and functioning. Rob West, director of the Cognitive Psychology Program at Iowa State University, says research has determined that this time period changes as people get older. When younger adults are tested it’s found that their optimal time tends to be late afternoon or early evening. Beginning around the age of 50, this optimal time shifts to a much earlier part of the day, normally from eight a.m. to noon. According to West, one test to assess an individual’s optimal thinking time is the Morningness-Eveningness Scale (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bjlogie/test.htm) . Be sensitive to when you function best, and perform more challenging mental tasks during that time. You shortchange your abilities if you overload yourself with studies, work or competing obligations exactly at the time of day when you are at the lowest ebb.

Writing

Writing supports memory. Yes, writing things down provides a helpful reminder. But it has also been found that the effort involved helps us organize our thoughts. Taking notes, making a list, drawing up an agenda, penning a letter, or keeping a diary stimulates the sort of thinking that is good for memory. When we do this our ideas and feelings are not just a jumble of indistinct impressions, they are clearer and more accessible for recall. Over time, people who purposefully write things down tend to concentrate better. Interestingly, people who write about upsetting events also experience improved function and find themselves more emotionally stable.

Incorporate the habit of writing in your daily life. Keep a regular journal. Maintain a diary for travel and special events. Print out photos and attach notes. Make regular lists and enjoy crossing items off as you accomplish them. Maintain a gratitude log, noting one or more things you are grateful for each day. Write down your comments and impressions as you read a good book and tuck the notes amongst the pages, this is useful when re-reading or sharing the book with others. Revive the art of writing letters and thank you notes, perhaps making a copy to keep for yourself as an ongoing epistolary scrapbook. Consider joining a public speaking group such as Toastmasters to ramp up the challenge of organizing and presenting your thoughts.

Variety

Our brains are attracted to novelty. Rote tasks don’t stimulate thinking and memory even when the activities are enjoyable. If you play a game of squash every week with the same friend, chances are very few that these games stand out in your mind. It’s great to keep up regular rituals that you enjoy. But add variety on a regular basis. Doing something different creates new circuitry in your brain. Every day you can make a small change such as taking a new route to work, trying a new recipe or listening to a different genre of music. You can also add bigger challenges that ramp up brain function. Learn a new language, take dance lessons, tutor a student, try your hand at sculpting, take a trip, join a club or volunteer.

About the author

Laura Weldon is a writer with a book called Free Range Learning coming out in 2008. She lives on an organic farm and believes in bliss.

It’s Conyers’s Time to Act on Impeachment

0

impeach1.jpgDennis Kucinich is saying exactly what you were saying before you became chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Now you have the power. Use it. To hell with Pelosi and Hoyer.

By Matthew Rothschild | Now. Not to delay. Not to cower. Not to bend to the will of Nancy Pelosi. But to stand up tall for the Constitution as head of the House Judiciary Committee. By introducing 35 thoughtful and detailed articles of impeachment against President Bush on June 9, Dennis Kucinich has put Conyers on the spot.

It’s “to be, or not to be” time.

And Conyers knows what’s right. He himself introduced a bill to explore grounds for impeaching Bush–but that was in 2005, before the Democrats came to power.

Lewis Lapham of Harper’s interviewed Conyers and wrote about his brave and quixotic stance back then. Why was Conyers for impeachment then? “ ‘To take away the excuse,’ he said, ‘that we didn’t know.’ So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, ‘Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?’ when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that ‘somehow it escaped our notice’ that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.”

So why is Conyers doing nothing now, when, as the Supreme Court ruled again this week, the President has essentially set himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law?

Because Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, the cowardly leaders of the Democratic Party in the House, have told him to. They claim, in public, that it would be a waste of time, since Bush’s term is running out, or that they have more important things to do. But privately I’m sure they are saying it might not be good for the party in November. I believe they are wrong about that, since Bush is extremely unpopular, and impeachment would galvanize the progressive base. But even if they’re right, they’re putting petty party politics above the Constitution.

Jack Cafferty of CNN made a similar point in a great commentary on CNN.

And Jonathan Turley and Keith Olbermann have been going over the grounds of impeachment on MSNBC.

The Washington Post covered it.

The AP ran a story. So did the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

And Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press wrote an impressive column praising Kucinich.

But The New York Times didn’t do its own story, taking only a handful of words from the AP. And impeachment did not exactly lead the nightly network news programs.

I also wonder why more members of the House haven’t endorsed Kucinich’s resolution.

At this moment, there are only three: Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee of California, and Robert Wexler of Florida.

“A decision by Congress to pursue impeachment is not an option, it is a sworn duty,” Wexler said. “It is time for Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution against blatant violations and illegalities of this Administration.”

Woolsey focused on the crime of the Iraq War. “More than 4,000 brave men and omen have paid for President Bush’s mistake with their lives,” said Woolsey. “And tens of thousands of others will forever bear the physical and mental wounds of war. As a coequal branch of government, the Congress owes it to each one of them, and their families, to hold those who led us to war under false pretenses accountable.”

For her part, Lee, too, cited “the President’s abuse of the public trust in his fateful and calamitous decision to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq.” But she also remarked upon Bush’s “campaign of fear mongering and demagoguery to curtail the civil liberties of Americans at home in the name of fighting the so-called War on Terror. Congressman Kucinich has performed a valuable service to our nation by documenting for the record this tragic history.”

Lee, Woolsey, and Wexler are showing the kind of principle that should be commonplace but alas is not in Congress. Where are the other decent Democratic members of the House? What are they hiding from? Where is their spine?

Despite the lack of coverage and support, Kucinich trudges on in his lonely battle in defense of our Constitutional government.

If the Judiciary Committee fails to hold hearings within the month, Kucinich says he’ll reintroduce his bill.

“We must not only create an historical record of the misconduct of the Bush Administration,” he said, “but we must make sure that any future Administration is forewarned about the Constitutionally proscribed limits of executive authority and exercise of power contravening the Constitution.”

John Conyers, are you out there?

Are you listening?

Dennis Kucinich is saying exactly what you were saying before you became chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Now you have the power. Use it.

To hell with Pelosi and Hoyer.

This is your moment for courage.

Detention Camp Remains, but Not Its Rationale

0

camp.jpgBy WILLIAM GLABERSON | The Guantánamo Bay detention center will not close today or any day soon. But the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday stripped away the legal premise for the remote prison camp that officials opened six years ago in the belief that American law would not reach across the Caribbean to a United States naval station in Cuba.“To the extent that Guantánamo exists to hold detainees beyond the reach of U.S. courts, this blows a hole in its reason for being,” said Matthew Waxman, a former detainee affairs official at the Defense Department.

And without that, much will change.

The decision granted detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, meaning that federal judges will now have the power to check the government’s claims that the 270 men still held there are dangerous terrorists. That will force officials to answer questions about evidence that they have long deflected despite international criticism and expressions of support, from President Bush on down, for closing the camp.

Some cases, though no one can be sure how many, are likely to result in court orders freeing detainees. The government said Thursday that its prosecutions before military commissions at Guantánamo would continue, but habeas corpus suits resulting from the justices’ decision are certain to complicate the 19 war crimes cases under way, giving detainees’ lawyers a vehicle to try to stop those proceedings.

Just as important, some lawyers said, defending scores of cases will be a huge burden for the government, most likely increasing pressure inside the Bush administration to send detainees back to their home countries.

Nearly 100 of the 270 detainees are Yemenis. American officials have said they have not repatriated many of them because of fears that they would be released quickly. The decision Thursday, several lawyers said, could encourage American officials to take their chances, shrinking the population by a third or more.

Detainees’ lawyers have long claimed that the government will not be able to justify the detention of many of the men. Pentagon officials, on the other hand, have maintained that classified evidence establishes that many of them are dangerous. The federal courts will now have the power to sort through those claims.

But the justices’ decision did not change some realities that have long made it easier to say that the Guantánamo detention center should be closed than to figure out how. Just last month Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who advocates closing the camp, told Congress that “we’re stuck” in Guantánamo.

One military official said Thursday that those complications remained as confounding after the ruling as they were before. The official, who was not authorized to discuss the court ruling and spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that practical difficulties had stalled plans for an alternative to Guantánamo. Among those is the question of where to put detainees whom the administration views as too dangerous to release.

Under the decision, it appears that the detainees will have the same rights to challenge their status whether they are at Guantánamo or at a military base or prison inside the United States. “If the detainees have constitutional habeas rights at Guantánamo,” the official said, “what incentive is there to go through the logistical, fiscal and legislative pain of bringing them to the U.S.?”

The 5-to-4 defeat for the administration’s detention policies was unqualified: a majority of the justices said the Constitution applied at Guantánamo.

“Liberty and security can be reconciled,” the majority opinion said.

But lawyers said many questions remained unanswered, including the breadth of the detainees’ protections.

The question of whether detainees have habeas rights has long been a central issue in the battle over Guantánamo. Scores of such cases had been in the courts before Congress sought to strip federal judges of the power to hear them. Habeas suits by virtually all the 270 detainees are now expected to commence or be revived, lawyers said.

Such cases give federal judges broad powers to review the government’s reasons for holding a prisoner. But once a judge is satisfied that there is a legitimate basis, a case can end quickly with a ruling in the government’s favor.

“Habeas is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a detainees’ lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “It just provides a fair, legitimate and independent sorting process to determine who should and who should not be held.”

Mr. Bush on Thursday appeared to hold open the possibility of a new legislative effort to alter the decision’s result. But for the moment, the administration seemed tangled in a dilemma of its own making, left with a detention camp housing some admitted architects of terror, including the 2001 attacks on the United States, but with the idea evidently dead that the camp was beyond the reach of the courts.

In his testimony to Congress last month, Secretary Gates said the Pentagon had “a serious ‘not in my backyard’ problem” in finding a substitute for Guantánamo. He also listed other concerns that the administration says have kept it from coming up with a plan for closing the detention camp.

Among those, he said, is a Pentagon conclusion that some 8o detainees cannot be charged with war crimes, perhaps because the evidence is not strong enough, but are nonetheless considered too dangerous to release. About 80 other detainees are to be charged with war crimes, the Pentagon has said.

Some administration supporters argued that Thursday’s ruling provided unrealistic protections for men captured during war. Under such circumstances, the government cannot be expected to present orderly evidence justifying detention as it would in civilian cases, said David B. Rivkin, a lawyer who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration.

“The level of due process they require,” Mr. Rivkin said, “will be impossible to meet and therefore will result in the release of a substantial number of enemy combatants.”

Margot Williams contributed reporting.

High Court: Gitmo Detainees Have Rights in Court

0

rightsincourt.jpgBy MARK SHERMAN | The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court’s liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some who have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

Democracy in the EU Institutions

1

irishflag.jpgBlair Watch | There is much debate over the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, but what I’m finding interesting is how a democratic decision by an electorate is regarded in the EU institutions. Remember, most nations have ratified the treaty by shoving it through their national parliament, often with little debate.

How people respond and react will say a lot about how democratic Europe really is. This is a little difficult, with the Eurosceptics being too hungover to speak and many others keeping their heads down, but let’s see if we can round-up the blogs etc and see what we find.

Earlier I said how I overheard Andrew Duff, leader of the Liberal Democrats say ‘We will not accept this decision’. So far there is no confirmation that ZANU-PF have offered him a job as Press Spokesman.

Tory MEP Richard Corbett has a thoughful piece wondering where to go from here, but pointing out that Ireland must have an internal debate about what they want from a treaty and how to address these concerns. Stanley Crossick thinks

We already knew that the referendum is not an appropriate mechanism for approving a complex treaty. We already knew that the European Union has not successfully been ‘sold’ to its citizens. We already knew that a veto is unacceptable in a union of 27.

One wonders if he would have written the same thing about the mechanism if the vote has been Yes, but the fact that the EU hasn’t been ‘sold’ is the key point.

Aiden Gibson makes a case for a Pro-Europe No vote. EU Observer supports the Lisbon treaty but reflects that the EU hasn’t made enough progress on improving democracy, thansparency or efficiency. A very interesting article.

In a disturbing development, the Irish Daily Mail has published a secret memo where EC Vice-President Margot Wallstrom will ‘tone down or delay and pronouncements from Brussels that may be unhelpful’. Bruno Waterfield of the Daily Telegraph takes up the story.

More comment is here. We will add links as we find them, please leave your suggestions in the comments.

So what’s really going on?

The EU was designed from the very start to be a top down organisation, mainly by people who were deeply affected by WWII and its aftermath. They designed a set up where ‘we know what’s best for you’ ruled the day. They also narrowed down decision making to make it more manageable, or malleable depending on your perspective.

For many years this did reasonably well and life carried on.

Today things are different. Politics has changed, on the one hand many parties have moved to the centre and blurred the lines between them. Younger readers may not know this, but in the UK there once was a very real difference between Labour the Conservatives. Really.

Faced with a preceived lack of difference or choice, allied to the rise of the internet, people became disillusioned and cynical. They also felt less involved, less interested. One aspect is the rise of single issue politics, either as a simple “Out of Europe Now’ or protests against veal calf exports, road building etc.

People still have some sort of connection to their MP, but not to their MEP’s who have unmanagabley large constituencies. They are also working in Brussels and Strasbourg, physically remote from their constituents. Indeed one reform that could be helpful is to close down Strasbourg and have one seat of government.

The Irish citizens, like a great many other countries inhabitants, would if they were allowed to, have given the EU a bloody nose. Not entirely because they want out of the EU, but they want an accountable and democratic EU. The message is clear: “We’re here, take notice of us”.

Will Europe make real and serious attempts to be open, transparent and above all, democratic? The replies of Eurocrats and Brussels insiders to the referendum will be the earliest indication.

Watch them like hawks. We disagree with UKIP as we feel there is a chance, albeit slim and against massive odds, to build an open Europe, but an essential requirement is that those employed or funded by the European institutions must be willing do do whatever it takes to ensure these fundamental reforms are discussed and implemented, and we mean a lot more action than writing meaningless, bland and turgid press releases and reports that essentially say as little as possible or occasional maealy mouthed press conferences.

Jean -Paul Satre Famously said ‘Hell is other people’, If he’d been still around he would realise that Hell is in fact reading EU documents.

We need a real commitment to transform the European Project from a top-down institution to a bottom up one.

Mobile Phone Number Moving Caused Feds to Wiretap Wrong American

0

wiretap.jpgBy Ryan Singel | In poring through the latest round of documents the FBI turned over to the Electronic Frontier Foundation about how the FBI legally plugs into the nation’s telephone system, THREAT LEVEL discovered that the nation’s secret spy court repeatedly questioned the FBI in 2005 and 2006 about whether the Bureau was exceeding its wiretap authority. 

But there were other fine eavesdropping nuggets in those pages, including info on when the FBI learned to wiretap VOIP calls, how number portability messed with FBI taps, and a moment of candor from an FBI technician about how the FBI’s wiretapping software could work with the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program.

For instance,  the FBI accidentally listened in on one innocent American phone conversations due to a hack a phone company used to let people take port their phone numbers from one cell provider to another. At issue is a workaround used by CDMA providers, where a carrier assigns an alias number to a ported number in order to speed up switching at a user’s usual calling area. The workaround has the unfortunate side effect of occasionally reporting the alias — which could actually be a real person’s number — instead of the real caller to the FBI’s wiretapping software.

In the FBI’s own words, “due to misinformation in the call records, the unrelated subscriber was temporarily included in the investigation” and “this error has recently misled a few FBI investigations.

Secondly, in one message thread (.pdf) about moving offices in Manhattan and wiretapping the traditional wireline phone service in March 2006, one FBI employee who works for the FBI’s Operational Technology Division asks if the NSA still does warrantless wiretaps and suggests how the FBI’s equipment could be configured to deal with the lack of court orders.

Does the [redacted] do intercepts without court orders? I thought we act as a proxy for [redacted — likely FISA]. That is, we serve the company the order for the [FISA] targets. If so there should not be a problem: the DCS-3000 can direct all FISA traffic to the [ redacted – likely DCS-5000 system]. If not, then we can segreagate the [redacted – likely NSA] traffic from our traffic by giving [redacted – likely the carriers] separate telephone numbers for [redacted – likely the NSA] and Bureau to deliver the CDC data. For example, [redacted – likely the NSA’s] targets’ CDC data can be delivered to 212-[redacted phone number] the FBI’s target’s CDC data can be delivered to 212[redacted phone number].

In reply, an FBI agent from New York City wrote back:

It is my understanding that we do act as a proxy with delivering their orders. The [redacted] does that. However, they do a lot more surveillance than we do. I will get someone from the [redacted – likely NSA] down here when you guys come to set up the equipment for the DCS_3000 move.

A third message of interest note that in June 2005, the FBI’s wiretapping software successfully collected foreign intelligence wiretaps on two separate VOIP subscribers (provider is redacted in the docs). The call records were delivered like any phone switch would, while the phone communication itself was snagged via a CALEA-like feature built-into Cisco CMTS routers, which delivered copies of the conversation to the FBI. That’s pretty significant since the Justice Department argued that this capability had to be mandated for VOIP companies, when it seems the feds were able to pull it off without design mandates.

That interception predated the extension of CALEA mandates to the internet and IP traffic generally. That mandate went into effect May 11, 2007, on what THREAT LEVEL dubbed “Wiretap the Internet Day.”

Iraqi PM: Security deal with U.S. at ‘dead end’

0

iraq-flag1.jpgMSNBC | AMMAN, Jordan – Talks with the United States on a new long-term security pact have reached a “dead end” because of U.S. demands that infringed Iraq’s sovereignty, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Friday.

“We have reached a dead end, because when we started the talks, we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept,” Maliki told journalists during a visit to neighboring Jordan.

The agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires this year. Failure to strike a deal would leave the future of the American military presence here to the next administration.

U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, claiming that accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of the country.

In his first detailed comments on the talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, al-Maliki said Iraq objected to Washington’s insistence on giving its troops immunity from prosecution in Iraq and freedom to conduct operations independent of Iraqi control.

“We can’t extend the U.S. forces permission to arrest Iraqis or to undertake terror fighting in an independent way, or to keep Iraqi skies and waters open for themselves whenever they want,” he said.

‘Reject this totally’
“One of the important issues that the U.S. is asking for is immunity for its soldiers and those contracting with it. We reject this totally.”

Iman al-Asadi, a Shiite member of the parliamentary committee on legal affairs, said on Wednesday the latest American version “wasn’t satisfactory to say the least.”

She said the American proposals contained “some good points but they were not up to what we had expected.” Al-Asadi said the committee had recommended to the negotiators that they reject the latest draft, the fourth since the talks began last March.

U.S. officials have refused to release details of the talks while they are still under way but have expressed their respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

The top State Department adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, told reporters this week that the two sides would meet a July target date to finish the agreement, which must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

Bush told reporters this week in Germany that he was also confident that a deal would be reached.

But a senior Iraqi official told The Associated Press that chances of finalizing an agreement before the November U.S. elections were “slim,” although he added that al-Maliki’s government was interested in a deal if it served Iraqi interests.

‘Scandal’
Al-Asadi also said the Americans had softened their demand for control of a considerable part of Iraq’s airspace but the Iraqis insisted on full control.

“If the U.S. controls the air, the ground and the sea, this means no sovereignty,” she said.

Al-Asadi refused to release further details or talk about how many bases the United States wanted access to under the agreement. She said the Americans were now avoiding talk of numbers of bases but were asking for an “American presence” until Iraqi security forces were deemed ready to take over from U.S.-led forces.

She said the agreement included no timetable for drawing down American forces and “this is a scandal.”

Bush Pledges on Iraq Bases Pact Were a Ruse

0

bush51.jpgBy Gareth Porter – Inter Press Service | WASHINGTON – Two key pledges made by the George W. Bush administration on military bases in its negotiations with the government of Iraq have now been revealed as carefully-worded ruses aimed at concealing U.S. negotiating aims from both U.S. citizens and Iraqis who would object to them if they were made clear.

Recent statements by Iraqis familiar with U.S. demands in negotiations on the U.S.-Iraq “strategic framework” agreement have highlighted the fact that administration promises that it would not seek “permanent bases” or the use of bases to attack Iran or any other neighbouring countries were deliberately misleading. The wording used by the Bush administration appears to have been chosen to obscure its intention to have both long-term access to Iraqi bases and complete freedom to use them to launch operations against Iran and Syria.

When Defence Secretary Robert Gates first informed the public about U.S. aims in negotiating Jan. 24, he renounced the aim of “permanent bases” in Iraq. Gates said the U.S.-Iraq agreement “would not involve – we have no interest in permanent bases”. The same day, State Department spokesman Tom Casey, asked if the agreement would include any reference to “permanent bases”, replied, “We’re not seeking permanent bases in Iraq. That’s been a clear matter of policy for some time.”

Casey went on to say, “No, the agreement is not a basing agreement.”

In Congressional testimony Apr. 8, Ambassador Ryan Crocker said the agreements “will not establish permanent bases in Iraq and we anticipate that it will expressly foreswear them.”

These public reassurances, moreover, mirrored the actual language used in the U.S. draft of the agreement given to the Iraqi negotiators. A draft dated Mar. 8, which was leaked to The Guardian’s Seumas Milne and reported Apr. 8, includes the statement that the United States “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq”.

That commitment, which seems definitive at first glance, actually incorporates deliberate ambiguity on at least two different levels. The term “permanent military base” appears to represent a substantive legal term, but in fact is a completely misleading term.

When Democratic Sen. James Webb asked the State Department’s David Satterfield, “What is a permanent base?” Satterfield tried to avoid answering the question. But Assistant Defence Secretary Mary Beth Long was more responsive. She said, “I have looked into this. As far as the department is concerned, we don’t have a worldwide or even a department-wide definition of permanent bases.”

Webb then observed, “It doesn’t really mean anything,” to which Long replied, “Yes, senator, you’re right. It doesn’t.” She added that “most lawyers… would say that the word ‘permanent’ probably refers more to the state of mind contemplated by the use of the term”.

Iraqi officials quickly figured out that the real significance of the draft’s wording on access to military bases was that it contained neither a time limit on access to Iraqi bases nor any restrictions on the U.S. to “conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security”.

Authorisation for such operations was called “temporary”, but the absence of any time limit makes that seemingly reassuring term meaningless as well.

The Bush administration’s renunciation of “permanent bases” was a ploy to lull the key committees of the U.S. Congress on an issue which had aroused many Democratic critics of the war, who had repeatedly used that term in demanding a legal commitment on the issue.

The administration also used such ambiguous language to help the Iraqi government sell the agreement to Iraqi nationalists who object to long-term U.S. bases in their country. Thus as early as last December, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubayi declared in a television interview, “The Iraqi people reject the presence of permanent bases in Iraq” and reassured Iraqis that the government would not accept such bases “in any form whatever and will not approve, and I believe the Council of Representatives will not approve it.”

As Iraqi sources have now revealed to Western reporters, however, the U.S. has proposed access to dozens of military bases without a time limit that would be technically Iraqi bases but which would actually be fully under U.S. control.

The ploy of turning over legal control of U.S. bases to a client regime is one that U.S. administrations had used on at least two previous occasions to get around legal/political problems associated with continuation of U.S. base rights.

In the 1973 Paris peace agreement that ended the Vietnam War, the U.S. pledged to dismantle all of its military bases in South Vietnam within 60 days. But it had already secretly transferred the deeds to the bases and equipment to the South Vietnamese government and then had them “loaned back” to the United States. U.S. officials then claimed that there were no U.S. bases to dismantle.

Because of nationalist opposition to U.S. military bases in the Philippines, the United States gave nominal “sovereignty” over the bases to the Philippines in 1978 and put a Philippine officer in nominal command of each base, while insisting on U.S. “effective command and control” as well as “unhampered military operations”.

Another issue on which the Bush administration inserted language in its draft to suggest a major concession to Iraqi political sensitivities while keeping its own freedom of action is the U.S. use of Iraqi bases to carry out military operations against another country. That was an obvious red line for the al-Maliki regime and its ally, Iran. Prime Minister al-Maliki’s spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh insisted last January that U.S. troops must “not be used against [Iraq’s] neighbours,” because, he said, it could put the country’s security in jeopardy.

Dabbagh said this one the principles that Iraqi negotiators would seek to spell out in the agreement.

The Mar. 7 draft includes a statement that the United States “does not seek to use Iraqi territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states”. That commitment leaves plenty of room for the Bush administration to argue that it is responding defensively to an Iranian threat to its troops or other interests.

Iraqi negotiators were well aware of the ambiguous nature of the U.S. language. And a U.S. demand for control over Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet, reported by more than one Iraqi official in recent weeks, fueled intense suspicions of the administration’s intentions.

“Senior Iraqi military sources” were quoted by GulfNews as saying the agreement gave the United States “the right…to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security”. That interpretation was based on the absence of specific language ruling out U.S. military operations without the prior consent of the Iraqi government.

It now appears that the Bush administration’s ambitions to establish a legal framework to legitimise the occupation before the end of Bush’s term will be frustrated by strong opposition to the pact from pro-Iranian Shiite political parties on whose support the al-Maliki regime depends. The government is under strong pressure from legislators belonging to al-Maliki’s own Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to scuttle the pact, and wait for the next U.S. administration before negotiating on the status and role of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam“, was published in June 2005.

© 2008 Inter Press Service

A New Kind Of Corporate Slavery

2

corpslavery.jpgCorporations are getting rich using federal prisoners as captive labor pools.

By Betty Brink | Unless she’s dying or recovering from surgery, a patient at the Federal Medical Center-Carswell must work. The hospital out on the banks of Lake Worth is run by the Bureau of Prisons, and its patients are women who have been convicted of federal crimes. Bureau rules require all prisoners – even those in wheelchairs – to work at whatever jobs their infirmities will allow, from scrubbing floors to cleaning toilets.

Just across the street from the hospital complex is a camp for minimum-security women prisoners who are not ill. They get most of the hot, hard jobs – cleaning boilers, welding, mowing. The pay is a lousy 12 cents an hour with no raises. That’s why a job that many on the outside would take only as a last resort is the most coveted in the compound: Ernestine the telephone operator.

So when you call directory assistance using, say, Excel Telecommunications, chances are good your inquiry might be answered by a federal prisoner. At Carswell, a fifth of the prison workforce – most from the camp but a few from the hospital as well – get to sit in cubicles in an air-conditioned building, start at almost double the pay of the regular prison jobs, and, if they behave and don’t make mistakes, get regular raises until they reach the maximum pay of – hold onto your hat – $1.45 an hour. Of course, they have to work seven and a half years to reach that maximum. And since this center hasn’t been open long enough for anyone to make the maximum, the highest pay at Carswell is $1.15 an hour.

With toothpaste at $5.95 in the prison commissary, inmates who take those calls for Excel have to work between five and 25 hours to earn enough for one tube. But by comparison, they’re lucky: Women who work at other prison jobs have to sweat out 49 hours for the luxury of brushing their teeth.

The math on the other end is even simpler, if grander in scale: Excel, a $2.5 billion global company, comes out the clear winner. If the 19-year-old Irving-based long-distance carrier had to pay no more than minimum wage to non-prison U.S. workers to field calls from its worldwide network, it would cost the company $900 a month per worker, plus benefits and payments to Social Security. The 370 prison workers in Excel’s call center at Carswell make $180 a month at most, with no benefits.

But the Carswell prisoners are far from the only ones participating in this exercise in government-assisted capitalism.

How many people know that when they dial 411, the operator at the other end of the call is often a federal prisoner? Or that when they call to reserve a camping space at a national park, the person taking their personal information may be sitting in a cubicle in a maximum-security prison? Or that the body armor for the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is being manufactured by federal inmates?

In what critics call slave labor and advocates call job training, more than 100 factories and service centers in federal prisons across the United States employ inmates in jobs such as those above and hundreds more, making everything from underwear to military gear to intricate electrical components, all under the umbrella of a near-billion-dollar corporation known as the Federal Prison Industries, Inc., trade name Unicor.

This little-known and wholly owned arm of the BOP has come under fire in recent years from environmentalists, prison reform groups, and congressional investigative committees for, among other things, exposing inmate workers to dangerous levels of lead and other toxins in its computer recycling centers. The company has also been investigated for profiting from sales of tens of thousands of excess Defense Department computers that were supposed to be given free to low-income schools around the country and, what may be worse, failing to remove sensitive data from the computers it resold. Unions and even the U. S. Chamber of Commerce are up in arms over its use of dirt-cheap prison labor to take jobs from the private sector.

The prison workers are just as unhappy. Unicor and the companies it contracts with “are making a killing off of us here,” one of the Carswell workers wrote recently to Fort Worth Weekly. “And then we leave prison and have nothing to fall back on. Just think how beneficial it would be if they paid at least minimum wage, paid into Social Security … so that we would have something when we leave, old and broken down.”

There’s another Carswell prisoner who may be in a better position than most to help shine a spotlight into this dark corner of the federal prison system. “This prison is making huge profits off of nothing more than slave labor and then marking up prices by as much as 50 percent in the commissary, making even more profit off of all us,” Karen Lucchesi Lewis said.

Lewis has been a lot of things in her 42 years. She has known fame as the daughter of legendary Texas Rangers baseball manager Frank Lucchesi. She has owned and managed a multi-million-dollar spa and wellness center. She has been an honored volunteer fund-raiser for charities in her hometown of Colleyville. And, as a sufferer from lupus, she has been a proponent of naturalized medicine. What she never dreamed of becoming was an advocate for women in prison – especially one advocating from inside the walls. But that is exactly what she is these days, turning a shattering life change into a “mission from God,” as she calls it.

For the last three years Lewis has been doing time at Carswell, after getting caught up in a money-laundering sting aimed at the man who at that time handled legal matters for her business and who got off with a light sentence after testifying against her. In court, her criminal lawyer presented a defense so weak that even the sentencing judge commented on it. Still, Federal Judge John McBryde sent her to prison for 78 months.

While her new attorney, her family, and supporters such as North Side businessman Mike Costanza are working to get her conviction overturned, Lewis is on another quest. She wants to expose the injustices that she said she has witnessed since she entered the Carswell compound in 2004 – everything from “terrible medical neglect to women being used as slave labor for the prison to make millions in profits.”

Regardless of whether one believes in her innocence, Lewis is a high-profile inmate who is unafraid to speak out about a culture of abuse at Carswell that has been reported by the Weekly in an ongoing series since 1999. Now, to the prison’s litany of well-documented medical horror stories, rape, and sexual misconduct cases, are added allegations that the inmates are being exploited by a government industry that few citizens have ever heard of – even though it has been around since 1934. Someone’s making millions off the labor of the women at Carswell and thousands like them across the country – but it sure isn’t the inmates.

During the depths of the Great Depression, U.S. federal prisons were filling up with men and women who in many cases had done nothing more heinous than stealing bread to feed their families or hopping a freight train to search for work. In that swelling population, President Franklin Roosevelt saw not only a need but an opportunity. With a stroke of his pen, the Federal Prison Industry/Unicor was born, designed as a work program to teach inmates skills they could use when they were released. The presidential order, later made into law, carried with it a requirement that all federal agencies would have to buy from FPI when they needed any of the products manufactured by the prison industry. The initiative got $4 million in tax-revenue seed money but was required to be self-sustaining from then on. Private businesses could not bid for the work, even if they offered lower prices and better quality. Conversely, Unicor was prohibited from selling to private businesses – a limitation honored more in the breach these days, thanks to Bureau of Prisons legal maneuvering.

Prison industry advocates say the “factories with fences” train inmates for jobs on the outside. They say the work reduces recidivism and boredom and gives inmates a source of income to help pay their court fines, support families, or spend at the commissary. Critics, on the other hand, describe them as Dickensian places where laborers have no workplace protection, are routinely exposed to cancer-causing toxins, and are exempt from federal labor laws, which means they can be forced to accept wages lower than those in Third World countries. Private companies seeking government business complain they are forced to compete unfairly with Unicor.

For the last several years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, and prison reform groups such as FedCure have all pushed for legislation that would outlaw Unicor’s preferential treatment and require the corporation to pay minimum wage. Members of Congress from states whose manufacturing businesses have lost millions in government contracts to Unicor have taken up the cause, but to date the corporation has been able to fend off all such efforts.

By 2006 Unicor had come a long way from that initial $4 million. Last year, according to its annual report, the corporation held assets of $730 million in 108 factories and service centers at 79 prisons across the country. Its gross sales were $718 million with profits of $71.2 million. Those profits were produced by more than 21,000 inmate laborers who made, on average, $1,700 for a year’s work. The profits aren’t, as one might suspect, plowed back into the prison system to, say, improve healthcare services at Carswell or reduce the inflated prices for basic personal hygiene supplies at prison commissaries. Instead, it is plowed back into Unicor.

One its harshest critics is U. S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican who has been trying since at least 2000 to get legislation passed that would reform Unicor and force it to compete with private companies. He said that the requirement that federal agencies must buy from Unicor allows it to perpetuate itself without regard to whether that is the best option for agencies and for prisoners themselves.

One congressional aide, who asked for anonymity, said that Hoekstra has found no evidence that those who run the corporation are enriching themselves. But, he said, it’s a “giant Ponzi scheme,” that requires more and more millions to feed its ever-expanding enterprises.

In recent years, Unicor has added to its list of factory-made products what it calls “services”: computer recycling centers, industrial laundry services, printing shops, and call centers – all for sale to private, for-profit companies in spite of the law’s prohibiting language. BOP Director Harry Lappin, who is also head of Unicor, maneuvered around that little obstacle in the law, apparently successfully, when he testified before a congressional committee last year that the corporation’s new offerings are “a service, not a product” and that therefore the law does not apply. Unicor now advertises its call centers on its web page and in its catalogs as “domestic outsourcing at offshore prices.”

Three major national communications networks use the “domestic outsourcing” call center at Carswell for their directory assistance services, according to FPI program director Todd Baldau. Baldau refused to name the clients, citing “proprietary information.” However, two inmates who currently work at the center, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said the companies are Excel Telecom, Cricket Communications, and Metro 411. Calls and e-mails to the three companies were not returned. Baldau would not say what the companies pay Unicor for inmate labor for their call centers, but the corporation’s 2006 annual report listed sales of $27.8 million from its 18 service centers, including Carswell, with profits of $2.5 million.

The policy that all prisoners in federal lockups must work, including the less critically ill patients in prison hospitals, is designed to keep prisoners occupied as much as anything, bureau spokesman Mike Truman said in an interview for an earlier story. “Life can get very boring in prison,” he said, and reducing boredom reduces the potential for trouble among inmates.

Working for Unicor “is a privilege for good inmates with a smidgen of education,” said a former Carswell prison employee who asked not to be named. “They are monitored heavily, are lectured frequently, and really do their jobs in fear of losing them if they mess up. … The work is easy, conditions are better [than any other jobs there], and the work is useful on their resumés once they get out. … That’s why jobs with Unicor are coveted.” The call center at Carswell has been open for more than five years. Women sit in a small, guarded, air-conditioned building near the center of the compound, taking directory assistance calls in eight-hour shifts, 24 hours a day.

Sweatier non-Unicor jobs basically cover maintenance work at the prison camp and hospital, including groundskeeping, floor-scrubbing, plumbing, welding, carpentry, and cleaning the boilers that provide hot water and heat for the compound. “They even work on the elevators,” said former inmate Dana Corum. “And that’s a full-time job because those dang elevators were always out.”

Prison officials also refused to discuss details of Unicor pay scales. But one of the inmates who provided the names of the Unicor client companies wrote to the Weekly that the pay starts at 23 cents an hour with incremental raises that top out at $1.15 an hour. She said that after 18 months on the job, the women get an additional 10 cents an hour for “longevity” and another 5 cents an hour for each 18 months after that up to 80 months. At that point, they will have “maxed out” at around $1.45 an hour. “There are a few ‘premium pay’ positions that rate an extra 25 cents an hour … for being extra important to the operations – or the most liked,” she wrote. It takes “political … shit to get these spots.”

The Spokane Area Journal of Business reported last year that regular call center jobs in this country start their workers at more than $11 an hour, plus benefits. Call center personnel in India, by comparison, make between $159 and $204 a month, although those salaries are expected to rise soon, as other offshore costs of business have already begun doing. Then there’s Carswell, where monthly pay ranges from $36 to $180 a month.

And since the prison laborers receive no benefits: and no Social Security, the private companies that contract with the prisons save on those substantial costs as well. Average cost to an employer for health insurance for a family of four in 2007 is around $9,000 a year according to Towers Perrin, a global business financial management firm. And then there’s that 9.1 percent matching contribution to Social Security and Medicare for each employee.

Unlike Indian workers, American inmates don’t have to pay for all their living costs from those salaries – but Indian workers, on the other hand, don’t have to pay almost $2 for soap. Inmates are required to buy all personal items, and often meet some dietary needs, from the prison’s commissary.

Most can’t afford just the basic things that are necessary for their health and hygiene, said Lewis, who is one of the few who has a family able to put money into her prison account, to a maximum of $300 a month. A commissary price sheet lists a bar of bath soap at $1.65, deodorant at $2.80, and a box of regular tampons at $5.30. For diabetics, who must buy their own non-sugar products, a 50-count box of Equal packets costs $3.80. Many of the women at Carswell come from poor families. Some have been abandoned by their families, and only a few have loved ones who can send them money for such basic needs.

Corum, a diabetic, spent five years at Carswell, off and on. She was sent to Marianna, Fla., for a year midway in her sentence as retaliation, she believes, for speaking to the Weekly for an earlier story about the hospital’s poor medical care. Her condition deteriorated so badly at the Florida facility that she was finally sent back to Carswell. She finished her sentence two years ago. She did not work in the call center but had friends who did.

Even though the women work under strict guidelines, which forbid them to ask callers for personal information or tell them their calls have been routed to a prison, the jobs can be enjoyable and provide some relief from the rigidity of prison life, Corum said. “They had some fun, but the pay is still lousy,” she said, “and the whole thing is a racket that’s making money for the prison and unfairly competing with legitimate businesses.”

Unfair competition with private business is high on the Communications Workers of America’s list of concerns with the federal call centers because of the resulting loss of jobs for its members, said Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the national union. “Generally, outsourcing has been the big issue” with American communications workers, she said. “But if those [outsourcing] companies are now bringing back that work to the federal prisons, and still paying the same low wages, that is still an unfair advantage over the other companies that have stayed here and are trying to provide good-paying jobs and good service.” Johnson said the CWA believes the prison jobs do not provide the training that such work requires in order to give good customer service. “Good companies value good customer service,” she said. That was a big problem with the call center jobs that were sent overseas in the first place, she said: Foreign workers read from scripts, and if the customer’s problems didn’t fit the script, the employee was stumped and the customers ended up angry and frustrated. For that reason, she said, companies like AT&T and U. S. Airways are in the process of bringing their call centers back to this country. “People [in prison] need the opportunity to learn skills” but Unicor is not the answer, she said.

The system has its defenders outside the prison system. Journalist Harry Sheff, in an article for a web-based business magazine, wrote in July that “Unicor call centers don’t compete with American jobs – they only take on contracts that were about to be outsourced overseas.”

Other voices of protest are coming from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose director of legislative affairs told National Public Radio in September, “We do not believe Federal Prison Industries should continue its unfettered expansion into the commercial marketplace. … The business community is extremely concerned about this.” Future expansion by Unicor is possible because of the enormous increase in the prison population in recent years – an involuntary workforce numbering close to 200,000 now and increasing by about 2.5 percent annually.

Unicor now offers more than 140 products and services for sale to other government agencies, with more than half its output bought by the Department of Defense – by far its largest customer, especially since the beginning of the Iraq war. Like every other defense contractor, Unicor has benefitted from the war and dislikes competition. “While we expect the continuing war effort [to] provide another year of excellent work opportunities for our inmates, that situation will not last indefinitely,” Unicor directors wrote in the 2006 annual report. “We are positioning to a post-war environment.”

Another similarity between Unicor and other military contractors has been its propensity for corruption.

When she was at the Federal Correctional Institution Marianna in Florida, “there was a big Unicor scandal,” Corum said. “They were selling stuff, government stuff, out of open-air sheds on the grounds, just like a flea market.” Corum said she witnessed huge trucks pulling up and unloading all kinds of computers and electronic equipment: “There was a real racket going on. People who worked there were buying the stuff dirt cheap.”

Corum wasn’t exaggerating. In 2000, Rep. Hoekstra, chairman of the House subcommittee on education and the workforce, opened an investigation into the “racket” that Corum had witnessed, albeit a small part of it. The FPI “has been taking tens of thousands of items in excess federal government equipment, especially computer equipment, and using them to fuel an entry of unknown scope into the commercial marketplace,” he said at the opening of the subsequent hearing. In other words, they were selling used government equipment, improperly and in huge quantities.

According to Hoekstra’s office and transcripts of the hearings, Unicor acquired the computers through a process that allows federal agencies that are replacing equipment to pass along outdated but still operable items for use by other agencies. If other federal agencies don’t need the hand-me-downs, the equipment is supposed to be dispersed, free, to nonprofit groups, schools, or state governments. It is never supposed to be sold.

In this case the computers were destined to be sent to poor school districts under a presidential order of Bill Clinton. Somehow, FPI got to them first, hauled them out of the warehouses, and began a huge, illegal, garage sale, Hoekstra said. He noted that at the time the U.S. Department of Justice was conducting a criminal investigation of Unicor. “It is high time,” he said. “FPI has been out of control for years, exceeding its statutory authority and running wild through the marketplace without any Congressional … authority.”

Hoekstra’s evidence showed that during 1999 FPI took almost 60,000 excess items from the Defense Department alone, worth $481 million, and in 2000 added 83,000 more excess items with value estimated at just under $89 million. The company would have topped the $1 billion mark in illegal sales, the chairman said, if not for the “vigilance of a dedicated public servant” who blew the whistle. FPI’s defense was the “dubious claim” Hoekstra said, that it did not break the law governing its existence because selling the equipment was a service and not a product, the same justification echoed by Lappin last year when Congress questioned the call centers.

As a result of his own investigation, Hoekstra introduced legislation that would have reined the corporation in. It didn’t pass that year, but his spokesman said Hoekstra will keep reintroducing the bill for as long as it takes to get it passed.The most recent scandal involved Unicor’s recycling centers. A single personal computer contains a toxic cocktail of cancer-causing chemicals, including up to eight pounds of lead, according to a report by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. In 2002 SVTC found that prisoners at a maximum-security prison in Merced, Calif., were “recycling” computers there by smashing them with hammers or raising them over their heads and slamming them on a metal table. They were being showered with glass and toxic chemicals. None was issued protective clothing or face or eye protection, the coalition reported. Air quality tests in the room showed high levels of toxins just a few feet from a food-processing area. Prison personnel refused a supervisor’s repeated requests for improved safety measures. The supervisor went public, ultimately filing a whistleblower lawsuit.

By 2005 the BOP had admitted that in at least three of its factories, prison workers had been exposed to higher than safe levels of toxic chemicals – but officials said the problem had been fixed. Not true, said the government’s Office of Special Counsel and called for an investigation by the Justice Department. The investigation is ongoing. In the meantime, Unicor clients such as Dell and the state of California have cancelled their computer recycling contracts with Unicor under pressure from environmental groups, labor unions, and prison reform advocates. Dell chief executive Michael Dell was met at a computer industry gathering by protestors in striped prison garb accusing him of hiring “a high-tech chain gang.” Still, the scandal did not deter Arkansas from giving Unicor an exclusive contract to recycle all of the state’s used computers.

Worker exposure to deadly lead, followed by denials and cover-ups, is not new in the prison agency. The Weekly reported on a similar incident that happened at Carswell in 1999, when three federal maintenance workers and a half-dozen female inmate workers were ordered to dismantle a lead-lined medical radiology room at the hospital. They were given no protective clothing or breathing equipment, even though they were working in a small room and had to crawl into some of the lead-lined cabinets and grind the lead out. Three of the civilian workers suffered such serious and irreparable lead poisoning that they can no longer work, and their doctors have said it will shorten their lives. Even their wives and children had high levels of lead in their blood.

Karen Lucchesi Lewis wishes that the same kind of pressure brought against Dell could be brought against the telephone companies under Unicor contract at Carswell. But she is realistic enough to know that it is unlikely to happen. Women in prison, she said, are forgotten by the public and the Congress – and that includes a woman who ran an $8 million business before her conviction.

Lewis has much more outside support than the average inmate. Nelson Thibodeaux, editor of a Colleyville online newspaper, Localnewsonly.com, has written extensively about her case.

But others from the Colleyville business community and women’s groups she once participated in have abandoned her. She was a major fund-raiser for many charities in Colleyville and North Texas including the Colleyville Woman’s Club, the Christ Haven Shelter for women, the North Texas Cancer Center and the Bobby Bragan Foundation that provides college scholarships. Lewis said that when she asked a prominent woman from one of the charities if she would be a character witness for her at her trial, she declined.

At Carswell, Lewis was at first put to work mowing the grounds. “They never considered the fact that someone with lupus is supposed to stay out of the sun,” she said. Later she was moved inside to help clean the boilers. She has not applied for work with Unicor, she said. Instead, she has established a health education and exercise class for the women. That takes up “all of my spare time,” she said. Her lupus is currently in remission, she said.

Lucchesi said that her memories of growing up as Frank and Kathy Lucchesi’s youngest child sustain her. “We had a very old-fashioned Italian upbringing,” she wrote in one letter. “I used to love to go to the games to watch Papa on the field and then eat late at night.” But her famous dad, who was manager of the Philadelphia Phillies, the Chicago Cubs, and the Texas Rangers, kept her away from the players he managed, she said. “I was never allowed to date them.” After Frank retired, the whole clan lived near one another in Colleyville.

All of that familial happiness came to a crashing end in 2004 when Karen was taken in handcuffs and leg-irons through the clanging prison gates of Carswell, bringing her to a cramped, four-person cell in the austere prison where she was destined to spend the next six and a half years.

“I was in shock. I couldn’t believe it was really happening,” she said. “I have never even had a traffic ticket.” But in October 2003, a traffic ticket was not the issue. Dirty money was. That month Lewis was found guilty by a federal jury in Fort Worth of laundering $20,000 for an assumed cocaine and marijuana dealer through her business bank accounts for an alleged eight percent fee, about $1,600.

Her long-time friend and business attorney Anand “Ani” Alloju had introduced her to a wealthy Mexican citizen and supposed drug dealer allegedly interested in investing in her business. Lewis said she was never told by Alloju that the man was a dealer. In fact, he was an undercover agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration working a sting operation aimed at Alloju. The lawyer, who had access to Lewis’ bank accounts, laundered the $20,000 through those accounts without her knowledge, she said, even forging her signature on some checks.

The DEA agent claimed she was a willing participant. On the stand, Alloju’s testimony about Lewis’ knowledge of the scheme was vague and contradictory. The jury believed the agent. And even though Alloju was the primary target of the sting and admitted in court that he had washed $200,000 in what he clearly understood was illegal drug money through various other phony accounts he set up, he was sentenced to two years and spent only 11 months in prison, getting out early after completing a drug rehab course. By pleading guilty and testifying against Lewis, Alloju got a reduced sentence and a pass for his psychiatrist wife Lisa Alloju, who, according to her husband, deposited the drug money in Lewis’ accounts. Lisa had just completed a probated sentence for drug possession and was never charged in the money-laundering case. The 41-year-old Alloju did not enjoy many days of freedom; he died of unknown causes a little more than a month after his release in 2005.

“Even if you don’t believe [Lewis] was railroaded – and I do – the trial was a farce,” said Costanza. “Then she gets three times the sentence that the slime-bag who set her up got. It makes no sense.” He and other supporters of Lewis think that the undercover agent went after her as a trophy. “A big name gets more print and more glory for the undercover guy,” Costanza said. “Karen wouldn’t be in prison if her name had been Smith.”

The pain her incarceration has caused her close-knit family seems to weigh heaviest on Lewis these days. “When a family member goes to prison, the whole family goes to prison,” she said. “Everyone’s life is put on hold.”

But she seems to have come to terms with her imprisonment. She’s campaigning to let the world know of the injustices she has witnessed there. The most recent, she wrote to the Weekly, was the death of Genevieve Ramirez, 64, who on Aug. 1 fell in her room and hit her head around 1 a.m. Lewis and several other inmates “couldn’t find or get medical help till after 3 a.m.,” she wrote. “She had a brain aneurysm. They took her to [an outside] hospital and she was put on life support for two days, then they pulled the plug.” The BOP has not returned calls requesting information on Ramirez’ death.

Weekly reporters, except in rare instances, have been banned since 1999 from entering the prison to interview women such as Lewis. But she is one of the many who have managed to be the eyes and ears for reporters in keeping tabs on what goes on there. It takes courage. Many who have done so say they have suffered retaliation – including Corum, who suffered such gross medical neglect that when she left two years ago, her kidneys were near failure and her heart was critically damaged. She has had multiple surgeries since she got out. Other women have been sent to solitary on trumped-up charges or transferred to other prisons where they could not get the medical help they needed.

Lewis said that, even when she gets out, she won’t give up on her efforts to help the women at Carswell. And others, including current and retired judges, are working to focus congressional attention on the conditions there.

Congressional attention apparently is what it will take to change anything in U.S. federal prisons. Prison officials routinely turn down journalists’ requests for information into their operations. A decade of pleas and inquiries by family members of women who have died – including one who may have been murdered – due to inadequate medical care or worse at Carswell have produced no apparent reforms. A General Services Administration investigation into FPI’s theft of the computers concluded that officials of the prison industry “demonstrated a pattern of deceit” and that its officials lied and obtained and sold federal property under false pretenses. But the subsequent Justice Department criminal investigation on that topic “went away,” according to one Hoekstra aide. No one was ever prosecuted.

And then there were the women prisoners who also worked in the lead-contaminated rooms at Carswell eight years ago. They, too, showed signs of higher than normal levels of lead in their blood. But they were scattered to other prisons, and the bureau refuses to release information on their whereabouts.

A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

The Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute has just broadcast a seventeen minute documentary which examines the British Truth Movement. The show includes Paul Stott of 9/11 CultWatch and John White of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The show highlights some of the uglier sides to the British Truth movement – which must not be ignored, including abundant racism, a cult like mentality and the refusal to objectively look at hard facts.

Be sure to bookmark the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute web site as they plan to investigate other myths and theories, which can be heard via their site.

Direct download

Exposing Bush Administration Corruption

bushcorruption.jpgBy Stephen Lendman – RINF | Information for this article comes from long-time business, finance and political writer and analyst Bob Chapman who publishes the bi-weekly International Forecaster. It’s power-packed with key information and a valued source for this writer. He obtained voluminous material directly from its source. People need to know it. Read on.

SueAnn Arrigo is the source. She was a high-level CIA insider. Her title was Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). She also established the Remote Viewing Defense protocols for the Pentagon in her capacity as Remote Viewing Advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). It earned her a two-star general rank in the military. She called it a “ploy” so the Pentagon could get more of her time and have her attend monthly Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings. Only high-level types are invited, and she was there from October 2003 to July 2004.

Part of her job involved intelligence gathering on Iraq and Afghanistan – until August 2004 when she refused to spread propaganda about a non-existant Iranian nuclear weapons program and left. She followed in the footsteps of others at CIA who resigned for reasons of conscience and became critics – most notably Ray McGovern, Ralph McGehee, and Phil Agee.

On May 16, 2008, Arrigo sent extensive government corruption and cover-up information to Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee – in 12 separate cases. This article covers four of them or about one-third of what Congress got. The 12 are explosive and revealing but just the tip of the iceberg:

— of government corruption and war profiteering;

— sweetheart deals and kickbacks;

— high-level types on the take;

— trillions of missing dollars;

— on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld admitting “According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions;”

— imagine the current amount;

— its corrosive effect on the nation; and people should

— demand accountability – who profits, who pays and what are the consequences of militarism gone mad.

SueAnn Arrigo offers a glimpse and at great personal risk. In August 2001, DCI George Tenet told her to assemble “a moving van full of Pentagon documents showing Defense Contractor kickbacks to Pentagon officials.” She did as instructed but not to expose corruption as she learned – to conceal it and in her judgment so CIA could divert defense business to Halliburton and “Carlyle-related contractors.” She stated: “The mood at the CIA and Pentagon was ‘war is coming’ because the Bush Family stands to make billions from it — so get ready.”

Arrigo was shocked at what she found and how brazenly the Pentagon wrote it up because it feels untouchable, especially since 2001. That notion proved misguided after CIA used the material to blackmail or bribe its officials “into ‘working on’ the Halliburton-Carlyle team.” Top CIA types were involved, and Tenet laid it out for Arrigo: You’ve “given me the keys to the kingdom. (These) documents will make me rich.”

She collected three types. Her report covers one but has plenty of incriminating evidence. Her precise recall of dates and names is incomplete, but events are factually right and damning on how Washington operates. It’s always been this way but never to the degree as under George Bush. Arrigo exposes the scheme – the systematic looting of the treasury to enrich contractors and high-level officials at Pentagon, CIA and others well-placed in government. Precise amounts are unknown, but at mimimum are countless multi-billions, even trillions – at taxpayer expense and diverted from essential social and infrastructure needs.

Case 1: Ordering Unneeded New Fighter Aircraft

Arrigo discovered high-level Pentagon corruption. It involved bid-rigging and implicated “an Air Force general on the JCS and a Defense Contractor, Boeing.” She disclosed it to JCS Chairman Hugh Shelton and DCI George Tenet, and in both instances drew blanks. She also reported it to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress. It was vetted and confirmed, but left unaddressed the larger issue of whether new generation planes are needed at an enormous cost to taxpayers. Arrigo believed not, and several Air Force generals agreed. Not other JCS members, however, who she learned are on the take.

There’s more. They “had the gall to try to force through another unneeded plane contract for Boeing.” At an early 2004 JCS meeting, Arrigo complained about the previous undelivered order because it didn’t meet Pentagon specifications. Yet one general in particular tried “to force the US military to buy another (unneeded) upgrade.” One other JCS member backed her to no avail, and the new order went through. Arrigo rightfully concluded that new plane orders were to enrich Boeing and high-level Pentagon types getting kickbacks for their cooperation.

She also learned how much – an average $22,000 “for each (JCS meeting) vote according to their bank” records. Not US ones. CIA-arranged Swiss accounts specifically for this purpose. Everyone at the meeting cashed in, except Arrigo and one dissenting general. More disturbing is that this is standard Pentagon practice – handouts to contractors; kickbacks to complicit brass; and taxpayers out multi-billions – year after year.

Jeff St. Clair wrote about it in his 2005 book “Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror.” It’s an explosive account of how contractors like Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Bechtel and the Bush family-connected Carlyle Group scam multi-billions at taxpayer expense and not a whiff of it in the mainstream. It’s the reason US annual “defense” spending tops $1.1 trillion (conservatively) with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and other allocations included.

Case 2: Halliburton Delivers Half Full Cartons to the Pentagon’s “Swing Shift”

Arrigo refers to the Pentagon’s Receiving Department “swing shift” personnel. They alone are on the take so other shifts are shut out and can’t report it. As a CIA insider, she checked and found damning evidence – about “the military (not) getting supplies to the troops on time.” She also learned that Halliburton has its “Representative to the CIA,” and one at the Pentagon as well. Both get federal salaries but neither was “hired by CIA or the military through their personnel departments. Neither had done military training or trained at (CIA’s) ‘Farm’ as a spy.” Arrigo was disturbed and with good reason when orders from the top said back off.

It got worse. Arrigo worked at CIA for over 30 years and reported directly to Tenet. But she wasn’t prepared for what she found – a new section at the Agency without her knowledge. It employed 40 people, all working for Halliburton “while being paid by the US taxpayer as if they were CIA.” It was secret. No files were on them. They were never interviewed, never vetted, and she concluded: “CIA had a back door in its security to let Halliburton put anyone they wanted in (its) hallways. It was an outrageous (breach) of US National Security,” and in a post-9/11 “war on terrorism” climate.

She was shocked and told Tenet. His reply: “Yes, I know.” Head of CIA building security also knew. Arrigo asked what he’d do about it. His answer: “Keep my mouth shut so I can stay alive and I suggest you do the same.” She asked if he, CIA or Halliburton would kill her if she talked. He didn’t think so. Would national security firm CACI do it because it’s affiliated with Halliburton and also has a CIA back door for its personnel at the Agency.

Arrigo dug deeper. She got inside Halliburton’s area and asked questions. Why was the company shipping half the contracted for amounts and shortchanging the troops and taxpayers. It was no different for war zones. Halliburton “set up the same corrupt system of swing shift receivers (for) at least 3 continents. They received the cartons and signed (off) that the goods were all received properly. Then the shortages later were chalked up to thefts or war damage, etc.”

Arrigo again informed Tenet. His answer: “This is nothing new,” then added: “Have a report about it on my desk before Christmas (2001).” It got worse. Arrigo told Tenet he’s responsible for “correct(ing) Halliburton’s short-shipping and its invasion of the CIA.” He said he couldn’t because the White House tied his hands. Call Congress, Arrigo said. DCI “should be a man of courage.” Tenet ignored her, so Arrigo faxed documents revealing Halliburton fraud to GAO – omitting national security secrets. One of them crowed about the scheme’s profitability, and having high-level officials involved made it foolproof.

It was clever and even more devious than Arrigo imagined. Halliburton uses each shortage complaint as a new order. “In that way (it) never (loses) by having to make good for (what’s) missing,” and (it gets) paid double for the same merchandise.

Arrigo knew too much, took risks to learn it, and what happened next is shocking. Halliburton’s “CIA Representative” confronted her, tore out her phone, ransacked her office, removed every shred of paper, and hauled her off bodily “to a prison cell” inside its basement offices. She was intimidated and threatened. Thought she might be killed. She survived, but the message was clear. She complained to Tenet. Showed him her bruises. He responded dismissively: “There, there, everything will be all right in the morning.”

GAO still has Arrigo’s files. It began investigating but stopped. She thinks that Congress can resume it and asked Waxman to do it. That’s where things now stand.

Case 3: The White House Conspiracy to Cook the Books – Halliburton, Carlyle and CIA

In 2002, Arrigo tried a new tact – ingratiating herself with “Halliburton’s Man” and using it to her advantage. She offered cooperation for access to his space and make him think she was on his side. It worked, went on for four and one-half months through late May, and it paid off – with plenty of insider knowledge “about Halliburton and how it works.” Enough to fill a book, she says, but her account sticks to highlights.

First off, it’s pure myth that Dick Cheney stopped running the company. “He called in orders to the man I worked for almost every day and sometimes two or more times a day. He remained (Halliburton’s) functional head in all but name. No one….had the power to override his orders.” Second, Cheney never divested himself of Halliburton profits. “He merely hid how (he got them) through a series of shell companies.”

One of Arrigo’s jobs was to liaison between Halliburton and CIA’s “creative accounting departments.” In other words, their co-conspiratorial treasury looting efforts, and Arrigo got insider access to it. Her advanced math and computer software training qualified her. In a few months, she became expert in how CIA and Halliburton hid their “financial illegalities.”

She explained – “Computers are good ways to fool most people because (they don’t) look inside of them.” They can be programmed “to print out one set of books for regulators, another for Defense Contractors, another for the Pentagon, another for the taxpayer,” and so forth. It’s simple. Decide what you want, and machines will create it in any desired form. The trick is doing it expertly, most criminals can’t, so they need professionals to do it for them. It means crimes are never secret, and many computer experts know about them. CIA has always been tainted, kept it secret since inception, so far has been untouchable, but remains vulnerable to exposure by people of conscience like Arrigo.

She explained: Halliburton has eight software programmers at CIA. Its home office has many more. She was on conference calls with 60 of them on ways to conceal illegalities and assure none of it leaks out. The company has less expertise than CIA so the Agency took charge to make the two systems compatible. It took several years and over 100 programmers. They came, left for other jobs, and took insider knowledge with them. It risks more leaks about Halliburton, other contractors, CIA, the Pentagon, high-ups in government, and the Basel-based Bank of International Settlements for its part in corruption.

Many investigations are ongoing, but huge pressure is exerted to quash them. It’s feared leaks may unravel the whole scheme – a vast corruption web involving countless numbers of contractors, related companies, and many high level government and Pentagon insiders. Cover-up software hides it. Taxpayers fund it. Amounts keep getting greater, and they’re up to unimaginable levels.

Arrigo explained the system. Suppose Halliburton sold product A in 100 Lot Sizes, in Quantity X at Price Y to the Pentagon on a given date. Most civilian invoices disclose this. Pentagon ones don’t so contractors can cheat and Pentagon brass profit. Missing information conceals whether all merchandise was delivered as nothing indicates quantities shipped. Further, repackaging also hides proper amounts. Omitting the price alone conceals whether a shipment was shorted, but CIA is more clever than that. It experimented with “tested receivers at some of its front companies” to learn how best to deceive them. What works best is “shifting prices around like random noise” – one day this cost, another a different one, and so forth.

One company used a “gross overcharge method” that looked suspicious. It got receivers to discover the real price, and that defeated CIA’s scheme. When it works, it cooks the books, and no one’s the wiser. Ledger entries are inflated, undercut, omitted, added, or varied in amounts of similar transactions. Like a “professional crime institution,” CIA is expert at falsifying books so no one catches on. How? By random price variations to keep auditors off balance and unable to discover corruption patterns.

Another example:

CIA varies its front company prices monthly. Suppose Halliburton made a purchase “when it (used) a cost inflation idea of cheating. Halliburton (has) an incentive to inflate the cost of its purchases (to) justify (its) high (price) to the military.” So as standard practice it uses CIA’s highest price and claims that amount for its cost.

But comparing two sets of books reveals the scheme. So methodology became more sophisticated to conceal it. Halliburton takes CIA prices and doubles them on its books. It then claims the Agency recorded half the charge “accidently,” says its front company promised a 50% discount, but never delivered. CIA looks bad, and it balked. No matter. Halliburton still does it, but CIA has “lots of fronts with lots of customers and worse problems (to hide) than merely jacking up prices. Some fronts (are) fictitious and (make) no products.” Others have real customers plus fake ones to launder money. CIA tries to “make (their) crimes ‘undetectable.’ ” Halliburton hopes to “sneak by” until caught, then find a way to weasel out of it with minimal damage or cost.

Case 4: Halliburton’s Rigged Back Door Accounting Computer at the Pentagon

In early 2002, GAO got damning evidence: that Halliburton overbills and short-ships – deliberate fraudulent acts as standard company practice, confident it can get away with it, and most often it does.

GAO has the goods to expose it from Halliburton and Pentagon invoices. They reveal a problem. They don’t match, are grossly inflated, and payments exceed amounts billed – by about 35%. Arrigo met with GAO and compared notes. Halliburton has similar Pentagon and CIA-paid staff, and George Bush approved it in a secret Executive Order Arrigo has for proof. She gave it to GAO plus other documents showing national security is compromised and taxpayers cheated – hugely.

One document lists Halliburton’s CIA and Pentagon staff, what little official records discloses about them, their secret office locations, and information on their private security staff. Arrigo discovered that Halliburton’s top CIA man served time for felony fraud. Another at Pentagon was convicted as well – for stealing Army vehicles, then profiteering by transshipping them overseas.

Dick Cheney knew, blocked background checks to conceal it, but Arrigo found out and about the Pentagon fraud that followed. She has a handwritten Cheney memo instructing his man “to make sure that the Pentagon pays us all that it owes us and then some.” CIA’s forgery department verified the writing is Cheney’s.

Arrigo also has a letter from Halliburton’s Pentagon man to his CIA counterpart, and it’s damning. He brags how he’s “getting more than we bargained for (from) the Pentagon” and suggested they get together to compare notes. They did and Arrigo taped it. The evidence once more is damning – about how easy it is to scam the system; befriend accounting personnel; install company programmers; check bills supposedly behind in payments; install a special software code for higher amounts; and do all of the above at Pentagon and CIA.

Arrigo informed George Tenet so he’d stop “Halliburton from ripping off the American taxpayer via the CIA and Pentagon.” Tenet hardly blinked and responded casually: “Well, you certainly have done a thorough job as usual.” He then offered to inform the White House to “correct the problem.” Arrigo did herself, GAO as well, and later learned that the Bush administration (likely Dick Cheney) blocked an investigation.

This article covers four of Arrigo’s 12 cases. Their evidence is damning and shows systemic contractor, government, CIA and Pentagon fraud involving enormous amounts of money. One or more articles will follow if more material can be obtained. It’s not what Pentagon and CIA want outed so getting it is never simple and revealing it not without risks.

Renditions Victim to Sue German Government

0

khaledel-masri.jpgSpiegel | A German-Lebanese victim of the CIA’s extraordinary renditions program plans to sue the government in Berlin to force it to issue extradition orders against 13 American intelligence agents involved in his alleged kidnapping.

Khaled el-Masri, the German-Lebanese abducted in Afghanistan as part of the CIA’s extraordinary renditions program and detained without reason, is expected to file a lawsuit early this week against Germany’s Federal Justice Ministry in a Berlin administrative court.

El-Masri is being backed in his suit by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, which wants to force the German government to pursue the extradition of 13 CIA agents from the United States who allegedly kidnapped el-Masri in Macedonia at the end of 2003 and took him to Afghanistan in early 2004.

Public prosecutors in Munich issued arrest warrants (more…) against the supposed kidnappers in early 2007, but the Justice Ministry decided at the end of the year not to transmit extradition requests (more…) to the United States following a major diplomatic offensive by the US Embassy and after concluding that prosecutors would have meager prospects for success.

At the time, the case created serious tensions within the German government coalition of left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD) and the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU). Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU), backed by conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel, had threatened to veto the extradition orders if Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries, of the Social Democrats, issued them. Merkel’s party had wanted to sidestep a potential trans-Atlantic spat (more…) as the government sought a more reconciliatory approach with Washington following the Iraq war.

“The German federal judiciary stopped half way at the time,” said ECCHR chief Wolfgang Kaleck. “An arrest warrant for causing the disappearance and torture of a person must be carried out with all force.”

Picket killed in fuel protest in Spain

0

fuelprotest.jpgBy Daniel Woolls | Truckers angry over soaring fuel prices blocked highways across Spain on Tuesday, disrupting supplies of food, gasoline, auto parts and other goods. A protester was killed when he was run over by a van trying to drive through a picket line.The strike, which began Monday, is the most serious labor unrest facing Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, a Socialist who came to power in March 2004.

Three auto plants – one each from Nissan, Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen’s subsidiary Sociedad Espaola de Automviles de Turismo – said they were suspending operations for lack of spare parts.

And some gasoline stations in Madrid and the northeastern Catalonia region already have run out of fuel.

Vendors at Mercamadrid, Madrid’s sprawling wholesale market, warned of shortages of fruit, vegetables and meat this week if the strike continues.

Truckers say diesel costs have risen 36 percent in one year to more than $7 a gallon.

The protester, the first fatality of the stoppage, was knocked down by a van at a picket line outside the wholesale market in Granada, the Interior Ministry said.

The ministry said the van driver, who has been detained, accelerated and hit the man when protesters began to throw stones after he tried to drive past the pickets.

The death prompted the suspension of a second day of talks between the government and truckers’ representatives.

In a similar protest in Hong Kong, truckers were driving slowly to disrupt traffic and protest rising fuel costs.

Are We Pro-Slavery?

0

proslavery.jpgBy Walter Williams | Let’s do a thought experiment asking whether Americans are for or against slavery. You might say, “What are you talking about, Williams? We fought a war that cost over 600,000 lives to end slavery!” To get started, we might find a description that captures the essence of slavery. A good working description is: slavery is a set of circumstances whereby one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor.

The average American worker toils from January 1st to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period. Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of government. Most of what’s taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.

You might ask, “Williams, aren’t you a bit off base? Slavery means that you are owned by another person.” Who owns a person is not nearly important as who has the rights to use that person. In other words, a plantation owner having the power to force a black to work for him would have been just as well off, and possibly better off, not owning him. Not owning him means not having to bear medical expenses and loss of wealth if the slave died. During World War II, Nazis didn’t own Jews, but they had the power to force them to labor for them. Not owning Jews meant that working and starving them to death had little cost to the Nazis. The fact that American slaves were owned, with prices sometimes ranging from $800 to $1,300, meant that owners had a financial stake in the slave’s well-being and they were not worked and starved to death.

You might argue that my analogy is irrelevant because unlike American slaves and Nazi concentration camp inmates, we can come and go as we please, live where we want, buy a car, clothes and other things with the money left over after the government gets four months’ worth of our earnings. But, does that make much of a difference?

During slavery, visitors to the South often observed “a great many loose negroes about.” Officials in Savannah, Mobile and Charleston and other cities complained about “nominal slaves,” “virtually free negroes,” and “quasi free negroes” who were seemingly oblivious to any law or regulation. Frederick Douglass, a slave, explained this phenomenon when he was employed as a Baltimore ship’s caulker: “I was to be allowed all my time; to make bargains for work; to find my own employment, and to collect my own wages; and in return for this liberty, I was … to pay him (Douglass’ master) three dollars at the end of each week, and to board and clothe myself, and buy my own caulking tools.”

There are some benefits to being a quasi free person such as Frederick Douglass. There are two ways U.S. Congress might force me to serve the purposes of another American. They might force me spend a couple of hours each day actually working, without compensation, for another American. Or, they might forcibly take a portion of my earnings so that American can hire someone. I see myself as being better off with Congress doing the latter — taking a portion of my earnings and giving it away.

Some might be put off by my thought experiment and consider it an illegitimate use of the term “slavery.” At what point should we consider ourselves a quasi free American — when government takes two-thirds or three-quarters of our earnings?
Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master’s degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Blackwater’s Private CIA

2

blackwater1.jpgBy Jeremy Scahill | This past September, the secretive mercenary company Blackwater USA found its name splashed across front pages throughout the world after the company’s shooters gunned down seventeen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad‘s

Nisour Square

. But by early 2008, Blackwater had largely receded from the headlines save for the occasional blip on the media radar sparked by Congressman Henry Waxman’s ongoing investigations into its activities. Its forces remained deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and business continued to pour in. In the two weeks directly following Nisour Square, Blackwater signed more than $144 million in contracts with the State Department for “protective services” in Iraq and Afghanistan alone and, over the following weeks and months, won millions more in contracts with other federal entities like the Coast Guard, the Navy and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.  

Blackwater’s Iraq contract was extended in April, but the company is by no means betting the house on its long-term presence there. While the firm is quietly maintaining its Iraq work, it is aggressively pursuing other business opportunities. In September it was revealed that Blackwater had been “tapped” by the Pentagon’s Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office to compete for a share of a five-year, $15 billion budget “to fight terrorists with drug-trade ties.” According to the Army Times, the contract “could include antidrug technologies and equipment, special vehicles and aircraft, communications, security training, pilot training, geographic information systems and in-field support.” A spokesperson for another company bidding for the work said that “80 percent of the work will be overseas.” As Richard Douglas, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, explained, “The fact is, we use Blackwater to do a lot of our training of counternarcotics police in Afghanistan. I have to say that Blackwater has done a very good job.”

 

Such an arrangement could find Blackwater operating in an arena with the godfathers of the war industry, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. It could also see Blackwater expanding into Latin America, joining other private security companies well established in the region. The massive US security company DynCorp is already deployed in Colombia, Bolivia and other countries as part of the “war on drugs.” In Colombia alone, US military contractors are receiving nearly half the $630 million in annual US military aid for the country. Just south of the US border, the United States has launched Plan Mexico, a $1.5 billion counternarcotics program. This and similar plans could provide lucrative business opportunities for Blackwater and other companies. “Blackwater USA’s enlistment in the drug war,” observed journalist John Ross, would be “a direct challenge to its stiffest competitor, DynCorp — up until now, the Dallas-based corporation has locked up 94 percent of all private drug war security contracts.” The New York Times reported that the contract could be Blackwater’s “biggest job ever.”

 

As populist movements grow stronger in Latin America, threatening US financial interests as well as the standing of right-wing US political allies in the region, the “war on drugs” is becoming an increasingly central part of US counterinsurgency efforts. It allows for more training of foreign security forces through the private sector — away from Congressional oversight — and a deployment of personnel from US war corporations. With US forces stretched thin, sending private security companies to Latin America offers Washington a “small footprint” alternative to the politically and militarily problematic deployment of active-duty US troops. In a January report by the United Nations working group on mercenaries, international investigators found that “an emerging trend in Latin America but also in other regions of the world indicates situations of private security companies protecting transnational extractive corporations whose employees are often involved in suppressing the legitimate social protest of communities and human rights and environmental organizations of the areas where these corporations operate.”

 

If there is one quality that is evident from examining Blackwater’s business history, it is the company’s ability to take advantage of emerging war and conflict markets. Throughout the decade of Blackwater’s existence, its creator, Erik Prince, has aggressively built his empire into a structure paralleling the US national security apparatus. “Prince wants to vault Blackwater into the major leagues of U.S. military contracting, taking advantage of the movement to privatize all kinds of government security,” reported the Wall Street Journal shortly after Nisour Square. “The company wants to be a one-stop shop for the U.S. government on missions to which it won’t commit American forces. This is a niche with few established competitors.”

 

In addition to providing armed forces for war and conflict zones and a wide range of military and police training services, Blackwater does a robust, multimillion-dollar business through its aviation division. It also has a growing maritime division and other national and international initiatives. Among these, Blackwater is in Japan, where its forces protect the US ballistic missile defense system, which, according to Stars and Stripes, “points high-powered radio waves westward toward mainland Asia to hunt for enemy missiles headed east toward America or its allies.” Meanwhile, early this year, Defense News reported, “Blackwater is training members of the Taiwanese National Security Bureau’s (NSB’s) special protection service, which guards the president. The NSB is responsible for the overall security of the country and was once an instrument of terrorism during the martial law period. Today, according to its Web site, the NSB is responsible for ‘national intelligence work, special protective service and unified cryptography.'” Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto reportedly tried to hire Blackwater to protect her as she campaigned for the presidency in 2007. Conflicting reports indicated that either the US State Department or the Pakistani government vetoed the plan. She was assassinated in December.

 

What could prove to be one of Blackwater’s most profitable and enduring enterprises is one of the company’s most secretive initiatives — a move into the world of privatized intelligence services. In April 2006, Prince quietly began building Total Intelligence Solutions, which boasts that it “brings CIA-style” services to the open market for Fortune 500 companies. Among its offerings are “surveillance and countersurveillance, deployed intelligence collection, and rapid safeguarding of employees or other key assets.”

 

As the United States finds itself in the midst of the most radical privatization agenda in its history, few areas have seen as dramatic a transformation to privatized services as the world of intelligence. “This is the magnet now. Everything is being attracted to these private companies in terms of individuals and expertise and functions that were normally done by the intelligence community,” says former CIA division chief and senior analyst Melvin Goodman. “My major concern is the lack of accountability, the lack of responsibility. The entire industry is essentially out of control. It’s outrageous.”

 

Last year R.J. Hillhouse, a blogger who investigates the clandestine world of private contractors and US intelligence, obtained documents from the office of the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) showing that Washington spends some $42 billion annually on private intelligence contractors, up from $17.5 billion in 2000. That means 70 percent of the US intelligence budget is going to private companies. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the head of DNI is Mike McConnell, the former chair of the board of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, the private intelligence industry’s trade association.

 

Total Intelligence, which opened for business in February 2007, is a fusion of three entities bought up by Prince: the Terrorism Research Center, Technical Defense and The Black Group — Blackwater vice chair Cofer Black’s consulting agency. The company’s leadership reads like a Who’s Who of the CIA’s “war on terror” operations after 9/11. In addition to the twenty-eight-year CIA veteran Black, who is chair of Total Intelligence, the company’s executives include CEO Robert Richer, the former associate deputy director of the agency’s Directorate of Operations and the second-ranking official in charge of clandestine operations. From 1999 to 2004, Richer was head of the CIA’s Near East and South Asia Division, where he ran clandestine operations throughout the Middle East and South Asia. As part of his duties, he was the CIA liaison with Jordan’s King Abdullah, a key US ally and Blackwater client, and briefed George W. Bush on the burgeoning Iraqi resistance in its early stages.

 

Total Intelligence’s chief operating officer is Enrique “Ric” Prado, a twenty-four-year CIA veteran and former senior executive officer in the Directorate of Operations. He spent more than a decade working in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center and ten years with the CIA’s “paramilitary” Special Operations Group. Prado and Black worked closely at the CIA. Prado also served in Latin America with Jose Rodriguez, who gained infamy late last year after it was revealed that as director of the National Clandestine Service at the CIA he was allegedly responsible for destroying videotapes of interrogations of prisoners, during which “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding, were reportedly used. Richer told the New York Times he recalled many conversations with Rodriguez, about the tapes. “He would always say, ‘I’m not going to let my people get nailed for something they were ordered to do,'” Richer said of his former boss. Before the scandal, there were reports that Blackwater had been “aggressively recruiting” Rodriguez. He has since retired from the CIA.

 

The leadership of Total Intelligence also includes Craig Johnson, a twenty-seven-year CIA officer who specialized in Central and South America, and Caleb “Cal” Temple, who joined the company straight out of the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he served from 2004 to ’06 as chief of the Office of Intelligence Operations in the Joint Intelligence Task Force — Combating Terrorism. According to his Total Intelligence bio, Temple directed the “DIA’s 24/7 analytic terrorism target development and other counterterrorism intelligence activities in support of military operations worldwide. He also oversaw 24/7 global counterterrorism indications and warning analysis for the U.S. Defense Department.” The company also boasts officials drawn from the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI.

 

Total Intelligence is run out of an office on the ninth floor of a building in the Ballston area of Arlington, Virginia. Its “Global Fusion Center,” complete with large-screen TVs broadcasting international news channels and computer stations staffed by analysts surfing the web, “operates around the clock every day of the year” and is modeled after the CIA’s counterterrorist center, once run by Black. The firm employs at least sixty-five full-time staff — some estimates say it’s closer to 100. “Total Intel brings the…skills traditionally honed by CIA operatives directly to the board room,” Black said when the company launched. “With a service like this, CEOs and their security personnel will be able to respond to threats quickly and confidently — whether it’s determining which city is safest to open a new plant in or working to keep employees out of harm’s way after a terrorist attack.”

 

Black insists, “This is a completely legal enterprise. We break no laws. We don’t go anywhere near breaking laws. We don’t have to.” But what services Total Intelligence is providing, and to whom, is shrouded in secrecy. It is clear, though, that the company is leveraging the reputations and inside connections of its executives. “Cofer can open doors,” Richer told the Washington Post in 2007. “I can open doors. We can generally get in to see who we need to see. We don’t help pay bribes. We do everything within the law, but we can deal with the right minister or person.” Black told the paper he and Richer spend a lot of their time traveling. “I am discreet in where I go and who I see. I spend most of my time dealing with senior people in governments, making connections.” But it is clear that the existing connections from the former spooks’ time at the agency have brought business to Total Intelligence.

 

Take the case of Jordan. For years, Richer worked closely with King Abdullah, as his CIA liaison. As journalist Ken Silverstein reported, “The CIA has lavishly subsidized Jordan’s intelligence service, and has sent millions of dollars in recent years for intelligence training. After Richer retired, sources say, he helped Blackwater land a lucrative deal with the Jordanian government to provide the same sort of training offered by the CIA. Millions of dollars that the CIA ‘invested’ in Jordan walked out the door with Richer — if this were a movie, it would be a cross between Jerry Maguire and Syriana. ‘People [at the agency] are pissed off,’ said one source. ‘Abdullah still speaks with Richer regularly, and he thinks that’s the same thing as talking to us. He thinks Richer is still the man.’ Except in this case it’s Richer, not his client, yelling ‘show me the money.'”

 

In a 2007 interview on the cable business network CNBC, Black was brought on as an analyst to discuss “investing in Jordan.” At no point in the interview was Black identified as working for the Jordanian government. Total Intelligence was described as “a corporate consulting firm that includes investment strategy,” while “Ambassador Black” was introduced as “a twenty-eight-year veteran of the CIA,” the “top counterterror guy” and “a key planner for the breathtakingly rapid victory of American forces that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Black heaped lavish praise on Jordan and its monarchy. “You have leadership, King Abdullah, His Majesty King Abdullah, who is certainly kind towards investors, very protective,” Black said. “Jordan is, in our view, a very good investment. There are some exceptional values there.” He said Jordan is in a region where there are “numerous commodities that are being produced and doing well.”

 

With no hint of the brutality behind the exodus, Black argued that the flood of Iraqi refugees fleeing the violence of the US occupation was good for potential investors in Jordan. “We get something like 600 – 700,000 Iraqis that have moved from Iraq into Jordan that require cement, furniture, housing and the like. So it is a — it is an island of growth and potential, certainly in that immediate area. So it looks good,” he said. “There are opportunities for investment. It is not all bad. Sometimes Americans need to watch a little less TV. … But there is — there is opportunity in everything. That’s why you need situation awareness, and that’s one of the things that our company does. It provides the kinds of intelligence and insight to provide situational awareness so you can make the best investments.”

 

Black and other Total Intelligence executives have turned their CIA careers, reputations, contacts and connections into business opportunities. What they once did for the US government, they now do for private interests. It is not difficult to imagine clients feeling as though they are essentially hiring the US government to serve their own interests. In 2007 Richer told the Post that now that he is in the private sector, foreign military officials and others are more willing to give him information than they were when he was with the CIA. Richer recalled a conversation with a foreign general during which he was surprised at the potentially “classified” information the general revealed. When Richer asked why the general was giving him the information, he said the general responded, “If I tell it to an embassy official I’ve created espionage. You’re a business partner.”

 

In May, Erik Prince gave a speech in front of his family and supporters in his home state of Michigan. Security was extremely tight, and Blackwater barred cameras and tape recorders from the event. “The idea that we are a secretive facility, and nefarious, is just ridiculous,” Prince told the friendly crowd of 750 gathered at the Amway Grand Plaza. In Iraq, Blackwater has banked on the idea that it is a sort of American Express card for the occupation. But for the future, Prince has a different corporate model, as he indicated in his speech. “When you send something overseas, do you use FedEx or the postal service?” he asked.

 

There are serious problems with this analogy. When you send something by FedEx, you can track your package and account for its whereabouts at all times. You can have your package insured against loss or damage. That has not been the case with Blackwater. The people who foot the sizable bill for its “services” almost never know, until it is too late, what Blackwater is doing, and there are apparently no consequences for Blackwater when things go lethally wrong. “We are essentially a robust temp agency,” Prince told his fans in Michigan. He’s right about that one. A temp agency serving the most radical privatization agenda in history.

 

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the international bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which has just been released in updated paperback form.

Guantanamo trials fall short, says Arbour

1

arbour.jpgBy Stephanie Nebehay | UN HIGH Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said yesterday that planned Guantanamo war crimes trials fell short of international standards and handing down death penalties would be “just not acceptable”.

In an interview with Reuters before leaving office on June 30, the former UN war crimes chief prosecutor chided the administration of US President George W Bush for last week’s decision to distance itself from the UN Human Rights Council.

It was much too soon to write off the Geneva forum set up two years ago, in which Washington could play an important role in defusing a perceived confrontation between members of the European Union (EU) and Islamic countries, according to Arbour.
The former Canadian Supreme Court judge, 61, is going home after deciding not to seek a second four-year term.

Arbour has long denounced the system created by the Bush administration to try suspected Al Qaeda operatives outside regular civilian and military courts, and alleged torture and secret renditions conducted in the US-led “war on terrorism”.

“In a process where the definition of a crime is somewhat more ambiguous, the standard of proof is lowered, the capacity to make a full answer of defence is lowered, the chances of wrongful conviction necessarily increases,” Arbour said.

“So to add the death penalty to that, it seems to me, is just not acceptable,” she said of the Guantanamo trials.

Arbour said international human rights law permitted the death penalty for the most serious crimes if trials are fair.

“There has to be impeccable due process, the process has to meet the highest standards of fairness,” she said. “Frankly, I think the military commissions … fall short in many respects.”

Shortcomings at Guantanamo included insufficient access to evidence by the defence. “I think the process is not adequate to justify recourse to the death penalty.”

The Pentagon has declared the trials a national priority and is doubling the number of military lawyers assigned to them even as critics say the government is rushing because it wants to influence US presidential elections in November.

Air Force Brigadier-General Thomas Hartmann, legal adviser to the Pentagon appointee overseeing the trials, told journalists visiting the US naval base in southeastern Cuba on Sunday that providing “fair, just and transparent trials” was its top duty.

Five accused Al Qaeda prisoners who could be executed if convicted of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, appeared in court there for the first time last week after spending about three years in secret CIA prisons.
Even in trials held under a rigorous judicial system with proper defence, wrongful convictions can result, according to Arbour, an expert on Canadian and international criminal law.

The US State Department said last Friday that it would disengage from the UN Human Rights Council, except when there was an issue of “deep national interest”.

Arbour said US concerns included the Council’s “perceived fixation on the Middle East” and several resolutions dealing specifically with alleged abuses by its ally Israel.

But she suggested it was “premature to send such a negative signal” just as the 47-member forum has begun examining the rights records of all states. The innovative mechanism known as the Universal Peer Review is meant to overcome double standards.
“The sooner we can persuade the Americans to join the Council and reengage more fully, the better,” she said. — Reuters

Biometric scans raise spectre of Big Brother workplaces

1

bioscan.jpgManagement-Issues | As the FBI embarks on a $1bn programme to build the world’s largest computer database of peoples’ physical characteristics, UK employers are being warned they need to think long and hard before introducing biometric technology such as iris, fingerprint and palm scans into the workplace.

British HR and employment law organisation Croner has said employers are increasingly turning to such technologies to enhance their security within the workplace, but there has as yet been little thought given to the possible data protection and human rights ramifications of doing this.

Biometric technologies can identify people by measuring an aspect of their anatomy or physiology through, for example, automatic fingerprint identification or iris and retina scanning.

The data captured is then converted into a biometric template against which the part of the body is compared when it is scanned.

The possible uses of the technology are wide-reaching and, in addition to protecting sensitive information, include controlling access to buildings and clocking-in systems.

Last month the FBI announced it was to spend $1bn building the world’s largest computer database of such physical characteristics, a project that observers warned would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals both within the U.S and people coming in from abroad.

Critics have expressed concern that people’s bodies will become de facto national identification cards and have argued that such initiatives should not proceed without proof that the technology really can pick a criminal out of a crowd.

Part of this 10-year project will see the agency retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks, so that they can be notified if employees have had any brushes with the law.

Within the UK, some employers are already looking to introduce such biometric systems to combat security breaches, said Croner, but any organisation doing so needed to be fully aware of the potential ramifications.

More widely, the UK Border Agency recently announced the use of fingerprint checks on all visa applicants.

So far 10,000 visa applicants have been identified that had previously been fingerprinted in connection with UK immigration or asylum cases.

Some schools have also introduced automated fingerprint testing systems into libraries for the loan of books and for cashless catering.

When introducing a new system using biometric technology, employees needed to be informed of the reasons for its introduction, how it works and the benefits to both employer and worker, advised Croner.

It is also good practice for the employer to hold meetings with staff to demonstrate it and answer any questions concerning its operation. It may be a good idea, too, to trial it before implementing it fully.

Employees, Croner added, will need to be reassured that their personal data (such as their fingerprints) will only be used for the purposes specified by the employer and that the information will be kept secure.

And employers need to ensure there are high standards of security in place to protect the information from being used for unlawful reasons or for any reasons which have not been communicated to the employees.

Finally, the information has to be protected from accidental loss, destruction or damage but that any biometric data is destroyed when it is no longer needed.

Gillian Dowling, employment consultant with Croner, said: “Advances in technology mean that this is now a realistic means of protecting property, data and personnel for employers and is no longer the exclusive preserve of high-security areas.

“Although it may sound futuristic, if the introduction is handled properly the benefits can be seen at all levels of an organisation in improved efficiency and security,” she added.

42-day detention – ‘It really is psychological torture’

0

detention1.jpgWith MPs voting today on a new, 42-day detention limit for terror suspects, Lee Glendinning spoke to a 23-year-old student about what it is like to be detained under the existing terrorism legislation.

By Lee Glendinning | “A minute goes like an hour and an hour like a day inside a cell … You lose all concept of day or night. There are no emotions: you can’t cry, you can’t laugh…

“Six days felt like six years. I dread to think what 42 days would feel like: 28 days is harsh enough … the idea of 42 days is phenomenal.

“The ironic thing is, paedophiles, murderers, bank robbers, kidnappers and extortionists are held for four days – 96 hours maximum time. And terror suspects are on a par with all of those.”

Rizwaan Sabir, 23, a student at Nottingham University, found himself detained in a segregated and sealed-off prison wing last month, arrested and held under the Terrorism Act after arriving at university and catching up with a friend for coffee.

For six days, he was kept in prison without charge, under 24-hour surveillance and interrogated daily about his views on al-Qaida and Islamic literature.

It was a subject close to his heart. Four months earlier, Rizwaan, who was doing his masters in international relations, had clicked on an al-Qaida document online while researching his dissertation, which focused on the difference between various military organisations. The document was an edited version of the al-Qaida training manual, downloaded from a US government website.

After completing a substantial chunk of the work in January, he sent the document to a colleague, Hisham Yezza, 30, who worked on campus and had access to a free printer.

On the morning of May 14, Rizwaan could have had no idea that his next week would be spent in a cell, accused of the commission and preparation of an act of terrorism, the issue of whether he would be charged or not hanging in the balance.

“After the coffee I put my stuff down and walked into the gents. As soon as I walked in, there were three policemen behind me saying ‘Don’t move! Don’t Move! Who are you?’ And I was like, ‘I’m a student. Who are you?’

“They said: ‘Well, we are police officers looking for someone who matches your description.”’

Shortly afterwards, they arrested him under section 41 of the Terrorism Act for the alleged commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism; Hisham Yezza had been arrested 10 minutes beforehand.

When Rizwaan reached the police station, the second floor had been entirely sealed off. It was, he said, like some form of solitary confinement.

“The restricted access made me feel like a real criminal. It felt like I was in the seventies – the lights were off and there was one table; all the cells were empty. I thought, ‘What the hell is going on here?'”

For the first 48 hours, he was told nothing, but was placed under 24-hour surveillance.

”They watched everything you did and wrote it down. I would read a book and they would write down what I was reading. They would follow me when I had a shower and stand right there. You couldn’t take one step out of the cell without someone following you. They would stop and do random searches of the cell. It was so humiliating

“Day six was the hardest. Knowing your life depends on a decision that someone else takes … when you have done something with the most clean-hearted intention. It really is psychological torture.”

Officers from the West Midlands counter-terrorism branch told him they were searching his car, computer and the family home, making him feel panicked about his family’s reaction. His mother, father, grandmother and two siblings were at home in the suburbs of Nottingham.

His colleagues on campus were also questioned in relation to the investigation, with the focus on whether he had a girlfriend, whether he drank alcohol and whether he had always worn a beard.

“They were quizzed by police for five hours … they said to my personal tutor that if this had been a young, blond, Swedish PhD student, then this would never have happened. The investigating officers were making these statements when I was detention.”

At one point, officers began asking him about tents they had found in his car, which he explained belonged to friends who had used them while taking part in a hunger strike.

”They found the tents and were trying to create an adverse influence. ‘Have you been camping?’ they asked ‘Are you planning to go camping? Have you been paintballing? Are you planning to go paintballing?”’

On the sixth day, without realising his freedom was imminent, he was told by a female police officer that the document he had looked at was deemed illegitimate for research purposes by the university, and if he ever looked at it again he could face further detention. He believed he was about to be charged.

He said: “It was breaking … absolutely terrifying, I was sitting there thinking, ‘God, am I ever going to get out of here?'”

When told he was to be released without charge, he walked into the room to speak with his solicitor.

“I was shaking so violently I fell to the floor. I went back to the room and just cried and cried … Somehow, I had managed to get my emotions back.”

Returning home to his family was traumatic in its own way: the house, he said, no longer felt like the home he knew. It had been searched, his belongings had been taken, his room felt like it had been rummaged through, and his home felt like it had been broken into.

He still feels a sense of dread when he sees police or hears a siren. He thinks about the possibility he could have been charged, that he could be waiting right now on remand for a court date. He finds the idea of returning to study a difficult one – although it is what he wants – and is seeking counselling for an experience he says has scarred him deeply.

Rizwaan’s colleague, Hisham Yezza, was also released without charge after six days, but he is now being held in a detention centre and contesting moves to deport him to Algeria.

Concerned about what he calls the climate of fear the government has created in Britain, which he says has in turn prompted a society of suspicion, Rizwaan feels the UK is becoming a place that does not allow a natural interest and involvement in politicisation.

“Police are paranoid that every Muslim who is young and has a beard and is slightly involved in politics is a national security threat,” he says.

“I was a regular student who was researching a phenomenon we encounter in today’s society.”

About this article

Close

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Wednesday June 11 2008. It was last updated at 01:11 on June 11 2008.

An alternative to oil?

2

oil-crisis.jpgBy Lee Waters | Oil prices could reach $200 a barrel by the end of the year, and the cost of filling up is rising nearly as fast. Lee Waters, of sustainable transport charity Sustrans, explains why it’s time to explore better ways to get around without the car

FUEL protesters rarely have difficulty grabbing the headlines or gaining public sympathy. After all, who wouldn’t rather pay less to fill up their car?

It seems quite likely that the Government will again back down from its planned increase in petrol tax this autumn. But the way the price of oil has been going, who is going to notice an extra 2p a litre?

Surely it can’t keep on going up and up? Ten years ago the price of oil was trading at $13 a barrel. Five years ago it had doubled to $25. It hit nearly $140 last week. And we haven’t heard the last of it.

Most forecasters think the price of oil is going to stay high, and some even predict it will reach $200 a barrel by the end of the year.

Of course, it is not just the price of petrol that is affected. Our economy is heavily dependent on oil. The price of gas and the price of steel are all closely linked to the black stuff — so the cost of building and heating homes is going up.

And so too is food. The rising price of our weekly shop is closely linked to the rising price of fertiliser and animal feed — all of which rely on oil for their production. And of course there’s the cost of moving goods around.

Around 95% of our transport system is dependent on oil. We’ve been used to fuel costing the same as mineral water and we have designed our towns and cities around the assumption that we can all hop in the car.

But not everyone can. In communities like Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr, where 35% of families are car-less, many low-income families feel forced to “invest” in a car to access jobs and services. And as the cost of petrol goes up it will be the families on tight budgets that are hit the hardest.

Buying and running a car is already a major cause of people getting into trouble with debts, and those on low wages who do have cars spend nearly a quarter of their income on the cost of motoring.

As seductive as it seems, trying to match increases in oil with tax cuts is a road to nowhere.

We need to wean ourselves off oil or face a serious economic slump — that’s on top of the dramatic threat to our prosperity we face from climate change. Last year’s Stern report on the economic impact of climate change warned that unless we take urgent action on cutting carbon emissions we face a downturn greater than the combined effects of both World Wars and the Great Depression.

What’s to be done? There is a different way forward, which will have a wide range of benefits not just for our economy but also for the stability of our climate. But it’s going to require some decisive leadership to make it happen.

A transport system that’s resilient to rising fuel prices needs to remove our over-dependence on oil. By far the majority of our daily journeys are under three miles long, yet the current built environment makes walking, cycling or catching public transport a challenging, sometimes impossible option. But with a number of small changes accompanied by a big vision for a new approach to transport and the planning system, it’s quite possible to make these active and public travel choices the easier, more pleasant and more direct way to get to our everyday destinations.

Sustainable transport charity Sustrans has been working for 30 years on practical projects to enable anyone to walk and cycle right across the UK. And we know that this vision, of a different, more active way to get around, is what people want too — just six months ago, the public voted in their thousands for the Big Lottery Fund to give Sustrans £50m for “Connect2”, a scheme which will build walking and cycling connections across 79 communities throughout the UK, including 10 schemes in Wales.

What is clear from the rising price of oil is that we cannot carry on building a transport system which assumes everyone can jump in a car. Not only is this likely to be unaffordable but it is contributing to a catastrophic shift in our climate. Change is coming. We can either anticipate it and set Wales up as a leader in sustainable travel, or we can continue in a state of denial and delude ourselves that fuel tax cuts will save the day.

Lee Waters is director of the sustainable transport charity Sustrans Cymru

All British forces to be pulled out of Iraq within a year

troopshome1.jpgMail Online | All British forces are set to be pulled out of Iraq within a year, it emerged today. Plans for a phased withdrawal are back on track after a reduction in violence in Basra over recent months. Whitehall officials are now working on a new timetable for the move.

Ptes Charles Murray, Nathan Cuthbertson and Daniel Gamble
Killed in Afghanistan: From left, privates Charles Murray, Nathan Cuthbertson and Daniel Gamble died on Sunday, taking the British toll there to 100The pull-out of the remaining 4,000 troops serving in Iraq is sure to be seized on by Labour Ministers as proof that a line has finally been drawn under Tony Blair’s biggest foreign policy disaster.

The withdrawal is expected to be announced by the end of this year if the security situation remains positive – with the actual operation taking place sometime next spring.

At the peak of British military activity in Iraq in 2003 there were 26,000 soldiers deployed in the country as part of Operation Telic – as well as 4,000 marines, 5,000 sailors and 8,100 RAF personnel.

British commanders handed over security responsibility in Basra province to the Iraqis last December.

Gordon Brown had been hoping to announce the final pull-out earlier this year, but previous plans to reduce troop numbers to 2,500 were put on hold in March after a bout of violence dubbed the ‘battle of Basra’.

UK troops in Basra 2004 
Coming home: British soldiers patrol the centre of Basra (file picture)

It is understood that the next announcement on troop numbers – the latest phased cut in numbers rather than the final withdrawal – will be made next month to the House of Commons.

On a recent visit to Basra, Defence Secretary Des Browne was able to walk the streets of what he described as a ‘ transformed city’.

The Prime Minister first announced last October that troop numbers in Iraq would be cut from 5,000 to 4,000.

His announcement, at the height of speculation about an autumn general election, triggered widespread criticism because the move was seen as being political.

Plans to cut numbers further this spring were put on hold when British forces became directly involved in fighting between the Iraqi army and Shia militiamen.

The Defence Secretary said recently that the ‘direction of travel’ of the withdrawal remained ‘clear’ but security had to be maintained by local forces.

However, any withdrawal of troops could take many months after a political announcement is made.

Recent secret discussions on the pull-out included Whitehall advisers, but the Government was refusing to comment fully today.

The Ministry of Defence insisted ‘no decisions’ had been taken about withdrawing troops from Iraq and said the suggestion that a final announcement could be made by the end of the year was ‘speculation’.

The Prime Minister’s advisers have long hoped that he can gain a ‘peace dividend’ from the end of operations in Iraq, focusing instead on Afghanistan. It will release badly needed resources for the fight against the Taliban.

Whitehall insiders believe that despite the British death toll rising to 100 after three members of 2 Para were killed on Sunday, the battle against the Taliban is potentially an easier war to sell to the public.

US Congressman Moves to Impeach Bush

1

bush-murder.jpgBelfast Telegraph | Former Democratic presidential contender, Dennis Kucinich, has called for the impeachment of George W Bush claiming that the president set out to deceive the nation, and violated his oath of office with the Iraq war.

The Ohio representative yesterday introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush on the floor of the US House of Representatives.

Kucinich unveiled a list of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.

He accused Bush executing a “calculated and wide-ranging strategy” to deceive citizens and Congress into believing that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States.

He went on to say that Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the “War on Terror” following the 9/11 attacks.

“Bush misled the American people and members of Congress to believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction so as to manufacture a false case for war. President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office,” Kucinich said.

He has already introduced a similar impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney.

Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com, said: “We’ve waited seven years to find one Member of Congress brave enough to stand up for our Constitution, for which generations of Americans have fought and died.

“We are thrilled and honored that Dennis Kucinich has chosen to be that one genuine patriot.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZ8seg4Nr4[/youtube]

“We congratulate him on his historic leadership, and pledge to do everything in our power to persuade Congress to adopt all 35 Articles and put George W Bush on trial before the Senate of the United States, exactly as the Founding Fathers wanted.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush and said the idea was “off the table.”

Kucinich’s case: the 35 points
Article I

Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq

Article II

Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

Article III

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

Article IV

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

Article V

Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

Article VI

Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

Article VII

Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII

Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter

Article IX

Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X

Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI

Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII

Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources

Article XIIII

Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

Article XIV

Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV

Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI

Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII

Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII

Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX

Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to ” Black Sites” Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX

Imprisoning Children

Article XXI

Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII

Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII

Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV

Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV

Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI

Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII

Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII

Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX

Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX

Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI

Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII

Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII

Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV

Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV

Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Take innocent people’s DNA off database, says Welsh MP

1

1-8001.jpgIC Wales | INNOCENT people would have their DNA taken off the Government’s controversial database under plans put forward by a Welsh MP. Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff Central, will present a private Bill in the Commons today to reform the way the huge DNA register is run.

Almost one in 10 people in Wales have their data stored after a surge in the number of samples taken by police.

Many of those 264,420 records belong to people who have never been charged with any offence, yet they can be retained for 100 years.

More than 7,000 samples have been taken from Welsh under-16s.

Ms Willott said: “If you are not charged or you are acquitted then your DNA should be removed.

“An awful lot of people have only found out the hard way that this is not the case.”

Although the use of DNA technology has led to the clearing-up of several unsolved murders, including that of Cardiff prostitute Lynette White, killed in 1988, there are fears that the database is a breach of civil liberties.

The database is the biggest of its kind in the world, dwarfing those used — in samples per head terms — by the US and other European countries.

Ms Willott said: “People who have voluntarily given samples, say to help in a police investigation, can’t have their DNA taken off the register either, so potentially there are a lot of people affected.

“The UK really is out on a limb on this.

“We’re in a different league to other countries.

“I don’t think the public realise quite how far it’s going because it’s not very easy to find out, but I think that will change as more and more people are affected.”

She said she was not against the use of DNA as a crime-fighting tool, saying for some offences like burglary, the presence of DNA at the crime scene more than doubled the prospect of a conviction.

“But that doesn’t mean we have to hold everybody’s DNA,” she said.

“Collect the DNA from the crime scene, but don’t then hold it for 100 years. It’s a question of getting the balance right.”

Without any prospect of Government support, Ms Willott’s Bill has no chance of becoming law, but she does have supporters from all sides of the Commons, including Labour MP Keith Vaz, who chairs the influential Home Affairs Select Committee.

Also backing the Bill is Conservative MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire Stephen Crabb, who last year highlighted the case of constituent Jeffrey Orchard, a pensioner wrongly arrested for criminal damage.

Mr Orchard, 73, had his fingerprints, photograph and DNA taken, but was cleared before the case reached court.

The database does have its backers, however. Senior judge Lord Justice Sedley said last year that everyone should be included on it.

The Government is funding an inquiry into public attitudes towards the database which is being carried out by the Human Genetics Commission, a body that advises ministers.

Can the US empire strike back?

0

obama2.jpgBy Alex Callinicos | Despite opposing the war, Obama is committed to US imperialism. Imagine, in a galaxy far, far away, an empire in decline. A disastrous military adventure and the rise of new powers have exposed its weakness. To cap it all, the emperor himself is generally despised as a provincial clod.

But now his successor has to be chosen. What better way to rehabilitate the empire in the eyes of others than to select as emperor an eloquent, dynamic, relatively young man — a man who, while being utterly safe, not only belongs to the group of imperial subjects who are victims of its greatest historical injustice, but whose father comes from a foreign country and who himself spent some of his childhood in another?

Maybe this seems too cynical a view of Barack Obama’s bid for the US presidency. The success of his campaign for the Democratic nomination has been driven by a huge popular revulsion against George Bush’s discredited administration and by the desire finally to heal the wound in US society caused by slavery and racism.

But the real power of the US president lies abroad. President John F Kennedy asked Richard Nixon in 1961, “It really is true that foreign affairs is the only important issue for a president to handle, isn’t it? I mean, who gives a shit if the minimum wage is $1.15 or $1.25 in comparison to something like the confrontation between the US and Cuba.”

And, on foreign policy, there seems to be a big divide between the two presidential candidates. John McCain, the Republican nominee, is in favour of keeping US troops in Iraq for “maybe one hundred years”.

Obama, by contrast, gained his edge on Hillary Clinton in large part thanks to his opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He is officially committed to withdrawing all US combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president.

But, in judging what Obama would actually do in the White House, it’s essential to remember what presidential elections are really about. Dominated by money — Obama’s victory over Clinton was clinched by his superior fund-raising — they are about choosing the leader who can best look after the global interests of US capitalism for the next four years.

Long before President Jimmy Carter officially proclaimed it in January 1980, a key objective of US foreign policy has been militarily and politically to dominate the Middle East. The current surge in the oil price has made securing this objective even more important.

So it’s striking, as the Washington Post has pointed out, that “when Mr Obama opened his general election campaign this week with a major speech on Middle East policy, the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration — or that of John McCain”.

Obama made the speech to the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the key pro-Israel lobbying organisations. He seems to have had two aims. The first was to ­reassure a suspicious audience that his opposition to the Iraq war did not in any way weaken his support for Israel.

“Let me be clear,” Obama said. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable, Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” He said he had been opposed even to letting Hamas contest the Palestinian elections in 2006 and promised Israel $30 billion US aid over the next ten years.

Secondly, Obama sought to toughen his line on Iran. He has been attacked by Bush and McCain for “appeasement” for promising to negotiate with the Islamic Republican regime in Tehran.

Not radical

Obama’s position isn’t exactly radical. The December 2006 report of the Iraq Study Group, headed by Jim Baker, pillar of the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, recommended negotiating with Iran as a way of getting out of the Iraq morass.

But Obama was determined not to allow McCain to outflank him. “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he told AIPAC.

This would include “aggressive, principled diplomacy” backed up by tougher sanctions and the ultimate sanction of force: “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.”

This change in tone isn’t just about defeating McCain in the general election. The military surge hasn’t brought peace or stability to Iraq, but it has bought the US time to pursue its long term plans for the country.

The secret draft agreement for a “strategic alliance” between the US and Iraq revealed last week in Socialist Worker and the Independent indicate what these plans are — permanent US military bases in Iraq and the right for the Pentagon to pursue its operations without the say-so of its client regime.

Democratic senators have denounced the proposal. Nevertheless, it is absolutely certain that Obama will fill what the Washington Post calls “the gap in his Middle East policy” by watering down his proposal to withdraw all US troops in Iraq.

But if president Obama would probably offer only more of the same in the Middle East, what difference would he make overall to the US empire?

After the Cold War, commentators talked about “the unipolar moment” — about overwhelming US global power. The Iraq debacle has reminded the world instead of US relative decline — a perception reinforced by the economic rise of China and the credit squeeze engineered by Anglo-American financial speculation.

Instead of the swaggering arrogance of power symbolised by Bush, Obama would offer the world’s ruling classes a different face of the US — one ready to negotiate and to cooperate, and in particular to address the issue of climate change rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.

But this more open stance would still rest on US military power — Obama wants to increase the size of the armed forces. He would make an attractive black emperor but he would still have his legions massed behind him.

Ex-Army Officer Admits Taking Bribes for Iraq Contracts

0

iraq4.jpgAP | A retired Army lieutenant colonel pleaded guilty Tuesday to steering a Pentagon contract for warehouses in Iraq to a contractor in return for $4,000 cash and a $5,000 trip to Thailand.Levonda J. Selph pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy in U.S. District Court as part of a plea bargain with the government in which she agreed to cooperate with the investigation. The Virginia resident also agreed to pay the government $9,000 in restitution and serve a prison term.

She agreed to sentencing guidelines that could result in a prison term of up to two years and nine months. The length will be set by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 14.

The government said that in 2005 Lt. Col. Selph of the Army National Guard served in Baghdad as head of a selection board that awarded an annual $12 million contract to build and operate Defense Department warehouses in Iraq. The winning contractor was not identified by name in the court documents.

Selph admitted she leaked confidential government information about the contract to the head of the winning contracting company and helped him submit phony bid packages on behalf of six separate companies he controlled “to create the appearance of competition, when, in fact, no competition existed.” In return, she was paid $4,000 by the contractor and took a trip with his wife to Thailand during which he paid $5,000 for Selph’s airfare and accommodations.

The Heinous Crimes of George W. Bush in 35 Articles of Impeachment

2

bush-ftonline.jpgBy Elaine Brower & Cheryl Abraham | Monday, June 9, 2008 was an astoundingly historic night for the United States of America. In the evening a mild mannered Congressman named Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) took to the floor of the House of Representatives and began to read a startling document, a document laying out 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush.  

For five hours Congressman Kucinich read clearly and concisely each of the 35 counts against President Bush. Occasionally taking sips from a cup, Kucinich didn’t falter, didn’t take a break, and didn’t seem to tire with the long reading, in fact right up to the last article Kucinich, with unwavering passion, said for the 35th time that evening:

“In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.” 

These 35 astounding, criminal, impeachable, and in many cases monstrous offenses were spoken out loud for all to hear and watch on CSPAN. So where was the rest of the media, the supposed fourth estate? Where’s the in-depth public reporting on this occasion? Where’s Nancy Pelosi who has said all along that impeachment was “off the table” because she had seen no evidence for any criminal wrongdoing by the president and if anyone had such evidence could they “please let her know”. The evidence was read for the world to hear last night, it is now a matter of public record, and it couldn’t be more obvious that George W. Bush has committed an incredible amount of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Two Articles That Could be the Undoing of a President 

Let’s focus on 2 key articles presented yesterday.

Article XIV states: “Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Article XVIII states: “Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy.” 

Above all the other crimes committed by George Bush, these Articles could hold the key to waking up the members of the House Judiciary Committee who have been staunchly following the line of the House Speaker by not pursuing impeachment investigations.

 

Interestingly enough, yesterday just a short time prior to Kucinich making his historic presentation, the House Judiciary Committee, specifically John Conyers (D-Illinois), and Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), officially “invited” Scott McClellan to testify under oath, and be subject to perjury charges should he lie, to be asked about the following matters:

 (1)   What role did Bush, Cheney and key administration officials take in the effort to reveal the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson — thus destroying her network and putting lives in jeopardy?

(2)   What role did Bush, Cheney and key administration officials take regarding the firing of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?

(3)   What role did Bush, Cheney and key administration officials take in conspiring to blatantly break U.S. and International laws prohibiting the use of torture? 

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Florida), a co-sponsor of these articles of impeachment, has been demanding that the Judiciary Committee subpoena McClellan, as well as Rove, Rice and Powell. McClellan’s testimony in conjunction with what this resolution is presenting in Articles XIV and XVII (see background information at http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=255), could rip open a gaping hole in this administration’s armor that will ultimately result in its destruction.

 

Will the media be silent then?  Why aren’t these articles of impeachment making their way right now into the public arena to assure that investigations into these articles begin immediately? Former president Bill Clinton was investigated and impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice over lying about an illicit sexual affair, and then later was cleared in the Senate of the charges in only 21 days. There wasn’t a paper, tabloid, or TV station in this country that didn’t cover every sordid detail of the investigation that led up to those “high crimes and misdemeanors” — what is the explanation for the echoing silence in the face of the astounding and mountainous amount of evidence of the bloody crimes of George W. Bush?

 

Why does Bush get a free ride in the media — a media that has so obviously silenced this story, for such heinous crimes as torture, falsely leading a nation to war, rendition, imprisoning children as young as ten years old, spying on American citizens without a warrant, obliterating the Posse Comitatus act, etc. What has changed in the media from non-stop coverage of the impeachment proceedings of a president in 1999, to the resounding silence we hear in 2008? Will our ‘leaders’ in D.C. take the reading of these charges seriously and begin impeachment hearings now?

 

John Conyers and others have said that impeachment hearings could or would jeopardize Obama’s chances to win in the November election and therefore an election win is of far more importance than protecting the rule of law and bringing those who’ve committed unprecedented and historical harm to our nation and the world to justice.

 

It is now up to the people of conscience to not let the historical significance of June 9, 2008 go unheard and unacknowledged! We must openly and publicly thank Kucinich, and Wexler, for their courage and for bravely and succinctly putting forth all the crimes of George W. Bush. We must take it upon ourselves to hound and haunt Conyers and Nadler to listen to us.

 

The people must do their utmost to spread this information as quickly as possible to everyone they know. Contact the media and hold them accountable for their silence and complicity in the face of the enormous evidence of the high crimes and misdemeanors committed on such a massive scale by the Bush regime.  We must, in our millions, demand that the time for impeachment is long overdue.

We must make a firm commitment to Drive Out the Bush Regime, because we and the world really can’t wait. (for more information see www.worldcantwait.org)

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

0

waxman.jpgBy Jane Corbin | A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq. For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC’s Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president’s Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: “The money that’s gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

“It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history.”

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid – and won.

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in West London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi

Judge Radhi al Radhi: “I believe these people are criminals.”

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the ministry.

They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq’s Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: “I believe these people are criminals.

“They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence , and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on – the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility.”

Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.

He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.

There is an Interpol arrest out for him but he is on the run – using a private jet to move around the globe.

He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.

Washington ordered destruction of Guantánamo interrogation records

gitmo-pris.jpgBy Bill Van Auken | In another confirmation of the criminal character of Washington’s handling of so-called “enemy combatants,” a “Standard Operating Procedure” manual has come to light that explicitly instructs US interrogators at the American prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba to destroy contemporaneous records of their interrogations.

The existence of the document was made public by the military defense attorney for Omar Khadr, a Canadian national who has been held for six years since being captured by American forces as a 15-year-old minor in Afghanistan.

The lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, filed an affidavit on the manual, reporting that it had been shown to him only last week.

The document, issued for “intelligence exploitation teams,” also known as “tiger teams” operating inside the Guantánamo camp, explicitly orders destruction of evidence to avoid potential exposure of government criminality.

“This mission has legal and political issues that may lead to interrogators being called to testify,” states the manual, cited in an affidavit filed by Kuebler. It continues, “Keeping the number of documents with interrogation information to a minimum can minimize certain legal issues.”

Citing the document, the military attorney has asked for the charges against Khadr to be dismissed, on the grounds that his supposed confession, which comprises the core of the prosecution case, cannot be challenged as to its accuracy based on existing records.

The patent purpose of the order was to assure the destruction of evidence implicating the US government in the systematic torture of those it has detained in the so-called “global war on terrorism.”

Khadr is being tried as a war criminal for acts he is alleged to have committed at the age of 15. These acts stem from the siege mounted by US troops of a house in which Khadr was staying in an Afghan village.

The youth was captured after the house was demolished by 500-pound bombs, grenades and gunfire. He is accused of murder in connection with one US soldier killed by a grenade in the siege, though evidence–including the fact that the youth was shot in the back–suggests that he was not responsible.

The United Nations and numerous human rights groups have condemned the US for the prolonged imprisonment of Khadr and the attempt to try him as an adult on charges that could put him in prison for life.

“The government’s case against Omar is based almost entirely on statements interrogators extracted from him in the course of interrogations at Bagram [Afghanistan] and Guantánamo Bay,” Lieutenant Commander Kuebler told the Canadian daily Globe and Mail. “If handwritten notes were destroyed in accordance with the [Standard Operating Procedure manual], the government intentionally deprived Omar’s lawyers of key evidence with which to challenge the reliability of his statements.”

The Canadian youth was subjected to torture, beatings and abuse at both the Bagram and Guantánamo prisons. He was also denied adequate medical treatment for wounds suffered in the US assault, which have left him nearly blind in one eye and with severely impaired vision in the other.

The military defense attorney also indicated that he would seek to file his affidavit for a dismissal of the charges with the US Supreme Court. Earlier attempts to appeal to the high court have been rejected by the military authorities. The Supreme Court is expected to rule sometime this month on whether those held at Guantánamo have a right to challenge their detention.

The exposure of the manual ordering the destruction of evidence follows the Pentagon’s removal of the military judge charged with hearing Khadr’s case. The judge, Colonel Peter Brownback, was replaced last month after he ordered military prosecutors to turn over numerous documents they had been withholding to the defense. Included among them were records detailing Khadr’s treatment while at Guantánamo.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported Sunday that the military defense attorney for another Guantánamo detainee–who was also arrested as a minor and charged as a war criminal–has asked that all charges against his client be dismissed based on the release of documents demonstrating that his client had been subjected to abusive treatment tantamount to torture.

The detainee, Mohammed Jawad, is accused of throwing a grenade at US military convoy in Afghanistan in December 2002, when he was 16 or 17 years old. He faces a possible death penalty based on this alleged act, which he denies committing.

Guantánamo’s “frequent flier” torture
Based on daily prison logs, Jawad’s defense lawyer, Air Force Major David Frakt, has established that the youth was subjected to what military interrogators dubbed the “frequent flier program,” in which he was moved back and forth between two cells 112 times in just 14 days.

These cell extractions, conducted every 2 hours and 55 minutes, were aimed at “breaking” the detainees through sleep deprivation. There has been no attempt to claim that Jawad held any intelligence value for the US military, and the tactic appeared to have been employed largely as part of the sadistic “standard operating procedure” utilized against all of the Guantánamo inmates. In Jawad’s case, the disorienting and abusive treatment was organized in 2004, just a few months after the youth had attempted suicide.

“I think it reflects the abandonment of basic American values of human decency that occurred on a widespread basis in detention operations in the first two to three years of the global war on terror,” Major Frakt said of his client’s torture. “What started as an effort focused on a few detainees believed to possess critical intelligence filtered down to ordinary detainees and became routine.”

The use of this procedure against Jawad also occurred two months after it was supposedly banned at Guantánamo in March 2004, after FBI interrogators filed reports expressing concern about it and other forms of torture being carried out at the offshore US detention facility. A subsequent military investigation claimed, falsely, that it had been carried out solely against so-called high-value detainees and discontinued. No mention was made in the report of Jawad’s treatment.

The military’s chief prosecutor at Guantánamo, Colonel Lawrence Morris, while acknowledging that Jawad had been subjected to the protracted sleep deprivation technique, insisted that just “because the government may have stumbled some in how he was treated,” this constituted no grounds for dropping the charges.

The 2006 Military Commissions Act, under which the detainees are to be tried, treats confessions extracted through torture as well as hearsay and secret evidence as admissible. It explicitly denies all those declared by the president to be “illegal enemy combatants”–US citizens and non-citizens alike–any rights under the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions.

The new revelations of torture and cover-up in the cases of these two individuals–the first in history to be charged as war criminals for acts committed when they were minors–has served to further discredit the entire military commissions system, which is now being revved up to conduct a politically motivated show trial of individuals charged in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington.

Air Force Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann, the legal advisor to the civilian appointees overseeing the trials, told the media over the weekend that the Pentagon has made the trials “the No. 1 obligation” for its legal services division and is dispatching another 108 uniformed lawyers to participate in the sham proceedings.

Hartmann has been charged by other participants in the process with politically interfering in the organization of the drumhead trials. Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who formerly served as the chief military prosecutor at Guantánamo, has given sworn testimony that Hartmann had instructed him to speed up trials of “sexy…high profile cases,” cases “with blood on them” in order to generate popular support for the military commissions.

Davis has likewise accused the second highest civilian official at the Pentagon, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, of demanding that he rush the prosecution of the 9/11 defendants, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “because there could be strategic value before the [November] election.”

This process is moving full steam ahead. Five individuals allegedly involved in the planning of the September 11 attacks were brought before a military commission in Guantánamo for the first time last Thursday in preparation for a trial that is set to begin a week and a half after Republican presidential candidate John McCain is formally nominated and to run through the height of the election campaign.

In this initial arraignment, the defendants rejected their defense teams–uniformed lawyers presented to them on the eve of the trial after they had spent at least five years in isolation and undergoing torture.

While observers were allowed into the courtroom, they were seated behind soundproof glass and provided a time-delayed audio transmission of the proceedings, in which prisoners’ statements referring to their torture at the hands of interrogators, drugs that had been administered to them and the circumstances of their arrests were all deleted.

One of the defendants, Ammar al-Baluchi, mocked the military judge when he explained the “rights” of the accused. Speaking in fluent English, he declared, “Everything that has happened here is unfair and unjust.”

“Since the first time I was arrested, I might have appreciated that,” he said in response to the judge’s assurance that he would be provided free legal counsel. “The government is talking about lawyers free of charge,” he continued. “The government also tortured me free of charge all these years.”

The mounting revelations about the criminality dominating the imprisonment of detainees at Guantánamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons around the world have thoroughly discredited these sham legal proceedings before they can even begin.

More than ample evidence has been uncovered in the course of these exposures to place Bush, Cheney, Rice and other top officials in the Bush administration on trial for their own war crimes.

World’s top scientists say G8 must lead way on carbon capture

0

carbon-emissions.jpgG8 governments must lead the way in developing technology to catch carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations as part of immediate action on climate change, scientists urged today. The national science academies in the G8 countries – along with those of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa – called on their leaders to take measures to cut emissions and help countries adapt to a warming climate.

In a statement released today, the academies said governments meeting in Japan next month for the G8 summit should commit to halving emissions by 2050.

And without action to help countries – particularly in the developing world – adapt to the changes that warming temperatures will bring, climate change and rising populations will worsen existing food and water shortages, they said.Water resources, food supplies, health, coastal settlements and some ecosystems, particularly in Africa, Asia and small islands, are likely to be most affected by global warming, the statement said.

The scientists called for improvements in our ability to predict the effects of climate change, and investment in technology which will help people cope with those impacts.

The G8+5 countries should also lead the way in developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to prevent emissions from energy generation, particularly coal.

The scientists said the nations meeting for the G8 summit in Hokkaido should agree a timetable, funding and co-ordinated plan by 2009 for “a significant number” of demonstration CCS plants.

The measures should be part of a transition to a low-carbon society in a bid to stabilise emissions at a level at which they can be absorbed by the Earth’s natural systems – which is approximately half the rate of current output.

Alongside technology developments, the scientists said a number of measures were needed to transfer to a low-carbon society including investment in renewable energy, tackling deforestation and protecting ecosystems.

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, one of the signatories to the statement, said the food and water shortages which were already a dangerous reality in many developing countries and would be aggravated by climate change and a growing population.

“These threats must be properly assessed and solutions identified if we are to avoid costly mistakes from investing in technologies and infrastructure that do not take climate change into account.”

And he said: “Coal will continue to be one of the world’s primary energy sources for the next 50 years.

“If coal burning power plants and industries continue to pump out carbon dioxide unabated we face a growing risk of triggering a dangerous and irreversible change in the climate.

“Techniques for carbon capture and storage must therefore be developed urgently.”

He said current efforts to boost the technology were “quite inadequate” and the countries attending the G8 summit should commit themselves to a much bigger, better co-ordinated programme.

“The sooner this technology can be proven and widely adopted, and annual carbon dioxide emissions stopped from rising, the lower the risk of catastrophic climate change,” he said.

Copyright © 2008 Newsquest

Spain grinding to a halt as fuel protest takes effect

0

standstill.jpgBy Ciaran Giles | MADRID – Gas stations in the capital and the northeastern Catalonia region began running out of fuel yesterday as an indefinite strike by truckers began to bite. The protest over soaring fuel costs began at midnight Sunday.

Antonio Onieva, president of Madrid’s station owners organization, said that by 5:30 p.m., 15 percent of the capital’s outlets had run out of fuel. Manuel Amado, president of Catalonia’s owners’ federation, said 40 percent of Catalonia’s 1,714 stations had sold out.

The stoppage led to lengthy lines at many gasoline stations across the country as drivers rushed to fill up.

Drivers were paying the equivalent of about $7.32 per gallon of diesel yesterday. By contrast, diesel was selling in the United States for about $4.75.

Truckers also blocked a number of roads around the country, including some leading into the center of Barcelona and the international border with France.

“We are the ones who move the goods that this country needs to keep working. If we stop because we haven’t got the money to buy fuel then the country will stop,” Julio Villascusa, president of Fenadismer, the transport association , told Cadena SER radio.

Fenadismer representatives and Development Ministry officials met yesterday but failed to reach agreement, stretching the strike to a second day.

Fenadismer said more than 90,000 drivers have been called to take part in the strike.

The strike was not expected to have a major effect on city food markets until later in the week.

There was almost no movement of trucks early yesterday at Mercamadrid, the main wholesale food market for the Spanish capital.

Development Ministry transport chief Juan Miguel Sanchez said the government will guarantee market supplies.

A strike by fishermen across Spain also protesting fuel costs has entered a second week. News reports said smaller boats that fish closer to the coast have joined the protest, which began May 30.

The stoppages are part of protests across Europe against rising prices.

Rights body threatens to bring legal challenge on 42-day detention

0

detention.jpgBy Alan Travis and Patrick Wintour | The government’s human rights watchdog last night served notice that it will immediately launch a legal challenge to the government’s plan to extend the pre-charge detention limit to 42 days if it reaches the statute book. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, chaired by Trevor Phillips, backed its claim by publishing legal advice from Matrix Chambers that the extended limit would violate the European convention on human rights.

The advice from leading human rights lawyers Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Aileen McColgan says that the amendments tabled by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, last week to win over potential Labour rebels still leave the measure breaching human rights law, as extended detention without charge is likely to involve inhuman or degrading treatment and discrimination against Muslim detainees.

Phillips said: “As the body charged with the promotion of human rights, we agree with ministers that the right to life is paramount, but that does not give us the liberty to take actions that unnecessarily violate other human rights … Should the proposed measures be carried, the commission will immediately move to test its legality by launching a judicial review.”

Government whips are not expecting the nine Democratic Unionist MPs to vote with the government on the measure, as the prime minister warned his backbenchers privately that he may be humiliated if he is defeated tomorrow.

The prime minister’s spokesman insisted that the government would not be doing any side deals to win over the DUP, which is likely hold its position to the last minute in an attempt to win concessions.

In a further development ahead of the vote, the security services clarified their position, stressing that they were neutral about the proposed extension of pre-charge detention to 42 days. In a statement they said they did not think it appropriate for them to take a view on a politically controversial issue.

The prime minister’s spokesman insisted he was not bluffing when he said that the government saw the vote as “very, very tight”. He said Gordon Brown was personally telephoning wavering backbenchers and was even prepared to debate the matter personally with some of the serial rebels that make up Labour’s Campaign Group.

Ministers were encouraged by the news that one regular rebel, Jon Trickett, the Labour MP for Hemsworth, had decided to back the government. Some leading Labour peers opposed to the measure now think the government will win in the Commons, leaving Labour peers at the forefront of a battle this summer.

The children’s secretary, Ed Balls, said there was no reason for the vote to be treated as a confidence measure for the prime minister.

MPs will start voting on and debating the counter-terrorism bill today, when they consider some of its lesser measures.

The Conservatives have shored up their own supporters, although at one point it looked as if four Tories would vote with the government.

Big Brother Britain

0

phorm.jpgEmployers could find themselves in hot water if they decide to follow a new government plan to record and store all of Britain’s emails, phone calls and text messages say lawyers at Glovers Solicitors. With privacy rights jeopardised, employers who choose to replicate the campaign may find themselves breaching the Human Rights Act and facing employment tribunals.

“The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that, in order for such monitoring of an employee to be justified, the employer must make it absolutely clear to the individual that their privacy is not guaranteed and that monitoring may take place.” says Sikin Andela, partner and employment law specialist at Glovers. “The easiest way for an employer to do this is to ensure that their employment documentation (contracts and/or handbooks) contains a clear and formal policy on how workstations will be monitored and what will happen to the information that is collected.”

This strain on the fundamental trust between employer and employee could, if not approached correctly, raise a wide range of employment law issues. Through this monitoring an employer could discover information that leads to disciplinary action being taken. If an employee is not made aware that they are potentially being monitored then any claim they make to a tribunal will have a prospect of success.

“In short this “Big Brother” style of keeping tabs on everyone is potentially highly contentious” continues Andela. “In order to protect themselves in the workforce, employers must ensure that they have evaluated the business need of monitoring employees against the individual rights of workers, amended their policies and procedures and made every employee expressly aware that they may potentially be monitored at any time.”

Copyright © Online Recruitment

Gov’t told to stop collecting citizens’ data

0

blacklisting.jpgBy Leo King | The Home Affairs Committee has called for a reduction in the unnecessary collection of data on UK citizens. The move comes just weeks after the government shortlisted five IT suppliers on its ID card project and after plans were revealed that it wanted to make a database of all phone calls and emails in the UK.

Last week, IT industry commentators speaking to Computerworld UK said the government should also urgently reconsider the £12.4bn NHS IT programme for a centralised database of patient records. And last year, HM Revenue & Customs lost 25 million child benefit records.

In its report, called ‘A Surveillance Society? ‘, the Home Affairs Committee called on the government to “adopt a principle of data minimisation”, and only hold data “for as long as is necessary”. The government should “resist a tendency to collect more personal information and establish larger databases”, the committee said.

The committee said that the government’s assurances that it has learned lessons from the high profile data losses “though welcome, are not sufficient to reassure us or, we suspect, the public”.

It is “particularly concerned” about attempts to use patient data, or information held on children for the purposes of predictive profiling for future criminal behaviour, and said “the Home Office must not undertake or sponsor work of this sort”.

It called for “Privacy Impact Assessments” recommended by the Information Commissioner to be used as a risk-analysis tool before surveillance projects are started.

Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the committee, said: “What we are calling for is an overall principle of “least data, for least time”. We have all seen over the past year extraordinary examples of how badly things can go wrong when data is mishandled, with potentially disastrous consequences.”

He said the government should not collect more data “just because the technology allows it”, nor should it use the data beyond the purposes it is initially collected for.

The committee set out what it called ‘ground rules’ in order to prevent “unnecessary surveillance”, and protect citizens’ data. It said the government should minimise data collection and large databases, prove the need before starting data collection projects, take responsibility for safeguarding information and not hold information longer than necessary.

More secure systems were needed to protect data, it said, as well as contingency plans in the event of biometric information being stolen.

The government should explicitly address questions being asked around collecting data, including using microphones on security cameras, and it should not routinely use the national identity register to monitor the activities of individuals, the committee said.

It also called for the Information Commissioner to provide an annual report on the government’s surveillance projects.

Gait Recognition Software Proposed For Surveillance At A Distance

2

surveillance-distance.jpgRed Orbit | Biometrics is commonly associated retinal scans, iris recognition and DNA databases, but researchers in India are working on another form of biometrics that could allow law enforcement agencies and airport security to recognize suspects based on the way they were, their characteristic gait. The team reveals details of a comprehensive framework for gait recognition by computer in the inaugural issue of the Inderscience publication, the International Journal of Biometrics.

C. Nandini of the Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering & Technology and C.N. Ravi Kumar of the S.J. College of Engineering in Mysore, India, explain that human gait typifies the motion characteristics of an individual. Viewed from the side, we each have a unique gait that makes us easily recognizable.

They point out that a camera with a side view can record a set of key frames, or stances, as a person heads for the security desk at an airport, military installation or bank, for instance. Key frames over the person’s complete walk cycle, can then be converted into silhouette form and statistical analysis using so-called Shannon entropy, together with height measurements and the periodicity of the gait used to classify the person’s gait.

The gait of individuals checking in at an airport could then be compared with the database, perhaps even before they enter the airport concourse. Such data compared with CCTV footage might also be used to track suspect terrorists or criminals who may otherwise be disguising their features or be carrying forged documents.

The researchers emphasize that gait recognition has a significant advantage over more well-known biometrics, such as fingerprinting and iris scanning in that it is entirely unobtrusive and can be used to identify an individual potentially from a considerable distance. “The ability to identify a possible threat from a distance gives personnel a longer time frame in which to react before a possible suspect becomes a real threat,” the researchers say.

They carried out initial tests on 20 people recorded walk in a straight line at normal speed and stride, back and forth in front of a video camera placed perpendicular to their path. They obtained good recognition rates using the Shannon entropy equation and the individuals’ height. Recognition performance of the system was sensitive to changes in big viewing angle above ten degrees but was reasonably robust even when the individuals changed walking speed.

“Comprehensive framework to gait recognition,” by C. Nandini and C.N. Ravi Kumar in International Journal of Biometrics, 2008, 1(1), 129-137

MI5 chief speaks out over 42-day row

0

jonathan-evans.jpgBy Peter Walker and agencies | The head of MI5 has released a rare public statement to stress that his organisation is not arguing against the planned new 42-day detention limit for terrorism suspects. The move came as MPs prepared to debate the measure in the Commons ahead of a vote that could end in a humiliating defeat for Gordon Brown.

The comments by Jonathan Evans, director general of MI5, officially known as the Security Service, follow an admission by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, at the weekend that MI5 had not requested to new powers.

Several subsequent reports suggested MI5 did not back the move, but Evans stressed today that it simply did not seek to have a view on the matter.

“A number of media reports have appeared in the last few days on the supposed position that MI5 takes in respect of pre-charge detention time limits,” he said in a statement posted on the MI5 website.

“I would like to make the service’s position on this issue clear. Since the Security Service is neither a prosecuting authority nor responsible for criminal investigations, we are not, and never have been, the appropriate body to advise the government on pre-charge detention time limits.

“We have not, therefore, sought to comment publicly or privately on the current proposals, except to say that we recognise the challenge posed for the police service by the increasingly complex and international character of some recent terrorist cases.”

MPs will today begin a two-day debate on the proposal to increase the maximum time that terror suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days. The prime minister’s spokesman said Downing Street saw tomorrow’s vote as “very, very tight”.

In a further sign of government nervousness, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, was today flying back to Britain to be in parliament, after cutting short a visit to Israel.

Victory or defeat for Brown could come down to a margin as small as the decision of nine Democratic Unionist MPs, who have yet to decide which way they will vote.

Brown has faced vocal opposition from a series of senior legal and other figures. The government’s human rights watchdog said last night it would immediately launch a legal challenge to the 42 days limit if it reaches the statute book.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, chaired by Trevor Phillips, published legal advice from Matrix Chambers that the extended limit would violate the European convention on human rights.

Scotland’s chief legal officer, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, has also come out against the idea, telling the Herald newspaper the move is “not supported by prosecution evidence”.

Earlier this week, Angiolini’s counterpart in England and Wales, the director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, repeated his view that the change was not needed.

Iraqi lawmakers say U.S. demanding 58 military bases

2

iraq-flag.jpgBy Leila Fadel | Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed “status of forces” agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq . Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran .

“The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,” said Jalal al Din al Saghir , a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq . “We were occupied by order of the Security Council ,” he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. “But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.”

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years of notice from either side, lawmakers said.

“It would impair Iraqi sovereignty,” said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party of the proposed accord. “The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq … if we come under aggression we should define it and we ask for help.”

Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but want to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces conduct in Iraq . At present, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

” Is there sovereignty for Iraq – or isn’t there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs,” Saghir said. “We have given Bush our views – some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods.”

Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran , whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have “no doubt that the Americans’ dreams will not come true,”

Hoshyar Zebari , the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as “frank and honest since the beginning.”

“This is an ongoing process,” Zebari said. “There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don’t have a final text yet for them to be judgmental.”

Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord, not subject to Senate ratification.

Neither of the two likely Presidential contenders, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) and Sen. John McCain , had any immediate comment on the talks under way in Baghdad . Lee Hamilton , a former Democratic congressman from Indiana , said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq , and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. “” Congress would have a lot of questions, and the President should be very careful in negotiating,” Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars , told McClatchy newspapers.

(EDITORS: Story can end here)

The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.

“Look, there is going to be no occupation,” said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli . “Now it’s perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq that have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that’s why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody’s throat.

“It’s kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn’t work. They either want you or they don’t want you. You can’t use coercion to get them to like you,” he added.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate. The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail legal framework under which they will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, “there have to be terms that are in place. That’s the reality that we’re trying to accommodate.”

Iraqis are determined to get there nation removed from Security Council chapter 7 category which deemed them a threat to international peace after Saddam’s Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait – language the Iraqi government says is no longer appropriate. But even on that which the Iraqi government said is the basic request to restore sovereignty, the U.S. has made no promises to support them, Saghir said. Instead they are using it as a pressure point in negotiations, they said.

U.S. demands “are conflicting with our sovereignty and we refuse them,” said Hassan Sneid , a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. “I don’t expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans wants so many things and the fact is we want different things.”

“If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension,” Saghir said. “It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready.”

Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.

Democrats introduce bill to outlaw Pentagon propaganda

1

pentagonpropaganda.jpgBy Muriel Kane | Last April, the New York Times revealed that retired officers serving as military analysts on television news shows had regularly been briefed by the Pentagon and supplied with pro-war and pro-administration talking points.The program was “temporarily suspended” by the Pentagon a week later. Now four senators have introduced legislation to prevent it from resuming.

Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), John Kerry (D-MA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced S. 3099, titled “A bill to prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Defense for propaganda purposes within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law.”

“This Administration has a history of pushing propaganda on the American public,” Sen. Lautenberg explained. “The American people expect our federal government to tell the nation the truth.”

“There is no need for paid cheerleaders to support an argument,” added Sen. Menendez.

The bill is a companion measure to an amendment to the military authorization bill which passed the House of Representatives on May 23. The television networks, which avoided reporting on the original New York Times story, have also paid little notice to the House ban.

Following the House passage of the amendment, the inspector general’s office at the Department of Defense announced that it would be looking into the program, while the Government Accountability Office said it was already doing so. The Senate bill mandates that both those offices report to Congress within 90 days.

“We’re going to make sure the public money isn’t used for propaganda campaigns that undermine the public trust,” Sen. Kerry stated. “The American people should not have to wonder whether the purportedly non-partisan, expert analysis they see on television might have been shaped by a government propaganda campaign.”

Presidential Directive Demands Widespread Sharing of Biometrics

0

whitehouse1.jpgBy Matthew Rothschild | Big Brother wants your irises. George Bush just issued a directive to expand the acquisition of biometric information, and to ensure that agencies across the executive branch share it.

And the Bush Administration may give it to foreign governments, too.

All this according to National Security Presidential Directive Number 59, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 24, which George W. Bush signed on June 5.

The directive is aimed at “known and suspected terrorists,” as well as “other persons who may pose a threat to national security.”

The directive does not say how these other persons who “may pose a threat” are to be defined.

And the directive is so broadly worded that it appears to cover anyone the government has biometric or other personal data on.

“To be most effective, national security identification and screening systems will require timely access to the most accurate and most complete biometric, biographic, and related that are, or can be, made available throughout the executive branch,” the
document states.

Bush ordered executive departments and agencies to “use mutually compatible methods and procedures in the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information of individuals.” Agencies are supposed to share this information with each other “to the fullest extent permitted by law” whenever “there is an articulable and reasonable basis for suspicion” that an individual poses a “threat to national security.”

The directive does not specify what an “articulable and reasonable basis” might be.

“Known and suspected terrorists,” or KSTs, as the document calls them, are not the only concern of the Bush Administration.

It has whole groups of other people that it wants to gather biometric information on.

Within 90 days, the Attorney General is tasked to “recommend categories of individuals in addition to KSTs who may pose a threat to national security,” and he is ordered to “set forth cost-effective actions and associated timelines for expanding the collection and use of biometrics to identify and screen for such individuals.”

The Attorney General is to coordinate this “with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], and the Director of Science and Technology Policy.”

The Attorney General is also required to identify “legal authorities” to implement the
directive.

The directive states that it wants to expand the use of biometrics on individuals “in a lawful and appropriate manner, while respecting their information privacy and other legal rights under United States law.”

But the directive offers no suggestion about how those rights would be protected.

The directive also says that the Secretary of State “shall coordinate the sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information with foreign partners.”

Under what circumstances the Secretary of State would share such information with “foreign partners” remains unclear. All the directive says is that it would happen “in accordance with applicable law, including international obligations undertaken by the United States.”

Give the Bush Administration’s demonstrated disdain for applicable law and international obligations, and given its record of violating people’s privacy rights, this is not reassuring.

Airport Scanners Do Virtual Strip Search

2

orwellian.jpgBy Thomas Frank | Body-scanning machines that show images of people underneath their clothing are being installed in 10 of the nation’s busiest airports in one of the biggest public uses of security devices that reveal intimate body parts.The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently started using body scans on randomly chosen passengers in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, Albuquerque and at New York’s Kennedy airport.

Airports in Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas and Miami will be added this month. Reagan National Airport in Washington starts using a body scanner today. A total of 38 machines will be in use within weeks.

“It’s the wave of the future,” said James Schear, the TSA security director at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, where two body scanners are in use at one checkpoint.

Schear said the scanners could eventually replace metal detectors at the nation’s 2,000 airport checkpoints and the pat-downs done on passengers who need extra screening. “We’re just scratching the surface of what we can do with whole-body imaging,” Schear said.

The TSA effort could encourage scanners’ use in rail stations, arenas and office buildings, the American Civil Liberties Union said. “This may well set a precedent that others will follow,” said Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project.

Scanners are used in a few courthouses, jails and U.S. embassies, as well as overseas border crossings, military checkpoints and some foreign airports such as Amsterdam’s Schiphol.

The scanners bounce harmless “millimeter waves” off passengers who are selected to stand inside a portal with arms raised after clearing the metal detector. A TSA screener in a nearby room views the black-and-white image and looks for objects on a screen that are shaded differently from the body. Finding a suspicious object, a screener radios a colleague at the checkpoint to search the passenger.

The TSA says it protects privacy by blurring passengers’ faces and deleting images right after viewing. Yet the images are detailed, clearly showing a person’s gender. “You can actually see the sweat on someone’s back,” Schear said.

The scanners aim to strengthen airport security by spotting plastic and ceramic weapons and explosives that evade metal detectors and are the biggest threat to aviation. Government audits have found that screeners miss a large number of weapons, bombs and bomb parts such as wires and timers that agents sneak through checkpoints.

“I’m delighted by this development,” said Clark Kent Ervin, the former Homeland Security inspector general whose reports urged the use of body scanners. “This really is the ultimate answer to increasing screeners’ ability to spot concealed weapons.”

The scanners do a good job seeing under clothing but cannot see through plastic or rubber materials that resemble skin, said Peter Siegel, a senior scientist at the California Institute of Technology.

“You probably could find very common materials that you could wrap around you that would effectively obscure things,” Siegel said.

Passengers who went through a scanner at the Baltimore airport last week were intrigued, reassured and occasionally wary. The process took about 30 seconds on average.

Stepping into the 9-foot-tall glass booth, Eileen Reardon of Baltimore looked startled when an electronic glass door slid around the outside of the machine to create the image of her body. “Some of this stuff seems a little crazy,” Reardon said, “but in this day and age, you have to go along with it.”

Scott Shafer of Phoenix didn’t mind a screener looking at him underneath his shorts and polo shirt from a nearby room. The door is kept shut and blocked with floor screens. “I don’t know that person back there. I’ll never seem them,” Shafer said. “Everything personal is taken out of the equation.”

Steinhardt of the ACLU said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. “It all seems very clinical and non-threatening – you go through this portal and don’t have any idea what’s at the other end,” he said.

Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

Magazine-size signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them.

Darin Scott of Miami was annoyed by the process.

“If you don’t ask questions, they don’t tell you anything,” Scott said. When he asked a screener technical questions about the scanner, “he could not answer,” Scott said.

TSA spokeswoman Sterling Payne said the agency is studying passenger reaction and could “get more creative” about informing passengers. “If passengers have questions,” she said, “they need to ask the questions.”

Passengers can decline to go through a scanner, but they will face a pat-down.

Schear, the Baltimore security director, said only 4% of passengers decline.

In Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, where scanners have been tested since last year as an alternative to pat-downs, 90% of passengers choose to be scanned, the TSA says.

“Most passengers don’t think it’s any big deal,” Schear said. “They think it’s a piece of security they’re willing to do.”

Blackwater’s Private Spies

1

blackwater.jpgBy Jeremy Scahill | This past September, the secretive mercenary company Blackwater USA found its name splashed across front pages throughout the world after the company’s shooters gunned down seventeen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square. But by early 2008, Blackwater had largely receded from the headlines save for the occasional blip on the media radar sparked by Congressman Henry Waxman’s ongoing investigations into its activities. Its forces remained deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and business continued to pour in. In the two weeks directly following Nisour Square, Blackwater signed more than $144 million in contracts with the State Department for “protective services” in Iraq and Afghanistan alone and, over the following weeks and months, won millions more in contracts with other federal entities like the Coast Guard, the Navy and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Blackwater’s Iraq contract was extended in April, but the company is by no means betting the house on its long-term presence there. While the firm is quietly maintaining its Iraq work, it is aggressively pursuing other business opportunities.

In September it was revealed that Blackwater had been “tapped” by the Pentagon’s Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office to compete for a share of a five-year, $15 billion budget “to fight terrorists with drug-trade ties.” According to the Army Times, the contract “could include antidrug technologies and equipment, special vehicles and aircraft, communications, security training, pilot training, geographic information systems and in-field support.” A spokesperson for another company bidding for the work said that “80 percent of the work will be overseas.” As Richard Douglas, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, explained, “The fact is, we use Blackwater to do a lot of our training of counternarcotics police in Afghanistan. I have to say that Blackwater has done a very good job.”

Such an arrangement could find Blackwater operating in an arena with the godfathers of the war industry, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. It could also see Blackwater expanding into Latin America, joining other private security companies well established in the region. The massive US security company DynCorp is already deployed in Colombia, Bolivia and other countries as part of the “war on drugs.” In Colombia alone, US military contractors are receiving nearly half the $630 million in annual US military aid for the country. Just south of the US border, the United States has launched Plan Mexico, a $1.5 billion counternarcotics program. This and similar plans could provide lucrative business opportunities for Blackwater and other companies. “Blackwater USA’s enlistment in the drug war,” observed journalist John Ross, would be “a direct challenge to its stiffest competitor, DynCorp – up until now, the Dallas-based corporation has locked up 94 percent of all private drug war security contracts.” The New York Times reported that the contract could be Blackwater’s “biggest job ever.”

As populist movements grow stronger in Latin America, threatening US financial interests as well as the standing of right-wing US political allies in the region, the “war on drugs” is becoming an increasingly central part of US counterinsurgency efforts. It allows for more training of foreign security forces through the private sector – away from Congressional oversight – and a deployment of personnel from US war corporations. With US forces stretched thin, sending private security companies to Latin America offers Washington a “small footprint” alternative to the politically and militarily problematic deployment of active-duty US troops. In a January report by the United Nations working group on mercenaries, international investigators found that “an emerging trend in Latin America but also in other regions of the world indicates situations of private security companies protecting transnational extractive corporations whose employees are often involved in suppressing the legitimate social protest of communities and human rights and environmental organizations of the areas where these corporations operate.”

If there is one quality that is evident from examining Blackwater’s business history, it is the company’s ability to take advantage of emerging war and conflict markets. Throughout the decade of Blackwater’s existence, its creator, Erik Prince, has aggressively built his empire into a structure paralleling the US national security apparatus. “Prince wants to vault Blackwater into the major leagues of U.S. military contracting, taking advantage of the movement to privatize all kinds of government security,” reported the Wall Street Journal shortly after Nisour Square. “The company wants to be a one-stop shop for the U.S. government on missions to which it won’t commit American forces. This is a niche with few established competitors.”

In addition to providing armed forces for war and conflict zones and a wide range of military and police training services, Blackwater does a robust, multimillion-dollar business through its aviation division. It also has a growing maritime division and other national and international initiatives. Among these, Blackwater is in Japan, where its forces protect the US ballistic missile defense system, which, according to Stars and Stripes, “points high-powered radio waves westward toward mainland Asia to hunt for enemy missiles headed east toward America or its allies.” Meanwhile, early this year, Defense News reported, “Blackwater is training members of the Taiwanese National Security Bureau’s (NSB’s) special protection service, which guards the president. The NSB is responsible for the overall security of the country and was once an instrument of terrorism during the martial law period. Today, according to its Web site, the NSB is responsible for ‘national intelligence work, special protective service and unified cryptography.’” Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto reportedly tried to hire Blackwater to protect her as she campaigned for the presidency in 2007. Conflicting reports indicated that either the US State Department or the Pakistani government vetoed the plan. She was assassinated in December.

What could prove to be one of Blackwater’s most profitable and enduring enterprises is one of the company’s most secretive initiatives—a move into the world of privatized intelligence services. In April 2006, Prince quietly began building Total Intelligence Solutions, which boasts that it “brings CIA-style” services to the open market for Fortune 500 companies. Among its offerings are “surveillance and countersurveillance, deployed intelligence collection, and rapid safeguarding of employees or other key assets.”

As the United States finds itself in the midst of the most radical privatization agenda in its history, few areas have seen as dramatic a transformation to privatized services as the world of intelligence. “This is the magnet now. Everything is being attracted to these private companies in terms of individuals and expertise and functions that were normally done by the intelligence community,” says former CIA division chief and senior analyst Melvin Goodman. “My major concern is the lack of accountability, the lack of responsibility. The entire industry is essentially out of control. It’s outrageous.”

Last year R.J. Hillhouse, a blogger who investigates the clandestine world of private contractors and US intelligence, obtained documents from the office of the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) showing that Washington spends some $42 billion annually on private intelligence contractors, up from $17.5 billion in 2000. That means 70 percent of the US intelligence budget is going to private companies. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the head of DNI is Mike McConnell, the former chair of the board of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, the private intelligence industry’s trade association.

Total Intelligence, which opened for business in February 2007, is a fusion of three entities bought up by Prince: the Terrorism Research Center, Technical Defense and The Black Group – Blackwater vice chair Cofer Black’s consulting agency. The company’s leadership reads like a Who’s Who of the CIA’s “war on terror” operations after 9/11. In addition to the twenty-eight-year CIA veteran Black, who is chair of Total Intelligence, the company’s executives include CEO Robert Richer, the former associate deputy director of the agency’s Directorate of Operations and the second-ranking official in charge of clandestine operations. From 1999 to 2004, Richer was head of the CIA’s Near East and South Asia Division, where he ran clandestine operations throughout the Middle East and South Asia. As part of his duties, he was the CIA liaison with Jordan’s King Abdullah, a key US ally and Blackwater client, and briefed George W. Bush on the burgeoning Iraqi resistance in its early stages.

Total Intelligence’s chief operating officer is Enrique “Ric” Prado, a twenty-four-year CIA veteran and former senior executive officer in the Directorate of Operations. He spent more than a decade working in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center and ten years with the CIA’s “paramilitary” Special Operations Group. Prado and Black worked closely at the CIA. Prado also served in Latin America with Jose Rodriguez, who gained infamy late last year after it was revealed that as director of the National Clandestine Service at the CIA he was allegedly responsible for destroying videotapes of interrogations of prisoners, during which “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding, were reportedly used. Richer told the New York Times he recalled many conversations with Rodriguez, about the tapes. “He would always say, ‘I’m not going to let my people get nailed for something they were ordered to do,’” Richer said of his former boss. Before the scandal, there were reports that Blackwater had been “aggressively recruiting” Rodriguez. He has since retired from the CIA.

The leadership of Total Intelligence also includes Craig Johnson, a twenty-seven-year CIA officer who specialized in Central and South America, and Caleb “Cal” Temple, who joined the company straight out of the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he served from 2004 to ‘06 as chief of the Office of Intelligence Operations in the Joint Intelligence Task Force – Combating Terrorism. According to his Total Intelligence bio, Temple directed the “DIA’s 24/7 analytic terrorism target development and other counterterrorism intelligence activities in support of military operations worldwide. He also oversaw 24/7 global counterterrorism indications and warning analysis for the U.S. Defense Department.” The company also boasts officials drawn from the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI.

Total Intelligence is run out of an office on the ninth floor of a building in the Ballston area of Arlington, Virginia. Its “Global Fusion Center,” complete with large-screen TVs broadcasting international news channels and computer stations staffed by analysts surfing the web, “operates around the clock every day of the year” and is modeled after the CIA’s counterterrorist center, once run by Black. The firm employs at least sixty-five full-time staff – some estimates say it’s closer to 100. “Total Intel brings the…skills traditionally honed by CIA operatives directly to the board room,” Black said when the company launched. “With a service like this, CEOs and their security personnel will be able to respond to threats quickly and confidently— whether it’s determining which city is safest to open a new plant in or working to keep employees out of harm’s way after a terrorist attack.”

Black insists, “This is a completely legal enterprise. We break no laws. We don’t go anywhere near breaking laws. We don’t have to.” But what services Total Intelligence is providing, and to whom, is shrouded in secrecy. It is clear, though, that the company is leveraging the reputations and inside connections of its executives. “Cofer can open doors,” Richer told the Washington Post in 2007. “I can open doors. We can generally get in to see who we need to see. We don’t help pay bribes. We do everything within the law, but we can deal with the right minister or person.” Black told the paper he and Richer spend a lot of their time traveling. “I am discreet in where I go and who I see. I spend most of my time dealing with senior people in governments, making connections.” But it is clear that the existing connections from the former spooks’ time at the agency have brought business to Total Intelligence.

Take the case of Jordan. For years, Richer worked closely with King Abdullah, as his CIA liaison. As journalist Ken Silverstein reported, “The CIA has lavishly subsidized Jordan’s intelligence service, and has sent millions of dollars in recent years for intelligence training. After Richer retired, sources say, he helped Blackwater land a lucrative deal with the Jordanian government to provide the same sort of training offered by the CIA. Millions of dollars that the CIA ‘invested’ in Jordan walked out the door with Richer – if this were a movie, it would be a cross between Jerry Maguire and Syriana. ‘People [at the agency] are pissed off,’ said one source. ‘Abdullah still speaks with Richer regularly, and he thinks that’s the same thing as talking to us. He thinks Richer is still the man.’ Except in this case it’s Richer, not his client, yelling ’show me the money.’”

In a 2007 interview on the cable business network CNBC, Black was brought on as an analyst to discuss “investing in Jordan.” At no point in the interview was Black identified as working for the Jordanian government. Total Intelligence was described as “a corporate consulting firm that includes investment strategy,” while “Ambassador Black” was introduced as “a twenty-eight-year veteran of the CIA,” the “top counterterror guy” and “a key planner for the breathtakingly rapid victory of American forces that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Black heaped lavish praise on Jordan and its monarchy. “You have leadership, King Abdullah, His Majesty King Abdullah, who is certainly kind towards investors, very protective,” Black said. “Jordan is, in our view, a very good investment. There are some exceptional values there.” He said Jordan is in a region where there are “numerous commodities that are being produced and doing well.”

With no hint of the brutality behind the exodus, Black argued that the flood of Iraqi refugees fleeing the violence of the US occupation was good for potential investors in Jordan. “We get something like 600, 700,000 Iraqis that have moved from Iraq into Jordan that require cement, furniture, housing and the like. So it is a—it is an island of growth and potential, certainly in that immediate area. So it looks good,” he said. “There are opportunities for investment. It is not all bad. Sometimes Americans need to watch a little less TV…. But there is – there is opportunity in everything. That’s why you need situation awareness, and that’s one of the things that our company does. It provides the kinds of intelligence and insight to provide situational awareness so you can make the best investments.”

Black and other Total Intelligence executives have turned their CIA careers, reputations, contacts and connections into business opportunities. What they once did for the US government, they now do for private interests. It is not difficult to imagine clients feeling as though they are essentially hiring the US government to serve their own interests. In 2007 Richer told the Post that now that he is in the private sector, foreign military officials and others are more willing to give him information than they were when he was with the CIA. Richer recalled a conversation with a foreign general during which he was surprised at the potentially “classified” information the general revealed. When Richer asked why the general was giving him the information, he said the general responded, “If I tell it to an embassy official I’ve created espionage. You’re a business partner.”

In May, Erik Prince gave a speech in front of his family and supporters in his home state of Michigan. Security was extremely tight, and Blackwater barred cameras and tape recorders from the event. “The idea that we are a secretive facility, and nefarious, is just ridiculous,” Prince told the friendly crowd of 750 gathered at the Amway Grand Plaza. In Iraq, Blackwater has banked on the idea that it is a sort of American Express card for the occupation. But for the future, Prince has a different corporate model, as he indicated in his speech. “When you send something overseas, do you use FedEx or the postal service?” he asked.

There are serious problems with this analogy. When you send something by FedEx, you can track your package and account for its whereabouts at all times. You can have your package insured against loss or damage. That has not been the case with Blackwater. The people who foot the sizable bill for its “services” almost never know, until it is too late, what Blackwater is doing, and there are apparently no consequences for Blackwater when things go lethally wrong. “We are essentially a robust temp agency,” Prince told his fans in Michigan. He’s right about that one. A temp agency serving the most radical privatization agenda in history.

Jeremy Scahill, a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, published by Nation Books. He is an award-winning investigative journalist and correspondent for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!

Copyright © 2008 The Nation

Fisk: The West’s weapon of self-delusion

1

fisk.jpgBy Robert Fisk | So they are it again, the great and the good of American democracy, grovelling and fawning to the Israeli lobbyists of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), repeatedly allying themselves to the cause of another country and one that is continuing to steal Arab land.

Will this ever end? Even Barack Obama — or “Mr Baracka” as an Irish friend of mine innocently and wonderfully described him — found time to tell his Jewish audience that Jerusalem is the one undivided capital of Israel, which is not the view of the rest of the world which continues to regard the annexation of Arab East Jerusalem as illegal. The security of Israel. Say it again a thousand times: the security of Israel — and threaten Iran, for good measure.

Yes, Israelis deserve security. But so do Palestinians. So do Iraqis and Lebanese and the people of the wider Muslim world. Now even Condoleezza Rice admits — and she was also talking to Aipac, of course — that there won’t be a Palestinian state by the end of the year. That promise of George Bush — which no-one believed anyway — has gone. In Rice’s pathetic words, “The goal itself will endure beyond the current US leadership.”

Of course it will. And the siege of Gaza will endure beyond the current US leadership. And the Israeli wall. And the illegal Israeli settlement building. And deaths in Iraq will endure beyond “the current US leadership” — though “leadership” is pushing the definition of the word a bit when the gutless Bush is involved — and deaths in Afghanistan and, I fear, deaths in Lebanon too.

It’s amazing how far self-delusion travels. The Bush boys and girls still think they’re supporting the “American-backed government” of Fouad Siniora in Lebanon. But Siniora can’t even form a caretaker government to implement a new set of rules which allows Hizbollah and other opposition groups to hold veto powers over cabinet decisions.

Thus there will be no disarming of Hizbollah and thus — again, I fear this — there will be another Hizbollah-Israeli proxy war to take up the slack of America’s long-standing hatred of Iran. No wonder President Bashar Assad of Syria is now threatening a triumphal trip to Lebanon. He’s won. And wasn’t there supposed to be a UN tribunal to try those responsible for the murder of ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005? This must be the longest police enquiry in the history of the world. And I suspect it’s never going to achieve its goal (or at least not under the “current US leadership”).

There are gun battles in Beirut at night; there are dark-uniformed Lebanese interior ministry troops in equally dark armoured vehicles patrolling the night-time Corniche outside my home.

At least Lebanon has a new president, former army commander Michel Sleiman, an intelligent man who initially appeared on posters, eyes turned to his left, staring at Lebanon with a creditor’s concern. Now he has wisely ordered all these posters to be torn down in an attempt to get the sectarian groups to take down their own pictures of martyrs and warlords. And America thinks things are going fine in Lebanon.

And Bush and his cohorts go on saying that they will never speak to “terrorists”. And what has happened meanwhile? Why, their Israeli friends — Mr Baracka’s Israeli friends — are doing just that. They are talking to Hamas via Egypt and are negotiating with Syria via Turkey and have just finished negotiating with Hizbollah via Germany and have just handed back one of Hizbollah’s top spies in Israel in return for body parts of Israelis killed in the 2006 war. And Bush isn’t going to talk to “terrorists”, eh? I bet he didn’t bring that up with the equally hapless Ehud Olmert in Washington this week.

And so our dementia continues. In front of us this week was Blair with his increasingly maniacal eyes, poncing on about faith and God and religion, and I couldn’t help reflecting on an excellent article by a colleague a few weeks ago who pointed out that God never seemed to give Blair advice. Like before April of 2003, couldn’t He have just said, er, Tony, this Iraq invasion might not be a good idea.

Indeed, Blair’s relationship with God is itself very odd. And I rather suspect I know what happens. I think Blair tells God what he absolutely and completely knows to be right — and God approves his words. Because Blair, like a lot of devious politicians, plays God himself. For there are two Gods out there. The Blair God and the infinite being which blesses his every word, so obliging that He doesn’t even tell Him to go to Gaza.

I despair. The Tate has just sent me its magnificent book of orientalist paintings to coincide with its latest exhibition (The Lure of the East: British Orientalist Painting) and I am struck by the awesome beauty of this work. In the 19th century, our great painters wondered at the glories of the Orient.

No more painters today. Instead, we send our photographers and they return with pictures of car bombs and body parts and blood and destroyed homes and Palestinians pleading for food and fuel and hooded gunmen on the streets of Beirut, yes, and dead Israelis too. The orientalists looked at the majesty of this place and today we look at the wasteland which we have helped to create.

But fear not. Israel’s security comes first and Mr Baracka wants Israel to keep all of Jerusalem — so much for the Palestinian state — and Condee says the “goal will endure beyond the current American leadership”. And I have a bird that sits in the palm tree outside my home in Beirut and blasts away, going “cheep-cheep-cheep-cheep-cheep” for about an hour every morning — which is why my landlord used to throw stones at it.

But I have a dear friend who believes that once there was an orchestra of birds outside my home and that one day, almost all of them — the ones which sounded like violins and trumpets — got tired of the war and flew away (to Cyprus, if they were wise, but perhaps on to Ireland), leaving only the sparrows with their discordant flutes to remind me of the stagnant world of the Middle East and our cowardly, mendacious politicians. “Cheep-cheep-cheep,” they were saying again yesterday morning. “Cheap-cheap-cheap.” And I rather think they are right.

House Democrats Want Bush Admin Investigated for War Crimes

2

warcrimes.jpgBy Jason Leopold | House Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey Friday requesting that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether White House officials, including President Bush, violated the War Crimes Act when they allowed interrogators to use brutal interrogation methods against detainees suspected of ties to terrorist organizations.

The letter, signed by 56 Congressional lawmakers, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who is leading an investigation into the administration’s interrogation practices, says the International Committee of the Red Cross conducted an independent investigation of interrogation practices at Guantanamo Bay and “documented several instances of acts of torture against detainees, including soaking a prisoner’s hand in alcohol and lighting it on fire, subjecting a prisoner to sexual abuse and forcing a prisoner to eat a baseball.”

“We believe that these events alone warrant action, but within the last month additional information has surfaced that suggests the fact that not only did top administration officials meet in the White House and approve of the use of enhanced techniques including waterboarding against detainees, but that President Bush was aware of, and approved of the meetings taking place,” the letter, dated June 6, says. The Justice Department is reviewing the letter, a spokesman said.

However, Mukasey has defended the administration’s interrogation policies, and with seven month to go before a new president is sworn into office, it appears unlikely that Mukasey would be act on the Democrats request. Earlier this year, Mukasey has appointed a special counsel to investigate the destruction of videotapes showing CIA interrogators subjecting detainees to waterboarding.

In April, President Bush told an ABC News reporter during an interview that he approved of meetings of a National Security Council’s Principals Committee, whose advisers included Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA Director George Tenet and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, where these officials discussed specific interrogation techniques the CIA could use against detainees.

“This information indicates that the Bush administration may have systematically implemented, from the top down, detainee interrogation policies that constitute torture or otherwise violate the law,” the letter to Mukasey says. “We believe that these serious and significant revelations warrant an immediate investigation to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and other U.S. and international laws.”

In declaring that the United States does not engage in torture, Bush administration officials appear to be relying on a narrower U.S. definition of torture than that is accepted under international law, such as the 1984 Convention Against Torture that was signed by the Reagan administration in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994.

“The threshold for torture is lower under international law: acts that do not amount to torture under U.S. law may do so under international law,” wrote Philippe Sands, law professor at University College London, in a column published in the Dec. 9, 2005, edition of The Financial Times.

“Waterboarding — strapping a detainee to a board and dunking him under water so he believes that he might drown — plainly constitutes torture under international law, even if it may not do so under U.S. law. …

“When the U.S. joined the 1984 convention it entered an ‘understanding’ on the definition of torture, to the effect that the international definition was to be read as being consistent with the U.S. definition The administration relies on the ‘understanding.’

“So, when Ms. Rice says the U.S. does not do torture or render people to countries that practice torture, she does not rely on the international definition. That is wrong: the convention does not allow each country to adopt its own definition, otherwise the convention’s obligations would become meaningless. That is why other governments believe the U.S. ‘understanding’ cannot affect U.S. obligations under the convention.”

Torture Memo Based on Health Benefits Law

The document that gave the White House the legal cover it needed to authorize the CIA to use waterboarding and other tortuous methods during detainee interrogations was based on a statute governing health benefits.

John Yoo, the former deputy attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) who drafted the legal opinion widely referred to as the ”torture memo,” concluded that unless the amount of pain administered to a detainee results in injury “such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions” than the interrogation technique could not be defined as torture.

Waterboarding, a brutal and painful technique in which a prisoner believes he is drowning, therefore was not considered to be torture.

“That statute defined an ‘emergency medical condition’ that warranted certain health benefits as a condition ‘manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)’ such that the absence of immediate medical care might reasonably be thought to result in death, organ failure, or impairment of bodily function,” Jack Goldsmith, the former head of OLC, wrote in his book, The Terror Presidency.

“The health benefits statute’s use of ‘severe pain’ had no relationship whatsoever to the torture statute. And even if it did, the health benefit statute did not define ‘severe pain.’ Rather it used the term ‘severe pain’ as a sign of an emergency medical condition that, if not treated, might cause organ failure and the like…. OLC’s clumsily definitional arbitrage didn’t seem even in the ballpark.”

Military Interrogators

Yoo, who now teaches at the University of California at Berkeley, also drafted a March 14, 2003 document, nearly identical to the August 2002 memo he authored, that essentially provided military interrogators with legal cover if they resorted to brutal and violent methods to extract information from prisoners.

“If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al-Qaeda terrorist network,” Yoo wrote.

“In that case, we believe that he could argue that the Executive Branch’s constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.”

The legal opinion for military interrogators was virtually identical to an earlier memo that Yoo had written in August 2002 for CIA interrogators. Widely called the “Torture Memo,” it provided CIA interrogators with the legal authority to use long-outlawed tactics, such as waterboarding, when interrogating so-called high-level terrorist suspects.

Yoo, Others, Under Investigation

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) launched a formal investigation to determine whether Yoo, and other attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel, provided the White House with poor legal advice when it drafted memos authorizing the use of “enhanced interrogation” methods.

In a Feb. 18, letter sent to Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who requested the probe, H. Marshall Jarrett, the head of OPR, said his office intends to question Yoo, and his former boss, Jay Bybee, the former head of OLC, now a federal appeals court judge in San Francisco, who signed the “torture memo.”

“Among other issues, we are examining whether the legal advice contained in those memoranda was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys,” Jarrett’s letter says, adding that his office may release the findings of the investigation publicly.

Bush Approved

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq who retired last year, instituted a “dozen interrogation methods beyond” the Army’s standard practice under the convention, according to a 2004 report on the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prepared by a panel headed by James Schlesinger, as a result of an action memorandum, dated Feb. 7, 2002, that was signed by President Bush.

The memo Bush signed stated that the Geneva Convention did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Sanchez said he based his decision on “the President’s Memorandum,” which he said had justified “additional, tougher measures” against detainees at Abu Ghraib, the Schlesigner report said.

Two years later, an internal FBI email emerged that said Bush had signed an Executive Order Bush’s Executive Order that authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq.

The American Civil Liberties Union released FBI e-mail in December 2004 after obtaining it through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Government Drops Charges Against Detainee

Last month, the Pentagon announced that it decided to drop war-crimes charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks because the U.S. government would have been forced to reveal its own violations of the Geneva Convention, anti-torture statutes and the laws of war, according to lawyers representing al-Qahtani.

“All of the [incriminating] statements Mohammad al-Qahtani made or is alleged to have made were the result of torture or made under the threat of torture and that is in my view why the government decided to dismiss his case at this point,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York.

CCR has been representing Mohammed al-Qahtani since 2005 and has led the legal battle for the human rights of detainees incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the last six years.

Al-Qahtani is believed to be one of the first detainees subjected to harsh questioning after the Justice Department issued a legal opinion in August 2002 permitting U.S. government interrogators to sidestep the Geneva Convention and use cruel and humiliating techniques, from forced nudity to stress positions to waterboarding, to extract information.

He was captured in December 2001. Much of the evidence against al-Qahtani was derived substantially from admissions that he made while under harsh interrogation. Last February, the Pentagon announced its intention to pursue the death penalty against al-Qahtani and five other men for their alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

But on May 9, the Pentagon dismissed the case against al-Qahtani without explanation — and without prejudice, meaning that the charges could be reinstated at a later date. Though the charges were dropped, he will remain detained indefinitely at Guantanamo.

Torture Log

The harsh treatment of al-Qahtani was catalogued in an 84-page log of his interrogation that was leaked in 2006. The so-called “torture log” shows that beginning in November 2002 and continuing well into January 2003, al-Qahtani was subjected to sleep deprivation, interrogated in 20-hour stretches, poked with IV’s, and left to urinate on himself.

On Dec. 11, 2002, interrogators began to apply what they called the “pride and ego down approach,” subjecting him to religious and sexual humiliation, making him bark like a dog, and calling him “a pig” as he was made to pick up piles of trash with his hands cuffed.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with CCR and the lead attorney defending al-Qahtani, said in a sworn declaration that his client, imprisoned at Guantanamo, was subjected to months of torture based on verbal and written authorizations from Rumsfeld.

“Mr. al-Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the ‘First Special Interrogation Plan,’” Gutierrez said. “Those techniques were implemented under the supervision and guidance of [former Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantánamo, Major General Geoffrey Miller.

“These methods included, but were not limited to, 48 days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation, and threats with military dogs.”

Gutierrez’s claims about the type of interrogation al-Qahtani endured have since been borne out by the release of hundreds of pages of internal Pentagon documents, which described interrogation methods at Guantanamo, as well as by the findings of two independent reports on prisoner abuse.

Rumsfeld’s action memo was criticized by Alberto Mora, the former general counsel of the Navy.

“The interrogation techniques approved by the Secretary [of Defense] should not have been authorized because some (but not all) of them, whether applied singly or in combination, could produce effects reaching the level of torture, a degree of mistreatment not otherwise proscribed by the memo because it did not articulate any bright-line standard for prohibited detainee treatment, a necessary element in any such document,” Mora wrote in a 14-page letter to the Navy’s inspector general.

Additionally, a Dec. 20, 2005, Army Inspector General Report relating to the capture and interrogation of al-Qahtani included a sworn statement by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, who said Secretary Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in the interrogation of al-Qahtani and spoke “weekly” with Maj. Gen. Miller about the status of the interrogations between late 2002 and early 2003.

“Despite the seriousness of the evidence, the Justice Department has brought prosecution against only one civilian for an interrogation-related crime,” the letter sent to Mukasey by House Democrats states. “Given that record, we believe it is necessary to appoint a special counsel in order to ensure that a thorough and impartial investigation occurs.”

Iraq Tells US It Wants Troops Back in Barracks

1

American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.

According to a senior Iraqi official, the negotiations between the two allies became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement.

The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.

Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.

Among a litany of sticking-points surrounding the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the two countries are Iraqi concerns over how many US bases will remain in the country and who will be in control of Iraqi air space.

Other flashpoints include whether private security companies working for US forces will continue to enjoy immunity from Iraqi law and whether US soldiers will maintain the freedom to travel where they want, arrest people and conduct raids without first gaining approval from the Iraqi Government.

Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said that under the new deal US soldiers should be confined to the larger bases. “We do need the Americans to leave the cities and the streets,” he said. “They have to be there in the back and . . . in their camps. Whenever we ask them they will be ready to support and help.”

As for private security companies, “they should be subject to Iraqi law”, Mr al-Dabbagh said. The immunity of such firms that work for the military or the British or American embassies triggered outrage last year after security guards employed by Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, were involved in a confrontation that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.

A status of forces agreement takes on average more than a year to conclude, but Washington hopes to seal the deal with Iraq by the end of July — a time-frame that the Iraqi side views with less importance than the content of the accord.

Sanctioning the continuing presence of US troops is hugely sensitive, with many Iraqis opposed to such a move. Iran has also voiced concern that the deal will enable Washington to use Iraq as a launch pad to conduct attacks in the region. Mr al-Maliki used a weekend trip to Tehran to try to calm the tensions. “We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and [other] neighbours,” he said.

The Iraqi Prime Minister will need to tread carefully to win the backing of his parliament for the pact and also ensure that the US side is satisfied.

Britain, which will have to sign its own bilateral accord with Iraq to legalise the presence of British troops in the country post2008, is watching the discussions with interest. London will use the US-Iraq arrangements for its own agreement.

The senior Iraqi official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the chief concern is that Iraq’s sovereignty is protected.

“President [Bush] has been in touch with the Prime Minister of Iraq and has said that the issues which are rejected or not approved by the Government of Iraq will be reconsidered and the future American presence will be for assisting and coordinating with the Iraqi Government,” he told The Times about the conversation, which took place last Thursday.

A senior US official in Baghdad said that such conferences between the two leaders were fairly frequent. “[Mr Bush] has assured Prime Minister al-Maliki consistently we respect Iraq’s sovereignty. The content, the positions we take in the negotiations, will reflect that,” the official said.

US diplomats have been meeting their Iraqi counterparts for the past two months to draw up the status of forces document as well as a strategic framework, which sketches out every aspect of the two countries’ relationship from security, politics and the economy to culture, science and education.

As part of the process, several Iraqi delegates are due to return this week from a fact-finding trip to some of more than 80 countries, including Japan, Turkey and Singapore, with which the United States already has a status of forces accord.

The Iraq-US pact, while based on the same principles of two sovereign nations, will differ slightly because of the need for US forces to be able to fight.

“The general premise though is that they operate in a manner which reflects respect for, acknowledgement of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately an Iraqi decision,” the US official said.

The War on Photography

1

photography1.jpgBy Bruce Schneier | What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are? Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We’ve been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it’s nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography.

Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don’t seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?

Because it’s a movie-plot threat.

A movie-plot threat is a specific threat, vivid in our minds like the plot of a movie. You remember them from the months after the 9/11 attacks: anthrax spread from crop dusters, a contaminated milk supply, terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats, from the news, and from actual movies and television shows. These movie plots resonate in our minds and in the minds of others we talk to. And many of us get scared.

Terrorists taking pictures is a quintessential detail in any good movie. Of course it makes sense that terrorists will take pictures of their targets. They have to do reconnaissance, don’t they? We need 45 minutes of television action before the actual terrorist attack — 90 minutes if it’s a movie — and a photography scene is just perfect. It’s our movie-plot terrorists that are photographers, even if the real-world ones are not.

The problem with movie-plot security is it only works if we guess the plot correctly. If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon and terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that’s money wasted. If we post guards all over the Underground and terrorists bomb a crowded shopping area, that’s also a waste. If we teach everyone to be alert for photographers, and terrorists don’t take photographs, we’ve wasted money and effort, and taught people to fear something they shouldn’t.

And even if terrorists did photograph their targets, the math doesn’t make sense. Billions of photographs are taken by honest people every year, 50 billion by amateurs alone in the US And the national monuments you imagine terrorists taking photographs of are the same ones tourists like to take pictures of. If you see someone taking one of those photographs, the odds are infinitesimal that he’s a terrorist.

Of course, it’s far easier to explain the problem than it is to fix it. Because we’re a species of storytellers, we find movie-plot threats uniquely compelling. A single vivid scenario will do more to convince people that photographers might be terrorists than all the data I can muster to demonstrate that they’re not.

Fear aside, there aren’t many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that’s already in public view. If you’re harassed, it’s almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There’s nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.

This is worth fighting. Search “photographer rights” on Google and download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if you get harassed; I found one for the UK, US, and Australia. Don’t cede your right to photograph in public. Don’t propagate the terrorist photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting photography was something we used to ridicule about the USSR. Eventually sanity will be restored, but it may take a while.

Potential Future Hyperinflation

0

inflation.jpgBy Stephen Lendman – RINF | Walter “John” Williams thinks out of the box. He makes disquieting reading, but you won’t find him in the mainstream. At least not often. He runs a “Shadow Government Statistics” site with an electronic by-subscription newsletter. Anyone can access some of his data and occasional special reports. They can also assess his reasoning. In his judgment, government data are manipulated, corrupted and unreliable. He’s not alone thinking that.First, through technical changes over time in how data are collected and/or interpreted. The intent is to portray a more rosy scenario and ignore real world experiences of ordinary people. Calculating the CPI is an example:

— in the 1980s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) switched from using house prices to their rental equivalent;

— then a decade ago, BLS made a spurious assumption for reasons other than it stated; it was that consumers substitute cheaper products for ones that have risen in price – such as hamburger for steak or chicken for meat; the idea wasn’t to reflect their buying habits; it was to artificially lower inflation and distort its calculation; and

— BLS has long adjusted prices for quality improvements; it’s called “hedonic adjustment” that, in fact, cooks the books; so if computer speed increases, its cost is lowered proportionally even if its price rises; the same is true for autos with better brakes or other assorted innovations; again the result is distortion, and it affects all sorts of products; as a result, inflation is artificially and fraudulently lowered.

Another example is how federal deficits are calculated. Beginning with Nixon in 1969, a “unified budget” was adopted to artificially lower them by offsetting expenditures with “off-budget” Social Security revenues. The idea was to hide government’s true cost at a time wartime and Great Society spending was high and would later factor into the 1970s and 1980s inflation. If deficits were calculated then and now by GAAP methodology (required of all publicly-traded corporations), they’d be much higher than annually reported – since the 1970s, in multiple trillions of dollars; fiscal alchemy sweeps them under the rug.

A further example was Nixon’s “core inflation” idea. More artificial rigging – to exclude volatile food and energy prices to produce a lower figure. No matter that these items account for a large portion of consumer spending, especially for lower income households.

Others like this are numerous. They all amount to manipulative rigging for political or financial market purposes, and the practice goes back decades. A recent Bush administration one is switching to monthly instead of semi-annual jobs data seasonal adjustments to make the number friendlier. Later on (too late for markets to react) they’re matched against payroll figures for a once a year adjustment and more accurate jobs created or lost reading.

The Clinton administration was also manipulative. In calculating employment, it lowered its monthly household sample from 60,000 to 50,000, reducing it mainly in inner cities. The effect is to artificially lower jobless numbers among blacks, Latinos and the poor overall. The calculation is also rigged by keeping out the 2.3 million prison population. The overall effect is illusion, not reality – to erase “free market” capitalism’s defects and make it look wondrous and beneficial to mankind.

Williams reverse-engineers the GDP, employment and inflation data for more accurate readings. He backs out manipulative changes to produce more valid figures. Take the 5.5% May unemployment rate for example. BLS calculates it on persons who looked for work in the last 30 days. Williams adds those who want to work but gave up in frustration plus people working part-time who want (but can’t find) full-time jobs. Result: real unemployment of over 12%.

The same methodology works for economic growth. The real value of all goods and services produced is lower than official GDP numbers when adjusted for higher inflation. More of it means higher prices, not increased output. It’s how Williams makes his calculation, and he’s worried. He sees inflation rising and a threat of hyperinflation ahead. He highlighted his concern in a recent April 2008 report called “Hyperinflation Special Report” with three dramatic sub-headings:

— “Inflationary Recession Is in Place;

— Banking Solvency Crisis Has Opened First Phase Monetary Inflation;” and

— “Hyperinflationary Depression Remains Likely As Early as 2010.”

Time alone will prove him right or wrong. But given current economic conditions, the financial malpractice that precipitated them, continued mismanagement since then, and resultant dangers they created, it pays to examine his analysis. It’s not for the faint-hearted and hopefully won’t bear out. But it’s happened before at other times in other countries, and when it hits it ruins lives and savings. Is America now headed for that type future? Williams thinks so, and here’s his argument.

He sees the US economy in an “intensifying inflationary recession” heading for “a hyperinflationary great depression.” He expects it as soon as 2010, maybe sooner, and “likely” no later than in a decade. Blame it on reckless monetary and fiscal policy – creating torrents of money, borrowing outsized amounts, and spending ourselves into bankruptcy by supporting short-term “big-monied special interests.”

Things are so out of hand, Williams sees “no way of avoiding a financial Armageddon.” We’re nearly or already bankrupt; are creating money to cover our obligations; the more we print, the more we need; it’s fiat currency unbacked by gold; and every new dollar created dilutes the value of all others in circulation. Double the money supply, and presto – every dollar is worth 50 cents. Double it again, and you get the point. We’ve been doing it for decades, especially since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.

At some point, the music stops, the dollar collapses, it becomes worthless paper, and related dollar-demoninated paper assets go down with it. Williams quotes a law professor who experienced Weimar Germany’s hyperinflation first hand. It was the worst by far ever recorded. “It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightening it struck. No one was prepared.” Shelves in grocery stores emptied. “You could buy nothing with your paper money.” At the trough in 1923, the mark plunged to an astonishing 4,200,000,000,000 to the dollar.

Can it happen here? It might, and rising world inflation is worrisome. Analyst Bob Chapman’s International Forecaster reports current US inflation at 12.5%; China’s 8.5%; Russia’s 14%; Gulf oil producers on average 12%; India 8%; Indonesia 12%; Brazil 5%; Chile 8.3%; Venezuela 29.3% and Argentina 23%. This likely plays into the European Central Bank’s (ECB) reluctance to cut rates and the Bank of England’s holding off on further ones. It’s also a factor affecting dollar weakness and rising gold prices that hedge against depreciating currencies and geopolitical uncertainties.

Williams is justifiably concerned as inflationary pressures build. First some definitions. Inflation results from a money supply increase that causes prices to rise. Williams refers only to goods and services, not financial assets like stocks and bonds. He also leaves out speculation and market manipulation that’s key to understanding high oil and food prices. Markets don’t move randomly. Big-monied speculators move them, but that’s a separate topic from what Williams addresses.

He mentions various types of hyperinflation. They range from the double or triple-digit kind, several-fold that level, to what happened in Weimar Germany when it went to infinity. Once the genie is unleashed, there’s no telling how bad things may get. Williams sees them getting pretty bad. So much so that dollars get dumped, holders flee to safety, and a downward spiral intensifies with no idea of a bottom.

In his view and others, the culprit is fiat currency, without gold backing. Its worth depends solely on the full faith and credit of the issuing government. Absent that and currencies crash. Print too much of it, and that’s its future. Examine Fed policy under Greenspan and Bernanke, and draw your own conclusions.

They’ve been virtual money-creation machines unmindful of the history they should know. By issuing too much of a good thing for too many years, they fueled asset bubbles. When they burst, they made things worse and may now have headed the economy for collapse. In Williams judgment, America today is no different from other nations in other eras that followed similar policies. They all met the same fate, and today this country has already “obligated itself to liabilities well beyond its ability ever to pay off.” Not a cheery assessment, and he’s not alone believing it.

More definitions:

— Deflation – a decrease in goods and services prices, generally from a money supply contraction;

— Inflation – the reverse of the above;

— Hyperinflation – extreme inflation, as explained above, to a level where money becomes worthless or nearly so; according to Williams, the coming hyperinflation is because of a “lack of monetary discipline formerly imposed….by the gold standard, and a (Fed) dedicated to preventing a collapse in the money supply (and preventing) the implosion of the (ongoing) extremely over-leveraged domestic financial system;”

— Recession – officially defined as two or more consecutive (inflation-adjusted) GDP contracting quarters; many economists don’t agree on this, and some gauge conditions by the relative strength or weakness of industrial production, payroll employment, retail sales, and so forth; add it up and clearly the US is in recession; how bad and for how long will only be known in time;

— Depression – a recession “where (inflation-adjusted) peak-to-trough contraction exceeds 10%; and a

— Great depression – one where the peak-to-trough exceeds 25%. It happened only once so far in US history in the 1930s.

Williams believes the current US contraction is about halfway to becoming a “depression,” but before it ends it may become “Great Depression II” to distinguish it from the earlier one. We’re now in an “inflationary recession,” and available data confirm it – soaring food and oil prices, a weakened dollar, true unemployment over 12%, real inflation nearly as high, weak industrial production, and more. In his judgment, expect worse ahead when added “inflationary effects of soaring broad money growth….start” surfacing later in the year. In his judgment, by year-end 2008, “official CPI” figures should begin showing it.

Current computations cook the books, and not just for inflation. According to Williams, the economy has been in recession since late 2006 when it entered the “second down-leg” of a multiple dip contraction. It began in 1999, then showed up officially in 2001. His current outlook takes account of “further bounces and dips in economic activity.” We may now be in an upward swing before reheading down. It happened during the Great Depression, only to fall to new lows.

Conditions today are hazardous. A major financial crisis precipitated them. Reckless policies caused it. It threatens the solvency of major banks and other financial institutions. It also hurts the greater economy. Solutions – massive liquidity injections, interest rate cuts and reckless deficit spending. Result – financial malpractice for a short-term fix. Consequences – “financial Armageddon” according to Williams.

M3 (the broadest money supply measure) growth is so high that the Fed no longer reports it. Economists like Williams do because it’s crucial to know, and the data he reveals are disturbing – record M3 growth at a near 18% annual pace. Hyperinflationary seeds are now sown. Dollar valuation is falling, and at some point may accelerate when investors flee it for safer havens. The Fed again will respond. More debt will be monetized. It will build over time. Things will get worse and then be exacerbated when the government is less able to meet its obligations. “Therein lies the ultimate basis for the pending hyperinflation,” in Williams’ judgment.

He believes it will morph into a hyperinflationary depression, then a “great depression.” And when it hits, it will be with “surprising speed.” Already disposable income is falling in a weakened economy in crisis. As things worsen, politicians get blamed, and Williams raises an interesting possibility. If conditions get bad enough, voters may respond with their feet, declare a pox on both major parties, and turn to a third alternative around 2010 or 2012. It happened before in our history. The Republican Party is Exhibit A. It was created in 1854 at a time Democrats and Whigs were the two dominant parties. Exit Whigs, and enter Republicans with Abraham Lincoln its first elected president in 1860.

Williams shows US inflation data going back to 1665. It was fairly stable up to the Fed’s 1913 creation. It then began rising and accelerated post-WW II. Government calculations mask it. Alternative ones are more revealing and accurate. Except for minor price declines in 1944 and 1955, the US hasn’t had a deflationary period since the 1930s. Abandoning the gold standard is why. It imposed monetary discipline. Roosevelt went off it in 1933. He had to. The banking system collapsed, money supply imploded, and economic stimulus was needed. It released the Fed to create money freely. Therein lies the problem, and it shows up in the numbers.

Current Fed Chairman Bernanke and Alan Greenspan are students of the Great Depression. “Helicopter Ben” especially vowed never again, and his actions prove it to a fault. He knows the risks and stated them in an earlier speech. He said:

“Like gold, US dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the US government has a technology called a printing press (now its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes.” By doing so, it “reduce(s) the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services” which raises their prices….”under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.”

So it has, according to Williams, and it caused a “slow-motion destruction of the US dollar’s purchasing power” since 1933. It shows up in GAAP-based 2007 federal deficit figures – $4 trillion for the fiscal year, not the official $163 fiction reported. Williams estimates total outstanding federal obligations at $62.6 trillion. At least one other economist puts it over $80 trillion. There’s no way to honor this debt level, so the “government effectively is bankrupt.” At that point, it has three choices – default, declare a moratorium, or repudiate the entire amount.

Sooner or later, markets will react. Holders of US debt already are balking, but so far modestly and quietly. Ahead, that may change if dollar valuations plunge. It will force the Fed’s hand. Greater debt monetization will follow. Dollar valuations will sink further, and so forth in a progressive downward cycle to oblivion if Williams is right.

If conditions get severe enough, the Fed can create huge amounts of currency in a few days or weeks – enough to match the dollar’s lost purchasing power in the last 75 years. Combine it with fiscal irresponsibility and imagine the consequences.

Official data alone today are reason for concern – soaring food and oil prices, the dollar near historic lows, money growth at an all-time high, and off-the-charts federal deficits and debt. The trend continues, and it shows up in gold prices – topping $1000, then retreating, but nearly certain to soar way above previous highs on its way to numbers not discussed in the mainstream – $2000 an ounce, $3000? Who knows. Williams sees it “setting new historic highs.”

In 1980, its price hit $850 an ounce. In CPI inflation-adjusted terms, around $2300 an ounce would match it today. But if the government hadn’t cooked the CPI calculation, the number would be about $6250 an ounce. By that standard, gold today is cheap. It’s way below its real 1980 top, and if inflation accelerates as Williams predicts, expect much higher prices as dollars keep deflating.

Under this scenario, the “US government cannot cover (its) existing obligations.” Annual federal deficits are “careening wildly out of control, averaging $4.6 trillion per year for the six years through 2007.” That’s with all unfunded liabilities included like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other social services, debt service and more.

Williams says things are so out of control that “if the government (raised taxes) to seize 100% of all wages, salaries and corporate profits, it still would (show) an annual deficit using GAAP accounting” methods. At the same time, “given current revenues, if it stopped (all) spending (including defense and homeland security) other than Social Security and Medicare obligations, the government still would (show) an annual deficit.” The hole is so deep, it’s impossible to dig out, according to Williams.

But given political realities, officials spend whatever it takes to get elected and keep their jobs. That’s besides foreign wars, limitless corporate subsidies and more. Things, however, won’t improve. They’ll worsen, and that for Williams spells hyperinflation ahead. It’s happening “with the full knowledge of political Washington and the Federal Reserve.” It it weren’t for the US’s “special position,” our debt would likely be rated “below investment grade instead of triple-A.” Longer term bonds are especially risky. At some point, they’ll lose their full value. They also risk default, and that’s besides their loss in dollar terms.

It’s just a matter of time before foreign investors get worried enough to act – buying fewer Treasuries down to none, then followed by redemptions. The Fed will have to compensate. Print more currency, and the problem deepens. Its value declines and inflation accelerates.

Trade policies worsen things. We’re in a global race to the bottom. The once bedrock manufacturing base eroded. It’s now 10% of the economy and falling. Services currently account for around 84% of it and rising. Jobs in all categories are being offshored to low-wage countries. Average inflation-adjusted wages keep declining. Real earnings are below their early 1970s peak. Living standards are falling. Consumer debt is rising to make up the shortfall. Savings are liquidated. Before the housing decline, mortgage refinancing helped when valuations rose. It meant taking on more debt. Fed policy encouraged it. Today’s dilemma “is payback” for unsustainable bubble-creation policies. Recalling a relevant quote: “Things that can’t go on forever won’t.”

Bad policy caused enormous structural change, and trade deficits are part of it. They’ve “risen to the highest level for any country in history.” They’re one more problem for a seriously over-extended economy. It places “the federal government and Federal Reserve in untenable positions, where they cannot easily or rapidly address the underlying problems, even if standard economic stimuli were available.”

Given the federal deficit and out-of-control spending, fiscal policy limits have been reached. The Fed’s in the same bind. It can neither stimulate the economy or contain inflation. Rate cuts have done little. Saving the dollar may require raising them, but that won’t “contain non-demand driven inflation.” It shows up in high food, energy, health care, and companies like Dow Chemical announcing on May 28 that it will raise prices across the board up to 20% to offset increased costs.

More cause for worry, and Williams anticipates depression. Hyperinflation will follow, and it will sink “the economy into a great depression.” It will halt commercial activity. The greater disparity in income, the more negative its consequences. “Extremes in income variance usually are followed by financial panics and economic depressions. US income variance today is higher” than in 1929 and “nearly double that of any other ‘advanced’ economy.”

Federal bailouts have worsened things. Dollar creation exploded. Crisis has been pushed into the future. Its enormity will be far greater, and foreign investors will get stuck with a lot of it. When it arrives in strength, capital outflow will follow, and dollar valuation will plunge with it. Williams believes that “both central bank and major private investors know that the dollar is going to be a losing proposition. They either expect and/or hope that they can get of (it) in time to lock in their profits (or for central bankers) that they can forestall the ultimate global economic crisis” as long as possible.

Dollars are very vulnerable in this environment. If Treasuries are dumped, the Fed will monetize debt to make up the difference. Inflation will then accelerate, multi-trillion dollar deficits will worsen things, and a “self-feeding cycle of currency debasement and hyperinflation” will follow.

Cash as we know it will disappear. A barter system and black market will replace it or possible introduction of a new currency. Since most money today is electronic, not physical, chances of it adapting “are practically nil.” With hyperinflation, electronic commerce would completely shut down and economic collapse would follow. Gold and silver will be invaluable. Holders could exchange them for goods and services.

Physical goods will also be precious for survival and as a medium of exchange. Anything with a long shelf life may be stocked in advance, and providers of essential services could barter them for goods and other services. Forewarned is forearmed. Safety and liquidity are crucial. Anything retaining value is essential. Real estate, other currencies for example. Foreign equities and debt to a small degree because US financial assets hammering will spill everywhere.

With all that to deal with, consider another dilemma – the likelihood of painful political change, civil unrest, disruptive violence, and utter chaos. If Williams is right and hyperinflation arrives, Katie bar the door on what may follow. Revolutions are possible with three notable last century ones to consider – in Russia, Weimer Germany and Nationalist China. In each case, the old order ended, everything changed, but not for the good. How does Williams advise? Evaluate one’s own circumstances, use common sense, and forewarned is forearmed. That will help, but hard times hurt everyone.

Hopefully they won’t arrive, at least not full-blown as Williams predicts. But make no mistake. Excess has a price. The more of it the greater. America has an ocean of it. Sooner or later comes payback. “Things that can’t go on forever won’t.”

Cheney Enrages Iraqis Over Security Deal

cheney1.jpgBy GARY LEUPP | Dick Cheney wants the Iraqi government installed by the U.S. occupation to sign a “security pact” with Washington by the end of July. (The pact, including a status-of-forces agreement, would be signed by the U.S. president but not constitute a treaty requiring Congressional approval.) U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has been feverishly struggling to meet the deadline and to commit the next administration to the agreement’s terms. But that may be a tall order. Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki says negotiations are only in a beginning stage; public opinion is opposed to the pact based on leaked information about its content; and a majority of members of the Iraqi parliament have endorsed a letter to the U.S. government demanding U.S. withdrawal as the condition for “any commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States.”

Few Americans are familiar with the proposed treaty. If they were, they might be shocked at its provisions, ashamed about its naked sadism. It:

  • grants the U.S. long-term rights to maintain over 50 military bases in their California-sized country
  • allows the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government
  • allows the U.S. to conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting with the local government
  • allows U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi without consulting with Iraqi authorities
  • extends to U.S. troops and contracters immunity from Iraqi law
  • gives U.S. forces control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft.
  • places the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries, under American supervision for ten years
  • gives the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for ten years

Humiliating, right? The sort of conditions most Americans can’t imagine themselves accepting from a foreign occupying power.

What self-respecting people would ever agree to such provisions? Especially after their country’s been illegally invaded and occupied, on the basis of lies. Perhaps a million have been killed by the invaders and the civil strife they’ve unleashed. Two million have been driven into foreign exile, two million internally displaced. Thousands have been humiliated, terrified and tortured by the invaders. Millions’ electrical and water supply still lags behind Saddam-era levels. Millions’ personal security and enjoyment of human rights has deteriorated as a result of the invasion. Why should their leaders sign such an agreement?

No doubt some key figures in the Bush administration have asked themselves that, and here’s what they come up with. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds $ 50 billion of Iraq’s foreign exchange reserves as a result of the UN sanctions dating back to the first Gulf War. These include virtually all oil revenues that under UN mandate must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq “controlled” by the Iraqi government. $ 20 billion of this is owed to plaintiffs who’ve won court judgments against Iraq, but a presidential order gives the account legal immunity. Bush can threaten to remove the immunity and wipe out 40% of Iraq’s foreign reselves if Baghdad doesn’t cooperate. At the same time, Bush can tell al-Maliki that if Iraq enters into a ‘strategic relationship” with the U.S., the U.S. will arrange for Iraq to finally escape those lingering UN “Chapter Seven” sanctions. Perhaps Bush and Cheney are confidant that this carrot and stick” approach will force the Iraqi government to sign the deal.

But Iranian political leader Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani hardly exaggerates in saying the proposed deal is designed “to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans” and to create “a permanent occupation.” Many Iraqis use similar language.  “The agreement wants to put an American in each house,” claimed a supporter of Shiite cleric and nationalist firebrand Mutada al-Sadr. “This agreement is poison mixed in poison, not poison in honey because there is no honey at all.” “Why,” he asks, “do they want to break the backbone of Iraq?”

The mainstream Shiite cleric and politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC; formerly the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq or SCIRI),  agrees that the proposed agreement would “violate Iraq’s national sovereignty.” He claims a “national consensus” against it has developed. (President Bush in December 2006 met with al-Hakim, calling his “one of the distinguished leaders of a free Iraq,” and he is sometimes mentioned as Washington’s first choice for prime minister if al-Maliki doesn’t adequately put out. So his opposition is especially significant.)

Al-Hakim is close to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most widely respected Shiite cleric in 60% Shiite Iraq. The ayatollah is thought to oppose the pact but has not yet made a pronouncement about it. Meanwhile the Association of Muslim Scholars, the largest Sunni political group in the parliament, warns that the pact paves the way for “military, economic and cultural domination” by the Americans.

Al-Sadr’s followers staged rallies around the country after prayers last Friday and plan to continue weekly peaceful demonstrations demanding that the Baghdad government hold a national referendum on the security treaty issue. The U.S. opposes such a referendum, aware that pact opponents would surely win.

So Al-Maliki is between a rock and a hard place. He can sign the agreement and continue to receive U.S. support, strengthening the popular perception that he is a U.S. puppet. Or he can submit to the referendum demand, alienating and embarrassing his country’s invaders, revealing to the world the depth of Iraqi antipathy to the occupation. That way he loses U.S. support. Either way he seems headed towards the door.

In January 2007 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress that if al-Maliki didn’t cooperate with U.S. forces in suppressing Shiite militias in Baghdad, “he has to face is the possibility that he’ll lose his job.” At the same time U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and President Bush were both threatening to end support for al-Maliki if he didn’t “follow through on his promises” to the U.S. In August 2007, after al-Maliki publicly praised Iran for its “constructive role” in Iraq, Bush warned him. “My message to him,” he told the press, “is, when we catch you playing a non-constructive role, there will be a price to pay.”

For his part al-Maliki has indicated there are limits to his servility. He sent forces against al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Baghdad in February of this year, but they fought poorly and had to be saved from embarrassment by the mediation of a commander of Iran’s vilified Quds Force friendly with both al-Sadr and al-Maliki. He has refused to break his strong ties with the Iranian government and politely asked the U.S. to leave his country out of its quarrel with Iran. He does not seem wedded to his post or determined to retain it at any cost; “I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term,” he told the Wall Street Journal in January 2007. “I didn’t want to take this position. I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again.” Doesn’t sound like a man who wants to go down in history as the man who sold Iraq to the Americans in the summer of 2008. Likely successor Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim has opposed the deal so far.

Meanwhile, there’s this other Iraqi item on Cheney’s urgent to-do list: the passage of the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law by the Iraqi Parliament. This was drafted by BearingPoint (a McLean, Virginia-based management consulting provider listed by the Center for Corporate Policy as the number 2 top war profiteer of 2004) in February 2006 and then presented to the newly-appointed Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahristani. Shahristani then met in Washington DC with representatives of Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to get their comments on the draft. He promised the International Monetary Fund that the Iraqi parliament would pass the law by the end of 2006, but its members hadn’t even seen the 33-page draft law yet. Months earlier an Oil Ministry official had said that Iraqi civil society and the general public would not be consulted at all on this matter.A secret appendix to the draft law, according to London-based Iraqi political analyst Munir Chalabi, “will decide which oil fields will be allocated to the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC) and which of the existing fields will be allocated to the IOCs [international oil companies]. The appendices will determine if 10% or possibly up to 80% of these major oil fields will be given to the IOCs.” This, in other words, is another national humiliation in the offing. As six women Nobel Peace Prize recipients wrote in September 2007, it “would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model to a commercial model that is much more open to U.S. corporate control. Its provisions allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of Iraq and into the pockets of international oil companies.”It is one of those “bench marks” the Bush administration has imposed on Iraq, with Congressional support, as conditions for U.S. withdrawal, but even the most recent revised version, hammered out between Kurdish representatives and the Maliki cabinet, faces tough political opposition. Cheney was hoping this would be a done deal—done quickly on the sly—as of last summer. But al-Maliki still hasn’t delivered, and as a State Department report to Congress in April 2008 notes, labor opposition is formidable: “The 26,000 member Iraq Federation of Oil Unions has voiced its members’ strong opposition to the current draft of the hydrocarbon framework legislation and has demonstrated a capacity to disrupt oil production and refinery operations with strikes.”

Last year union chief Subhi al-Badri declared, “This law cancels the great achievements of the Iraq people. If the Iraqi Parliament approves this law, we will resort to mutiny. This law is a bomb that may kill everyone. Iraqi oil. … belongs to all future generations.” Even the Iraqi minister of planning and development, Ali Baban, has vowed to “resign one hour after [the] passing [of the] oil and gas draft law.” And the Sadrists of course are bitterly opposed.

Add the globalization of the oil industry to the security treaty provisions listed above. Imagine how Iraqi public opinion will react if Cheney and the neocons succeed in forcing this package of laws through the Iraqi parliament. Everybody knows the “return of sovereignty” is a sham, and claims of “democracy” a cover for continued occupation. The “benchmark” capitulations the Americans demand add insult to injury, inscribing in law and veneer of multilateralism that which has been seized by brute force. They oblige those under the boot to kiss it.

The Cheney cabal (exuding Islamophobia and contempt for poor and working people everywhere) seems to actually suppose it will be able to win that degree of slavishness, and to celebrate such crowning imperialist triumphs in Iraq, by the end of the Bush term. They also seem to think they can attack Iran, expanding the “Long War” before handing it over to the next administration. But that would mean provoking the outrage of the overwhelming majority of Iranians and Iraqis simultaneously. Seems just too stupid to believe, even from a rational imperialist’s own point of view. But aside from Rep. Dennis Kucinich, few in Congress have made issues of the security treaty, hydrocarbon law, or plans for a strike against Iran. The mainstream media is for the most part unquestioning, subdued, as the Bush administration continues to subject the Muslim world to unbearable provocations.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

Have Government officials broken EU rules?

eu.jpgIC Wales | QUESTIONS have been raised over whether European rules are being broken in the running of a new £92m business grant scheme. The concerns follow a meeting at the Holland House Hotel in Cardiff on Thursday, when senior Assembly Government officials briefed members of the Welsh business community about the new system.

Someone who attended the meeting, who did not wish to be identified, told the Western Mail: “Some of us who were invited to the Holland House meeting were shocked at the implications of what was said. It seems the Assembly Government is intending to use money from the European Regional Development Fund as revenue support for the running of the Single Investment Fund (SIF), announced by (Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economy and Transport) Ieuan Wyn Jones in April.

“This will include paying the salaries of the new ‘relationship managers’ who will be responsible for liaising with companies seeking business support.

“My understanding of EU regulations is that this breaks the ‘additionality’ rule, under which money from European programmes is meant to be used to supplement core government spending on economic development.

“ Instead, it seems the European money is being used as a substitute for core government spending. It appears to me and others that this is a clear breach of EU rules.”

The member of the business community said the amount of money allocated to the SIF by the Assembly Government was significantly less than had been available in the past.

“The £92m budget represents a cut of about 33% compared to previous years, if you add up the various pots of money the SIF has replaced. We were told at the meeting that, in future, bids for aid would be competitive and companies from different sectors and regions would have to compete against other projects for aid. This at a time when the Welsh economy is 63% public sector.

“Fears were expressed in the meeting about the policy and timing of this move. There were also concerns that the Valleys and West/North Wales would again suffer from such a policy.

“The figures pose the question, where has the European Commission’s Objective One money gone in the past eight years? It has had no impact on the real economy. Why? Because the funds were raided by the Assembly Government to spend on other budgets, especially pay and jobs in the public sector.

“In Ireland, Objective One money was used to greatly improve the country’s transport infrastructure. In Brittany, which has received lower levels of European aid, money has been used to develop new tourism and leisure facilities in fishing ports.

“ We have little tangible to show in Wales after eight years of top-level European aid.”

An Assembly Government spokesman said: “These claims are simply inaccurate. It is clear that the person making them has misunderstood the information given at the meeting, and it is a pity that they did not raise their concerns with us at the time, rather than through the press.

“No European funding has been used to pay staff from the Department (for Economy and Transport) for their roles as relationship managers in the new ‘Flexible Support for Business’ structure. This new system of flexible, streamlined support, and the creation of the Single Investment Fund, is exactly what the business community has been calling for over a number of years.

“The Single Investment Fund was only introduced in April, and is being rolled out in stages. Therefore it is wrong to compare the value of the fund now with previous support programmes, as the fund does not currently reflect the full extent of our widespread support for businesses across Wales.

“At the end of the previous programme, EU-supported projects will have created up to 46,000 net additional jobs and supported the launch of some 2,400 new small and medium businesses. The impact of this is clearly demonstrated by employment levels in West Wales and the Valleys, which have risen by 11% since 1999, compared with a 9% increase across Wales and 7% across the UK.

“The new round of European funding programmes provides us with the opportunity to build on this progress and deliver further real improvements across the Welsh economy.”

Last night the member of the business community who raised the concerns insisted: “I do not believe I misinterpreted what was said.”

Rome Food Conference

0

food1.jpgIPA | As government leaders from around the world meet at the U.N. food conference in Rome, nonprofit organizations have also been meeting there. The following analysts are available for a limited number of interviews and are in contact with others in Rome from around the world:

FLAVIO VALENTE
Secretary general of FIAN [Food First Information and Action Network], an international food rights group, Valente said: “I see very little good coming from the governmental meeting in Rome. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund are being turned to as if they will help solve the problem, but it was largely their policies of structural adjustment that made poor countries lose their capacity to control their food policies and helped bring on the current crisis. The U.S. government — and to some extent the European Union — are blocking desperately needed advances; for example any reference in the final documents to people having a right to food.”
More Information

RACHEL SMOLKER
Research biologist at the Global Justice Ecology Project, Smolker said today: “Unfortunately this crisis is being used as an opportunity to advance GMOs [genetically modified organisms]. The question of land is emerging as a central issue and business interests are grabbing it up for biofuels and other purposes. Millions of people were added to the ranks of the hungry in the last quarter. Meanwhile, the big agribusiness companies are making huge profits.”

Smolker recently wrote the piece “Agrofuels in the belly of the hungry beast.” She also wrote “Go Ahead, Blame Biofuels: A switch from fossil fuels to ethanol and its kin diverts resources from food production, leading to hunger and destabilization of farming” published in Business Week.

MPs voice fears over ID cards

0

idcard2.jpgBy Brian Brady | Compulsory identity cards could be used to spy on people, MPs warn today. Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee say they are concerned that the way the authorities use sensitive data gathered in the multibillion-pound programme could gradually “creep” in scope to include covert surveillance.

The all-party committee also urges ministers to make plans for how to deal with any theft of personal details from the National Identity Scheme, which will build a database on every person over 16 in Britain. It accepts ministers’ assurances that surveillance is not part of current plans, but asks for a guarantee that no expansion will take place without MPs’ approval.

The report, which is published today, says: “Any ambiguity about the objectives of the scheme puts in jeopardy the public’s trust in the scheme itself and in the Government’s ability to run it.”

Committee calls for database prudence

0

yourdata.jpgKable’s Government Computing | The government should vow to collect only essential data on people and hold it only for as long as is necessary, the Home Affairs Select Committee has recommended. The committee says that decisions to create new databases, to start sharing data or to increase surveillance of people should only take place when there is a proven need, in a report issued on 8 June 2008.

“In general the government should move to curb the drive to collect more personal information and establish larger databases,” the report says. It adds that, as a preliminary risk assessment, privacy impact assessments should be undertaken before the design of a project begins and should then be independently audited.

The report also says the information commissioner should write an annual report for Parliament on surveillance, that government should make a formal response and that Parliament should hold an annual debate on the subject.

The report, A Surveillance Society?, makes specific recommendations for the Home Office. On the National Identity Register, the committee say the department should explicitly declare it will not routinely use the scheme’s administrative data, sometimes known as the data trail or the audit trail, to monitor people.

It should also make and publish contingency plans to be used in the event of the register’s biometric information being breached, and also for how access to its systems will be controlled.

Among the recommendations is that the Home Office should “take every opportunity to raise awareness of how and why the surveillance techniques provided for by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act might be used” as well as review the statutory oversight of the act. It should also publicise, with the information commissioner, how the data people give to the private sector — such as in retail purchases, use of blogs and on social networking sites — may be used to investigate crime.

On camera surveillance, the report says the Home Office should justify any extension of its use “by evidence of its effectiveness for its intended purpose”, and that it should undertake further research to evaluate the effectiveness of such schemes before allocating more funds to cameras.

In general, it says that the Home Office should, with every proposed extension of power over personal information, explicitly address the effect on the individual and society, and say where the balance will lie between protecting the public and preserving individual liberty.

The report includes examples of how surveillance based decision making can damage individuals. They include the case of someone barred from working with children because they were arrested after an unfounded complaint of committing sex offences.

In particular, the report insists that the Home Office “must not undertake or sponsor work” in using health records, or data held on children, for predictive profiling.

“We reject crude characterisations of our society as a surveillance society,” the report says in its conclusions. “Yet the potential for surveillance of citizens in public spaces and private communications has increased to the extent that ours could be described as a surveillance society unless trust in the government’s intentions in relation to data and data sharing is preserved.”

Martyrs in the making at Guantanamo

1

timrutten.jpgBy Tim Rutten | Thursday’s arraignment before a military tribunal of five Al Qaeda members accused of planning and assisting the 9/11 terrorist atrocities seemed custom-made to assist the loathsome defendants in achieving exactly what they desire — an aura of martyrdom.

The prisoners, including the plot’s apparent mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, were called to answer before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on murder, conspiracy and terrorism charges arising from the deaths of 2,973 people at New York’s World Trade Center, at the Pentagon and in the Pennsylvania field where one of the airliners hijacked that day crashed.

It’s a sad but salutary thing to recall that number and that terrible day. The consolations of legal justice never can be complete, but they’re all we as a society have to offer the injured and the grieving. That’s why, when it comes to the handling of these cases, the Bush administration’s willful overreaching, contempt for fundamental American values and defiance of basic American notions of due process have set the stage for travesty and further tragedy.

By any reasonable standard, the Guantanamo tribunals are a farce. By the government’s own admission, Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda detainees have been tortured. The five men arraigned Thursday all face execution if convicted. Their military defense lawyers say they’ve been denied adequate access to their clients or time to prepare a reasonable defense. The pool reporters the Pentagon is allowing to cover the proceedings have to sit behind a glass partition and listen over a sound system with a 20-second delay. Ostensibly that’s to prevent the media from hearing any national security secret inadvertently blurted out during the testimony. Thursday, it apparently was used to shut off any mention of torture.

Mohammed has confessed his responsibility for 9/11 during an earlier proceeding: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z.” He also claimed he personally murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, among other atrocities: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl.”

But because the Bush administration feared bringing him and his accomplices to trial in an ordinary American criminal court — where the rights of the accused are protected — Mohammed and his comrades are now in a position to challenge the justice and the legality of the proceedings against them in the court of public opinion. In this, they’re taking a page from a script first written by Irish Republicans early in the 20th century, then picked up by Gandhi’s passive resisters and Jewish freedom fighters in British-occupied Palestine. It’s a tactic that usually works — particularly when the prosecuting state is acting in defiance of its own laws.

That doesn’t make Mohammed and his accomplices innocent, and it doesn’t make them victims. However, it may very well make them martyrs in the eyes of marginalized young men in fanatic-infested backwaters across the Islamic world.

It’s hard, moreover, to imagine this abomination of a “trial” coming at a worse time, because the chance to portray the Guantanamo defendants as martyrs is just the lifeline Al Qaeda needs at the moment. Earlier this month, Lawrence Wright, whose magisterial “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11” won last year’s Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction, returned to the subject of the terrorist organization in a brilliantly reported New Yorker magazine article that has been too little noticed. In his article, Wright demonstrates that, while Al Qaeda continues to enjoy some success in Iraq and increased security and freedom of action in Pakistan’s tribal areas, the organization is being rocked by an ideological civil war.

When it comes to theological firepower, Al Qaeda’s big guns always have been Egyptian. The most important of these is a physician/theologian named Sayyed Imam Sharif, a onetime Koranic prodigy turned Islamic militant and comrade in arms to the Egyptian Ayman Zawahiri and the Saudi Osama bin Laden. According to Wright, 20 years ago Sharif wrote two books that are essentially the blueprint for what we’ve come to call jihadism, and he formerly led the murderous Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad.

Since shortly after 9/11, Sharif has been in an Egyptian prison, where he’s now at the center of a movement that renounces violence as an instrument of reform, repenting even of the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Under the nom de guerre “Dr. Fadl,” Sharif has written a book called “Rationalizing Jihad in Egypt and the World” that essentially repudiates all Islamic justifications for Al Qaeda’s actions. In an interview, the author even called 9/11 “a catastrophe for Muslims.” These views have rocked the jihadist world and forced Zawahiri, as Al Qaeda’s chief spokesman, on the defensive.

“It’s clear,” Wright says, “that radical Islam is confronting a rebellion within its ranks, one that Zawahiri and the leaders of Al Qaeda are poorly equipped to respond to.” As Karam Zuhdy, leader of Egypt’s Islamic Group, a now-peaceful offshoot of the jihadist movement, recently told Wright: “Dr. Fadl’s revisions and Zawahiri’s response show that the movement is disintegrating.”

It would be all of a piece with the Bush administration’s sputtering and ineffectual engagement with the real Islamic terrorist threat — as opposed to the one it tried to conjure in Iraq — if young Islamists now found themselves inspired by the faux-martyrdom of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his accomplices. And if they are executed after tribunals involving testimony obtained by torture, in which they’ve been deprived of an adequate defense and to which the media have been granted only partial access, that’s exactly what will happen.

Clinton Suspends Her Presidential Campaign

0

clinton4.jpgBy Paul Harris | Hillary Clinton yesterday suspended her bid to become America’s first woman president and vowed to help Barack Obama in his fight to win the White House for the Democratic party.

In a gracious, emotional concession speech, Clinton spoke movingly of her long campaign and thanked all those who had supported her. But she left no doubt as to the vigour of her support for Obama and urged a healing of divisions left by a long, bitter nomination battle.

In repeated moments throughout her speech, she vowed to work for Obama, even though some in the audience of thousands of supporters booed at the first mention of his name. ‘We have to help elect Barack Obama as president,’ she repeatedly emphasised to the crowd gathered in the atrium of the American capital’s National Building Museum.

It was an astonishing moment of political theatre, ripe with symbolism and the passing of a generational torch in Democratic politics. Clinton, for all the revolutionary potential of her bid to be America’s first woman president, lost to a younger politician running on a message of change. For all the nostalgia Democrats feel for the Clintons’ reign of the 1990s, it was not enough to give her victory. Now Obama will press on with trying to unite his party behind his bid to be America’s first black president.

In her speech, Clinton went a long way to making that process a little easier. She tackled head-on the ferocity of the emotions that have grown in the party. She argued that the prospect of another Republican in the White House should unite them all behind Obama, and said she would be personally committed to that goal. She borrowed one of Obama’s own campaign slogans. ‘So today I am standing with you to say: ‘Yes, we can!’,’ she said. ‘We cannot let this moment slip away. We have come too far and we have accomplished too much.’

At such words, the Democratic establishment’s biggest fear – the nightmare of a convention fight in Denver – evaporated in the humidity of a Washington summer afternoon. In an appealing, joky turn of phrase, Clinton admonished any of her fans who were even thinking of letting their defeat turn them off voting for Obama: ‘Please don’t go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from looking forward. Life is too short, time is too precious and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been.’

Addressed to the almost 18 million voters who backed her, those poignant words could easily have described her own emotions as the one-time frontrunner. In all the drama of the past few weeks as Obama’s victory neared, it has been amazing to reflect that for most of last year Clinton was the Democrats’ anointed favourite. She had launched her bid by saying ‘I’m in it to win it’ and for months that seemed like a prophecy.

She had the backing of the party grandees, a huge money-raising machine and the brand name of the Clintons. Yet Obama first unsettled her campaign, then, in the Iowa caucuses, derailed it. It turned into a desperate fight for the party throne, not simply a coronation. It was a fight she has now lost. But Clinton betrayed little sense of inner turmoil at her new-found position as an also-ran. As soon as she took the stage, almost drowned out by cries of ‘Hillary! Hillary!’, she remarked she had not expected to find herself here. ‘This is not exactly the party I planned, but I sure do love the company,’ she joked.

But Clinton’s ‘company’ is now crucial to Obama’s success. She has generated huge support among working class white people and women, where Obama is weak. Her enthusiastic endorsement of him will surely persuade many not to jump ship to Republican candidate John McCain. Her words will particularly resonate with women. In all the amazement at Obama’s success, it has often been forgotten how remarkable Clinton’s achievement was in breaking down the ‘glass ceiling’ of US politics. In becoming the first woman to come within a whisper of being a Democratic presidential nominee, she shattered barriers on behalf of her sex, proving she is a giant of American politics in her own right, not just as a former First Lady.

Clinton’s appeal as a woman was a key part of her success in the latter months of the campaign and she made sure to pay tribute to that. In a moving moment she remarked that many women had become astronauts in her lifetime. ‘If we can blast 15 women into space, we will some day blast a woman into the White House,’ she said. Doubtless that is true and when it happens (even if it is Clinton in 2012), her campaign in 2008 will be seen as historic. ‘When the day arrives and it is a woman taking the oath of office as our President, we will all stand taller,’ she said.

But for now, although her rally looked anything but a loss, Clinton is having to accept that she has been defeated. In public, at least, it looks as if she is coming to terms with it. Questions over whether Obama will pick her as vice-president or help her out with campaign debt, will arise in the weeks ahead. But yesterday was simply about bowing out and appealing for unity. She did both with style.

About this article

Close

This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday June 08 2008 . It was last updated at 00:27 on June 08 2008.

Share

Close

Email

Close


Contact us

Close

World news

Share

Close

Email

Close


Contact us

Close

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Last updated two minutes ago

  • Sponsored features

  • Urban art muralUrban art mural

    Win an Olympus camera

    Enter your street art pics on our urban mural for your chance to win

  • Urban home sponsored featureUrban home sponsored feature

    Urban home

    Add urban pictures and tips, get weekend ideas and win great prizes

Guardian Jobs

Browse all jobs

Advertiser links

 

Hillary Clinton yesterday suspended her bid to become America's first woman president and vowed to help Barack Obama in his fight to win the White House for the Democratic party.

In a gracious, emotional concession speech, Clinton spoke movingly of her long campaign and thanked all those who had supported her. But she left no doubt as to the vigour of her support for Obama and urged a healing of divisions left by a long, bitter nomination battle.

In repeated moments throughout her speech, she vowed to work for Obama, even though some in the audience of thousands of supporters booed at the first mention of his name. 'We have to help elect Barack Obama as president,' she repeatedly emphasised to the crowd gathered in the atrium of the American capital's National Building Museum.

It was an astonishing moment of political theatre, ripe with symbolism and the passing of a generational torch in Democratic politics. Clinton, for all the revolutionary potential of her bid to be America's first woman president, lost to a younger politician running on a message of change. For all the nostalgia Democrats feel for the Clintons' reign of the 1990s, it was not enough to give her victory. Now Obama will press on with trying to unite his party behind his bid to be America's first black president.

In her speech, Clinton went a long way to making that process a little easier. She tackled head-on the ferocity of the emotions that have grown in the party. She argued that the prospect of another Republican in the White House should unite them all behind Obama, and said she would be personally committed to that goal. She borrowed one of Obama's own campaign slogans. 'So today I am standing with you to say: 'Yes, we can!',' she said. 'We cannot let this moment slip away. We have come too far and we have accomplished too much.'

At such words, the Democratic establishment's biggest fear - the nightmare of a convention fight in Denver - evaporated in the humidity of a Washington summer afternoon. In an appealing, joky turn of phrase, Clinton admonished any of her fans who were even thinking of letting their defeat turn them off voting for Obama: 'Please don't go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from looking forward. Life is too short, time is too precious and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been.'

Addressed to the almost 18 million voters who backed her, those poignant words could easily have described her own emotions as the one-time frontrunner. In all the drama of the past few weeks as Obama's victory neared, it has been amazing to reflect that for most of last year Clinton was the Democrats' anointed favourite. She had launched her bid by saying 'I'm in it to win it' and for months that seemed like a prophecy.

She had the backing of the party grandees, a huge money-raising machine and the brand name of the Clintons. Yet Obama first unsettled her campaign, then, in the Iowa caucuses, derailed it. It turned into a desperate fight for the party throne, not simply a coronation. It was a fight she has now lost. But Clinton betrayed little sense of inner turmoil at her new-found position as an also-ran. As soon as she took the stage, almost drowned out by cries of 'Hillary! Hillary!', she remarked she had not expected to find herself here. 'This is not exactly the party I planned, but I sure do love the company,' she joked.

But Clinton's 'company' is now crucial to Obama's success. She has generated huge support among working class white people and women, where Obama is weak. Her enthusiastic endorsement of him will surely persuade many not to jump ship to Republican candidate John McCain. Her words will particularly resonate with women. In all the amazement at Obama's success, it has often been forgotten how remarkable Clinton's achievement was in breaking down the 'glass ceiling' of US politics. In becoming the first woman to come within a whisper of being a Democratic presidential nominee, she shattered barriers on behalf of her sex, proving she is a giant of American politics in her own right, not just as a former First Lady.

Clinton's appeal as a woman was a key part of her success in the latter months of the campaign and she made sure to pay tribute to that. In a moving moment she remarked that many women had become astronauts in her lifetime. 'If we can blast 15 women into space, we will some day blast a woman into the White House,' she said. Doubtless that is true and when it happens (even if it is Clinton in 2012), her campaign in 2008 will be seen as historic. 'When the day arrives and it is a woman taking the oath of office as our President, we will all stand taller,' she said.

But for now, although her rally looked anything but a loss, Clinton is having to accept that she has been defeated. In public, at least, it looks as if she is coming to terms with it. Questions over whether Obama will pick her as vice-president or help her out with campaign debt, will arise in the weeks ahead. But yesterday was simply about bowing out and appealing for unity. She did both with style.

Profiting from Iraq’s occupation

kids-iraq.jpgBy Harry Cohen | The British in Basra are unpopular and mostly ineffective. The last survey of Basra residents by BBC Newsnight indicated that 86 per cent believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003. More than half felt the troops presence had actually increased the overall level of militia violence over the past four years. Twelve per cent believed that British troops had made no difference at all. Only two per cent believed British troops had had a positive effect. And 83 per cent said they wanted British troops to leave Iraq without delay. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the British role, carried out at great cost, including of many lives.

Soon after becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown promised to reduce British troops in Iraq from 4,500 to 2,500. On 28 April, Defence Secretary Des Browne abandoned that promise in parliament.

The troops were also supposed to be no longer involved in day to day operations in the province and confined to their Basra airport base. That implied non-engagement has been undermined, as the troops gave support to the forces of the Iraqi government in their offensive against the forces of Moqtadr al Sadr.

Patrick Cockburn, The Independent’s well-respected, non-embedded, journalist in Iraq, pointed out that elections are due in about six months time and the Shias of Prime Minister Maliki’s faction are trying to gain advantage over the popular Shia faction of al Sadr. They are using force to do this and want to draw in the British in Basra.

The US are also spoiling for a fight. They are in the middle of their ‘surge’ in troop numbers. Very sensibly, al Sadr calculated he could wait them out and called a cease-fire. He then extended it. The US would like to goad him into a fight and are using the Maliki forces to do it. US troops have moved into the Basra area and have goaded UK forces into taking part too. The weak British government has caved into this pressure, but even if for a short while they back up one faction over another, they will remain largely ineffective.

Of course, the US has no respect for any of the Shias, or Sunnis either, and an understandable reading of their strategy since they replaced the secular government of Iraq with a religious-based Shia one, is to keep them at each others throats. The factions are well prepared to change alliances, at least temporarily according to circumstances. So the Sunnis too have quietened their opposition to the US.

Also perhaps it is unfair to call the British completely ineffective. In March, in Kuwait, the Basra Development Commission was launched. This is a ‘joint initiative’ of the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Barham Saleh, and British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. At the launch the governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Wa’ili said ‘Basra welcomes private sector investors’. As Basra province holds 80 per cent of Iraq’s oil reserves and is home to the country’s only deep sea port and trade routes to the Gulf, the private sector is likely to be primarily US or US allies and not Iraqi. The British helped with the drafting of the new oil law, and with this commission are moving along the take over of Iraq’s assets and the long-term expropriation of massive profits from them. In this way we are doing our bit for our US allies.

Britain’s Labour government, in effect, has one last chance to get out with a modicum of reason. The United Nations mandate, which currently authorises the US and British presence in Iraq, runs out at the end of this year. That mandate does not really legitimise the occupation as the US and Britain were charged with ensuring the security of the Iraqi people and facilitating humanitarian aid and economic investment. The coalition has totally failed on both counts. The commitment to leave should be required of the Labour government at every opportunity, and not just by the end of the year. Our presence serves no national or international interest. We do not want to fight for one side in a civil war or to try to give advantage to one side in Iraqi elections. Those purposes are not worth the life or health of another British soldier.

However the US has no intention of leaving when their UN mandate runs out. They are already negotiating a bilateral contract with their puppet, dependent government in Baghdad, to ‘supply security’. The US will, in effect, turn itself into a mercenary army of occupation. They will be securing their pay out by robbing Iraq of its resources. No wonder Republican presidential candidate John McCain, in answering a question about whether US troops would be in Iraq for 50 years, replied ‘make it a hundred’.

Nobel Prize Winner for Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, recently published his new book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The true cost of the Iraq conflict. At a meeting in Parliament he described it as a ‘war totally financed on the credit card’. It has been a factor in the current global economic crisis, he said. The high price of oil also owes its genesis to the Iraq war and its aftermath. The US has created this crisis and is calculating it will, over time, be in a powerful position by grabbing control of Iraq’s oil. This, though, is not just illegal by any recognised standard, but a formula for never-ending conflict in Iraq as its people fight a nationalist war of liberation.

Iraqis are already victims. As well as the dead and maimed, there are approximately two million widows with very little economic means, according to one respected charity. The four million refugees are a scandal the west studiously ignores. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) has just published its report Five Years Later: a Hidden Crisis. In their letter to MPs the IRC state ‘The US led invasion of Iraq five years ago and its violent aftermath have produced one of the largest humanitarian crises of our time, yet the “Coalition of the Willing” has been mostly unwilling to own up to it and provide aid for the innocent bystanders’. It is of fundamental importance to get this matter discussed in parliament.

Senate report on Bush war lies: Another cover-up of war crimes

bush5.jpgBy Barry Grey | The Senate Intelligence Committee report issued Thursday on the Bush administration’s use of phony intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq is yet another exercise in damage control, aimed at concealing the full scope of the criminal conspiracy to drag the American people into a war of aggression.

The 170-page report was released a full five years after the Senate committee began its investigation into prewar intelligence claims. While acknowledging the well-established fact that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-National Security Adviser and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and other top aides knowingly misled American and world public opinion, it minimizes the scale of this deception and draws no conclusions about its implications for democratic rights in the United States.

The Senate report, endorsed by all eight Democrats on the committee and two Republicans, proposes no follow-up investigations or sanctions against Bush and company. Even before the Democrats took control of Congress following the Republican rout in the 2006 midterm elections, Democratic congressional leaders ruled out any effort to impeach Bush, Cheney, or any of the other officials involved in the war plot.

This is in no small measure because the Democratic Party was itself entirely complicit in the drive to war on the basis of lies, echoing the fear-mongering claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi-Al Qaeda ties and supplying Bush with the votes he needed to authorize an invasion. Since gaining control of Congress, the Democrats have continued to supply the administration with the funding it has requested to prosecute and even escalate the war.

The report essentially exonerates Bush and other administration officials for their lurid prewar assertions about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons and their claims that Iraq was actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. It declares that such claims were generally “substantiated” by the intelligence estimates at the time, and merely charges Bush officials with “exaggerating” the intelligence on WMD and failing to note contradictory and dissenting intelligence assessments.

It seeks to draw a distinction between the prewar propaganda on WMD and the administration’s claims of intimate operational ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and its chilling warnings that the Iraqi regime, if not overthrown, would hand over weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups to launch attacks on the American people.

These included repeated assertions by Cheney that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague and Bush’s claim in a key speech, given in Cincinnati in October 2002, that Hussein “could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.” Such claims, the report states, were “contradicted by available intelligence information.”

Despite its various caveats, the Senate report cites a host of false statements by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other officials which, in objective terms, demonstrate a systematic and criminal conspiracy to terrorize the American people into backing an unprovoked war against a relatively defenseless country that posed no real threat to their security.

In a statement issued in conjunction with the report, Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the committee chairman, wrote: “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein…

“Representing to the American people that the two [Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda] had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.”

At a news conference, he added, “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

Such statements, regardless the intensions of Rockefeller and his fellow Democrats, meet the standard established at the Nuremburg Tribunal for prosecution for war crimes. That body asserted that the most fundamental war crime is plotting to wage aggressive war.

On the issue of alleged Iraqi WMD, the report largely adheres to the line of an earlier report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee in July of 2004, when the committee was under Republican control. The Republicans were obliged to conduct an investigation into the prewar WMD claims when US troops and inspectors were unable to find a single piece of evidence of the existence of such weapons following the US invasion in March of 2003.

The earlier report placed the entire onus for the false WMD claims on “faulty intelligence” provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. It was a flagrant whitewash of the Bush administration, portraying Bush and his top aides as unwitting victims of a supposed intelligence failure for which they bore no responsibility.

The second phase of the committee investigation, to examine whether Bush and others distorted or misused intelligence reports to promote their war agenda, was blocked by the Republican majority for three years, and it took the Democrats on the committee eighteen months to produce the current report after the Democratic-led Congress took office in January of 2007.

The claim in the new report that Bush administration assertions on Iraqi WMD were in keeping with the intelligence estimates at the time is entirely sophistic. It ignores well-established facts that demonstrate the administration aggressively solicited and directly concocted phony reports on supposed weapons of mass destruction.

In the first place, Cheney and some of his top aides made numerous visits to CIA headquarters to browbeat CIA analysts into cranking out reports that justified the administration’s claims.

Secondly, Rumsfeld, with Cheney’s support, set up his own operation at the Pentagon to fabricate “intelligence” of Iraqi WMD stockpiles.

Moreover, administration claims of Iraqi WMD were publicly rejected by Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations weapons inspection operation in Iraq, and Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

There is at least one well-documented case in which Bush ignored the advice of the CIA and used phony WMD claims to promote his war plans. Then-CIA Director George Tenet warned Bush in October of 2002 that reports of Iraqi attempts to secure uranium from Niger were baseless and should not be used. Nevertheless, Bush cited these reports in his January 2003 State of the Union address to argue that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.

Finally, it has since been well documented that Bush and his top advisers began discussing war plans against Iraq soon after taking office in January of 2001. The September 11, 2001 attacks provided the administration with the pretext it desired and needed to stampede the American people into such a war.

Nor does the Senate report note the depth and scope of public sentiment in the US and internationally in the run-up to the war rejecting the administration’s war propaganda. The tens of millions who demonstrated in February 2003 against the impending war in the largest international protest against war in history had little difficulty discerning the mendacity of the US government.

The Democrats decided to essentially give Bush a pass on the WMD issue, largely because they utilized the same canard for eight years under the Clinton administration to justify the brutal sanctions and repeated air attacks on Iraq carried out by Clinton.

Five of the seven Republicans on the committee issued a dissenting report that labeled the majority’s findings a partisan attack and declared them to be “irrelevant.” (Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska joined the Democrats in endorsing the report). The Republican dissenters, led by Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, were able to exploit the complicity of leading Democrats, including Senator Hillary Clinton and Rockefeller himself, both of whom voted to authorize the invasion, to charge the committee majority with hypocrisy.

The minority report quotes statements by Clinton, Rockefeller and other leading Democrats echoing the lies of the Bush administration. It cites an October 2002 speech by Rockefeller in the Senate in which he said he had arrived at the “inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks… we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with the threat.”

A separate report issued by the committee on Wednesday describes early covert moves by the administration to prepare for war against Iran. It cites secret meetings in Paris and Rome in 2001 and 2003 by Defense Department officials with Iranian dissidents seeking to overthrow the Islamic regime. Administration participants included Wolfowitz and Stephen Hadley, the current national security adviser to Bush.

Their main interlocutor was Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian exile the CIA had labeled as a fabricator based on his role in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair. The committee concluded that the Bush officials had the “authority” to hold the meetings, but scolded the administration for concealing them from the CIA and the State Department.

The aspect of cover-up is underscored by the way the Intelligence Committee report has been downplayed by the press. Of the major newspapers, only the New York Times gave it front-page coverage and published an editorial comment. The Washington Post relegated the story to page three and the Wall Street Journal failed to even publish an article on the report.

The Times editorial follows the Senate report in combining damning acknowledgments with apologetics and failing to call for any action or draw any serious conclusions about the implications of the war conspiracy.

It begins by stating: “It took just a few months after the United States invasion of Iraq for the world to find out that Saddam Hussein had long abandoned his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. He was not training terrorists or colluding with Al Qaeda.”

It later declares: “Over all, the report makes it clear that top officials, especially Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, knew they were not giving a full and honest account of their justifications for going to war.”

At the same time, it makes the incredulous claim that “President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were told that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and did not learn that these reports were wrong until after the invasion.” And while charging Bush with leading the American people “to believe things that he knows are not true to justify the invasion of another country,” it declares, “We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq.”

This double-talk from the most prominent organ of American liberalism comes as no surprise, given the critical role played by the Times in promoting Bush’s lies in the run-up to the war, with leading reporters such as Judith Miller serving as conduits for administration war propaganda and the newspaper’s foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman justifying the war as a crusade for democracy.

Neither the Times nor the Democrats dare broach the real aims that underlie the war–the attempt to establish US hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East and transform Iraq into a platform for further military aggression in the region. Nor do they acknowledge the criminal character of the war, which has killed more than 1 million Iraqis and over 4,000 American soldiers, and the conspiracy that launched it.

America’s Medicated Army

0

med.jpgBy MARK THOMPSON | Seven months after Sergeant Christopher LeJeune started scouting Baghdad’s dangerous roads – acting as bait to lure insurgents into the open so his Army unit could kill them – he found himself growing increasingly despondent. “We’d been doing some heavy missions, and things were starting to bother me,” LeJeune says.

His unit had been protecting Iraqi police stations targeted by rocket-propelled grenades, hunting down mortars hidden in dark Baghdad basements and cleaning up its own messes. He recalls the order his unit got after a nighttime firefight to roll back out and collect the enemy dead. When LeJeune and his buddies arrived, they discovered that some of the bodies were still alive. “You don’t always know who the bad guys are,” he says. “When you search someone’s house, you have it built up in your mind that these guys are terrorists, but when you go in, there’s little bitty tiny shoes and toys on the floor – things like that started affecting me a lot more than I thought they would.”

So LeJeune visited a military doctor in Iraq, who, after a quick session, diagnosed depression. The doctor sent him back to war armed with the antidepressant Zoloft and the antianxiety drug clonazepam. “It’s not easy for soldiers to admit the problems that they’re having over there for a variety of reasons,” LeJeune says. “If they do admit it, then the only solution given is pills.”

While the headline-grabbing weapons in this war have been high-tech wonders, like unmanned drones that drop Hellfire missiles on the enemy below, troops like LeJeune are going into battle with a different kind of weapon, one so stealthy that few Americans even know of its deployment. For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resource: soldiers on the front lines. Data contained in the Army’s fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the more isolated mission have driven troops to rely more on medication there than in Iraq, military officials say.

At a Pentagon that keeps statistics on just about everything, there is no central clearinghouse for this kind of data, and the Army hasn’t consistently asked about prescription-drug use, which makes it difficult to track. Given the traditional stigma associated with soldiers seeking mental help, the survey, released in March, probably underestimates antidepressant use. But if the Army numbers reflect those of other services – the Army has by far the most troops deployed to the war zones – about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were on such medications last fall. The Army estimates that authorized drug use splits roughly fifty-fifty between troops taking antidepressants – largely the class of drugs that includes Prozac and Zoloft – and those taking prescription sleeping pills like Ambien.

In some ways, the prescriptions may seem unremarkable. Generals, history shows, have plied their troops with medicinal palliatives at least since George Washington ordered rum rations at Valley Forge. During World War II, the Nazis fueled their blitzkrieg into France and Poland with the help of an amphetamine known as Pervitin. The U.S. Army also used amphetamines during the Vietnam War.

The military’s rising use of antidepressants also reflects their prevalence in the civilian population. In 2004, the last year for which complete data for the U.S. are available, doctors wrote 147 million prescriptions for antidepressants, according to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical-market-research firm. This number reflects in part the common practice of cycling through different medications to find the most effective drug. A 2006 federally funded study found that 70% of those taking antidepressants along with therapy experience some improvement in mood.

When it comes to fighting wars, though, troops have historically been barred from using such drugs in combat. And soldiers – who are younger and healthier on average than the general population – have been prescreened for mental illnesses before enlisting.

The increase in the use of medication among U.S. troops suggests the heavy mental and psychological price being paid by soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon surveys show that while all soldiers deployed to a war zone will feel stressed, 70% will manage to bounce back to normalcy. But about 20% will suffer from what the military calls “temporary stress injuries,” and 10% will be afflicted with “stress illnesses.” Such ailments, according to briefings commanders get before deploying, begin with mild anxiety and irritability, difficulty sleeping, and growing feelings of apathy and pessimism. As the condition worsens, the feelings last longer and can come to include panic, rage, uncontrolled shaking and temporary paralysis. The symptoms often continue back home, playing a key role in broken marriages, suicides and psychiatric breakdowns. The mental trauma has become so common that the Pentagon may expand the list of “qualifying wounds” for a Purple Heart – historically limited to those physically injured on the battlefield – to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on May 2 that it’s “clearly something” that needs to be considered, and the Pentagon is weighing the change.

Using drugs to cope with battlefield traumas is not discussed much outside the Army, but inside the service it has been the subject of debate for years. “No magic pill can erase the image of a best friend’s shattered body or assuage the guilt from having traded duty with him that day,” says Combat Stress Injury, a 2006 medical book edited by Charles Figley and William Nash that details how troops can be helped by such drugs. “Medication can, however, alleviate some debilitating and nearly intolerable symptoms of combat and operational stress injuries” and “help restore personnel to full functioning capacity.”

Which means that any drug that keeps a soldier deployed and fighting also saves money on training and deploying replacements. But there is a downside: the number of soldiers requiring long-term mental-health services soars with repeated deployments and lengthy combat tours. If troops do not get sufficient time away from combat – both while in theater and during the “dwell time” at home before they go back to war – it’s possible that antidepressants and sleeping aids will be used to stretch an already taut force even tighter. “This is what happens when you try to fight a long war with an army that wasn’t designed for a long war,” says Lawrence Korb, Pentagon personnel chief during the Reagan Administration.

Military families wonder about the change, according to Joyce Raezer of the private National Military Family Association. “Boy, it’s really nice to have these drugs,” she recalls a military doctor saying, “so we can keep people deployed.” And professionals have their doubts. “Are we trying to bandage up what is essentially an insufficient fighting force?” asks Dr. Frank Ochberg, a veteran psychiatrist and founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

Such questions have assumed greater urgency as more is revealed about the side effects of some mental-health medications. Last year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urged the makers of antidepressants to expand a 2004 “black box” warning that the drugs may increase the risk of suicide in children and adolescents. The agency asked for – and got – an expanded warning that included young adults ages 18 to 24, the age group at the heart of the Army. The question now is whether there is a link between the increased use of the drugs in the Iraqi and Afghan theaters and the rising suicide rate in those places. There have been 164 Army suicides in Afghanistan and Iraq from the wars’ start through 2007, and the annual rate there is now double the service’s 2001 rate.

At least 115 soldiers killed themselves last year, including 36 in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army said on May 29. That’s the highest toll since it started keeping such records in 1980. Nearly 40% of Army suicide victims in 2006 and 2007 took psychotropic drugs – overwhelmingly, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac and Zoloft. While the Army cites failed relationships as the primary cause, some outside experts sense a link between suicides and prescription-drug use – though there is also no way of knowing how many suicide attempts the antidepressants may have prevented by improving a soldier’s spirits. “The high percentage of U.S. soldiers attempting suicide after taking SSRIs should raise serious concerns,” says Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, who teaches psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “And there’s no question they’re using them to prop people up in difficult circumstances.”

The Trauma of War
Before the advent of SSRIs – Lilly’s Prozac was the first to be approved by the FDA, in 1987, followed by Zoloft from Pfizer, Paxil from GlaxoSmithKline, Celexa from Forest Pharmaceuticals and others – existing antidepressants had many disabling side effects. Impaired memory and judgment, dizziness, drowsiness and other complications made them ill suited for troops in combat. The newer drugs have fewer side effects and, unlike earlier drugs, are generally not addictive or toxic, even when taken in large quantities. They work by keeping neural connections bathed in a brain chemical known as serotonin. That amplifies serotonin’s mood-brightening effect, at least for some people.

In 1994 then Major E. Cameron Ritchie, an Army psychiatrist, was among the first to suggest that SSRIs should deploy with Army combat units. In a paper written and published after she returned from a combat deployment to Somalia, Ritchie noted that the sick-call chests used by military doctors “contain either outdated or no psychiatric medications.” She concluded, “If depressive symptoms are moderate and manageable, medication may be preferable to medical evacuation.”

By 1999, military docs were debating the matter among themselves. Nash, a Navy psychiatrist, wrote that Navy doctors – who also provide Marines with medical care – had “sharp differences of opinion” over letting troops in war zones use SSRIs. Skeptics argued that their “real safety” in combat had not been proved. Supporters countered that their use could “avoid depleting manpower resources and damaging individual careers through unnecessary removals from operational duty.” Nash reviewed the medical literature and reported that SSRIs “can be safely administered to deploying and deployed personnel.”

The trickle of new drugs became a flood after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Details of America’s medicated wars come from the mental-health surveys the Army has conducted each year since the war began. If the surveys are right, many U.S. soldiers experience a common but haunting mismatch in combat life: while nearly two-thirds of the soldiers surveyed in Iraq in 2006 knew someone who had been killed or wounded, fewer than 15% knew for certain that they had actually killed a member of the enemy in return. That imbalance between seeing the price of war up close and yet not feeling able to do much about it, the survey suggests, contributes to feelings of “intense fear, helplessness or horror” that plant the seeds of mental distress. “A friend was liquefied in the driver’s position on a tank, and I saw everything,” was a typical comment. Another: “A huge f______ bomb blew my friend’s head off like 50 meters from me.” Such indelible scenes – and wondering when and where the next one will happen – are driving thousands of soldiers to take antidepressants, military psychiatrists say. It’s not hard to imagine why.

Repeated deployments to the war zones also contribute to the onset of mental-health problems. Nearly 30% of troops on their third deployment suffer from serious mental-health problems, a top Army psychiatrist told Congress in March. The doctor, Colonel Charles Hoge, added that recent research has shown the current 12 months between combat tours “is insufficient time” for soldiers “to reset” and recover from the stress of a combat tour before heading back to war.

Colonel Joseph Horam says antidepressants have made “a striking difference” in the way troops are treated in war. A doctor in the Wyoming Army National Guard, Horam served in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War and has been deployed to Iraq twice during this war. “In the Persian Gulf War, we didn’t have these medications, so our basic philosophy was ‘three hots and a cot'” – giving stressed troops a little rest and relaxation to see if they improved. “If they didn’t get better right away, they’d need to head to the rear and probably out of theater.” But in his most recent stint in Baghdad in 2006, he treated a soldier who guarded Iraqi detainees. “He was distraught while he was having high-level interactions with detainees, having emotional confrontations with them – and carrying weapons,” Horam says. “But he was part of a highly trained team, and we didn’t want to lose him. So we put him on an SSRI, and within a week, he was a new person, and we got him back to full duty.”

It wasn’t until November 2006 that the Pentagon set a uniform policy for all the services. But the curious thing about it was that it didn’t mention the new antidepressants. Instead, it simply barred troops from taking older drugs, including “lithium, anticonvulsants and antipsychotics.” The goal, a participant in crafting the policy said, was to give SSRIs a “green light” without saying so. Last July, a paper published by three military psychiatrists in Military Medicine, the independent journal of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, urged military doctors headed for Afghanistan and Iraq to “request a considerable quantity of the SSRI they are most comfortable prescribing” for the “treatment of new-onset depressive disorders” once in the war zones. The medications, the doctors concluded, help “to ‘conserve the fighting strength,'” the motto of the Army Medical Corps.

These days Ritchie – now a colonel and a psychiatric consultant to the Army surgeon general – thinks the military’s use of SSRIs has helped destigmatize mental problems. “What we’re trying to do is make treating depression and PTSD – especially PTSD, which is quite common for soldiers now – fairly routine,” she says. “We don’t want to make it harder for folks to do their job and their mission by saying they can’t use these medications.” Ritchie, who communicates “six times a day” with her colleagues in the war zones, says she is unaware of “any bad outcomes” resulting from soldiers taking SSRIs.

William Winkenwerder Jr., who issued the 2006 policy as the Pentagon’s top doctor before stepping down last year, says the new medicines are working well. “Combat presents some unique and important caveats – obviously, those who are being treated have access to firearms, and they may be under significant stress, so they need to be very carefully evaluated, and good clinical decisions need to be made,” Winkenwerder tells TIME. “It’s my belief that is happening.”

“In a Total Daze”
And yet the battlefield seems an imperfect environment for widespread prescription of these medicines. LeJeune, who spent 15 months in Iraq before returning home in May 2004, says many more troops need help – pharmaceutical or otherwise – but don’t get it because of fears that it will hurt their chance for promotion. “They don’t want to destroy their career or make everybody go in a convoy to pick up your prescription,” says LeJeune, now 34 and living in Utah. “In the civilian world, when you have a problem, you go to the doctor, and you have therapy followed up by some medication. In Iraq, you see the doctor only once or twice, but you continue to get drugs constantly.” LeJeune says the medications – combined with the war’s other stressors – created unfit soldiers. “There were more than a few convoys going out in a total daze.”

About a third of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq say they can’t see a mental-health professional when they need to. When the number of troops in Iraq surged by 30,000 last year, the number of Army mental-health workers remained the same – about 200 – making counseling and care even tougher to get.

“Burnout and compassion fatigue” are rising among such personnel, and there have been “recent psychiatric evacuations” of Army mental-health workers from Iraq, the 2007 survey says. Soldiers are often stationed at outposts so isolated that follow-up visits with counselors are difficult. “In a perfect world,” admits Nash, who has just retired from the Navy, “you would not want to rely on medications as your first-line treatment, but in deployed settings, that is often all you have.”

And just as more troops are taking these drugs, there are new doubts about the drugs’ effectiveness. A pair of recent reports from Rand and the federal Institute of Medicine (iom) raise doubts about just how much the new medicines can do to alleviate PTSD. The Rand study, released in April, says the “overall effects for SSRIs, even in the largest clinical trials, are modest.” Last October the iom concluded, “The evidence is inadequate to determine the efficacy of SSRIs in the treatment of PTSD.”

Chris LeJeune could have told them that. When he returned home in May 2004, he remained on clonazepam and other drugs. He became one of 300,000 Americans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and suffer from PTSD or depression. “But PTSD isn’t fixed by taking pills – it’s just numbed,” he claims now. “And I felt like I was drugged all the time.” So a year ago, he simply stopped taking them. “I just started trying to fight my demons myself,” he says, with help from VA counseling. He laughs when asked how he’s doing. “I’d like to think,” he says, “that I’m really damn close back to normal.”

Iraq: New US plan for total control

iraq-billions.jpgSocialist Worker | Revealed: George Bush’s plan to impose ‘security accords’ that will mean 400 permanent military bases and US personnel given green light to kill. George Bush is ending the pretence that Iraq is a “democratic state”. He is imposing new “security accords” that will strip the country of its sovereignty and allow it to be used as a platform to launch more wars.

This is the thrust of a secret treaty — known as the Status of Forces Agreement — that is being imposed on the country.

Even the puppet Iraqi parliament and its pro-occupation allies have found it difficult to stomach.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets last week as the provisions in the “accords” were leaked to the Arabic ­newspaper Al-Hayat.

Bush wants to establish 400 permanent military installations, including bases near the Turkish, Iranian and Syrian borders.

According to one pro-US Kurdish leader these bases will “exist for the next 15 or 20 years”.

Included in the treaty is the right for the US to launch wars on “third countries” from Iraqi soil.

This is a direct threat against Iraq’s neighbours and another step towards a war on Iran.

But for many Iraqis, the biggest insult in the new treaty is that all US troops, citizens and mercenaries — the so-called contractors — will be immune from Iraqi law.

Under these terms, occupation forces can use deadly force under any conditions, giving them a green light to arrest, imprison or kill any Iraqi with no fear of prosecution or regard for the country’s institutions.

Also included in the treaty is a provision that all deals and undertakings for reconstruction contracts negotiated since the occupation began will become null and void. This clears the way for a US monopoly over the economy.

The US previously agreed to share these contracts with Iraqi firms in an attempt to draw them into co-operating with the occupation. But this strategy failed to quell resistance to the occupation. So now the US wants unlimited access to, and control over, the country’s wealth.

Britain and the US repeatedly said in the run-up to the invasion that they would respect Iraq’s sovereignty, end repression and build a democracy. Now they no longer bother with that lie.

But as before, the US has seriously miscalculated.

A broad spectrum of Iraqis have condemned the deal, which is due to be signed by prime minister Nuri al-Maliki before the end of July.

Rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has led three uprisings against the occupation, denounced the accords as “a project of humiliation”.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, the mouthpiece of the mainly Sunni Muslim sections of the resistance, said the deal would pave the way for total “military, economic and cultural domination” of the country.

Referendum

Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq’s vice‑president and a stalwart of the occupation, said the country’s sovereignty is a “red line” which the US is attempting to cross.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the highest Shia Muslim authority in Iraq, is demanding a popular referendum. He said he would not allow Iraq to sign such an accord “as long as he was alive”.

Even Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the pro-US Badr Brigades, has objected.

Faced with this growing opposition, US ambassador Ryan Crocker threatened to strip Iraq’s puppet regime of any authority if it refused to rubber stamp the accords.

The latest US plan for Iraq confirms the worst fears of the anti-war movement in the run‑up to the invasion.

We warned then that behind the talk of “humanitarian intervention” and “democracy” lay a plan for total subjugation and endless war.

These accords show how that plan can become a reality.

The fight is still on to stop US and British warmongering in the Middle East and around the world. For this reason we have to turn out in massive numbers to protest against George Bush’s visit to Britain on 15 June.

Chavez Revamps His Intelligence Services: The Corporate Media React

0

chavez.jpgBy Stephen Lendman – RINF | Reports keep surfacing about new threats against Hugo Chavez. Given past ones, they can’t be taken lightly. Chavez is alerted and reacts accordingly. Case in point: revamping Venezuela’s decades old intelligence services. It’s long overdue and urgently needed given the Bush administration’s tenure winding down and its determination in its remaining months to end the Bolivarian project and crush its participatory democracy.

CIA, NED, IRI, USAID and other US elements infest the country and are more active than ever. Subversion is their strategy, and it shows up everywhere. Violence is being encouraged. Opposition groups are recruited and funded. So are members of Venezuela’s military. Student groups as well and anti-Chavista candidates for November’s mayoral and gubernatorial elections.

The dominant media are on board in Venezuela and America. They assail Chavez relentlessly and are on the warpath again after his May 28 announced intelligence services changes. The Interior and Justice Ministries will oversee a new General Intelligence Office and Counterintelligence Office in place of the current Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP). Similar military intelligence and counterintelligence components will replace the Military Intelligence Division (DIM) and will be under the Defense Ministry. Why was it done and why now? To counter stepped up US espionage and destabilization efforts when it’s most needed.

New tools will be used and current personnel retrained and vetted for their Bolivarian commitment. DISIP and DIM are outdated. They’ve been around since 1969 to serve the “capitalist vision” of that era. Ever since, they’ve been “notoriously repressive” and closely aligned with the CIA. Therein lies the problem. Chavez intends to fix it. The dominant media reacted. They’re hostile to change and showed it their reports.

The New York Times’ Simon Romero has trouble with his facts. He headlined “Chavez Decree Tightens Hold on Intelligence.” He referred to the new Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence that passed by presidential decree under the legislatively-granted enabling law. He failed to explain that the 1969 law passed the same way, and that Venezuela’s Constitution then and now permit it.

Instead, he noted a “fierce backlash here from (mostly unnamed) human rights groups and ‘legal scholars’ who say the measures will force citizens to inform on one another to avoid prison terms….The new law requires (them) to….assist the agencies, secret police or community activist groups loyal to Mr. Chavez. Refusal can result in prison terms of two to four years (and up to) six years for government employees.”

Once again, Romero falls short on credibility. Hyperbole substitutes for truth as in all his reports. No country more respects human rights than Venezuela, and Chavez is committed to them. To the rule of law as well and social justice. The country’s Constitution mandates it, and government officials are bound by it. Appointed officials with other aims have no place in it. They need to be exposed and replaced but need fear no recrimination unless they violate the law.

The new one won’t create “a society of informers” as one of Romero’s sources stated. Nor will it imprison Venezuelan citizens or let Chavez “assert greater control over public institutions in the face of political challenges following a ‘stinging’ defeat in December(‘s) constitutional (referendum) that would have expanded his powers.”

It will insure greater “national security” and protect against “imperialist attacks” as Chavez explained. It’s to preserve Bolivarianism against persistent attempts to destroy it. It’s to serve all Venezuelans, advance a new 21st century vision, and put people ahead of privilege. It’s to counter Bush administration efforts to restore neoliberalism, return the old order, and destroy social justice in the region’s most model democracy.

Without explaining Venezuelan law or its legislative process, Romero states that the “law (was drafted and passed) behind closed doors, without exposing it to….public debate (and that) contributed to the public uproar and suspicion.” His “public,” of course, are elitists. They target Chavez for removal, denounce all his beneficial changes, and falsely accuse him of governing dictatorially.

“They” claim “justice officials, including judges, are required to actively collaborate with the intelligence services rather than serve as a check on them.” According to Americas director for Human Rights Watch (HRW), Jose Miguel Vivanco: “This is a government that simply doesn’t believe in the separation of powers….(It requires) the country’s judges (to) serve as spies for the government.” Vivanco knows better and damages HRW’s credibility with comments like these. Romero uses them with relish to aid the imperial project.

Venezuela’s internal threat is unmentioned. Rogue elements infest the government and military. They oppose democracy and social justice. Washington supports them. They must be found and removed. Venezuelans demand it. Better intelligence will help. Romero won’t report it. Instead, he inverts truth and sides with forces trying to destabilize and undermine a government of, by and for the people.

He quotes “a prominent legal scholar” (in fact, right wing lawyer Rocio San Miguel) saying “This is the most scandalous effort to intimidate the population in the 10 years this government has been in power. Under the new law (information I have) could be considered a threat to national security and I could be sent immediately to jail.” Indeed she could if she violates the law or tries to subvert the government. Otherwise, she’s entitled to all benefits and protections Venezuelan law affords everyone. No comment from Romero.

AP echoed The New Times in its headlined May 31 report: “Venezuelan intelligence law draws protests, seen as potential tool against dissent.” Again, it’s false and misleading and part of the imperial plot against Chavez. AP unfairly equates the new law to the USA Patriot Act, when, in fact, it’s totally dissimilar. The US law violates constitutional civil liberties. Venezuela’s respects them, but it’s easy for protesters to claim otherwise.

Justice Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin explained the difference. US law spies on Americans and denies them legal protection. Venezuela’s law enlists responsible citizen participation in preserving their government. They have a stake in “state security and resolving crimes. If (they) witness (wrongdoing and) hide it, then (they) are an accomplice to that crime.” It doesn’t require people to spy. It wants them to cooperate and be engaged in preserving Bolivarianism and to report threats against it. It’s to make them responsible citizens united for their common self-interest.

That’s not how BBC sees it as part of its anti-Chavez agenda. Its June 3 online report highlighted: “Venezuela ‘spy’ law draws protest….among groups who say it threatens civil liberties.” One of them is HRW’s Vivanco again voicing the same false and misleading statements about “judges serving as spies.” Another source, with a clear anti-Chavez agenda, says the “law may be used as a weapon to silence and intimidate the opposition.”

In fact, Chavez champions free expression in all forms unlike in America post-9/11. Repressive laws and presidential executive orders stifle it. Activists are targeted, harassed and imprisoned. Illegal spying is institutionalized. So are repression, torture and disdain for the rule of law. Where are BBC, AP, The New York Times and other dominant media voices? Why aren’t they exposing police state justice? Instead they denounce democracy, ally with despotism, and acknowledge no hint of hypocrisy.

Chavez is mirror opposite his media critics and counters them correctly. He calls the USA Patriot Act “dictatorial law.” In contrast, the new Venezuelan one upholds freedom, seeks to preserve it, and is within “a framework of great respect for human rights.” It will combat US subversion that dominant media sources ignore. They blame victims instead and are willing co-conspirators against Venezuela’s model democracy. Their latest efforts show why Chavez needs all the defense he can marshal against them, and for all the right reasons.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Senate Intelligence Report: Can You Say “Impeachment”?

0

impeach.jpgThe Progressive | With the release of the Senate Select Committee Report, impeachment is more urgent than ever. Here we have the proof that the President and the Vice President repeatedly misled the nation into war.

They failed to acknowledge uncertainties within the intelligence community over Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons program and his biological and chemical weapons.

They fast-forwarded the timeline when Saddam could actually acquire a nuclear weapon, and Cheney himself at one point prior to the war said Saddam had actually already “reconstituted” nuclear weapons.

Their claims that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a partnership and that Iraq was providing weapons training to Al Qaeda “were not substantiated by the intelligence.”

And their claims that Saddam was prepared to hand off WMD to terrorists for an attack against the United States “were contradicted by available intelligence information.”

In short, Bush and Cheney were making stuff up to buttress their case for war.

“In the push to rally public support for the invasion of Iraq, Administration officials often failed to accurately portray what was known, what was not known, and what was suspected about Iraq and the threat it represented to our national security,” wrote

Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV at the back of the report. “The President and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the [9/11] attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the Nation to war on false premises.”

Taking a country into war on false premises certainly rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Rockefeller should send a copy of his report directly over to the offices of Representative John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, who has an obligation under our Constitution to initiate impeachment proceedings immediately.

After more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 30,000 wounded, after hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died for Bush and Cheney’s lies, after $600 billion has been squandered, will we not have accountability in this country?

US Walks Away from UN Human Rights Council

1

starsnstripes1.jpgHuman Rights Watch | A decision by the United States to disengage from the UN Human Rights Council amounts to an abandonment of human rights defenders and victims, Human Rights Watch said today.

The United States announced today at its daily State Department briefing that it will only participate in debates at the council when absolutely necessary and it feels compelled to do so by “matters of deep national interest.” The United States failed to take the floor today in a council discussion on Burma, indicating the broad scope of its withdrawal. Although not a member of the Human Rights Council, the United States had participated as an observer at the council since its inception in 2006. “The US decision to walk away from the Human Rights Council is counter-productive and short-sighted,” said Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Whatever the council’s problems, this decision is a victory for abusive states and a betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide.”

The council remains a critical institution for protecting human rights throughout the world, despite some substantial weaknesses, Human Rights Watch said. The council’s system of human rights monitors, for example, provides crucial reporting on abuses such as torture, violence against women and extrajudicial executions, and on countries with ongoing human rights crises, such as Burma, Somalia and Sudan. In its first two years, however, the Human Rights Council has failed to address more than 20 human rights situations that require its attention, eliminated human rights monitoring in places desperately in need of such scrutiny, and adopted a long stream of one-sided resolutions on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories which failed to consider the roles and responsibilities of the Palestinian authorities and armed groups.

Given its failure to engage fully at the council, the United States was ill-placed to confront those problems. “Washington’s hands-off approach to the Human Rights Council undermined it from the start,” said de Rivero. “It’s ironic that the US shares responsibility for the shortcomings it’s now using to justify further distancing itself from the council.” The US decision was also ill-conceived, Human Rights Watch said, given the absence of viable alternatives to the council. Human Rights Watch also questioned the timing of the US decision. On May 21, the General Assembly held elections for membership of the Human Rights Council. In those elections, following a campaign by human rights defenders in Sri Lanka and worldwide, Sri Lanka’s bid for a seat was defeated. Sri Lanka has a track record of enforced disappearances and torture. That defeat, and the defeat of Belarus in the previous year, demonstrated the potential for building a stronger council with a membership truly committed to fighting human rights abuses.

Human Rights Watch noted that the human rights record of the US, particularly abuses in its counterterrorism efforts, undermined its credibility in defending human rights at the council. The US failed to cooperate with human rights experts from the council who sought to investigate its Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Despite those concerns, states with a record of supporting human rights at the council stressed that having the US at the table was very important to building a stronger, more effective Human Rights Council. In March 2006, the United States was one of only four states that voted against the UN General Assembly Resolution establishing the new Human Rights Council. That year, and in two subsequent elections of members to the council, the United States did not seek a seat on the body.

“Instead of ceding the field to those who want to shield abusers from scrutiny, the US should have redoubled its efforts to make the council work as it should,” de Rivero said.

Blackwater opens California training center under court order

0

blackwater2.jpgAP | A new counterterrorism training facility operated by Blackwater Worldwide, the largest private security company in Iraq, echoed with the grunts of Navy sailors, a day after a judge ordered the city to let classes begin.The 24 trainees batted and punched each other Thursday as they learned basic strike tactics in a corner of the 61,000-square-foot (5,665-square-meter) converted warehouse in an industrial area near the U.S.-Mexico border.

For the next three weeks, they’ll practice shooting inside a 25-meter indoor firing range and learn to wear sidearms safely while wriggling through ship hatches and up narrow ladders installed in white metal cargo containers stacked along one wall of the building to simulate a ship. Trainers from Blackwater will quiz them on distinguishing small boats carrying cargo from those carrying bombs.

The military contractor sued last month because city officials refused to issue final occupancy documents without a vote by the planning commission, after building inspectors had already signed off on the necessary permits. Blackwater said it faced a Navy contract deadline and accused the city of caving to political pressure.

The company has been targeted by anti-war activists and U.S. Congressman Bob Filner, a California Democrat, who opposed its proposed training camp for law enforcement in a remote mountain community east of San Diego.

That project was dropped after firing ranges failed to satisfy noise restrictions, but Filner and others have raised concerns that Blackwater is simply seeking a foothold near the border that could serve as a base for providing private migrant or drug interdiction services to federal agencies.

Blackwater insists the warehouse was built to provide the Navy’s “ship reaction force basic” training course as part of a $400 million contract. The program is part of an initiative to train sailors in counterterrorist defense tactics after the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in a Yemeni port.

“This facility supports our oldest customer,” said company Vice President Brian Bonfiglio, referring to the military.

Blackwater trains sailors from eastern U.S. bases at its headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina, where it offers an advanced course using model ships floating in a private lake. It developed the California warehouse to offer the introductory program to sailors from San Diego, Guam, Japan and other Pacific bases.

Bonfiglio acknowledged that Blackwater would gladly host other agencies, including the Border Patrol or Coast Guard, at the warehouse, located in an unmarked building within sight of the U.S.-Mexico border fence and the Tijuana, Mexico, airport control tower beyond.

“If we had a bunch of Border Patrol vehicles parked outside, they’d accuse us of trying to take over the border,” he said, only half-joking. “But I’d open up our doors to any law enforcement that needed training, if I could do it.”

The company has been expanding its domestic law enforcement training business, opening an 80-acre (32-hectare) police training center in Mount Carroll, Illinois, in 2007 to complement its 7,000-acre (2,835-hectare) complex in North Carolina.

At the same time, Blackwater has come under increased scrutiny for its work abroad. Its guards are under investigation by a federal grand jury in Washington for their involvement in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians. The company is also under investigation for possible weapons smuggling, allegations Blackwater denies.

Democratic activist Raymond Lutz said those inquiries can’t be ignored when it comes to Blackwater’s domestic operations.

“To put training in the hands of private profiteers means that you’re giving up your ability to oversee what they’re doing and when you give it up you lose control,” Lutz said. “Why doesn’t the Navy train its own people?”

Bonfiglio said his five trainers offer students a depth of counterterrorism experience the Navy couldn’t match without pulling its own experts from other duties.

“What we do overseas needs to be separated from what we do in the United States,” he said. “Here we put all of our effort into developing training facilities that are unmatched.”

City lawyers had tried to block the new facility, saying the company misled inspectors by applying for permits piecemeal and under the names of affiliated companies instead of making a single application to open a training center with firearms. District Court Judge Marilyn Huff ruled Wednesday that the company did not need to seek special approval because the area is already zoned for vocational school use.

The city has not said whether it will appeal.

U.N. panel criticizes U.S. war crimes charges for Gitmo minors

0

gitmo-minors.jpgAP | A UN committee on child rights criticised the US yesterday for filing war crimes charges against Guantanamo Bay detainees who were picked up as minors. The detainees were recruited to fight while they were children and should therefore be treated as victims rather than unlawful enemy combatants, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said.US officials say two men who were juveniles when they were first detained remain at the island base. Canadian Omar Khadr, now 21, and Mohammad Jawad, an Afghan who the military says is about 23, face charges of murder and attempted murder respectively for allegedly attacking US troops in 2002.

“The committee is seriously concerned that children who were recruited or used in armed conflict … have been charged with war crimes and subject to prosecution by military tribunals, without due account of their status as children,” the committee said in a nine-page report.

US officials in Geneva said they were unable to comment immediately on the report.

Last month, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Sandra Hodgkinson said she would review how many juveniles were detained at the military prison in Guantanamo after official documents cast doubt on the figures Washington has provided to the UN panel.

Other cases

A lawyer who has reviewed the cases of several Guantanamo inmates says at least one detainee still being held at the prison was never recognised as a juvenile by the US despite official records showing he was only 16 when he arrived there.

The UN committee also expressed concern about the number of juveniles being held at US facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

European court threat to British DNA database

1

Murder, rape and child abuse investigations will be hampered if a European court rules that more than 500,000 DNA samples should be removed from Britain’s National DNA Database, a senior police chief has told The Times.

In his first interview since standing down as chairman of the database, Tony Lake gave warning that serious crimes would go undetected if judges barred police from storing the DNA of people who had been arrested but not subsequently convicted of an offence.

Mr Lake, Chief Constable of Lincolnshire, urged ministers to consider all possible options if the court’s ruling went against Britain. “The law is the law. We have signed up to the European principles and I appreciate that it is very difficult for any government, but we must understand the level of risk that is created automatically when you start to filter and purge your DNA database,” he said.

Ministers’ options are limited because the case is being heard by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, the rulings of which are binding and impossible to challenge. The case was brought by two men from Sheffield who were arrested in 2001 and had their fingerprints and DNA samples taken. They argue that, because they were not convicted of any crime, the samples should now be destroyed. Their case has been rejected in the British courts but was heard by the European Court of Human Rights in February. A judgment is expected later this year.

Mr Lake, 57, who retires next week, said that the case was the most pertinent issue in forensic science and he dismissed the debate about creating a universal DNA database as a red herring. “You could argue that this is a manifesto issue. If there is a debate about expanding the database, then there should be a national debate about the consequences of cutting it. The country must understand that there will be an increased risk to our ability to solve crime.

“It would be potentially devastating. Without a doubt, it would prevent the detection of a variety of crimes, including some of the most serious.”

More than 8,000 people who were on the database because they had been arrested, but not convicted, have been found guilty of subsequent offences after their DNA was recovered from crime scenes. The cases have involved about 14,000 offences, including 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes.

The database holds 4.5 million samples and is by far the largest in Europe. About 60,000 personal samples are added to it every month and further unknown profiles are loaded from crime scenes. DNA samples, which are always supported in court by other corroborating evidence, played a key role in the conviction of Steve Wright, who killed five prostitutes in Ipswich, and Mark Dixie, the killer of the model Sally Anne Bowman. It has also helped police to solve “cold cases” including rape cases dating back decades. Mr Lake said: “There have been spectacular results in cases where lives have been shattered, where women have been afraid to walk out their front doors for fear of bumping into the man who raped them 10, 15 or 20 years before.”

The greatest unforeseen benefit of DNA advances, however, has been in solving so-called volume crime, such as burglaries, assaults and car thefts. Mr Lake said: “The public expectation now is that crime will be solved, not by the presence of witnesses, but because there will be DNA. It has stolen the limelight but we get more convictions through finding fingerprints. Other areas of forensic science are opening.”

His fear is that an adverse ruling would not only hurt the DNA database but also restrict the use of fingerprints and other intelligence databases. “The question would quickly become. ‘To what extent does the ruling apply to other databases?’.”

The key issue for Mr Lake is whether the court will consider the rights of victims properly. “People will accuse me of playing the emotional card. Well, I don’t do emotional blackmail. You have to think the unthinkable. I would not like to be the officer who has to look a parent in the eye and say, ‘We could have prevented this’.”

Equal treatment

The future of the world’s most sophisticated DNA database is being considered by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which draws its members from the nations of the Council of Europe.

The 17-judge panel trying the DNA case includes some with limited or no experience of DNA technology.

The complainants, Michael Marper, 45, and a 19-year-old man from Sheffield referred to only as S, are relying on article 8 (right to private life) and article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the convention.

The teenager had his DNA taken when he was arrested in 2001 and charged with attempted robbery. He was acquitted. Mr Marper, 45, was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped. They argue “that as people without convictions who are no longer suspected criminals, they should be treated in the same way as the rest of the unconvicted population of the UK”.

Labour is stealing our civil liberties

1

civilliberties.jpgBy Cath Elliott | It seems incredible now, but on the May 3 1997 I actually celebrated Labour’s election victory. After 18 years of a Conservative government that had cosied up to dictators and murderous regimes around the globe; that had overseen the destruction of the country’s manufacturing and mining industries; that had driven 3 million people out of work and on to the dole, and that had seen the affable Dixon of Dock Green transformed into a brutal and vicious agent of the state, I, like many other people at the time, truly believed that with New Labour in power, things could only get better.

A few days later, when Robin Cook delivered his speech outlining the new administration’s commitment to an ethical foreign policy, I relaxed, breathed a sigh of relief, and watched with joy as the old guard retreated, licking their wounds after such a thorough and well-deserved trouncing.

In that speech, Cook said:

The Labour government does not accept that political values can be left behind when we check in our passports to travel on diplomatic business. Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves. The Labour government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy.

So how exactly did we get from that, to this Orwellian Newspeak from Gordon Brown this week:

The challenge for every government is to respond to the changing demands of national security, while upholding something that is at the heart of the British constitutional settlement: the preservation of civil liberties. And if the national interest requires new measures to safeguard our security, it is, in my view, the British way to make those changes in a manner that maximises the protection of individuals against arbitrary treatment.

Or to paraphrase slightly: “In order to preserve civil liberties, we need to sacrifice civil liberties.”

In cahoots with an equally distasteful American regime, the New Labour government has masterminded and overseen an erosion to individual freedoms and liberties that both Thatcher and Reagan, even in the darkest days of their rule, could only have dreamed of. Not content with removing all ethics from our foreign policy, they are doing their damnedest to make sure that before we know it, civil liberties and human rights at home will soon be nothing more than a distant memory. ID cards, “Sus” laws, 42-days detention, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, torture, juryless trials, secret prison ships, a hidden network of “black sites” where suspects are interrogated and who-knows-what-else away from prying eyes and ears: these are all the stuff of fiction, of spy novels and sci-fi. They’re the stuff of nightmares, the grimmest of fairy tales brought to life, with our government firmly in the role of bogeyman.

When the left marched in the 1980s against Pinochet, and when we stood in solidarity with the mothers and sisters of the disappeared, little did we know that our government would one day be capable of the same; that 20 years down the line the British and the Americans would be snatching people away in the dead of night, surveilling their own citizens around the clock, and intercepting both their phone calls and their correspondence. Little did we know that the excesses of which we accused the old Soviet regime would soon be employed against us.

When the iron curtain fell we looked on in fascination as the Stasi and the KGB opened up their files to public scrutiny, stunned that states would keep such meticulous records on their own people. We’re now trying to work out how big a vault will be needed when the government gets its way and starts logging our every key stroke, collecting details about every second we spend on the internet. We’re left wondering how many years it will be before these secret records are opened up for scrutiny, if indeed they ever are. Perhaps the so-called war on terror will never end, and we’ve finally arrived at Orwell’s perpetual war.

For 18 long years I campaigned to help get a Labour government back into power, but I never signed up for any of this; the loss of our civil liberties was never a part of the game plan. And if Brown’s now wondering why his ratings are so low, why his party’s nearly bankrupt and his defeat at the next election is all but assured, then he needs to think carefully about those of us who have been sold so short by 11 years of New Labour mismanagement. He needs to think about those who helped this government into power, and who can now only look on in horror as slowly but surely, brick by brick, they dismantle everything we hold precious.

Liam Byrne can wax lyrical about Britishness all he likes; his government lost sight of what that means many years ago. Whether it happens on St George’s Day or on the August bank holiday, when they finally start enforcing their mass celebrations and dictating to the populace how best to commemorate our illusory freedom, I’ll be staying inside my house with my doors and windows firmly locked and I’d advise everyone else to do the same. As Alan Paton said:

Cry, the beloved country, for the unborn child that is the inheritor of our fear. Let him not love the earth too deeply. Let him not laugh too gladly when the water runs through his fingers, nor stand too silent when the setting sun makes red the veld with fire. Let him not be too moved when the birds of his land are singing, nor give too much of his heart to a mountain or a valley. For fear will rob him of all if he gives too much.

Spying and the abuse of data

3

spying.jpgBy Christopher Caldwell | Setting up cameras and monitoring employees’ toilet breaks, as the supermarket chain Lidl did; keeping a “black money” fund for kickbacks to officials in developing countries, as Siemens allegedly did; diverting money to pay for call girls for refractory board members, as Volkswagen did … German executives have not been at their best lately. But nothing has so shocked the public as allegations over the past two weeks that Deutsche Telekom, the largest telephone group in Europe, used a private investigator to spy on journalists and board members.

Germany has had, in general, an admirable system for protecting privacy. It is crumbling not because its elite has made a few mistakes, but because of new economic and social pressures that businesses in all countries face.

What Telekom did is emerging in dribs and drabs. In January 2005 — when Kai-Uwe Ricke, its chief executive, was trying to right the company’s finances by cutting 45,000 jobs — the German business magazine Capital published an article based on top-level Telekom documents. Mr Ricke and the chairman of the supervisory board, Klaus Zumwinkel, believed the leak was coming from the board. They decided to plug it. A company called Network Deutschland was hired. It is alleged to have monitored hundreds of thousands of phone calls in an effort to find the mole. It may have traced individuals’ whereabouts with mobile phone data and even kept tabs on Blackstone, the US investment group, which bought a stake in the company in 2006.

Earlier this year, Ralf Kühn, the head of Network Deutschland, faxed an invoice for several hundred thousand euros for services rendered. He offered “a controlled termination of our business relationship protected against indiscretion”, as Der Spiegel’s account put it. The current Telekom chief, René Obermann, who took over from Mr Ricke in November 2006, contacted prosecutors. Mr Ricke, Mr Zumwinkel and six others are now under investigation. (Mr Obermann is not.) Telekom’s former security chief has said that neither the chief executive nor the chairman was informed of the means used to investigate the leaks.

The US computer giant Hewlett-Packard had a similar scandal in 2006 involving leaks from the board and private investigators hired to uncover them. Why has this one struck a nerve? For one thing, German politics has lately been focused on data security. This year Germany came into compliance with European Union directives calling for phone records to be stored for at least six months. Wolfgang Schäuble, the interior minister, has asked for broader powers to monitor telecommunications, the better to fight terrorism.

Corporate leaders have very good reasons to treat boardroom leaks as emergencies. Responsibilities to shareholders can be compromised by the loss of business plans and trade secrets. There are moral responsibilities, too. Leaks can be a sign of insider trading. If they are not curbed, the likelihood that they will lead to some kind of market manipulation will grow. Against that, what is it to take a peek at a few phone calls? If you raise freedom of the press, a hard-headed executive can reply — in good conscience — that he is not against it; he is interested only in rooting underhanded conduct out of his boardroom.

But here a line may have been crossed — because it is alleged that Telekom monitored not just its employees but its customers, private citizens. It may have done so with the help of data the company collected on them in the course of ordinary business. If that is the case, then this was less a matter of fiduciary responsibility or “quality control” than a privatised espionage operation.

After these revelations, Financial Times Deutschland reported that in 2000 its own reporter, Tasso Enzweiler, had been tailed, filmed and investigated by Control Risks, a company hired by Telekom. At one point, according to a report filed by Control Risks and cited by FTD, two teams run by a second company called Desa were tailing Mr Enzweiler around the clock, tactics reminiscent of East Germany’s secret police, the Stasi. Desa, as it happens, was founded by former Stasi agents.

That is what is unsettling. When we talk about the “power” of corporations we usually mean they have money and influence. But the allegations against Telekom describe a company exercising the kind of power we associate with states. Of course, Telekom, in which the German government still owns a 32 per cent stake, is a hybrid company.

But Telekom’s state-like power comes from its operation in telecommunications, its trade in data. The power that data offer is of a peculiar kind. Why has Facebook’s market been estimated at $15bn? Not because of any “product” Facebook “sells” to its members. The value comes from the window it offers on the consumer preferences of its millions of members. Personal data are to the new economy what oil reserves are to the old one — the core commodity. Is it realistic to expect a company that controls a lot of data to feign ignorance of their political uses forever?

Mr Schäuble would like to establish some code of self-regulation for telecom companies. Renate Künast, a prominent Green parliamentarian, does not think that is possible. She told the Frankfurter Rundschau that the only real way of protecting data is to keep as little as possible. Ms Künast’s approach would do economic harm, because it would destroy a valuable commodity. But she has a point. Maybe personal data are a man-made equivalent of what economists call the “resource curse”. Just as there is a correlation between oil wealth and autocracy, there appears to be some link — hard to define but getting easier — between the growth of our information wealth and a dwindling of our liberties.

The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard

US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,092

0

As of Friday, June 6, 2008, at least 4,092 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians killed in action. At least 3,332 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military’s numbers.

The AP count is one more than the Defense Department’s tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.

The British military has reported 176 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia and Georgia, three each; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.

—

The latest deaths reported by the military:

– No deaths reported.

—

The latest identifications reported by the military:

Three soldiers died Wednesday in Tikrit of wounds suffered from small arms fire and explosives in Sharqat. All were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. Killed were:

– Army Sgt. Shane P. Duffy, 22, Taunton, Mass.

– Army Spc. Jonathan D. A. Emard, 20, Mesquite, Texas.

– Army Sgt. Cody R. Legg, 23, Escondido, Calif.

John Major to speak against 42 day terror law

0

johnmajor.jpgBy Rosa Prince | Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, is preparing to make a rare intervention into domestic policies by speaking out against Government plans to increase detention without trial to 42 days.

In private, Sir John has been telling friends for some time that he believes the plans to be profoundly illiberal and counter productive in the campaign to stamp out home-grown terrorism.

He plans to go public with his concerns, in what will be one of his first forays into current political debates since he was swept from power in 1997.

As a respected elder statesman, Sir John’s words are likely to provide a significant boost to those opposing the Government’s attempts to force the 42 day increase through the Commons next week.

His experiences as a broker of the early stages of the peace process in Northern Ireland give him a unique insight into governing in the face of an on-going terrorist threat.

A friend of the former Prime Minister told The Daily Telegraph: “Sir John has always been very reluctant to stray into domestic politics, but the 42 day proposals are so clearly unjust that he feels the time has come to speak up.

“He knows exactly what it is like to sit at Number 10 and worry that innocent citizens could fall victim to a terrorist bomb plot at any time.

“In fact, unlike Gordon Brown, he has actually been the victim of an attempted assassination, when the IRA mortared Downing Street.

“But Sir John feels that if we compromise with our civil liberties, particularly over something as crucial as detention without trial, then the terrorists will have won the battle.

“He hopes that MPs from all political parties will have the courage to stand firm on this, and not give the terrorists a boost by sacrificing this important aspect of the British way of life.”

Sir John’s intervention comes as the Government does everything possible to apply pressure on reluctant Labour MPs to back the 42 day legislation, which comes before the Commons on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, won over a number of potential rebels with a persuasive speech to the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The Daily Telegraph understands that she closed her address with an appeal to party loyalty, telling MPs: “I need you.”

One minister who supports the legislation said: “We have not won the argument in any way, but we will still win the vote, ironically because the Government is in so much trouble in other ways.

“Jacqui’s speech really had an impact, and the backbenchers are openly saying that they will hold their nose and vote for it because Gordon can’t take any more rebellions.”

Meanwhile, leaders of the Church of England have written to MPs saying they remain opposed to the extension of detention without charge to 42 days, despite the concessions given by the Government earlier this week.

In a letter, the Church said: “We believe that a convincing case for the extension of the maximum period of detention without charge beyond 28 days has not been made out. This central point has not been addressed in the various “concessions” or adjustments to the proposal offered by the Government in recent weeks. We believe that any extension beyond 28 days will unacceptably disturb the balance between the liberty of the individual and the needs of national security.”

Hunger strike as protest to Guantánamo charges

0

gitmo2.jpgBy Andy Worthington | This has been a disturbing week for British resident and Guantánamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed, who endured two and a half years of torture at the hands of Pakistani agents, the CIA, and the United States’ proxy torturers in Morocco, before being transferred to Guantánamo in September 2004.

Last Friday, it was revealed that he was to face a trial by Military Commission at Guantánamo – the “terror courts” invented by Dick Cheney and his advisers in November 2001, which are empowered to conceal classified information from the defendants and, at the judge’s discretion, to accept “evidence” obtained through coercion. This is, of course, particularly worrying in Binyam’s case, as every shred of the so-called evidence against him appears to have been extracted through torture, and would be inadmissible in a courtroom on the US mainland.

There was some brighter news for Binyam on Tuesday, when a judge, Mr. Justice Saunders, responded positively to his lawyers’ request for a judicial review, which, they hope, will require the British government to drop its claim that it is “under no obligation under international law to assist foreign courts and tribunals in assuring that torture evidence is not admitted” and that “it is HM Government’s position that … evidence held by the UK Government that US and Moroccan authorities engaged in torture or rendition cannot be obtained” by Binyam’s lawyers. His lawyers also hope that a favourable decision in the judicial review will compel the government to reveal whatever information it has regarding British knowledge of Binyam’s rendition to torture in Morocco, and information regarding his life in London, which, Binyam says, was presented to him by his Moroccan torturers.

Today, however, the Independent reports that Binyam is so distressed by the announcement of the charges against him that he has embarked on a hunger strike. In a letter to foreign secretary David Miliband, his lawyers at Reprieve, the legal action charity that provides legal assistance to over 30 Guantánamo prisoners, explain that Binyam “began not eating food on May 2, 2008, when he was 146 lbs (10 stone 6 lbs),” but that this went unnoticed, because “the US military does not count it as a ‘hunger strike’ if the prisoner does not actually refuse the tray.” On May 18, therefore, when his weight had already dropped to 128 lbs (9 stone 2 lbs), Binyam began refusing the trays.

Binyam stopped his strike temporarily, when Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s director, and Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, his military lawyer, persuaded him to eat during the three days of their visit, but announced that he would resume on May 24. Stafford Smith explained, “Under the illegal procedures used by the US military in Guantánamo … they will consider him a ‘hunger striker’ and start force-feeding him when he reaches about 120 lbs (8 stone 8 lbs). Stafford Smith thought that this might be on June 4 or 5.

From almost the moment that Guantánamo opened, in January 2002, hunger strikes have been used by the prisoners as the only way to protest the lawless conditions of their confinement – held without charge, with no family contact, with little or no social interaction, and with no inkling of when, if ever, their imprisonment will come to an end.

Persistent hunger strikers, however, are made to suffer even more, and are punished by being force-fed, a procedure that is monstrously cruel. Prisoners are strapped into a restraint chair using 16 separate straps – three across the head alone – and fed, twice a day, through a tube that is inserted into the stomach through the nose.

As well as being shockingly painful – and frequently unhygienic, as the tubes are not always cleaned after each use – force-feeding is also illegal, as the World Medical Association made clear in its Declaration of Tokyo in 1975: “Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially.”

The US administration ignores this requirement, as it is unwilling to let prisoners secure what it would regard as a PR victory if they starved themselves to death. Perhaps as a result, four long-term hunger strikers — three in June 2006, and another last May – took the only other action that was available to them, and committed suicide.

Binyam has not yet reached this state of desperation – although in a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on May 22, he wrote, “I have been next to committing suicide this past while. That would be one way to end it, I suppose.” Nevertheless, as Clive Stafford Smith points out, “The need for humanitarian intervention on behalf of Mr. Mohamed grows ever more urgent. Because no US court will hear his case, I am powerless to secure him the humane treatment that he needs. The British government is not powerless. It is crucial that this be top of the government’s agenda.”

Andy is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison.

Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps

0

bushwire.jpgBy CHARLIE SAVAGE | A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.

In an interview about his views on the limits of executive power with The Boston Globe six months ago, Mr. McCain strongly suggested that if he became the next commander in chief, he would consider himself obligated to obey a statute restricting what he did in national security matters.

Mr. McCain was asked whether he believed that the president had constitutional power to conduct surveillance on American soil for national security purposes without a warrant, regardless of federal statutes.

He replied: “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

Following up, the interviewer asked whether Mr. McCain was saying a statute trumped a president’s powers as commander in chief when it came to a surveillance law. “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law,” Mr. McCain replied.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that while the language used by Mr. McCain in his answers six months ago was imprecise, the recent statement by Mr. Holtz-Eakin “seems to contradict precisely what he said earlier.”

Mr. McCain’s position, as outlined by Mr. Holtz-Eakin, was criticized by the campaign of his presumptive Democratic opponent in the presidential election, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Greg Craig, an Obama campaign adviser, said Wednesday that anyone reading Mr. McCain’s answers to The Globe and the more recent statement would be “totally confused” about “what Senator McCain thinks about what the Constitution means and what President Bush did.”

“American voters deserve to know which side of this flip-flop he’s on today, and what he would do as president,” Mr. Craig said in a phone interview.

Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, said Mr. McCain’s position on surveillance laws and executive power “has not changed.”

“John McCain has been an unequivocal advocate of pursuing the radicals and extremists who seek to attack Americans,” Mr. Bounds wrote in an e-mail message, adding that Mr. McCain’s “votes and positions have been completely consistent and any suggestion otherwise is a distortion of his clear record.”

Asked whether the views Mr. Holtz-Eakin imputed to Mr. McCain were inaccurate, Mr. Bounds did not repudiate the statement. But late Thursday Mr. Bounds called and said, “to the extent that the comments of members of our staff are misinterpreted, they shouldn’t be read into as anything otherwise.”

Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office who primarily advises the campaign on economic issues, was available for comment, Mr. Bounds said.

Mr. McCain has long distanced himself from the Bush administration on legal issues involving detention and interrogation in the fight against terrorism, an approach that has sometimes aroused suspicion among conservative supporters of the Bush administration.

But more recently, as Mr. McCain has worked to consolidate his party’s base, he has taken several positions that have won him praise from his former critics while drawing fire from Democrats.

In February, for example, Mr. McCain voted against limiting the Central Intelligence Agency to the techniques approved in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which complies with the Geneva Conventions. Mr. McCain said the C.I.A. needed the flexibility to use other techniques so long as it did not abuse detainees.

He also voted for legislation that would free telecommunications companies from lawsuits alleging that they illegally allowed the N.S.A. to eavesdrop on their customers’ phone calls and e-mail without a warrant. The legislation would also essentially legalize a form of surveillance without warrants going forward.

But Mr. McCain had previously stopped short of endorsing the view that Mr. Bush’s program of surveillance without warrants was lawful all along because a president’s wartime powers can trump statutory limits.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a National Review columnist who has defended the administration’s legal theories, wrote that Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s statement “implicitly shows Senator McCain’s thinking has changed as time has gone on and he has educated himself on this issue.”

And Glenn Greenwald, a Salon columnist and critic of the Bush administration’s legal claims, wrote that the statement was a “complete reversal” by Mr. McCain, accusing the candidate of seeking “to shore up the support of right-wing extremists.”

The reaction to Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s statement is the latest link in a chain of disputes over Mr. McCain’s positions on surveillance over the past two weeks.

On May 23, the McCain campaign sent a volunteer lawyer, Chuck Fish, to be the candidate’s surrogate at a conference on computer policy. Mr. Fish spoke at a panel discussion on whether phone and Internet companies should be granted immunity from lawsuits for having helped Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.

Mr. Fish suggested that Mr. McCain wanted to impose conditions – like Congressional hearings – that would ensure that such “forgiveness” would not signal that the telecoms should feel free to disregard communications privacy laws in the future if a president tells them to.

After Wired magazine wrote about Mr. Fish’s remarks on its blog, raising the question of whether Mr. McCain’s position had become more skeptical about immunity, the McCain campaign put out a statement saying that Mr. Fish was mistaken. Mr. McCain supported ending the lawsuits without conditions and his position had not changed, the campaign said.

On May 29, The Washington Post quoted Mr. Holtz-Eakin as saying that Mr. McCain did not want the telecoms “put into this position again” and that “there must be clear guidelines for their participation and sufficient vetting” in any future situation.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s comments in turn drew fire from Mr. McCarthy. In a blog posting on the National Review Web site, he demanded to know whether Mr. McCain believes the Constitution authorizes a president to lawfully go “arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute” during a national security crisis.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin laid out Mr. McCain’s position on the president’s claimed constitutional powers to bypass surveillance laws in a letter to Mr. McCarthy, who this week called the statement “extremely significant” and said it “marks a welcome evolution on the senator’s thinking about executive power.”

Did Iranian agents dupe Pentagon officials?

0

iran-weapons.jpgBy John Walcott | Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have “been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service … to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government,” a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.A top aide to then-secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, shut down the 2003 investigation into the Pentagon officials’ activities after only a month, and the Defense Department’s top brass never followed up on the investigators’ recommendation for a more thorough investigation, the Senate report said.

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces.

The aborted counterintelligence investigation probed some Pentagon officials’ contacts with Iranian exile Manucher Ghorbanifar, whom the CIA had labeled a “fabricator” in 1984. Those contacts were brokered by an American civilian, Michael Ledeen, a former Pentagon and National Security Council consultant and a leading advocate of invading Iraq and overthrowing Iran’s Islamic regime.

According to the Senate report, the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity unit concluded in 2003 that Ledeen “was likely unwitting of any counterintelligence issues related to his relationship with Mr. Ghorbanifar.”

The counterintelligence unit said, however, that Ledeen’s association with Ghorbanifar “was widely known, and therefore it should be presumed other foreign intelligence services, including those of Iran, would know.”

Stephen Cambone, then the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, shut down the counterintelligence investigation after only a month, the Senate report said.

The Senate report said that Pentagon officials never followed up on the investigators’ recommendation for a comprehensive analysis of whether Ghorbanifar or his associates tried “to directly or indirectly influence or access U.S. government officials.”

The counterintelligence investigators recommended that U.S. officials attempt “to map Ghorbanifar’s relationship within Iranian elite social networks and, if possible, his contacts with other governments and/or intelligence organizations,” but that effort was never undertaken.

The Senate committee also found that Pentagon officials concealed the contacts with Ghorbanifar from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department. Pentagon officials also provided Senate investigators with an inaccurate account of events and, with support from two unnamed officials in Cheney’s office, continued meeting with Ghorbanifar after contact with him was officially ordered to stop.

The first meetings with Ghorbanifar, which were disclosed in August 2003 by the Long Island, N.Y., newspaper Newsday, took place in Rome in December 2001. They were attended by two Pentagon Iran experts, Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin; by an Italian military intelligence official, and by Ledeen.

On the Iranian side were Ghorbanifar, an unidentified Iranian exile from Morocco and an alleged Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps defector.

Among other things, the Iranians told the Americans about:

  • Iranian “hit teams” they said were targeting U.S. personnel and facilities in Afghanistan.
  • What they claimed was Shiite Muslim Iran’s longstanding relationship with the secular Palestine Liberation Organization.
  • “Tunnel complexes in Iran for weapons storage or exfiltration of regime leaders,” and about the alleged growth of anti-regime sentiment in Iran.

Franklin, who, in an unrelated matter, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison in 2006 for providing classified information on Iran policy to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, passed the information about the alleged Iranian hit squads to a U.S. Special Forces commander in Afghanistan. Although a DIA analyst told the Senate committee that he couldn’t speculate on whether the information had been “truly useful,” Ledeen and Pentagon officials claimed it saved American lives, the committee said.During the Rome meetings, Ghorbanifar also laid out a scheme to overthrow the Iranian regime on a napkin during a late night meeting in a bar. “The plan,” said the Senate committee, “involved the simultaneous disruption of traffic at key intersections leading to Tehran that would create anxiety, work stoppages and other disruptive measures” in a capital city famous for its traffic congestion.

Ghorbanifar asked for $5 million in seed money, Franklin told the committee, and indicated that if the traffic jam plan succeeded, he’d need additional money.

“The proposed funding for, and foreign involvement in, Mr. Ghorbanifar’s plan for regime change were never fully understood,” the Senate committee said.

Nevertheless, Ghorbanifar’s proposals grew more ambitious – and expensive. A February 2002 memo from Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman referred to an unnamed foreign government’s support for a Ghorbanifar plan that would cost millions of dollars. A later summary referred to contracts “that would assure oil and gas sales in the event of regime change”. The U.S. ambassador to Italy said that DOD officials “were talking about 25 million for some kind of Iran program.”

After Franklin and Rhode returned from the Rome meetings, the Senate report said, two series of events began to unfold in Washington that were typical of the gamesmanship that plagued the Bush administration’s national security team.

“First,” the report said, “State Department and CIA officials attempted to determine what Mr. Ledeen and the DOD representatives had done in Rome, and second, DOD officials debated the next course of action.”

When the CIA and the State Department discovered that Ledeen and Ghorbanifar were involved, they opposed any further contact with the two. Ledeen’s contacts, the Defense Human Intelligence Service concluded, were “nefarious and unreliable,” the Senate committee reported.

According to the report, Ledeen, however, persisted, presenting then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith with a new 100-day plan to provide, among other things, evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that supposedly had been moved to Iran – Saddam Hussein’s archenemy. This time, the report said, Ledeen solicited support from former speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and from three then-GOP senators, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Rhode and Ghorbanifar met again in Paris in June 2003 with at least the tacit approval of an official in Cheney’s office, the Senate report said.

He reported back to officials in the Pentagon and the vice president’s office, but “there is no indication that the information collected during the Paris meeting was shared with the Intelligence Community for a determination of potential intelligence value,” the report said.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

10 reasons why organic can feed the world

1

organic1.jpgBy Ed Hamer & Mark Anslow |

1. Yield

Switching to organic farming would have different effects according to where in the world you live and how you currently farm.

Studies show that the less-industrialised world stands to benefit the most. In southern Brazil, maize and wheat yields doubled on farms that changed to green manures and nitrogenfixing leguminous vegetables instead of chemical fertilisers.1 In Mexico, coffee-growers who chose to move to fully organic production methods saw increases of 50 per cent in the weight of beans they harvested. In fact, in an analysis of more than 286 organic conversions in 57 countries, the average yield increase was found to be an impressive 64 per cent.2

The situation is more complex in the industrialised world, where farms are large, intensive facilities, and opinions are divided on how organic yields would compare.

Research by the University of Essex in 1999 found that, although yields on US farms that converted to organic initially dropped by between 10 and 15 per cent, they soon recovered, and the farms became more productive than their all-chemical counterparts.3 In the UK, however, a study by the Elm Farm Research Centre predicted that a national transition to all-organic farming would see cereal, rapeseed and sugar beet yields fall by between 30 and 60 per cent.4 Even the Soil Association admits that, on average in the UK, organic yields are 30 per cent lower than non-organic.

So can we hope to feed ourselves organically in the British Isles and Northern Europe? An analysis by former Ecologist editor Simon Fairlie in The Land journal suggests that we can, but only if we are prepared to rethink our diet and farming practices.5 In Fairlie’s scenario, each of the UK’s 60 million citizens could have organic cereals, potatoes, sugar, vegetables and fruit, fish, pork, chicken and beef, as well as wool and flax for clothes and biomass crops for heating. To achieve this we’d each have to cut down to around 230g of beef (½lb), compared to an average of 630g (1½lb) today, 252g of pork/bacon, 210g of chicken and just under 4kg (9lb) of dairy produce each week — considerably more than the country enjoyed in 1945. We would probably need to supplement our diet with homegrown vegetables, save our food scraps as livestock feed and reform the sewage system to use our waste as an organic fertiliser.

2. Energy

Currently, we use around 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food energy. In a fuel-scarce future, which experts think could arrive as early as 2012, such numbers simply won’t stack up. Studies by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs over the past three years have shown that, on average, organically grown crops use 25 per cent less energy than their chemical cousins. Certain crops achieve even better reductions,including organic leeks (58 per cent less energy) and broccoli (49 per cent less energy). When these savings are combined with stringent energy conservation and local distribution and consumption (such as organic box schemes), energy-use dwindles to a fraction of that needed for an intensive, centralised food system. A study by the University of Surrey shows that food from Tolhurst Organic Produce, a smallholding in Berkshire, which supplies 400 households with vegetable boxes, uses 90 per cent less energy than if non-organic produce had been delivered and bought in a supermarket.

Far from being simply ‘energy-lite’, however, organic farms have the potential to become self-sufficient in energy — or even to become energy exporters. The ‘Dream Farm’ model, first proposed by Mauritius-born agroscientist George Chan, sees farms feeding manure and waste from livestock and crops into biodigesters, which convert it into a methane-rich gas to be used for creating heat and electricity. The residue from these biodigesters is a crumbly, nutrient-rich fertiliser, which can be spread on soil to increase crop yields or further digested by algae and used as a fish or animal feed.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

Despite organic farming’s low-energy methods, it is not in reducing demand for power that the techniques stand to make the biggest savings in greenhouse gas emissions.

The production of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, which is indispensable to conventional farming, produces vast quantities of nitrous oxide — a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential some 320 times greater than that of CO2. In fact, the production of one tonne of ammonium nitrate creates 6.7 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO²e), and was responsible for around 10 per cent of all industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Europe in 2003.6

The techniques used in organic agriculture to enhance soil fertility in turn encourage crops to develop deeper roots, which increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, locking up carbon underground and keeping it out of the atmosphere. The opposite happens in conventional farming: high quantities of artificially supplied nutrients encourage quick growth and shallow roots. A study published in 1995 in the journal Ecological Applications found that levels of carbon in the soils of organic farms in California were as much as 28 per cent higher as a result.7 And research by the Rodale Institute shows that if the US were to convert all its corn and soybean fields to organic methods, the amount of carbon that could be stored in the soil would equal 73 per cent of the country’s (would-be) Kyoto targets for CO² reduction.8

Organic farming might also go some way towards salvaging the reputation of the cow, demonised in 2007 as a major source of methane at both ends of its digestive tract. There’s no doubt that this is a problem: estimates put global methane emissions from ruminant livestock at around 80 million tonnes a year,9 equivalent to around two billion tonnes of CO²,10 or close to the annual CO² output of Russia and the UK combined.11 But by changing the pasturage on which animals graze to legumes such as clover or birdsfoot trefoil (often grown anyway by organic farmers to improve soil nitrogen content), scientists at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research believe that methane emissions could be cut dramatically. Because the leguminous foliage is more digestible, bacteria in the cow’s gut are less able to turn the fodder into methane. Cows also seem naturally to prefer eating birdsfoot trefoil to ordinary grass.

4. Water use

Agriculture is officially the most thirsty industry on the planet, consuming a staggering 72 per cent of all global freshwater at a time when the UN says 80 per cent of our water supplies are being overexploited.12,13

This hasn’t always been the case. Traditionally, agricultural crops were restricted to those areas best suited to their physiology, with drought-tolerant species grown in the tropics and water-demanding crops in temperate regions.14 Global trade throughout the second half of the last century led to a worldwide production of grains dominated by a handful of high-yielding cereal crops, notably wheat, maize and rice. These thirsty cereals — the ‘big three’ — now account for more than half of the world’s plant-based calories and 85 per cent of total grain production.15

Organic agriculture is different. Due to its emphasis on healthy soil structure, organic farming avoids many of the problems associated with compaction, erosion, salinisation and soil degradation, which are prevalent in intensive systems.16 Organic manures and green mulches are applied even before the crop is sown, leading to a process known as ‘mineralisation’ — literally the fixing of minerals in the soil. Mineralised organic matter, conspicuously absent from synthetic fertilisers, is one of the essential ingredients required physically and chemically to hold water on the land.

Organic management also uses crop rotations, undersowing and mixed cropping to provide the soil with near-continuous cover. By contrast, conventional farm soils may be left uncovered for extended periods prior to sowing, and again following the harvest, leaving essential organic matter fully exposed to erosion by rain, wind and sunlight. In the US, a 25-year Rodale Institute experiment on climatic extremes found that, due to improved soil structure, organic systems consistently achieve higher yields during periods both of drought and flooding.17

5. Localisation

The globalisation of our food supply, which gives us Peruvian apples in June and Spanish lettuces in February, has seen our food reduced to a commodity in an increasingly volatile global marketplace. Although year-round availability makes for good marketing in the eyes of the biggest retailers, the costs to the environment are immense.

Friends of the Earth estimates that the average meal in the UK travels 1,000 miles from plot to plate.18 In 2005, Defra released a comprehensive report on food miles in the UK, which valued the direct environmental, social and economic costs of food transport in Britain at £9 billion each year. In addition, food transport accounted for more than 30 billion vehicle kilometres, 25 per cent of all HGV journeys and 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2002 alone.19

The organic movement was born out of a commitment to provide local food for local people, and so it is logical that organic marketing encourages localisation through veg boxes, farm shops and stalls. Between 2005 and 2006, organic sales made through direct marketing outlets such as these increased by 53 per cent, from £95 to £146 million, more than double the sales growth experienced by the major supermarkets.20 As we enter an age of unprecedented food insecurity, it is essential that our consumption reflects not only what is desirable, but also what is ultimately sustainable. While the ‘organic’ label itself may inevitably be hijacked, ‘organic and local’ represents a solution with which the global players can simply never compete.

6. Pesticides

It is a shocking testimony to the power of the agrochemical industry that in the 45 years since Rachel Carson published her pesticide warning Silent Spring, the number of commercially available synthetic pesticides has risen from 22 to more than 450.21

According to the World Health Organization there are an estimated 20,000 accidental deaths worldwide each year from pesticide exposure and poisoning.22 More than 31 million kilograms of pesticide were applied to UK crops alone in 2005, 0.5 kilograms for every person in the country.23 A spiralling dependence on pesticides throughout recent decades has resulted in a catalogue of repercussions, including pest resistance, disease susceptibility, loss of natural biological controls and reduced nutrient-cycling.24

Organic farmers, on the other hand, believe that a healthy plant grown in a healthy soil will ultimately be more resistant to pest damage. Organic systems encourage a variety of natural methods to enhance soil and plant health, in turn reducing incidences of pests, weeds and disease.

First and foremost, because organic plants grow comparatively slower than conventional varieties they have thicker cell walls, which provide a tougher natural barrier to pests. Rotations or ‘break-crops’, which are central to organic production, also provide a physical obstacle to pest and disease lifecycles by removing crops from a given plot for extended periods.25 Organic systems also rely heavily on a rich agro-ecosystem in which many agricultural pests can be controlled by their natural predators.

Inevitably, however, there are times when pestilence attacks are especially prolonged or virulent, and here permitted pesticides may be used. The use of organic pesticides is heavily regulated and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) requires specific criteria to be met before pesticide applications can be justified.26

There are in fact only four active ingredients permitted for use on organic crops: copper fungicides, restricted largely to potatoes and occasionally orchards; sulphur, used to control additional elements of fungal diseases; Retenone, a naturally occurring plant extract, and soft soap, derived from potassium soap and used to control aphids. Herbicides are entirely prohibited.

7. Ecosystem impact

Farmland accounts for 70 per cent of UK land mass, making it the single most influential enterprise affecting our wildlife.27 Incentives offered for intensification under the Common Agricultural Policy are largely responsible for negative ecosystem impacts over recent years. Since 1962, farmland bird numbers have declined by an average of 30 per cent. During the same period more than 192,000 kilometres of hedgerows have been removed, while 45 per cent of our ancient woodland has been converted to cropland.28

By contrast, organic farms actively encourage biodiversity in order to maintain soil fertility and aid natural pest control. Mixed farming systems ensure that a diversity of food and nesting sites are available throughout the year, compared with conventional farms where autumn sow crops leave little winter vegetation available.29

Organic production systems are designed to respect the balance observed in our natural ecosystems. It is widely accepted that controlling or suppressing one element of wildlife, even if it is a pest, will have unpredictable impacts on the rest of the food chain. Instead, organic producers regard a healthy ecosystem as essential to a healthy farm, rather than a barrier to production.

In 2005, a report by English Nature and the RSPB on the impacts of organic farming on biodiversity reviewed more than 70 independent studies of flora, invertebrates, birds and mammals within organic and conventional farming systems. It concluded that biodiversity is enhanced at every level of the food chain under organic management practices, from soil micro-biota right through to farmland birds and the largest mammals.30

8. Nutritional benefits

While an all-organic farming system might mean we’d have to make do with slightly less food than we’re used to, research shows that we can rest assured it would be better for us.

In 2001, a study in the Journal of Complementary Medicine found that organic crops contained higher levels of 21 essential nutrients than their conventionally grown counterparts, including iron, magnesium, phosphorus and vitamin C. The organic crops also contained lower levels of nitrates, which can be toxic to the body.31

Other studies have found significantly higher levels of vitamins — as well as polyphenols and antioxidants — in organic fruit and veg, all of which are thought to play a role in cancer-prevention within the body.32

Scientists have also been able to work out why organic farming produces more nutritious food. Avoiding chemical fertiliser reduces nitrates levels in the food; better quality soil increases the availability of trace minerals, and reduced levels of pesticides mean that the plants’ own immune systems grow stronger, producing higher levels ofantioxidants. Slower rates of growth also mean that organic food frequently contains higher levels of dry mass, meaning that fruit and vegetables are less pumped up with water and so contain more nutrients by weight than intensively grown crops do.33

Milk from organically fed cows has been found to contain higher levels of nutrients in six separate studies, including omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, and beta-carotene, all of which can help prevent cancer. One experiment discovered that levels of omega-3 in organic milk were on average 68 per cent higher than in non-organic alternatives.34

But as well as giving us more of what we do need, organic food can help to give us less of what we don’t. In 2000, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that organically produced food had ‘lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues’ than non-organic did.35 Although organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics when absolutely necessary to treat disease, the routine use of the drugs in animal feed — common on intensive livestock farms — is forbidden. This means a shift to organic livestock farming could help tackle problems such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

9. Seed-saving

Seeds are not simply a source of food; they are living testimony to more than 10,000 years of agricultural domestication. Tragically, however, they are a resource that has suffered unprecedented neglect. The UN FAO estimates that 75 per cent of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost over the past 100 years.36

Traditionally, farming communities have saved seeds year-on-year, both in order to save costs and to trade with their neighbours. As a result, seed varieties evolved in response to local climatic and seasonal conditions, leading to a wide variety of fruiting times, seed size, appearance and flavour. More importantly, this meant a constant updating process for the seed’s genetic resistance to changing climatic conditions, new pests and diseases.

By contrast, modern intensive agriculture depends on relatively few crops — only about 150 species are cultivated on any significant scale worldwide. This is the inheritance of the Green Revolution, which in the late 1950s perfected varieties Filial 1, or F1 seed technology, which produced hybrid seeds with specifically desirable genetic qualities.37 These new high-yield seeds were widely adopted, but because the genetic makeup of hybrid F1 seeds becomes diluted following the first harvest, the manufacturers ensured that farmers return for more seed year on year.

With its emphasis on diversity, organic farming is somewhat cushioned from exploitation on this scale, but even Syngenta, the world’s third-largest biotech company, now offers organic seed lines. Although seedsaving is not a prerequisite for organic production, the holistic nature of organics lends itself well to conserving seed.

In support of this, the Heritage Seed Library, in Warwickshire, is a collection of more than 800 open-pollinated organic varieties, which have been carefully preserved by gardeners across the country. Although their seeds are not yet commercially available, the Library is at the forefront of addressing the alarming erosion of our agricultural diversity.

Seed-saving and the development of local varieties must become a key component of organic farming, giving crops the potential to evolve in response to what could be rapidly changing climatic conditions. This will help agriculture keeps pace with climate change in the field, rather than in the laboratory.

10. Job creation

There is no doubt British farming is currently in crisis. With an average of 37 farmers leaving the land every day, there are now more prisoners behind bars in the UK than there are farmers in the fields.38

Although it has been slow, the decline in the rural labour force is a predictable consequence of the industrialisation of agriculture. A mere one per cent of the UK workforce is now employed in land-related enterprises, compared with 35 per cent at the turn of the last century.39

The implications of this decline are serious. A skilled agricultural workforce will be essential in order to maintain food security in the coming transition towards a new model of post-fossil fuel farming. Many of these skills have already been eroded through mechanisation and a move towards more specialised and intensive production systems.

Organic farming is an exception to these trends. By its nature, organic production relies on labour-intensive management practices. Smaller, more diverse farming systems require a level of husbandry that is simply uneconomical at any other scale. Organic crops and livestock also demand specialist knowledge and regular monitoring in the absence of agrochemical controls.

According to a 2006 report by the University of Essex, organic farming in the UK provides 32 per cent more jobs per farm than comparable non-organic farms. Interestingly, the report also concluded that the higher employment observed could not be replicated in non-organic farming through initiatives such as local marketing. Instead, the majority (81 per cent) of total employment on organic farms was created by the organic production system itself. The report estimates that 93,000 new jobs would be created if all farming in the UK were to convert to organic.

Organic farming also accounts for more younger employees than any other sector in the industry. The average age of conventional UK farmers is now 56, yet organic farms increasingly attract a younger more enthusiastic workforce, people who view organics as the future of food production. It is for this next generation of farmers that Organic Futures, a campaign group set up by the Soil Association in 2007, is striving to provide a platform.

Ed Hamer is a freelance journalist

Mark Anslow is the Ecologist’s senior reporter

References

1 Andre Leu, ‘Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World’ in Organic Farming, Winter 2007, citing Jules Pretty, 2001

2 Pretty, 2006. http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440

3 Pretty, 1999, ‘The Living Land’.

4 Cited in Woodward, 2003. http://www.efrc.com/?i=articles.php&art_id=42&highlight=organic

5 Fairlie, 2007, ‘Can Britain Feed Itself?’, The Land, Winter 2007-8.

6 EEA data for EU-15, 2003, for nitric acid production cited by Soil Association

7 Drinkwater LE et al. ‘Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California’, Ecological Applications 1995, 5(4), 1098-1112.

8 http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml

9 US EPA, 1998, ‘Ruminant Livestock and the Global Environment’

10 Using a multiplier factor of 24.5

11 Russia annual CO2 emissions: 1,524,993,000 tonnes; UK annual CO2 emissions: 587,261,000 tonnes.

12 Weis, T. (2007) The global food economy: the battle for the future of farming, Zed Books, London.

13 UNESCO (2006) United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, World Water Development Report 2006: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/index.shtml

14 Alteiri, M. (1987) Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Westview Press, Boulder.

15 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

16 Lampkin, N. (1990) Organic Farming, Farming Press Books, Ipswich.

17 Lim Li Ching (2005) Organic Outperforms Conventional in Climate Extremes, web accesses: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicOutperforms.php

18 FOE (2006) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_new_year_resolutions_…

19 Defra (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final report, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

20 Soil Association (2006) Organic Market Report 2006, Executive Summary, Soil Association, Bristol.

21 Whitehead, R. (1999) UK Pesticide Guide, British Crop Protection Council, CABI Publishing, Cambridge.

22 World Health Organisation (1990) The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture, WHO, Geneva

23 Pesticide Action Network UK (2007) Pesticides on a Plate, A consumer guide to pesticide issues in the food chain, PAN UK, London

24 Sustain (2003) Myth and Reality, Organic vs. non-organic: the facts, Sustain, London.

25 Francis, C. A. & Clegg, M. D. (1990) Crop Rotations in Sustainable Production Systems, Sustainable Agriculture Systems 107-122

26 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (1998) Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing, IFOAM, Germany

27 Soil Association (2006) How does organic farming benefit wildlife? Soil Association 2006.

28 Spencer, J. & Kirby, K. (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales, Biological Conservation 62, 77-93.

29 IFOAM (2003) Organic Agriculture and Biodiversity information sheet, International Federation of Organic Agriculture and Management.

30 Hole, A. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V., Evans, A. D. (2005) Does Organic Farming Benefit Biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 113-130.

31 Worthington V. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. Journal of Complimentary Medicine 2001; 7 No. 2: 161—173

32 Soil Association, 2008: http://tinyurl.com/3aye3g

33 Gundual Azeez, Policy Manager, Soil Association, Personal Communication 01/2008.

34 Soil Association, 2007: http://tinyurl.com/3e3fby

35 Food and Agriculture Organisation, Food Safety & Quality as Affected by Organic Farming, Report of the 22nd regional conference for Europe, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000.

36 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

37 Shiva, V. & Gitanjali, B. (2002) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, The Impact of globalisation, Sage Publications, London.

38 Soil Association (2006) Organic Works Report: An investigation into employment on organic farms conducted by University of Essex 2005.

39 ISEC (2002) Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness, Zed Books, London.

The First Signs of “Peak Gas”?

7

gas.jpgBy Andy Rowell | Consumers the world over are beginning to protest at the huge gasoline prices they are paying at the pump. But whilst the world goes crazy over the oil prices, there are worrying signs about what is happening in the gas market that could also spell disaster.

But it’s the oil price that is currently attracting all the attention. Last month, the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono postponed an official visit to Europe amid nationwide protests against fuel prices increases.  In Europe, French fishermen continued to blockade several strategic ports, whilst their counterparts in Spain and Portugal also threatened protests.

In the UK, truckers converged on London to ask for a reduction in fuel duty, whilst Prime Minster Gordon Brown held urgent talks with the oil industry. Over in America, the oil price was said to have forced many trucking companies to the verge of bankruptcy.

But as oil continues to hover just under record levels, there are daily warnings that the days of cheap oil have gone forever and the price of oil may soon be $150 or even $200 a barrel by next year.

There is also a daily debate as to what is actually causing these unprecedented prices. An increasing number of influential voices are saying it has nothing to do with the actual supply of oil but it is down to speculators exploiting the volatile market.

OPEC, which is under fire from many commentators for not increasing production more, argues that the market is already adequately supplied and that $35 per barrel of the recent increase can be put down to speculation.

Other voices agree, such as Jeroen van der Ver, head of global oil giant, Shell, who argues that the record oil prices are due to “market sentiment” rather than a shortage of supply. “What we say and what we see is there are no physical shortages,” he says. “There are no tankers waiting in the Middle East, there are no cars waiting at gasoline stations because they are out of stock. This has to do with psychology in the markets and you cannot forecast psychology.”

His view is shared by George Soros, the multi-billion dollar financier, known as the man who nearly “broke the Bank of England”, in the early nineties. Soros argues that it is financial speculators that are largely responsible for driving the crude oil price. “Speculation… is increasingly affecting the price,” he said. “The price has this parabolic shape which is characteristic of bubbles,” he said.

Political action on speculators is increasing. Last week a senior German politician proposed a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators. Uwe Beckmeyer, the head of transport for the Social Democratic party, the junior partner in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition, argued that the recent 25 per cent rise in oil price had nothing to do with underlying supply and demand. “It’s pure speculation,” he said, adding that his party would be calling for joint measures by the G8 to prohibit leveraged trading on energy contracts.

Also last week, in America, Senator Jeff Bingaman, the chairman of the influential Senate Energy Committee, asked the top futures market regulator in the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, for more information about how much impact speculation was having on the oil futures market. Bingamen then complained he had been given “glaringly incomplete” data by the CFTC,  which argued that speculative trading was not to blame for recent price rises.

If speculation is not to blame, what is? Some argue that it is the weak dollar. Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University in the US argues that “Twenty-five percent of the increase in oil prices is strictly due to the fact that the dollar has gone down by 25 percent, because oil all over the world is priced in dollars.”

However, others are now arguing that the high oil price is down to good old simple economics. Demand has outstripped supply over the last couple of years and so the price has increased, on the back of roaring demand, especially from China and the Middle East. “The high-priced energy environment is being driven by the fact that demand has outstripped supply,” President George Bush’s Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman, said this month: “We have sopped up all the available spare oil production capacity in the system.”

Others concur. One of the authoritative arbiters of how much oil there is the International Energy Agency, that is currently in the middle of its first attempt to comprehensively assess the condition of the world’s top 400 oil fields. Although the findings will not be published until November, according to the Wall Street Journal the IEA is “preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast, a shift that reflects deepening pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming demand.”

Fatih Birol, the International Energy Agency’s chief economist, said the oil industry had entered “a new energy world order” where it was harder to keep supply and demand in equilibrium. “What has happened in the last few years has not been in line with economic theory,” he says.

For years the IEA predicted that supplies of crude would gently increase in line with demand increasing to some 117 million barrels per day by 2030. But not anymore. Buried in the IEA website are figures that up the theory that the supply of oil is in real trouble. Since the beginning of 2004, oil’s price has gone from $33 per barrel to over $130 per barrel. In the same period, demand has increased by some 4.3 million barrels per day to 86.5 million barrels per day, whereas supply has increased by only 2.2 million barrels per day to 85.6 million. Supply is already struggling to keep up with demand, let alone reach over 100 million barrels a day.

The bottom line is that demand is now outstripping supply, giving credence to the peak oil pundits that the days of cheap oil over, and the global economy could be heading for a nasty shock.  

Poll finds electorate split between Obama, McCain

1

mccain2.jpgThe general election season opens with a neck-and-neck race between Barack Obama and John McCain, with more than one in five voters acknowledging that they might change their minds between now and November.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, the first conducted entirely after Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, he leads his Republican counterpart 49 percent to 46 percent among registered voters — a statistical tie, given the question’s 3-point margin of error.

McCain and Obama aren’t alone. Independent candidate Ralph Nader and Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr are both vying with the two major-party candidates for independent voters.

But at this point, it looks unlikely either will play a spoiler role: When pollsters asked about a field of candidates that includes Nader and Barr, the margin between Obama and McCain was virtually unchanged, with the Illinois senator leading 47 percent to 43 percent. Nader pulls in 6 percent, and Barr 2.

What would Hillary Clinton bring to a Democratic ticket? Answer: About 3 percentage points.

A hypothetical Obama-Clinton ticket would currently get 52 percent of the vote, compared with 46 percent for a hypothetical McCain-Romney ticket, according to the poll. If Clinton is not on the ticket, 60 percent of her Democratic supporters said they would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.

“That’s just one estimate of the ‘Clinton factor,’ ” said CNN polling director Keating Holland, “and it may not be an accurate predictor since it piles several hypotheticals on top of each other and asks people to guess their state of mind five months from now.

“Nonetheless, it does indicate that unmotivated Clinton supporters may be a bigger risk to Obama than defections from the Clinton camp to McCain.”

The results are based on interviews with 1,035 adult Americans, including 921 registered voters, conducted by telephone Wednesday and Thursday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/

Species Going Extinct Faster than Scientists Thought

3

whale.jpgBy Rich Stacel | According to the latest research, species around the world are going extinct faster that previously thought, at a rate not seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs. The Living Planet index which was released today shows that due to destructive human activity, the diversity of all life on earth has decreased by over 30%, nearly a third in fact in the past thirty-five years.

The Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network also gave the following statistics: land species have declined by 25%, marine life by 28% and freshwater species by 29%. The reports editor Jonathan Loh stated that to see such a sharp fall off in the species of the planet was “completely unprecedented in terms of human history”. “You’d have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this… In terms of human lifespan we may be seeing things change relatively slowly, but in terms of the world’s history this is very rapid.”

To us, the extinction rate may seem slow or almost non-existent, but in terms of life on a historical time line, the rate is 10,000 times faster than the rate at which the planet normally loses species. The nations of world who set to make so called “significant reductions” in species loss by 2010 will be virtually useless. So much loss has already occurred due to lack of concentrated and focused effort and inaction that it is no longer possible to make any significant reductions in such a short time frame.

Ben Collen, who is an extinctions researcher at the Zoological Society of London: “Between 1960 and 2000, the human population of the world has doubled. Yet during the same period, the animal populations have declined by 30 per cent. It’s beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans.” The study pinpointed five major factors in the rapid decline of nearly 4000 species between 1960 and 2000; they are the human behavior of: climate change, pollution, the destruction of animals’ natural habitat, the spread of invasive species, and the overexploitation of species.

A case in point can be seen in the Yangtze River dolphin that scientists have been searching for and have been unable to locate any of the species, they now believe it is extinct. Some of the reasons for its rapid decline are; collisions with boats, habitat loss and pollution. All of these factors are man made in origin.

James Leape, who is the director of WWF (World Wide Footprint) said; “Reduced biodiversity means millions of people face a future where food supplies are more vulnerable to pests and disease and where water is in irregular or short supply… No one can escape the impact of biodiversity loss because reduced global diversity translates quite clearly into fewer new medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and greater effects from global warming. The industrialized world needs to be supporting the global effort to achieve these targets, not just in their own territories where a lot of biodiversity has already been lost, but also globally.”

Unfortunately there is coming a time in the not so distant future when the very survival of life on earth will be at stake. If we continue to overuse all of our resources like a virus consumes its host until its very source of survival is gone, we will eventually be destroyed right along with the very planet that is the true source of our substance and life force. According to the Tao (The Way of Nature and the Universe), we can not continue to abuse, overuse and rip the earth of her elements and natural resources faster than earth can replace them and expect all things to remain in balance. This is common sense logic and also the universal laws of balance, yin and yang, light and shadow, male and female, etc.

The power of earth’s magnetic field has decreased significantly in the past 100 years or so. Much of this can again be blamed on mans’ activities. You would not normally think it, but the laying of world wide power lines, the explosion of wireless communication devices including satellites beaming information to and from orbit are all affecting the earth’s magnetic field, including it’s very power.

All our foods get part of their energies, their life sustaining chi from a combination of earth (yin/water) and the sun (yang/fire). If we weaken one, the other is thrown out of balance. We already know that due to acid rain, overuse of the land, pesticides and other factors that the mineral content of the soil is dangerously low. I’ve written before that approximately 2/3 of the earth’s tillable soil is completely devoid of Selenium, a vital trace element and power mineral required not only for the production of SOD (Superoxide Dismutase) but also one that is a powerful immune booster, cancer fighter and longevity mineral too, that most people have virtually no selenium in their diet which is another great reason to make sure that you’re taking the true RDA of 200mcg per day. Eating just three Brazil nuts a day gives approximately 200mcg, or you can take a supplement of Selenium daily.

No matter the mineral content of any food, what gives all foods their true power to heal and sustain life is not their pure vitamin, mineral or chemical compounds or make up themselves, it is the specific type and amount of chi (life force) in those elements and foods that are their real power to sustain life and heal. That is why chemical drugs can and never will be equal to the medicines that God’s earth provides, because science has no belief in or ability to manipulate or use chi. Science doesn’t even acknowledge that it exists as the Chinese and other Asian and ancient cultures have stated for millennia, but it surely does exist.

The more we allow and contribute to the destruction of life’s incredibly diverse life forms, the more we are killing ourselves in a very slow way. We are tied to the earth in an unbreakable way, but mankind with his technological know how thinks that “I know better than nature itself”… never! Even a great many of the drugs that man thinks that he “invented”, up to nearly half of them he learned how to make by chemically synthesizing the active ingredients from various plants, herbs and other natural compounds. Herbs and other life saving medicines are constantly being destroyed, all in the name of the greed of a worldwide collection of billionaires who can’t wait to get richer and richer so they can beat their friends’ yearly and lifetime earnings, and corporations who only care about their stock prices on the world market and more. They truly believe and live by the motto: “The person who dies with the most toys, wins!” That is their religion, their mantra and money is their god. How sad for the world and all the rest of us who live on this planet. These people are truly insane and drunk with power and greed and it seems as though they could care less if the entire earth is destroyed and all human and animal life on it is eradicated, as long as they die with the most money and toys to beat their other billionaire friends, that’s all that seems to matter at all to them.

Many prophecies, including those found in the Bible, mention a time when the earth will be ravaged by so much wars, death, disease, greed, destruction and mans’ inhumanity against man and his very environment itself that he will be brought to the very brink of annihilation unless God Himself steps in to stop it. Here it is starting right before our eyes, but everyone is just so busy having their fun, making their money and going on with their lives that most people, especially those in power and responsible, could care less to stop it or change their high flying, jet setting lifestyles for something that to them is a long way off or likely will never even happen, at least not in their lifetimes.

The destruction of earth’s environment, our food supply as well as the weakening of earth’s magnetic field or chi are reasons why practicing energy medicine and learning to cultivate one’s own chi through the breathing and meditative practices of Chi-gung are so important today, probably more so than at any other time in human history. To learn to increase our own protective chi field called Wei Chi that surrounds our body, as well as increase our overall chi levels and flow within the body will greatly help us to recover and make up for the chi and energy that we’re not getting from our foods or even the earth itself. Organic food has more nutrients and chi than conventional food and that’s one thing we all need to eat much more of. Organic foods also help slow down the rate of destruction of the earth’s ecosystem as does eating more locally grown foods too. Taking supplements is another way to help keep ourselves healthy since we have to make up for the nutrients that our diets can no longer supply.

But even these are secondary actions compared to the most vital and important source of our life, the primary source of all life, our chi. It is only through breathing and meditation that we can truly build up and extract many times the chi that we used to be able to get just by eating natural foods and breathing in times past. Even the oxygen content of the air is about 25% less than it was just 200 years ago. Due to the destruction of plankton in the earth’s oceans which makes up about 60% of the oxygen on earth, deforestation as well as all of mans’ pollution has contributed to lessen the amount of oxygen and sunlight available to us (and our crops) with each breath that we take. This is why practicing deep breathing techniques such as the 8 Pieces of Brocade, Tai chi, and other energy work exercises and learning to use our minds through true meditation to build up and extract even more chi from the earth and universe, has never been more important than at this most critical time in earth’s history.

In time through these ancient and powerful techniques we can greatly increase the amount, the flow, the balance and the strength of our life force flowing through and around our bodies, thus helping to protect our health and stave off illness and disease in a powerful way. They take work, but in order to remain healthy, vibrant and strong in these times they are very necessary and effective. Proven through thousands of years of practice by the fighting monks, martial artists and traditional doctors of China, practicing chi-gung and careful attention to diet and nutrition are becoming ever more necessary in today’s ever more polluted environment.

With the abysmal failures of the western slash and burn methods of surgery and drugs to prevent illness, learning to cultivate and use the true source of one’s own life force via the vehicle of various chi-gung techniques and exercises to increase your own store of chi within the body, is really one of the best methods and options that exist in the world today. The Chinese have given mankind a great gift in the form of its incredible repertoire of Chi-gung techniques and understanding of the human energy systems through Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). They are only proving themselves over and over again in this modern age as they continue to succeed in restoring and maintaining people’s health time and time again where western medicine has repeatedly failed.

This is especially true as we see the rate of both the destruction of the earth itself and its tens of millions of species occurring at an ever increasing rate. It is for this and many other reasons that I am producing my own health video to teach a number of these breathing and meditative techniques, including proper physical training, nutrition and more on my Chinese Health and Fitness video. If you can, learn all that you are able to about chi, Chinese and natural medicine, energy work, meditation, nutrition and natural health and healing, since they are our best bet to restore and protect our health and those of our loved ones as the world gets more and more polluted. Moreover, the energy that they teach you to use is all provided free of charge by the very universe and earth itself with no hidden fees and no side effects… other than good health and long life that is.

Recommended reading:

“Harnessing the Power of the Universe” by Daniel Reid

“The Complete Book of Chinese Health and Healing” By Daniel Reid

“The Root of Chinese Qigong” by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming

“Awaken Healthing Energy Through The Tao” by Mantak Chia

Source Article: ((http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen…)

About the author

Rich Stacel is a natural health, Qigong and Chinese martial arts practitioner for over twenty four years. Having read scores of books on Chinese medicine, health, nutrition, supplements, meditation, martial arts, healing, science, astronomy, physics, Einstien, general health and more. Rich has helped numerous people achieve their health and fitness goals over the years. Rich is also interested in health freedom including spreading truth on health, fitness, spiritual truths and more. You can learn more about breathing, meditation, what foods to eat, avoid, food additives, chi-gung as well as get more info about his upcoming Chinese health video at www.chinesehealthandfitness.com

Site Broken? Hacked? Abducted?

9

You may have noticed there’s many errors on the site at the moment, including a broken forum. We do not have an explanation just yet. After speaking with our ISP they are currently unable to determine what has caused these problems. On the face of it, it looks like a normal php error but we (and the ISP) are locked out of FTP access to the site and the log files have been deleted. 

Our ISP are currently investigating and should know what is causing the problem by Wednesday morning. The main RINF database is still working as normal and I am able to update the site through the CMS admin panel. Comments also appear to be working as normal.

The forum should also return by Wednesday.

The ISP have said that it is unlikely that we have been hacked but find the current situation strange.

I personally think that if we had been hacked then the damage would have been greater.

I’ll update you with more information as it comes to me.

Spying Telecoms Receive Billions in Government Contracts

0

telecoms.jpgBy Kurt Opsahl | The telecoms who are being sued for their cooperation in the government’s illegal warrantless surveillance program have received billions in government contracts. According to Washington Technology magazine, Verizon received $1.3 billion, Sprint $839 million and AT&T $505 million in federal prime contract revenue for fiscal 2007, for a total of $2.6 billion. While the companies have been government contractors for a long time, it still represents a significant increase in revenue.

Telecom apologists like to suggest that the communications companies’ motivation was not financial. As Judge Walker noted when examining EFF’s allegations of dragnet surveillance: “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.” Yet, the prospect of $2.6 billion per year can go a long way to explaining why an industry might cooperate with a program far outside the limitations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), despite the difficulty of believing it was legal.

Note that the numbers represent publicly available information for prime contracting only and do not include subcontracting revenue. Any monies paid for the secret NSA surveillance program would be in addition to the public contracting numbers.

According to former Qwest chief executive Joseph Nacchio “the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.” In light of these allegations and the vast sums awarded to the participating telecoms, before Congress votes on the pending FISA legislation or considers any form of immunity for the telecoms, it should hold thorough hearings, and find out if there was any quid pro quo.

Significance of DNA ‘matches’ in cases not always definitive

dnamatches.jpgBy Jason Felch and Maura Dolan | The 22-year-old San Francisco nurse had been sexually assaulted and stabbed in the heart. She lay on her back, her neck laced with scratches and her mouth open as if frozen in a scream.

For more than three decades, Sylvester’s slaying went unsolved. Then, in 2004, a search of California’s DNA database of criminal offenders yielded an apparent breakthrough: Badly deteriorated DNA from the assailant’s sperm was linked to John Puckett, an obese, wheelchair-bound 70-year-old with a history of rape.

The DNA “match” was based on fewer than half of the genetic markers typically used to connect someone to a crime, and there was no other physical evidence.

Puckett insisted he was innocent, saying that although DNA at the crime scene happened to match his, it belonged to someone else.

At Puckett’s trial earlier this year, the prosecutor told the jury that the chance of such a coincidence was 1 in 1.1 million.

Jurors were not told, however, the statistic that leading scientists consider the most significant: the probability that the database search had hit upon an innocent person.

In Puckett’s case, it was 1 in 3.

The case is emblematic of a national problem, the Los Angeles Times has found.

Prosecutors and crime labs across the country routinely use numbers that exaggerate the significance of DNA matches in “cold hit” cases, in which a suspect is identified through a database search.

Jurors are often told that the odds of a coincidental match are hundreds of thousands of times more remote than they actually are, according to a review of scientific literature and interviews with leading authorities in the field.

Two national scientific committees, including the FBI’s DNA advisory board, have recommended portraying the odds more conservatively. But interviews with expert witnesses and DNA analysts from crime labs across the country show that few if any have adopted that approach.

“It is only a matter of time until someone is wrongfully convicted because of this,” said Keith Devlin, a Stanford mathematician who has studied the problem.

For years, police used DNA only to compare a crime-scene sample to a single person they had other reasons to suspect. In court, prosecutors could legitimately cite the remote odds that someone selected at random off the street would share the same genetic profile.

In cold hit cases, the investigation starts with a DNA match found by searching thousands, or even millions, of genetic profiles in an offender database. Each comparison increases the chance of a match to an innocent person.

Nevertheless, police labs and prosecutors almost always calculate the odds as if the suspect had been selected randomly from the general population in a single try.

U.S. defends removal of Guantanamo judge

0

guantanamo.jpgBy | The military judge in charge of the U.S. war crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay is defending the removal of the army colonel who presided over Omar Khadr’s case as critics of the process and the Canadian suspect’s lawyers continue to cry foul.

In a statement yesterday, Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann said Col. Peter Brownback was removed because the army had turned down an application to extend his active-duty status.

“It is my understanding that this decision was based on a number of manpower management considerations unrelated to the military commission process,” Kohlmann wrote, noting that “as a general rule, it is inappropriate” to comment on such matters but that the controversy convinced him to speak out.

“My detailing of another judge,” he wrote, “was completely unrelated to any actions that Col. Brownback has taken in this or any other case.”

The surprise announcement of Brownback’s retirement came in an email to senior officials last Thursday. Khadr’s military lawyer, navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler then forwarded the email to the media, speculating that Brownback’s removal was politically motivated.

While Brownback has denied dozens of the defence’s motions — most importantly, one to dismiss the proceedings because Khadr should be treated as a child soldier and rehabilitated not prosecuted — he has also repeatedly frustrated the prosecution’s attempts to set a trial date.

There’s a push from the Pentagon to have a trial completed before the Nov. 4 U.S. presidential election in an effort to salvage Guantanamo’s tarnished reputation and criticism about the indefinite imprisonment of terrorism suspects without trial.

Kohlmann’s comments yesterday did not end the debate. Soon after his statement was made public, Kuebler sent a press release saying the explanation “raised more questions than answers.”

“Brownback was the judge on one of the first two commission cases to go to trial — are we really supposed to believe that `manpower management considerations’ would cause the army to remove him from such a high-visibility, high-priority assignment?” he asked.

Toronto-born Khadr, now 21, was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in July 2002 following a firefight with U.S. forces. The Pentagon has charged him with five war crimes, including murder in the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer.

He is expected to return to court June 18 for a pre-trial hearing.

EU-wide ID card scheme could use mobile phones

2

mobile.jpgComputerworld UK | The European Commission is testing cross-border electronic identity systems in an effort to create pan-European recognition of the 30 million national ID cards currently used in 13 member states.

The European Commission has announced that EU citizens will be able to prove their identity and use national electronic identity systems – which includes electronic passwords, ID cards, PIN codes and others – throughout the EU, not just in their home country.

National electronic ID (eID) cards are used by citizens to access a variety of public services such as claiming social security and unemployment benefits or filing tax returns. The plan is to align and link these systems without replacing existing ones.

The project, called Stork (Secure idenTity acrOss boRders linKed), is being led by the UK Identity & Passport Service and the Government Gateway.

The Stork project will run for three years and receive €10m funding from the European Commission and an equal contribution from the participating partners.

The European Commission has said the new system would allow citizens to identify themselves electronically in a secure way and deal with public agencies either online or “ideally” from mobile devices.

“Electronic Identities do not yet do enough for mobile EU citizens,” said Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Information Society and Media. “By taking advantage of the development in national eID systems and promoting mutual recognition of electronic identities between Member States, this project moves us a step closer to seamless movement between EU countries that Europeans expect from a borderless Single European Market.”

While only 13 of the 27 EU member states are participating in the pilot, the solutions developed and the experience gained by the project team will be shared with all states with the view to establish a number of trans-border pilot projects based on existing national systems.

Indicators Point to a Softening of America’s Marijuana Laws

0

marijuana.jpgBy Alexander Zaitchik | With key medical marijuana ballot initiatives likely to pass, and a more pot-friendly majority in Congress, there is room for optimism. You have to hand it to the Republican National Committee: Those guys really know how to pick the wrong fight.John McCain, already running against the public opinion grain in support of the Iraq War and Bush tax cuts, received no help from headquarters last month when the RNC made medical marijuana a campaign issue. After Barack Obama told an Oregon weekly that he would end federal raids on medical marijuana users and providers in states with compassionate use laws, the RNC pounced. Obama’s position, said an RNC statement, “reveals that (he) doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President (and) lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch.” Because the Supreme Court has ruled that federal drug laws trump state drug laws, the RNC reasons that halting federal raids would be tantamount to ignoring the law.

They’re right. But the RNC might want to get some new pollsters. What they and their candidates don’t seem to realize is that a steadily shrinking minority of Americans oppose the controlled medicinal use of cannabis — around 20 percent, according to the last Gallup poll. It’s a safe bet that an even smaller number considers paramilitary raids on the homes of peaceful cancer patients to be among the “basic function of the Executive Branch.” During the New Hampshire primary, every Democratic candidate recognized this political reality by promising to end federal harassment of state-approved medical marijuana facilities and users. Republican candidates Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul pledged the same.

And John McCain? When pressed by activists from the group Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, the Arizona senator responded in lockstep with most of his GOP peers, sounding less like a maverick than a Reagan-era after-school special. “I do not support the use of marijuana for medical purposes,” McCain said. “I believe that marijuana is a gateway drug. That is my view, and that’s the view of the federal drug czar and other experts.”

Given current trend lines, it may not be long before it’s possible to count McCain’s “other experts” on two hands. In February, the 125,000-member American College of Physicians, the second-largest physicians group in the country, published a position paper endorsing the merits of medical marijuana and recommending the end of marijuana’s classification as a Schedule 1 drug. “The ACP endorsement is massive,” says Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group. “It blows to splinters the assertion that the medical community doesn’t support medicinal cannabis.”

As goes the ACP, so may go the American Medical Association, an endorsement from which would leave the anti-medical marijuana position of the Food and Drug Administration very lonely indeed.

To its credit, the country has not waited for the medical establishment before moving forward on marijuana policy reform. Over the last decade, support for compassionate use laws and broader decriminalization efforts has been growing, if not at weed’s pace, then fast enough for one veteran marijuana reform lobbyist to now speak of being “within striking distance of a national tipping point.”

Since California passed Proposition 215 legalizing medical marijuana in 1996, an average of one state per year has followed suit, some through ballot initiatives, others through legislation. Even in states that have yet to enact reform, a flurry of bills has been introduced. This activity hasn’t been limited to usual-suspect states like Oregon and Vermont. Recent years have seen medical marijuana laws introduced in Ohio, Alabama, Missouri and Tennessee. In staunchly conservative South Carolina, it was a Republican state senator, whose wife lost a battle with brain cancer, who introduced his state’s medical marijuana bill. In Texas, the state government last year passed a bill that is a halfway house for decriminalization, allowing police to issue citations instead of arresting adults who possess less than 4 ounces of marijuana.

The next big test on the horizon is the Midwestern swing state of Michigan, where voters in November will decide on a medical marijuana law, the first such statewide ballot initiative since South Dakotans narrowly rejected theirs in 2006. If passed, Michigan will be the only state with its geographical and electoral profile to pass a medical marijuana law. According to the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter, polls show two-thirds voter support. “Michigan looks set to become the 13th medical marijuana state this November,” says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.

The other big initiative in November will appear on ballots in Massachusetts. If passed, the maximum penalty for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana in the Bay State would drop from up to six months in jail and a $500 fine to a $100 civil fine.

There is also still a chance that the New York state legislature will take up medical marijuana this session, a move that would enjoy overwhelming in-state support. Post-Giuliani New York City is the marijuana arrest capital of the world, with nearly 40,000 arrests in 2007 alone. The situation has gotten so out of hand that the New York Times recently urged Gov. David Paterson to take the lead in drug policy reform. Few governors are better positioned to do this than Paterson, who is not only on good terms with state Republican leaders, but has the moral authority that comes from suffering from glaucoma, a painful condition known to be alleviated by marijuana. Before becoming governor, Paterson was a leading activist for drug policy reform and was once arrested protesting the draconian and racially biased Rockefeller Drug Laws, which turn a brittle 35 this year. (Incidentally, the Drug Enforcement Agency is celebrating the same birthday in 2008, its website proudly declaring “35 Years of Excellence.”)

But whatever happens inside Michigan, Massachusetts and New York, the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich still leaves marijuana users open to federal prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act. As highlighted by the RNC statement critical of Obama’s pledge, this decision will continue to undermine state- and local-level reforms until Congress changes federal law. Although only 1 percent of marijuana cases are prosecuted at the federal level, DEA raids on patients, caregivers and providers have been on the rise in states that have passed medical marijuana laws. This is especially true of California and Oregon, where in many cases individual patients have been detained and terrorized. In Los Angeles, the DEA has begun threatening the owners of buildings used for medical marijuana activities with seizure of their property, a development the Los Angeles Times has called “a deplorable new bullying tactic.” According to Mirken, “The DEA has become the single largest obstacle to effective regulation of (medical marijuana) establishments.”

At the moment there are three bills in Congress that seek to put a stop to these raids and set a precedent for federal-level reform.

The young granddaddy of this legislation is the bipartisan Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment, which has been introduced every year since 2003. Essentially, the amendment would strip the Department of Justice of funds to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states that have medical marijuana laws on the books. Named after Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., the legislation wouldn’t legalize marijuana at the federal level or prevent the feds from prosecuting medical marijuana use in states without medical marijuana laws. It would simply enforce respect for state marijuana laws. When first introduced in 2003, Hinchey-Rohrabacher received 152 votes. Last year, that number had risen to 165. Later this summer, Congress will tackle the amendment again when it votes on the Department of Justice Appropriations bill. Reform advocates hope the amendment will benefit from racking up endorsements from groups like the right-leaning Citizens Against Government Waste, which came out in favor of Hinchey-Rohrabacher as a way for Congress to “start sending a signal that its priorities are in order.”

But every year so far has been a 10-yard fight, and its sponsors don’t expect that to change this year. “This will continue to be a tough battle,” says Jeff Lieberson, Hinchey’s spokesperson. “Many politicians are still behind the voters on this issue.” Other analysts also warn against high expectations, pointing out that the timing is especially unfavorable for drug policy reform at the federal level.

“The movement on this issue in 2008 is going to be almost nonexistent because politicians are focused on the election,” says Alex Coolman, a former attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance and author of the Drug Law Blog. “Nobody in Washington wants to do anything that could be perceived as controversial.”

In April, Hinchey-Rohrabacher was joined by two other marijuana policy reform bills, both co-sponsored by Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas. HR5842, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, would deny the federal government the right to employ the Controlled Substances Act to intervene in states that have legalized medical marijuana; it would also remove marijuana from the list of Schedule 1 drugs. HR5843, meanwhile, known as the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act, would effectively decriminalize possession of up to 1 ounce. “We’re in the early stages here,” says Frank spokesperson Peter Kovar. “Nothing like this ever comes quick.”

But it may be coming more quickly than some people expect. “All the indicators are prompting in the right direction,” says Kampia. “Every major new ballot initiative looks set to pass. Infrastructure is growing: email lists, organizations, allies — it’s across the board. Public opinion is moving steadily in favor of decriminalization. State laws are moving forward, and none are going backward. We’re constantly picking up votes in the House. The 110th is the most supportive Congress we’ve ever had.”

If the RNC keeps attacking Democrats on medical marijuana, the 111th will be that much better.

“Enough Is Enough, It’s Time to Get Out”

0

winter.jpgDozens of veterans from the U.S. occupation of Iraq converged in this west coast city over the weekend to share stories of atrocities being committed daily in Iraq, in a continuation of the “Winter Soldier” hearings held in Silver Spring, Maryland in March.

By Dahr Jamail | At the Seattle Town Hall, some 800 people gathered to hear the testimonies of veterans from Iraq. The event was sponsored by the Northwest Regional Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), and endorsed by dozens of local and regional anti-war groups like Veterans for Peace and Students for a Democratic Society.

“I watched Iraqi Police bring in someone to interrogate,” Seth Manzel, a vehicle commander and machine gunner in the U.S. Army, told the audience. “There were four men on the prisoner…one was pummeling his kidneys with his fists, another was inserting a bottle up his rectum. It looked like a frat house gang-rape.”

Manzel joined the army after 9/11 for economic reasons — he’d just been laid off, and his wife had just had a baby. Manzel told another story of military medics he was with in Tal Afar who refused to treat an elderly man in their detention centre. Manzel described the old man as being jaundiced and lying on the ground, writhing in pain.

“The medics said the old man was just being lazy and they were not authorised to treat detainees,” Manzel said.

Jan Critchfield worked as an army journalist while attached to the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad during 2004. “I was with a unit that shot at a man and wife near a checkpoint,” Critchfield said, “She had been shot through her shinbone, and that was the first story I covered in Iraq.”

Critchfield told the audience that his unspoken job in Iraq was to “counter the liberal media bias” about the occupation.

“Our target audience was in the U.S., and the emphasis was reporting on humanitarian aid missions the military conducted,” Critchfield said. “I don’t know how many stories I reported on chicken drops (distributing frozen chickens in a community). I don’t know what else you can call that, other than propaganda. I would find the highest ranking person I could get, and quote them verbatim without fact checking anything they said.”

Other veterans told of lax rules of engagement that led to the slaughter of innocent civilians in Iraq.

“We were told we’d be deploying to Iraq and that we needed to get ready to have little kids and women shoot at us,” Sergio Kochergin, a former Marine who served two deployments in Iraq, told the audience. “It was an attempt to portray Iraqis as animals. We were supposed to do humanitarian work, but all we did was harass people, drive like crazy on the streets, pretending it was our city and we could do whatever we wanted to do.”

As the other veterans on the panel nodded in agreement, Kochergin continued, “We were constantly told everybody there wants to kill you, everybody wants to get you. In the military, we had racism within every rank and it was ridiculous. It seemed like a joke, but that joke turned into destroying peoples’ lives in Iraq.”

“I was in Husaiba with a sniper platoon right on the Syrian border and we would basically go out on the town and search for people to shoot,” Kochergin said. “The rules of engagement (ROE) got more lenient the longer we were there. So if anyone had a bag and a shovel, we were to shoot them. We were allowed to take our shots at anything that looked suspicious. And at that point in time, everything looked suspicious.”

Kochergin added, “Later on, we had no ROE at all. If you see something that doesn’t seem right, take them out.” He concluded by saying, “Enough is enough, it’s time to get out of there.”

Doug Connor was a first lieutenant in the army and worked as a surgical nurse in Iraq. While there he worked as part of a combat support unit, and said most of the patients he treated were Iraqi civilians.

“There were so many people that needed treatment we couldn’t take all of them,” he said. “When a bombing happened and 45 patients were brought to us, it was always Americans treated first, then Kurds, then the Arabs.”

Connor added quietly, “It got to the point where we started calling the Iraqi patients ‘range balls’ because, just like on the driving range (in golf), you don’t care about losing them.”

Channan Suarez Diaz was a navy hospital corpsman who returned from Iraq with a purple heart, among other medals. He served in Ramadi from September 2004 to February 2005 with a weapons company. He is now the Seattle Chapter president of IVAW.

“Our commanding officer wanted us to go through a route that another platoon did and was completely wiped out in an ambush,” Diaz explained. “We refused. They canceled that mission and we didn’t go. I don’t think these are isolated incidents. I think this is happening every day in Iraq. The military doesn’t want you to know about this, because it’s kind of like lighting a fire in a prairie.”

The first Winter Soldier event was organised in 1971 by Vietnam Veterans Against the War in response to a growing list of human rights violations occurring in Vietnam.

From Mar. 13-16, 2008, IVAW held a national conference titled “Winter Solider: Iraq and Afghanistan” outside Washington, DC. The four-day event brought together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The desperation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign

0

clinton.jpgBy Clarence Lusane | Sen. Hillary Clinton has disgracefully pursued a disturbing strategy of racial opportunism. Since early March, when Sen. Barack Obama racked up victory after victory in states that were, in some instances, overwhelmingly white and, in others, significantly black and Latino, the strategy of the Clinton campaign has whitened day by day.Despite support from some key black politicians and a black campaign manager, the Clinton operation determined that low-income, lower-educated, non-urban whites were worth pandering to and that black voters were worth ignoring.

There were clearly white supporters of Clinton in Kentucky and West Virginia who stated strong and unambiguous racism toward Obama. Rather than repudiate these voters, Clinton silently clung to them.

Clinton’s strategy is a disaster for the general election.

The reality is that Clinton cannot win independents and moderate Republicans, and her support is concentrated in a narrow region of white and perhaps Latino Democratic voters.

Whatever black support she and Bill Clinton once enjoyed and felt entitled to – she led by as much as 57-33 percent over Obama in December 2007 – has vanished, perhaps permanently.

And there is not a single party official with a brain who does not know that if Clinton somehow manages to wrestle the nomination away from Obama through a combination of rule manipulation, superdelegate chicanery and race-baiting, the party will suffer a black-and-white withdrawal and November beat-down of historic and long-lasting proportions.

The Democrats have to be very careful not to be suckered into the Clintons’ argument that the only winning strategy in the fall is the pursuit of white lower-income voters. Clinton supporter Paul Begala, for instance, belittled Obama’s based by saying that it consisted of “eggheads and African-Americans.”

In fact, the party can win by going to (and expanding) its natural base, pulling in significant independent voters and carving off enough dissatisfied Republican moderates.

With Obama, there are more states in play, thus forcing the Republicans to more widely disperse their resources. And he generates a black turnout that will perhaps be the largest the country has ever seen, a preview of which has already contributed decisively to Democratic victories in Louisiana and Mississippi in recent special elections.

Finally, the grim reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, whatever the motivation, and in the context of the very real death threats that Obama has faced, reveals in Clinton the triumph of calculation over sensitivity.

It is unfortunate that the Clinton campaign has succumbed to blind ambition and turned a history-making election into a history-repeating voyage of racial ugliness and accommodation.

They had a choice, and they took the low road.

Clarence Lusane is an associate professor at American University and author of many books, including, most recently, “Colin Powell-Condoleezza Rice: Foreign Policy, Race and the New American Century.” He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

Islamic extremists to be given counselling

0

counselling.jpgIslamic extremists could escape prosecution and instead receive therapy and counselling under new Government plans to “deradicalise” religious fanatics.

By James Kirkup | The Home Office is to announce an extra £12.5 million to support new initiatives to try to stop extremism spreading.

The central element of the Home Office plan is a new national “deradicalisation” programme that would persuade converts to violent and extremist causes to change their views.

Controversially, the new plan makes clear that people who fall under the influence of violent organisations will not automatically face prosecution.

Instead, the presumption should be that some such individuals would face therapy and counselling from community groups instead of criminal charges.

Documents being distributed to local councils explain that many people who get drawn into extremism have often suffered some sort of personal trauma or crisis that makes them vulnerable to exploitation.

“We do not want to put through the criminal justice system those who are vulnerable to, or are being drawn into, violent extremism unless they have clearly committed an offence,” a Home Office report says.

“It is vital that individuals and communities understand this and have the confidence to use the support structures that we shall be developing.”

Most of the new funding will be set aside for grants to community groups that challenge the messages of violent extremists should be supported.

The plan includes a suggestion that local councils should map their areas religion, surveying and recording the faiths and denominations of local residents.

New guidelines for councils say: “A deeper understanding of local communities should be developed to help inform and focus the programme of action – this may include mapping denominational backgrounds and demographic and socio-economic factors.”

The Home Office has told councils they must be prepared to ask police to vet anyone involved in projects that receive government anti-radicalisation funding.

If a group is found to be promoting violent extremism, local agencies and the police should consider disrupting or removing funding, and deny access to public facilities, the document added.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: “A key element of our strategy aims to stop people getting involved in extremist violence.

“We are investing at local level to build resilient communities, which are equipped to confront violent extremism and support the most vulnerable individuals.”

Shadow home secretary David Davis said of today’s publication: “This is pointless when the Government is fuelling the problem it is seeking to solve with its draconian approach to 42 days.”

Blair/Brown ‘pretend society’ exposed

brown-quit.jpgVia UK Watch | It all seems rather silly now, but it was not so long ago that many on the liberal left fully expected the Gordon Brown coronation to deliver a significant change of political direction rather than a mere, though welcome, change of style.

It was always a fantasy, of course, and Brown did not waste much time in disillusioning them. But what was the basis for the wishful thinking in the first place? In part it can be put down to Brown seeking to out-manoeuvre Blair with a series of ‘dog-whistles’ to the party faithful. These supposed ‘values’ were in turn given undue credibility as a result of a febrile media constantly delivering bulletins on the teeth-bared battle behind the scenes between the so-called Blairities and Brownities for control of the party, and, as too many allowed themselves to think, for the soul of it. After all, if the intense internecine warfare was not evidence of a deep ideological divide, what was it about? After the wretched dithering over the autumn election, the fêting of Thatcher, the delay in nationalising Northern Rock, the 10p debacle and much more, culminating in the tactics leading up to the Crewe & Nantwitch by-election, the mystery may have been resolved. New Labour’s strategy at Crewe is what caused the penny to drop.

First of all, here was a party that once grandly announced that it had ‘no problem with people getting filthy rich’ and had spent a decade and half of bowing at the altar of privilege now attempting to dupe voters by playing the class card. More than anything it is the little details that suggest the gig is up. For example it has been reported that voters had been woken up at 4am by callers pretending to be Tory canvassers. And four-by-four vehicles festooned with blue balloons according to an article in The Independent have been careering through council estates — more pretend Tory canvassers. Next minute they’re pointing the finger at the Tories for being soft on immigrants. A chorus of ‘You don’t know what you’re doing!’ would have mocked these clunking inconsistencies in the New Labour message in any football ground in the country. The sheer desperation, panic and by-any-means-necessary approach is not, however, matched by the ruthlessness characteristic of the Blair regime in terms of delivery. Instead, there is an absurdly amateur element that would have had Blair apparatchiks recoiling in horror. Which raises an interesting question. If, as is now almost universally accepted, the Brown v Blair tug of war never was ideologically based, why then were there ‘Brownites’ at all? What were they for? It is when you check out the Brown Cabinet, jam-packed as it is with sycophantic time-servers who could never have hoped to have made the cut in the Blair era, that it starts to make sense. There never was any genuine Brownite faction devoted either to leader or cause at all. What there was were individuals who, aware of the Blair-Brown pact, hitched themselves to Brown’s bandwagon out of nothing more than grinding personal ambition matched deep down with a cold-eyed estimate of their true abilities. In short, sub-prime ‘Blairites’ to a man/woman–and they all know it.

One senior Labour MP quoted in the London Evening Standard said, on the disastrous Crewe Nantwitch by-election campaign, “It has been juvenile and counter-productive. And if they think this has played badly in the North of England, that’s nothing to the way it looks to people in the South and London who thought class warfare was a thing of the past. Down here people do not hate those who are better off–they aspire to join them.”

Many indeed may well ‘aspire’ but jumping classes is an altogether different matter, as a recent survey shows. Millions of Britons are getting into debt to finance a lifestyle beyond their means simply because they want to give the appearance of being middle class.

An astonishing 15 million people have racked up debts of £35billion des­pite their income being below the national average, the survey found.

Six million wannabe middle class households bring in less than £15,000 a year and many rely on credit cards and bank loans to fund their spending.

The average income for working class people is £23,000 and £33,000 for the middle class.

But rent and mortgage payments are nearly the same at £366 for a working class household compared with £334 for the middle classes.

Those considered to be in the ‘upper middle class’ were found to earn more, with average earnings of almost £52,000 a year.

Richard Mason, director of moneysupermarket.com, which carried out the research, said: ‘It’s worrying to see that so many people are spending and borrowing beyond their means to try to keep up with the lifestyles of others.’

Rather optimistically, personal finance expert Sue Hayward said that it all showed ‘the class divide was shrinking’. Actually what it shows is that together with the ever-expanding wealth divide between rich and poor, the politically more significant class divide between working and middle classes is also keeping pace. More significant because in the real world, contrary to myth, it is the working class, not the middle class, that is really expanding. But if Ms Hayward is confused it is understandable. With his slogan ‘we’re all middle class now’ Blair seemed to promise a meritocracy. But as repeated surveys show, neo-liberalism did not and indeed could not deliver. Social mobility stalled or went in to reverse. So what we have instead is not a society based on solid achievement but on the appearance of achievement; a facsimile of a true meritocracy. And while ‘pretend canvassers’ might be risible, a pretend society, with all the attendant psychoses, will in the long run be the real Blair/Brown legacy that will prove altogether more damning.

Urgent Appeal from Iraqi Oil Workers

0

allwar.jpgFrom US Labor Against the War | We have just received an urgent message from Hassan Juma’a Awad, President of the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions. A translation follows below. The action he reports represents a dangerous escalation of the Oil Minister’s hostility to the IFOU and its leadership. Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahirstani is the same Maliki government official who some months ago directed the management of the oil companies not to have any dealings with the union.

USLAW calls on all its affiliates, members and supporters to immediately send a letter of protest to the Iraqi Embassy in Washington, DC. Some suggested text and the address are provided below.

==================================================
Here is the translation:

The Iraqi Oil Minister, Hussein Al-Shahirstani, has ordered the transfer of eight Oil Union activists. They used to work at the oil refineries in the south. This act reflects the minister’s anti-union policy, and lack of respect for unions and union activists in the oil sector. Those activists, through their hard work, are well known for fighting corruption and corrupt-ministry gangs in the oil sector.

They have been transferred to Baghdad Al-Dorah neighborhood (known for worsening security situation, and high level of sectarian killings). In the context of Iraqi security situation, such a transfer is rightfully regarded as human rights crime.

We call upon all people of good will in the world to take a stand to denounce these despicable and criminal acts by the Iraqi Oil Ministry against trade unions and their activists. The trade unions have been reestablished and revitalized through the hard work of union activists without any protection from the state, which keeps bragging about democracy. [The Maliki government, taking its lead from the U.S. Occupation Authority, continues to enforce the 1987 Saddam Hussein labor code that prohibits unions and bargaining for workers in the oil sector and all other public enterprises, which constitute 80% of all Iraqi jobs.]

This act is a clear evidence that the Iraqi state seeks to liquidate trade unions in this important Iraqi economic sector, oil. It is important to note that the south is the main source of oil in Iraq. The oil sector there employs more than 39,000 workers. The Iraqi state has no intention of allowing an Oil Trade Union in that sector because it represents a threat to its authority.

We call upon you from all parts of the world to stand with us, for the sake of labor and workers interests.

Respectfully,

Hassan Juma’a Awad, President
Iraq Federation of Oil Unions

To assure that your message is received, please send it to both fax numbers and in or attached to an email message.
Please send a copy to USLAW, 1718 M Street NW, #153, Washington, DC 20036 // info@uslaboragainstwar.org.

Samir Sumaida’ie, Ambassador
Embassy of the Republic of Iraq
1801 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-483-7500
Fax: 202-462-8813 // 202-462-5066

Email: wasemb@iraqmofa.net
URL: http://www.iraqiembassy.us

Mr. Ambassador:

We have been informed that Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahirstani has ordered the transfer of eight leaders and activists of the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions from their long-standing assignments at the South Oil Company in Basra to work in the Al-Dorah neighborhood of Baghdad, known for its worsening security situation and high level of sectarian killings. In doing so, the Minister knowingly exposes these trade unionists to a heightened risk of injury or even death. As such, this decision constitutes a grave violation of these workers’ human rights, as well as an assault on their labor rights and the rights of all those workers who they represent in their capacity as IFOU leaders.

This action escalates the Iraqi government’s continuing, repeated and blatant violations of internationally recognized labor rights as enshrined in the Conventions of the International Labour Organization of the United Nations, including those to which Iraq is a signatory. Iraq continues to enforce the dictatorship era labor codes that ban unions and collective bargaining for public sector and public enterprise employees in clear violation of ILO conventions. Iraq has failed to adopt a basic labor law (as called for by its own Constitution) to protect the rights of all workers to free association, to form unions of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their labor, and to strike when necessary in defense of their interests.

We soundly and most strongly condemn these gross violations of labor and human rights. No democracy can ever be established in Iraq unless and until its workers enjoy the full range of core labor rights recognized by the ILO. No democracy can ever be sustained in Iraq without its workers and their unions being free of government intervention in their internal affairs.

Iraq must completely erase all vestiges of its authoritarian and repressive past if it is to earn the respect of the world community. We demand that your government immediately rescind the transfer order for these workers, cease harassing unions and union activists, and that it recognize and respect the rights of all Iraqi workers to form unions of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to act collectively in defense of their own interests.

We intend to monitor this situation closely to learn what actions you have taken to remedy these gross violations of labor and human rights.

Yours truly,
Learn more about the Iraqi labor movement and labor rights in Iraq.
Support the Work of USLAW

U.S. Labor Against the War counts on people like you and its organizational affiliates in the labor movement for the resources needed to sustain this important work. Please make a financial donation in whatever amount you can afford. (Consider investing a portion of the tax rebate you receive from the IRS in the struggle to end the immoral and illegal military occupations with a donation to USLAW.) Thanks in advance for whatever support you can provide.

‘Iraq Troop Pullout Would Harm Israel’

0

genocide-iraq.jpgUS presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain on Monday criticized Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s calls for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, saying that such a pullout would harm Israel’s security.

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), McCain also blasted Obama’s calls for talks with Iran.

“The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program,” McCain said, “and the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history.”

“Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,” he said.

“Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another,” the Arizona senator continued. “Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.”

McCain seemed to be responding to Sen. Obama’s previous statements made during a debate in 2007 in which he expressed willingness to hold talks with leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria.
An Obama campaign spokesman, Hari Sevugan, was quick to retort. “John McCain stubbornly insists on continuing a dangerous and failed foreign policy that has clearly made the United States and Israel less secure.”

“Here are the results of the policies that John McCain has supported, and would continue. During the Bush Administration, Iran has dramatically expanded its nuclear program, going from zero centrifuges to more than 3000 centrifuges,” the Obama camp spokesman added.

“During the Bush Administration, Iran has expanded its influence throughout a vitally important region, plying Hamas and Hizbullah with money and arms. During the Bush Administration, Hamas took over Gaza. Most importantly, the war in Iraq that John McCain supported and promises to continue indefinitely has done more to dramatically strengthen and embolden Iran than anything in a generation.”

McCain also criticized Obama’s calls for removing US troops from Iraq. “You would never know from listening to those who are still caught up in angry arguments over yesterday’s options, but our troops in Iraq have made hard-won progress under General Petraeus’ new strategy.” he said.

“[Withdrawal from Iraq] would surely result in a catastrophe,” McCain said. “If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaida terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States.

“Allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends, and would invite further intervention from Iraq’s neighbors, including an emboldened Iran. We must not let this happen.”

In his speech, McCain called for measures aimed at increasing pressure on Iran, such as severely limiting Iranian imports of gasoline, targeted sanctions such as denying visas and freezing assets and a worldwide campaign to divest from companies doing business with Iran.

McCain called for financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which he said aids in terrorism and weapons proliferation, and he criticized Obama for opposing a measure to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing US troops in Iraq.

McCain has warm relations with the group, which is influential in the Jewish community. His call for sanctions against gasoline imports is a priority that AIPAC’s members plan to lobby for in Congress later in the week.

In contrast, Obama has worked to reassure Jewish voters who have expressed some unease about his candidacy.

“I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm,” Obama said in an interview last month with The Atlantic magazine. “You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.”

Copyright JPOST.COM

Noam Chomsky on Marijuana

4

chomsky.jpgBy John Veit – HIGH TIMES MAGAZINE | A hundred years from now, Avram Noam Chomsky is going to figure in the history books as the prime voice of conscience, dissent and reason in the wars and social catastrophes of the late 20th century. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1950s, he began an intellectual revolution in the understanding of linguistics which very efficiently challenged and subverted the old knee-jerk behavioristic worldview that nourished the Cold War. His seamless critical essays on American foreign and domestic policies since then have unerringly diagnosed their fallacies, relentlessly dissecting the propaganda of the power establishment. We thought it was time he addressed the Drug War.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioUd3NHRM9o[/youtube]

HIGH TIMES: You’ve defined the War on Drugs as an instrument of population control. How does it accomplish that?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Population control is actually a term I borrowed from the counterinsurgency literature of the Kennedy years. The main targets at the time were Southeast Asia and Latin America, where there was an awful lot popular ferment. They recognized that the population was supporting popular forces that were calling for all kinds of social change that the United States simply could not tolerate. And you could control people in a number of ways. One way was just by terror and violence, napalm bombing and so on, but they also worked on developing other kinds of population-control measures to keep people subjugated, ranging from propaganda to concentration camps. Propaganda is much more effective when it is combined with terror.

You have the same problem domestically, where the public is constantly getting out of control. You have to carry out measures to insure that they remain passive and apathetic and obedient, and don’t interfere with privilege and power. It’s a major theme of modern democracy. As the mechanisms of democracy expand, like enfranchisement and growth, the need to control people by other means increases.

So the growth of corporate propaganda in the United States more or less parallels the growth of democracy, for quite straightforward reasons. It’s not any kind of secret. It is discussed very frankly and openly in business literature and academic social-science journals. You have to “fight the everlasting battle for the minds of men,” in their standard phraseology, to indoctrinate and regiment them in the way that armies regiment their bodies. Those are population-control measures. This engineering or manufacture of consent is the essence of democracy, because you have to insure that ignorant and meddlesome outsiders – meaning, we, the people – don’t interfere with the work of the serious people who run public affairs in the interests of the privileged.

HIGH TIMES: How does the War on Drugs fit into this?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, one of the traditional and obvious ways of controlling people in every society, whether it’s a military dictatorship or a democracy, is to frighten them. If people are frightened, they’ll be willing to cede authority to their superiors who will protect them: “OK, I’ll let you run my life in order to protect me,” that sort of reasoning.

So the fear of drugs and fear of crime is very much stimulated by state and business propaganda. The National Justice Commission repeatedly points out that crime in the United States, while sort of high, is not off the spectrum for industrial societies. On the other hand, fear of crime is far beyond other societies, and mostly stimulated by various forms of propaganda. The Drug War is an effort to stimulate fear of dangerous people from whom we have to protect ourselves. It is also a direct form of control of what are called the “dangerous classes,” those superfluous people who don’t really have a function contributing to profit-making and wealth. They have to be somehow taken care of.

HIGH TIMES: In some other countries you just hang the rabble.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yes, but in the U.S. you don’t kill them, you put them in jail. The economic policies of the 1980s sharply increased inequality, concentrating such economic growth as there was, which was not enormous, in very few hands. The top few percent of the population got extremely wealthy as profits went through the roof, and meanwhile median-income wages were stagnating or declining. People have to work harder, and public support systems for poor and hungry people have been declining sharply ever since the ’70s. You’re getting a large mass of people who are insecure, suffering from difficulty or misery, or something in between. A lot of them basically are going to be arrested, because you have to control them.

The Drug War is used for that purpose. It very explicitly targets young black males. When the War on Drugs was re-declared in the late ’80s, Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) pointed out that if you just look at social statistics, you can see that we are calling for a war against poor minorities, black males basically.

HIGH TIMES: It’s obviously true, but how do you prove it?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Just by looking at the trend lines for marijuana. Marijuana use was peaking in the late ’70s, but there was not much criminalization. You didn’t go to jail for life for having marijuana then because the people using it were nice folks like us, the children of the rich. You don’t throw them into jail any more than you throw corporate executives in jail – even though corporate crime is far more costly and dangerous than street crime. But then in the ’80s the use of various “unhealthy” substances started to decline among more educated sectors: marijuana and tobacco smoking, alcohol, red meat, coffee, this whole category of stuff. On the other hand, usage remained steady among poorer sectors of the population. In the United States, poor and black correlate – they’re not identical, but there’s a correlation – and in poor, black and Hispanic sectors of the population the use of such substances remained pretty steady.

So take a look at those trend lines. When you call for a War on Drugs, you know exactly who you are going to pick up: poor black people. You’re not going to pick up rich white people; you don’t go after them anyway. In the upper-middle-class suburb where I live, if somebody goes home and sniffs some cocaine the police don’t break into their house.

So there are many factors making the Drug War a war against the poor, largely poor people of color. And those are the people they have to get rid of. During the period these economic policies were being instituted, the incarceration rate was shooting up, but crime wasn’t, it was steady or declining. But imprisonment went way up. By the late ’80s, in terms of imprisoning our population, we were way ahead of the rest of the world, way ahead of any other industrial society.

HIGH TIMES: Who benefits from incarcerating young black males?

NOAM CHOMSKY: A lot of people. Poor people are basically superfluous for wealth production, and therefore the wealthy want to get rid of them. The rich also frighten everyone else, because if you’re afraid of these people, then you submit to state authority. But beyond that, it’s a state industry. Since the 1930s, every businessman has understood that a private capitalist economy must have massive state subsidies; the only question is what form that state subsidy will take. In the United States the main form has been through the military system. The most dynamic aspects of the economy – computers, the Internet, the aeronautical industry, pharmaceuticals – have fed off the military system. But the crime-control industry, as it’s called by criminologists, is becoming the fastest-growing industry in America.

And it’s a state industry, publicly funded. It’s the construction industry, the real-estate industry, and also high-tech firms. It’s gotten to a scale sufficient that high-technology and military contractors are looking to it as a market for techniques of high-tech control and surveillance, so you can monitor what people do in their private activities with complicated electronic devices and supercomputers: monitoring their telephone calls and urinalyses and so forth. In fact, the time will probably come when this superfluous population can be locked up in private apartments, not jails, and just monitored to track when they do the wrong thing, say the wrong thing, go the wrong direction.

HIGH TIMES: House arrest for the masses.

It’s enough of an industry so that the major defense-industry firms are interested; you can read about it in The Wall Street Journal. The big law firms and investment houses are interested: Merrill Lynch is floating big loans for prison construction. If you take the whole system, it’s probably approaching the scale of the Pentagon.

Also, this is a terrific workforce. We hear a fuss about prison labor in China, but prison labor is standard here. It’s very cheap, it doesn’t organize, the workers don’t ask for rights, you don’t have to worry about health benefits because the public is paying for everything. It’s what’s called a “flexible” workforce, the kind of thing economists like; you have the workers when you want them, and you throw them out when you don’t want them.

And what’s more, it’s an old American tradition. There was a big industrial revolution in parts of the South in the early part of this century, in northern Georgia and Kentucky and Alabama, and it was based mostly around prison labor. The slaves had been technically freed, but after a few years they were basically slaves again. One way of controlling them was to throw them in jail, where they became a controlled labor force. That’s the core of the modern industrial revolution in the South, which continued in Georgia to the 1920s and to the Second World War in places like Mississippi. (It should be noted that when “involuntary servitude” was abolished, the only exception was criminals convicted of crimes. WFI Editor)

Now it’s being revived. In Oregon and California there’s a fairly substantial textile industry in the prisons, with exports to Asia. At the very time people were complaining about prison labor in China, California and Oregon are exporting prison-made textiles to China. They even have a line called, “Prison Blues.”

And it goes all the way up to advanced technology like data processing. In the state of Washington, Boeing workers are protesting the export of jobs to China, but they’re probably unaware that their jobs are being exported to nearby prisons, where machinists are doing work for Boeing under circumstances that the management is delighted over, for obvious reasons.

HIGH TIMES: And most of these prisoners are now nonviolent drug offenders.

NOAM CHOMSKY: The enormous rate of growth of the prison population has been mostly drug-related. The last figures I saw showed that over half the federal prison population, and maybe a quarter in state prisons, are drug offenders. In New York State, for example, a twenty-dollar street sale or possession of an ounce of cocaine will get you the same sentence as arson with intent to murder. The three-strikes legislation is going to blow it right through the sky. The third arrest can be for some minor drug offense, and you’ll go to jail forever. (Another side effect of the three-strikes laws has been a dramatic increase in the number of high-speed police car chases, and car-chase-related car accidents. Knowing that they are up against a life sentence, even petty criminals try to escape now, instead of surrendering. WFI Editor)

HIGH TIMES: The Drug Czar’s office estimates that Americans spend $57 billion annually on illegal drugs. What effect does this have on the global economy?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the United Nations tries to monitor the international drug trade, and their estimates are on the order of $400 to $500 billion – half a trillion dollars a year – in trade alone, which makes it higher than oil, something like 10 percent of world trade. Where this money goes to is mostly unknown, but general estimates are that maybe 60 % of it passes through U.S. banks. After that, a lot goes to offshore tax havens. It’s so obscure that nobody monitors it, and nobody wants to. But the Commerce Department every year publishes figures on foreign direct investment, where U.S. investment is going, and through the ’90s the big excitement has been the “new emerging markets” like Latin America. And it turns out that a quarter of U.S. foreign direct investment is going to Bermuda, another 15% to the Bahamas and Cayman Islands, another 10% to Panama, and so on. Now, they’re not building steel factories. The most benign interpretation is that it’s just tax havens. And the less benign interpretation is that it’s one way of passing illegal money into places where it will not be monitored. We really don’t know, because it is not investigated. This is not the task of the Justice Department, which is to go after a black kid in the ghetto who has a joint in his pocket.

HIGH TIMES: What do you think of the U.S. policy of offering trade and aid favors to countries who promulgate so-called anti-drug initiatives?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, U.S. programs radically increase the use of drugs. Look at the big growth in cocaine production that has exploded in the Andes over the last few years, in Colombia and Peru and Bolivia. Why are Bolivian peasants, for instance, producing coca? The neo-liberal structural adjustment policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which are run by the U.S., try to drive peasants into agro-export, producing not for local consumption but for sale abroad. They want to reduce social programs, like spending for health and education, cutting government deficits by increasing exports. And they cut back tariffs so that we can then pour our own highly subsidized food exports into their countries, which of course, undercuts peasant production. Put all that together and what do you get? You get a huge increase in Bolivian coca production, as their only comparative advantage.

The same is true in Colombia, where U.S. “food for peace” aid, as it is called, was used to undercut or destroy wheat production by essentially giving food – at what amounts to U.S. taxpayer expense – through U.S. agro-exporters to undercut wheat production there, which later cut coffee production and their ability to set prices in any reasonable fashion. And the end result is they turn to something else, and one of the things they turn to is coca production. In fact, if you look at the total effect of U.S. policies, it has been to increase drugs.

HIGH TIMES: Well, anybody who looks into the history of American drug policies in this century…

NOAM CHOMSKY: I’m putting aside another factor altogether, namely clandestine warfare. If you look into the history of what is called the CIA, which means the U.S. White House, its secret wars, clandestine warfare, the trail of drug production just follows. It started in France after the Second World War when the United States was essentially trying to re-institute the traditional social order, to rehabilitate Fascist collaborators, wipe out the Resistance and destroy the unions and so on. The first thing they did was re-constitute the Mafia, as strikebreakers or for other such useful services. And the Mafia doesn’t do it for fun, so there was a tradeoff: Essentially, they allowed them to re-institute the heroin-production system, which had been destroyed by the Fascists. The Fascists tended to run a pretty tight ship: They didn’t want any competition, so they wiped out the Mafia. But the U.S. re-constituted it, first in southern Italy, and then in southern France with the Corsican Mafia. That’s where the famous French Connection comes from.

That was the main heroin center for many years. Then U.S. terrorist activities shifted over to Southeast Asia. If you want to carry out terrorist activities, you need local people to do it for you, and you also need secret money to pay for it, clandestine hidden money. Well, if you need to hire thugs and murderers with secret money, there aren’t many options. One of them is the drug connection. The so-called Golden Triangle around Burma, Laos and Thailand became a big drug-producing area with the help of the United States, as part of the secret wars against those populations.

In Central America, it was partly exposed in the Contra hearings, though it was mostly suppressed. But there’s no question that the Reagan administration’s terrorist operations in Central America were closely connected with drug trafficking. Afghanistan became one of the biggest centers of drug trafficking in the world in the 1980s, because that was the payoff for the forces to which the U.S. was contributing millions of dollars: the same extreme Islamic fundamentalists who are now tearing the country to shreds. It’s been true throughout the world. It’s not that the U.S. is trying to increase the use of drugs, it’s just the natural thing to do. If you were in a position where you had to hire thugs and gangsters to kill peasants and break strikes, and you had to do it with untraceable money, what would come to your mind?

HIGH TIMES: Where do you stand on drug legalization?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Nobody knows what the effect would be. Anyone who tells you they know is just stupid or lying, because nobody knows. These are things that have to be tried, you have to experiment to see what the effects are. Most soft drugs are already legal, mainly alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco is by far the biggest killer among all the psychoactives. Alcohol deaths are a little hard to estimate, because an awful lot of violent deaths are associated with alcohol. Way down below come “hard” drugs, a tiny fraction of the deaths from alcohol or tobacco, maybe ten or twenty thousand deaths per year. The fastest-growing hard drugs are the APS, amphetamine-type substances, produced mostly in the U.S.

As far as the rest of the drugs are concerned, marijuana is not known to be very harmful. I mean, it’s generally assumed it’s not good for you, but coffee isn’t good for you, tea isn’t good for you, chocolate cake isn’t good for you either. It would be crazy to criminalize coffee, even though it’s harmful. The United States is one of very few countries where this is considered a moral issue. In most countries you don’t have politicians getting up screaming about how tough they’re going to be on drugs. So the first thing we’ve got to do is move it out of the phase of population control, and into the sphere of social issues. The Rand Corporation estimates that if you compare the effect of criminal programs versus educational programs at reducing drug use, educational programs are way ahead, by about a factor of seven.

HIGH TIMES: But alarmist drug-propaganda programs like DARE and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America’s TV ads have been found to increase experimentation among teenagers.

NOAM CHOMSKY: The question is, what kind of education are you doing? Educational programs aren’t the only category. Education also has to do with the social circumstances in which drugs are used. The answer to that is not throwing people in jail. The answer is to try and figure what’s going on in their lives, their family; do they need medical care and so on? This very striking decline in substance abuse among educated sectors, as I said, goes across the spectrum – red meat, coffee, tobacco, everything. That’s education. It wasn’t that there was an educational program that said to stop drinking coffee, it’s just that attitudes toward oneself and towards health, how we live and so on, changed among the more educated sectors of the population, and these things went down. And none of it had to do with criminalization. It just had to do with a rise in the culture and educational level, which led to more care for oneself.

SOURCE: Excerpted from the April, 1998, issue of High Times Magazine.

Howard accused of war crimes

1

johnhoward.jpgABC News | A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq. A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organised by the ICC Action group in Melbourne.

Organiser Glen Floyd says Mr Howard should be held accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.

“We have produced a 52-page brief of evidence which states to the chief prosecutor of the criminal court that we allege John Howard’s actions are war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute,” he said.

Democrats Senator Lyn Allison says the legal brief sent to the ICC is justified.

Senator Allison, who is one of several eminent people supporting the move, says accountability is important.

“This action has been taken to hold those accountable for their action, so it’s essentially our prime minister – he was the one at the time [who] was the executive of government, made the decision,” she said.

‘It wasn’t put to the Parliament and as we all know, it turned out to be unjustified.”

A similar brief has been sent by a group from the United Kingdom regarding former prime minister Tony Blair. The United States is not a signatory to the court.

Australian police use national DNA data to solve crimes

0

1-800.jpgPolice in Australia’s state of New South Wales have begun using a national D-N-A database to help investigate unsolved crimes. The database matches evidence collected at crime scenes with criminal profiles to track down offenders who may have moved interstate.

New South Wales State Police Minister David Campbell says the national database is helping solve crimes across Australia.

“This is about breaking down state borders, sharing information and sharing data about criminal activity and criminals dna profiles and that means that it is much more difficult for criminals to move interstate to avoid detection.”

Source

New High In U.S. Prison Numbers

2

prison.jpgBy N.C. Aizenman | More than one in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison, an all-time high that is costing state governments nearly $50 billion a year and the federal government $5 billion more, according to a report released yesterday.

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second, according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.

The growth in prison population is largely because of tougher state and federal sentencing imposed since the mid-1980s. Minorities have been particularly affected: One in nine black men ages 20 to 34 is behind bars. For black women ages 35 to 39, the figure is one in 100, compared with one in 355 for white women in the same age group.

The report compiled and analyzed data from several sources, including the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau of Prisons and each state’s department of corrections. It did not include individuals detained for noncriminal immigration violations.

Although studies generally find that imprisoning more offenders reduces crime, the effect may be less influential than changes in the unemployment rate, wages, the ratio of police officers to residents and the proportion of young people in the population, report co-author Adam Gelb said.

In addition, when it comes to preventing repeat offenses by nonviolent criminals — who make up about half of the incarcerated population — less-expensive punishments such as community supervision, electronic monitoring and mandatory drug counseling might prove as much or more effective than jail.

For instance, Florida, which has almost doubled its prison population over the past 15 years, has experienced a smaller drop in crime than New York, which, after a brief increase, has reduced its number of inmates to below the 1993 level.

“There is no question that putting violent and chronic offenders behind bars lowers the crime rate and provides punishment that is well deserved,” said Gelb, who as director of the Center’s Public Safety Performance Project advises states on developing alternatives to incarceration. “On the other hand, there are large numbers of people behind bars who could be supervised in the community safely and effectively at a much lower cost — while also paying taxes, paying restitution to their victims and paying child support.”

Sociologist James Q. Wilson, who in the 1980s helped develop the “broken windows” theory that smaller crimes must be punished to deter more serious ones, agreed that sentences for some drug crimes were too long. However, Wilson disagreed that the rise in the U.S. prison population should be considered a cause for alarm: “The fact that we have a large prison population by itself is not a central problem because it has contributed to the extraordinary increase in public safety we have had in this country.”

About 91 percent of incarcerated adults are under state or local jurisdiction. And the report also documents the tradeoffs state governments have faced as they devote larger shares of their budgets to house them. For instance, over the past two decades, state spending on corrections (adjusted for inflation) increased 127 percent; spending on higher education rose 21 percent.

Five states — Vermont, Michigan, Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware — now spend as much as or more on corrections as on higher education. Locally, Maryland is near the top, spending 74 cents on corrections for every dollar it spends on higher education. Virginia spends 60 cents on the dollar.

Despite reaching its latest milestone, the nation’s incarcerated population has been growing more slowly since 2000 than it did during the 1990s, when harsher sentencing laws began to take effect. These included a 1986 federal law (since revised) mandating prison terms for crack cocaine offenses that were up to eight times as long as for those involving powder cocaine. In the 1990s, many states adopted “three-strikes-you’re-out” laws and curtailed the powers of parole boards.

Many state systems also send offenders back to prison for technical violations of their parole or probation, such as failing a drug test or missing an appointment with a supervisory officer. A 2005 study of California‘s system, for example, found that more than two-thirds of parolees were being returned to prison within three years of release, 40 percent for technical infractions.

“We’re just stuck in this carousel that people get off of, then get right back on again,” said Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton, who as New York City police commissioner in the 1990s oversaw a significant reduction in crime.

Because of these policy shifts, the nationwide prison population swelled by about 80 percent from 1990 to 2000, increasing by as much as 86,000 a year. By contrast, from 2007 to 2008, that population increased by 25,000, a 2 percent rise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued decisions giving judges more leeway under mandatory sentencing laws, and a number of states — including Texas, which has the country’s second-highest incarceration rate — are seeking to reduce their prison population by adopting alternative punishments.

Last year, Maryland officials began developing a new risk-assessment system to ensure that low-level offenders are not kept in jail longer than necessary, said Shannon Avery, executive director of a policy planning division of the state’s Department of Public Safety.

“That’s what you have to do when you don’t have enormous amounts of tax dollars available for building prisons,” she said.

Among the early innovators that states can look to is Virginia, which overhauled its system for sentencing nonviolent offenders in the mid-1990s. Although the state’s incarceration rate remains relatively high, Virginia has managed to slow the growth of its prison population substantially and reduce the share of its budget spent on corrections while still reducing its crime rate.

State judges use a point system to weigh factors believed to predict a lawbreaker’s likelihood of becoming a repeat offender or otherwise pose a threat to public safety. Those deemed low risk are given alternative sentences. As a result, the share of Virginia prison beds occupied by nonviolent convicts has dropped, from 40 percent in 1994 to 23 percent in 2007.

“The idea is to make a distinction between the people we’re afraid of and the ones we’re just ticked off at,” said Rick Kern, director of the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. “Not that you shouldn’t punish them. But if it’s going to cost $27,500 a year to keep them locked up, then maybe we should be smarter about how we do it.”

In-flight surveillance in every seat

0

in-flight.jpgNew Scientist | CCTV cameras are bringing more and more public places under surveillance — and passenger aircraft could be next. A prototype European system uses multiple cameras and “Big Brother” software to try and automatically detect terrorists or other dangers caused by passengers.

The European Union’s Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment (SAFEE) project uses a camera in every passenger’s seat, with six wide-angle cameras to survey the aisles. Software then analyses the footage to detect developing terrorist activity or “air-rage” incidents, by tracking passengers’ facial expressions.

The system performed well in tests this January that simulated terrorist and unruly passenger behaviour scenarios in a fake Airbus A380 fuselage, say the researchers that built it.

Systems to analyse CCTV footage — for example, to detect violence (with video) or alert CCTV operators to unusual events — have been designed before. But the SAFEE software must cope with the particularly challenging environment of a full aircraft cabin.

Threat indicators

As crew and passengers move around they often obscure one another, causing a risk the computer will lose track of some of the hundreds of people it must monitor. To get around this, the software constantly matches views of people from different cameras to track their movements.

“It looks for running in the cabin, standing near the cockpit for long periods of time, and other predetermined indicators that suggest a developing threat,” says James Ferryman of the University of Reading, UK, one of the system’s developers.

Other behaviours could include a person nervously touching their face, or sweating excessively. One such behaviour won’t trigger the system to alert the crew, only certain combinations of them.

Ferryman is not ready to reveal specifically which behaviours were most likely to trigger the system. Much of the computer’s ability to detect threats relies on sensitive information gleaned from security analysts in the intelligence community, he tells New Scientist.

Losing track

But Mohan Trivedi of the University of California, San Diego, US, is sceptical. He has built systems that he says can track and recognise individual people as they appear and disappear on different floors of his laboratory building.

It correctly identifies people about 70% of the time, and then only under “optimal conditions” that do not exist inside an airplane cabin, he says.

“[Ferryman’s] research shows that a system detects threats in a very limited way. But it’s a very different thing using it day in and day out.” Trivedi says. “Lighting and reflections change in the cabin every time someone turns on a light or closes a window shade. They haven’t shown that they have overcome these challenges.”

Ferryman admits that his system will require thousands of tests on everyday passengers before it can be declared reliable at detecting threats.

The team’s work is being presented this week at the International Conference on Computer Vision Systems in Greece.

On Trial for Protesting a Weapons Maker

0

ontrial.jpgBy Socialist Worker | Eamonn McCann is a founder of the 1960s civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, a veteran socialist and trade unionist, and one of Ireland’s most widely read journalists. He is the author of War and an Irish Town, Bloody Sunday in Derry: What Really Happened and other books.

In 2006, as a response to Israel’s savage war on Lebanon, Eamonn and other members of the Derry Antiwar Coalition organized an occupation of a local facility of Raytheon, the U.S.-based weapons maker and world’s largest producer of guided missiles. Nine activists were arrested and charged with vandalizing the building. They are on trial now, and could face time in prison if convicted.

In July 2006, members of the Derry Antiwar Coalition organized a protest, occupation and decommissioning of the local Raytheon facility there. Why did you decide to take action?

Our motivation was to prevent war crimes. Israel’s bombardment was causing carnage and destruction in Lebanon, and we knew they were using Raytheon manufactured bombs.

We were particularly outraged by the bombing of the town of Qana. Israel dropped a bomb on one complex there, killing 28 people, the majority of them women and children, crushed and suffocated beneath the rubble.

We believed this required an immediate response. We decided to take action to disrupt, delay and hamper Raytheon’s ability, in whatever way possible, to deliver weapons of mass destruction to Israel and participate in war crimes.

As the number of dead and maimed in the Middle East mounts, Raytheon recently announced a further growth of revenues and profits. How do you view Raytheon’s relationship to war crimes?

Raytheon, like all arms companies, profits from bloodshed. And after all, if there were no wars, governments would not feel the need to buy the high-tech munitions that Raytheon manufactures.

Raytheon is one of the many companies that fuels war for profit. But the Raytheon company also has a political agenda. Adam Cherill, the business manager of Raytheon, if my memory is correct, has said that the Palestinian people have no connection to the land of Palestine–that they have no culture, no society and no historical ties to the land. Now, that is not a commercial statement. That is a political statement.

The Raytheon company is closely tied to the top brass of the Pentagon. So they are complicit in everything that happens in the Middle East. In particular, they are complicit in war crimes committed through the use of Raytheon munitions.

We know that towards the end of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict in the summer of 2006, Raytheon rushed so-called bunker-buster bombs. They delivered a rush-order, of these bombs just a short time before the war ended so that Israel could continue bombing.

Israel had dropped so many bombs over southern Lebanon, south Beirut and elsewhere that they were actually running out of supplies. Raytheon rushed two Airbus transport planes from the United States to Israel in order to replenish supplies, even though, at that point, it was known that their munitions were being used to bomb civilians, to target ambulances and civilian infrastructure. So this is a company which is knowingly involved in war crimes.

The trial of the Raytheon 9 began last week in Belfast. The trial was moved from Derry, and the presiding judge imposed a media gag on all discussion of the case. Why?

The trial was moved to Belfast because the judge reckoned that there would be sympathy for the Raytheon 9 in Derry, because the defendants were well known to a wide range of people in Derry.

Now, there also could have been hostility to the defendants in Derry. I wouldn’t rule this out, because all the main parties in Derry and in the local area were all sharply condemnatory of the Raytheon 9.

But anyway, the judge transferred it to Belfast and imposed a media gag because, he said, the coverage of the case would in itself have the potential to prejudice the jury’s decisions.

This was complete nonsense. Cases trialed in Northern Ireland are regularly covered in advance of the actual trial. It was completely out of order. So it was an absolutely meaningless reason for imposing the media gag. What it did was take the issue of the Raytheon 9 and anything controversial for the Raytheon company itself out of the public arena. And it meant that the media didn’t even report on developments at the Raytheon plant, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the case.

The Raytheon 9 has received tremendous support in Ireland and around the world. Among the many who have spoken out in your defense are Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, Tony Benn, Christy Moore and George Monbiot. Yet none of the local political parties or their representatives have come to your defense. This is no surprise from the right-wing parties, but Sinn Fein, especially during the 1980s, prided itself on support for national liberation struggles in Central America and the Middle East, viewing itself in solidarity with all anti-imperialist struggles.

None of the mainstream parties–none of the four parties which form the new executive of Northern Ireland–has supported the Raytheon 9. And this is despite the fact that Sinn Fein, in particular, has always presented itself as a socialist organization, as an anti-imperialist organization.

But the truth is that the closer Sinn Fein got to power, the more they ditched their supposed socialist principles that would involve any anti-American activity.

Sinn Fein is determined to maintain the friendship of the Bush administration. Indeed, Martin McGuiness, the vice president of Sinn Fein, personally invited George Bush to visit Northern Ireland in June this year, in a couple weeks’ time. And he has publicly described George Bush as a “friend of Ireland” and “a man of peace.”

So the Sinn Fein party is not just compromised on its supposed anti-imperialist, socialist credentials, but it seems to have moved to the other side. Not really an uncommon thing for a nationalist organization once achieving office.

In 1968, you helped spark the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland and resistance to the British-supported sectarian state. Today, you are still fighting against injustice.

There’s a straight line from 40 years ago to what is happening today. In 1968, we were outraged by the U.S. war in Vietnam and inspired by the Black struggle for civil rights. We were moved by this. In Ireland, we were fighting against local injustices, but we viewed ourselves and our struggles as part of an international struggle.

Today, we continue to fight against local injustices in Ireland, but we also see it as connected to a global struggle. There’s never been a contradiction between fighting local injustices and fighting injustice in the world.

The U.S. is attempting to violently dominate the Middle East and control the oil there. Iraq and Lebanon, as well as Palestine, are at the frontline of this struggle. The location of struggle may have changed, but the struggle for liberation and justice continues.

For information on how to support the Raytheon 9 and for daily updates on the trial, visit the Support the Raytheon 9 Web site.

Eamonn McCann’s article “Qana, Derry: The dead lie in familiar shapes” describes the activists’ trip to Lebanon and the action against Raytheon the visit motivated. He also talked about the case in a You Tube video.

Iraq cites problems with US security pact

0

nouri-al-maliki.jpgAP News | Iraq’s chief spokesman acknowledged differences with the United States over a proposed long-term security agreement and pledged on Sunday that the government will protect Iraqi sovereignty in ongoing talks with the Americans.

Australia became the latest member of the U.S.-led coalition to pull combat soldiers from Iraq, fulfilling an election promise that helped sweep Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to power in November.

Opposition has been growing in Iraq to the proposed security pact with the U.S., which will replace the current U.N. mandate and could provide for a long-term American military role in this country.

Much of the opposition comes from anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, but statements critical of the deal have also been issued by mainstream Sunni and Shiite figures who fear it will undermine Iraqi sovereignty.

Chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi negotiators have a “vision and a draft that is different” from the Americans but that the talks, which began in March, were still in an early stage.

“There is great emphasis by the Iraqi government on fully preserving the sovereignty of Iraq in its lands, skies, waters and its internal and external relations,” al-Dabbagh said. “The Iraqi government will not accept any article that infringes on sovereignty and does not guarantee Iraqi interests.”

U.S. officials have refused to comment on the talks until they are complete but have insisted they are not seeking permanent bases. The agreement is to replace a U.N. mandate for U.S.-led forces that expires at the end of the year.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said they were hoping to finish the negotiations by July to allow time for the Iraqi parliament to sign off on the deal.

But Iraqi officials said last month that talks were unlikely to wrap up by July because of wide differences over several issues, including immunity enjoyed by U.S. troops from prosecution in Iraqi courts and rules governing U.S. military operations.

In recent weeks, Iraqi forces have taken the lead in operations against Al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni militants in the northern city of Mosul and against Shiite militias in southern Basra and in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad.

But the government appears to be following a policy of negotiating with militants – a strategy that calmed the situation in the three cities but probably enabled some hardliners to slip away to fight another day.

During a press conference Sunday, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, spoke out in favor of the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, saying Iraq’s forces still needed the support of the U.S.-led coalition.

“Our forces and capabilities haven’t reached the level of self-sufficiency,” Zebari said at a joint news conference with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. “We need this strategic security agreement … for the time being. But this is not open-ended.”

At the same time, the U.S. command is facing a dwindling coalition of allied countries that provide combat power in Iraq.

Australia, one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended its combat mission here Sunday and began sending its 550 combat troops home. A few hundred others will remain to train the Iraqis and protect Australian diplomats, officials said.

Rudd, the new prime minister, has said the Iraq mission had made Australia more of a target for terrorism and had promised to bring home his country’s combat soldiers by the middle of this year.

“We have to praise the role of the Australian troops in stabilizing the security situation in the province through their checkpoints on the outskirts of the city,” said Aziz Kadim Alway, the governor of Dhi Qar province where most of the troops were based.

The Iraqi government already has assumed security responsibilities for the Shiite-dominated province, which includes the volatile city of Nasiriyah. But the Australians had remained there in case the Iraqis needed help in maintaining order.

American troops will temporarily take over those responsibilities, the U.S. command said.

The Australians had “successfully accomplished their mission” and their contributions “assisted in the stabilization and development of Iraq,” U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said in a statement.

Britain transferred security responsibilities for the main southern province of Basra last year and pulled its 4,000 soldiers back to the Basra airport last year. Britain suspended plans to remove another 1,500 troops after fighting broke out in Basra in March.

The Poles have also announced they will withdraw some of their 900 soldiers from Iraq by the end of October.

Meannwhile, an American soldier was killed Sunday by an armor-piercing roadside bomb in northeastern Baghdad, the military said. No further details were released.

A car bomb exploded Sunday in a parking lot across the street from the Iranian Embassy, killing at least two civilians and wounding five people, including three embassy guards.

Elsewhere in the capital, a senior police official was wounded and a traffic cop was killed when a bomb stuck to the official’s car exploded in a busy intersection.

Two civilians also were killed in separate roadside bombs Sunday near Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad. A policeman and a civilian were injured when a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Mosul, an official of the provincial operations center said.

The violence was reported by officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to release the information.

Two U.S. soldiers were injured when their helicopter crashed Sunday south of Baghdad, the military said. The military said the crash was being investigated but appeared to be due to mechanical failure.

US Paying Allies to Fight War in Iraq

1

starsnstripes.jpgBy Subodh Varma – TNN | NEW DELHI: The tale of massive fraud and embezzlement of millions of dollars by the US military in its operations in Iraq continues. Testifying before the US Congress Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 22 May, Mary Ugone, deputy inspector general of accounts in the Pentagon said that an audit of $8.2 billion spending related to the Iraq war showed that $7.8 billion had been improperly spent.

Over 180,000 payments, mostly since the war started in 2003, were made by the defense department to contractors for everything from bottled water to vehicles to transportation services.

In her testimony, Ugone also revealed that $135 million were given to forces from three countries UK, South Korea and Poland to facilitate their participation in the war. This is the first time that the US has officially admitted paying its allies in the so-called Coalition of the Willing that invaded Iraq in March 2003.

In his opening statement, Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee, said that wounded soldiers are getting notices from the Pentagon to return signing bonuses with interest since they had not completed the full term. “There is something very wrong when our wounded troops have to fill out forms in triplicate for meal money while billions of dollars in cash are handed out in Iraq with no accountability,” he said.

In an earlier report released in November 2007, the Inspector General had concluded that the Defense Department couldn’t properly account for over $5 billion in taxpayer funds spent in support of the Iraq Security Forces. It said that thousands of weapons, including assault rifles, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were unaccounted for, and millions of dollars had been squandered on construction projects that did not exist.

Ugones testimony gave detailed examples of the bizarre manner in which US defense officials doled out huge amounts of money without recording where it was going. In one case a sum of $320 million was paid an Iraqi official for paying salaries with only an incompletely filled voucher signed by one official. Since no details of the spending plan were attached as required by Pentagon rules the auditors have no clue as to where the money went. This payment was made from assets seized from Iraq.

Auditors found that the Pentagon gave away $1.8 billion from seized Iraqi assets. There were 53 vouchers noting these payments but not even one adequately explained where the money went.

In another instance, two vouchers, one for $5 million and the other for $2.7 million showed payments to a vendor for goods and services provided except that there were no details of what goods or services were actually delivered.

Over $2.7 billion was spent on providing equipment and services to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). The auditors found that $2 billion of this was not properly accounted for. For example, 31 heavy tracked recovery vehicles costing $10.2 million were given to the ISF, but 18 of them could not be traced because identification numbers were not recorded.

Copyright Times Of India

US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships

0

prison-ships.jpgBy Duncan Campbell and Richard Norton-Taylor | The United States is operating “floating prisons” to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as “floating prisons” since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.

Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.

At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were “disappeared” to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.

Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.

The Reprieve study includes the account of a prisoner released from Guantánamo Bay, who described a fellow inmate’s story of detention on an amphibious assault ship. “One of my fellow prisoners in Guantánamo was at sea on an American ship with about 50 others before coming to Guantánamo … he was in the cage next to me. He told me that there were about 50 other people on the ship. They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on TV. The people held on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantánamo.”

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s legal director, said: “They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.

“By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been ‘through the system’ since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them.”

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, called for the US and UK governments to come clean over the holding of detainees.

“Little by little, the truth is coming out on extraordinary rendition. The rest will come, in time. Better for governments to be candid now, rather than later. Greater transparency will provide increased confidence that President Bush’s departure from justice and the rule of law in the aftermath of September 11 is being reversed, and can help to win back the confidence of moderate Muslim communities, whose support is crucial in tackling dangerous extremism.”

The Liberal Democrat’s foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said: “If the Bush administration is using British territories to aid and abet illegal state abduction, it would amount to a huge breach of trust with the British government. Ministers must make absolutely clear that they would not support such illegal activity, either directly or indirectly.”

A US navy spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, told the Guardian: “There are no detention facilities on US navy ships.” However, he added that it was a matter of public record that some individuals had been put on ships “for a few days” during what he called the initial days of detention. He declined to comment on reports that US naval vessels stationed in or near Diego Garcia had been used as “prison ships”.

The Foreign Office referred to David Miliband’s statement last February admitting to MPs that, despite previous assurances to the contrary, US rendition flights had twice landed on Diego Garcia. He said he had asked his officials to compile a list of all flights on which rendition had been alleged.

CIA “black sites” are also believed to have operated in Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

In addition, numerous prisoners have been “extraordinarily rendered” to US allies and are alleged to have been tortured in secret prisons in countries such as Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt.

Brown told detention is excessive and out of step

0

gordonbrown1.jpgBy Alan Travis and Patrick Wintour | Europe’s human rights commissioner is to write to Gordon Brown this week warning him that the proposal to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge is an “excessive” measure that will put Britain “way out of line” with the rest of Europe and will prove counter-productive.

The intervention from Europe’s human rights watchdog comes as the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, prepares to outline to Labour MPs tonight “concessions” designed to curb the scale of a backbench revolt a week on Wednesday, when the key vote is to be held.

Brown rang some potential rebels at the weekend. But his hopes of crafting a consensus will be undermined by the Council of Europe, and by the parliamentary joint select committee on human rights, which is expected to reject the compromise being touted by ministers. They have been privately suggesting that the detention powers would be triggered only in defined “grave exceptional circumstances”, such as multiple plots by terrorists.

Parliament would get to vote on the decision to use the detention powers within seven to 10 days of the decision to do so, and it would also require renewal by parliament every 30 days.

But the joint select committee is expected to agree tonight that it would be better for the government simply to derogate temporarily from relevant articles of the European convention on human rights if the country was under that level of attack.

In an attempt to lower the temperature, Brown will not attend tonight’s meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, even though it is the first since the Crewe and Nantwich byelection defeat.

The government’s claim that criminal suspects in Italy can be held for months without charge has also been dismissed by Italian parliamentary authorities. They have confirmed to Commons librarians that the maximum period of pre-charge detention under Italian law is four days.

Ministers have repeatedly cited the Italian “example” in an attempt to rubbish research by Liberty, the human rights organisation, showing that Britain’s existing 28-day limit is already longer than any comparable democracy.

In his letter to Brown, Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner will say: “I am concerned by the British government’s suggestion to allow terrorism suspects to be detained for 42 days without charge.

“This would be way out of line with equivalent detention limits elsewhere in Europe. We need to be more restrictive with such measures. Keeping people detained for such long periods before prosecution is excessive and will prove counter-productive,” he says. “I would urge members of the parliament to carefully review the government’s proposal.”

He is mandated to foster human rights standards across the 47 members of the Council of Europe and could have a role in any case at the European court of human rights testing the legality of 42-day detention.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “When the Council of Europe human rights commissioner has cause to intervene in Britain, we should all be truly ashamed. The commissioner has endorsed Liberty’s view that 28 days is already way out of line with the rest of Europe.”

She claimed the government had been quick to try to smear Liberty’s evidence but had produced none of its own: “In recent weeks they’ve even started whispering that Liberty will support some desperate 42-day rescue package. They’ve lost both the argument and the humility to admit it.”

Libya releases ‘disappeared’ dissident, says rights group

0

London: The Libyan government has freed a political prisoner after he was arrested 15 months ago, the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said. Juma Boufayed was arrested along with 13 Libyan political activist in February last year. The group had planned to protest what they called police brutality.

Boufayed was freed on Tuesday, erasing fears he might have been killed.

Of the remaining group of 13 detained last year, 11 are on trial and one man, Boufayed’s brother Idriss, has been freed.

“This (release) is excellent news because for more than a year we feared Jum’a Boufayed might be dead,” HRW said in a statement on Thursday.

But medical student Abd Al Rahman al-Qotaiwi was still missing, HRW said.

The United States had called for the release all political prisoners, saying human rights were part of the dialogue between the United States and Libya.

The ‘War Crimes File’

0

fbiscales.jpgHartford Courant | It comes as a relief to know that FBI agents were aghast at harsh interrogation techniques used by American military and CIA operatives against terror suspects detained in U.S.-run detention centers.

According to a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, FBI agents at the facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, began compiling a “war crimes file” in 2002 to document allegations of abuse against prisoners. The agents took their concerns to higher-ups in the Justice Department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council, but apparently nothing was done. Eventually, the FBI agents were told to shut down the file.

Sadly, the Bush administration has presided over a dramatic decline in standards of acceptable treatment toward detainees swept up in its war on terror. It has redefined torture to allow techniques that Americans never would have condoned prior to 9/11. But there has been too little push-back from Congress.

Obviously a lot of bad guys (as well as innocent ones) are in detention facilities at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan and Iraq. The top priority should be to use legal means to gather information from them. Nothing has so befouled the good name of this country than tactics that most clear-headed people think of as torture or something very close to it.

Our mistreatment of prisoners puts Americans at greater risk of torture and death if they are captured, as Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war, has noted. The fact that Americans treat detainees harshly has been used by al-Qaida to recruit new members.

And torture tactics are not very effective, according to many interrogation experts. The more subtle psychological manipulation and rapport-building tools used by skilled interrogators are far more likely to yield useful information.

The brutal, degrading tactics sometimes used by American interrogators are chillingly on display in documentary films such as “Taxi to the Dark Side” and “Standard Operating Procedure.”

The next president and congressional leaders should create a bipartisan, independent body like the 9/11 Commission to investigate allegations of detainee abuse and recommend statutory fixes.

White House fed war propaganda to a “complicit” media

scottmcclellan.jpgBy Bill Van Auken | In a stunning blow to what very little remains of the Bush administration’s political credibility, the president’s former press secretary Scott McClellan has published a book indicting the White House for launching an “unnecessary” war in Iraq based on false “propaganda.”

Even more telling, particularly coming from an official who was in charge of dealing with the press, is McClellan’s harsh indictment of the American media as a servile and willing accomplice in this process.

“If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq,” he writes. “The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

Significantly, in their main articles on McClellan’s book, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post, which together played the most influential roles in selling the war, chose to quote this passage.

Elsewhere, McClellan describes the press as “complicit enablers” in the White House’s “carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval” in the drive to war. It was guilty, he says, of “spreading distortions, half-truths, and occasionally outright lies.”

There is no indication in what has appeared thus far in the media about the book that it deals at any length with the role of the administration’s other “complicit enablers” in launching the Iraq war–the Democratic Party.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared herself in full agreement with McClellan’s critique of the Bush White House and the Iraq war, but this only underscores the bipartisan character of the conspiracy to drag the American people into an imperialist bloodbath.

Pelosi set the tone for the Democrats after their victory in the 2006 congressional elections by immediately ruling out any impeachment hearings or other actions to hold Bush, Cheney and their confederates responsible for the criminal war of aggression that has cost the lives of more than one million Iraqis and more than 4,000 American troops.

Nor will there be the slightest effort by the Democrats now–after the lesser criminal McClellan has provided an inside account of the deliberate fomenting of the war by his bosses–to take action to remove Bush and Cheney or halt the war. On the contrary, McClellan’s book became public within days of the Senate Democrats’ vote to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not only through the end of Bush’s presidency, but through the first nine months of the next administration.

While the book, titled What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, is to be published next week, substantial excerpts were reported in the press on Wednesday.

McClellan calls the Iraq war a “serious strategic blunder” and insists that if Bush had had a “crystal ball” and could have foreseen the costs in terms of casualties and destruction, he would not have waged it.

Drawing what he portrays as the principal lesson of this experience, he writes: “What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

He makes the same point already made better by many others at the time: that the Bush administration acted in 2002-2003 to preclude any outcome other than a US invasion of Iraq.

It “managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option,” he writes.

McClellan continues: “Over that summer of 2002, top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage.”

While providing further evidence that the administration is guilty of the grave crime of launching a war of aggression based on lies, the former White House spokesman draws back, claiming that he and others who conducted this propaganda campaign were not “employing out and out deception.”

He repeats the theme that the administration was guilty of “downplaying the major reason for going to war,” while promoting the phony pretexts of non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties. “To this day, the president seems unbothered by the disconnect between the chief rationale for war and the driving motivation behind it.”

But what was this “major reason,” this “driving motivation” in McClellan’s view? He insists that Bush was intent on “realizing his dream for a free Middle East.” This, however, is merely one more fraudulent rationale for a war aimed at utilizing US military force to secure strategic objectives, namely the domination of US capitalism over the oil resources of the Persian Gulf.

McClellan is also harshly critical of the administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, which he had staunchly defended in 2005 against reporters, whom he accused of playing “the blame game.”

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes in the book. “Many within the White House were in denial about the administration’s responsibility for Katrina…we largely ignored the fact that the federal government was the vital backup, the fail-safe mechanism supposed to compensate for breakdowns at the lower levels. When you’re president, the buck stops with you–a lesson George W. Bush still hadn’t fully absorbed.”

McClellan begins the book by recounting his 2003 statement to the White House press corps that then-White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s top political advisor Karl Rove had insisted that “they were not involved” in leaking the name of the CIA operative Valerie Plame to the press as political payback for her husband, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson, having publicly exposed White House lies about the war in Iraq.

This was one of the many lies he told as White House press secretary–he claims that he was duped by Rove, Libby, Cheney and also a supposedly unwitting Bush–but it came back to haunt him. Libby was indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges in October 2005 in relation to the CIA leak case and ultimately convicted in March 2007. During the course of these legal proceedings, it was proven that both Rove and Libby were indeed involved in identifying the CIA operative to the press.

“I could feel something fall out of me into the abyss as each reporter took a turn whacking me,” McClellan writes of the press briefings after these revelations came to light. He claims that what was at stake was his “reputation,” though there is little to suggest that he had much to lose. His performance, however, did contribute to his being pushed out of his position in 2006 by Bush’s new chief of staff, Joshua Bolten.

McClellan’s problem was that the Plame-Wilson affair was one issue on which the media could summon the courage to go on the offensive, largely because it was being egged on by elements of the national security apparatus, and in particular the CIA, which was angered by the political tactics of the White House.

Much of what McClellan writes merely serves to confirm conclusions already drawn by the bulk of the American people about the war and the nature of the government that launched it. Nonetheless, it is significant from the standpoint of who wrote it.

McClellan is hardly the first White House insider to come out with a tell-all book charging the administration with dragging the American people into war on false pretenses and other crimes. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill did so in early 2004, barely a year after being forced out of office. He was followed by Richard Clarke, the administration’s former counterterrorism adviser; CIA Director George Tenet; Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for Bush’s 2004 campaign; and others.

With McClellan, however, one is dealing with a longtime Bush loyalist, the offspring of a well-connected Texas Republican family who had been with Bush since his days as the state’s governor, when he also served as spokesman, a role he continued as traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000. With this book, there is far more the sense of the last rats jumping from a sinking ship, and trying to make some money in the process.

Moreover, the timing of its release cuts across the efforts of the Republican Party to somehow refurbish the image of the Bush administration–which is receiving approval ratings lower than those of Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal–so that it does not destroy all prospects for McCain and other Republicans in the November elections.

Reaction from the Bush camp was predictably blistering, with many seeming to suggest that after leaving the White House McClellan had either suffered a mental breakdown or had been brainwashed by the administration’s opponents or a left-wing editor.

Former White House chief of staff and Bush’s senior political advisor Karl Rove, who comes in for some of the harshest criticism in the book, suggested that McClellan didn’t even write it.

“First of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t,” Rove said on Fox News. “Not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger.”

Current White House press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement reacting to the reports on the book: “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad–this is not the Scott we knew.”

Meanwhile, McClellan’s predecessor as press secretary, Ari Fleischer, described him as an “always reliable, solid deputy” when he was at the White House. He added that “not once did Scott approach me–privately or publicly–to discuss any misgivings he had about the war in Iraq or the manner in which the White House made the case for war.”

Indeed, McClellan spent three years at thee podium in the White House press room, lying to the American public not only about the Iraq war, but also about torture, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying and other crimes carried out by the administration which he served.

He was a loyal, though thoroughly unconvincing, defender of the Bush White House line who sought to overcome his intellectual and rhetorical limitations in jousting with the press corps by doggedly repeating the same lies over and over again. In contrast to his predecessor, the unctuous Fleischer, and his successor, the right-wing radio talk show host Tony Snow, McClellan often left the impression of a deer caught in the headlights.

As Michael Wolff, who profiled McClellan for Vanity Fair, wrote, McClellan’s appointment demonstrated “a certain amount of contempt for the press on the part of the White House . . . It was a comedy, a farce, actually. He could not do the job, bottom line. He came out every day and he couldn’t talk through a sentence.”

Many of the administration’s right-wing supporters, who previously defended McClellan against his critics, are now highlighting these competence issues in an attempt to discredit him and his book.

From the excerpts that have appeared thus far, McClellan’s book is a hackneyed and self-serving account of his tenure in the White House, which hardly makes a coherent critique of the Bush administration and indeed claims that Bush himself was a victim of unscrupulous advisors.

Nonetheless, to the extent that it further substantiates the way in which the administration lied to the American people in order to launch an unprovoked war that has claimed over one million lives, it provides one more bit of evidence for bringing those responsible for this crime to account.

The last Briton in Guantanamo faces death penalty

binyam-mohamed.jpgBy Robert Verkaik | A British resident who is facing the death penalty in Guantanamo Bay has made a final desperate plea to Gordon Brown to end his six-year ordeal and bring him home today.

In a letter delivered to Downing Street, Binyam Mohamed, the last Guantanamo inmate with the automatic right to British residency, calls on the Prime Minister to use his influence with President George Bush to stop an American military “kangaroo court” sending him to his death.

Mr Mohamed, 29, from Kensington, west London, who is expected to be charged by the Americans with terrorism-related offences in the next few days, claims he has suffered horrific abuse during more than six years in detention without trial.

He denies any involvement with terrorism and says any evidence against him has been extracted through torture while he was being questioned by American interrogators in a Moroccan prison.

In his letter, Mr Mohamed tells Mr Brown: “I have been held without trial by the US for six years, one month and 12 days. That is 2,234 days (very long days and often longer nights). Of this, about 550 days were in a torture chamber in Morocco and about 150 in the ‘Dark Prison’ in Kabul. Still there is no end in sight, no prospect of a fair trial.”

He blames Britain for supplying the Americans with personal information which was used against him when he was being questioned in Morocco and where he claims his interrogators used a razor to repeatedly cut his genitals.Mr Mohamed also alleges that the British Government is refusing to release vital evidence that would prove he was tortured.

Last year, three of the remaining five British residents held at Guantanamo Bay were flown home after representations were made by London. A fourth elected to negotiate his transfer to Saudi Arabia.

But the US has refused to comply with Britain’s request to release Mr Mohamed. In his letter, he pleads: “Because I am a Londoner, your Government states publicly that you support my right to return home there as soon as possible. I am grateful for that. I always viewed Britain as the country that stood up for human rights more than any other. That was why I came to Britain as a refugee.”

But he adds: “Before the intervention of your Government to help me, I was more resigned to my fate. To be held forever without a fair trial. When your Government intervened, I had hope. But it has been a cruel hope. Nine months later, I am still here, no closer to home, still in this terrible prison. When I learned that my Moroccan torturers were using information supplied by British intelligence, I felt deeply betrayed. When I learned that your Government’s lawyers [The Treasury Solicitors] had told my lawyers they had no duty to help prove my innocence, or even that I had been tortured, I felt betrayed again.”

Born in Ethiopia in 1978, Mr Mohamed came to Britain as an asylum-seeker in 1994 when he was 16. Although the claim was never finally determined, he was given leave to remain in Britain, where he stayed for the next seven years. But, after working as a caretaker, he developed a drug habit and, according to his legal team, went travelling to Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001 in a bid to resolve his personal issues. He was picked up in Pakistan in April 2002 as he attempted to return to Britain. His lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, director of the human rights group Reprieve, said the UK Government has admitted he was questioned by British intelligence for three hours in Karachi in 2002.

According to Mr Mohamed’s evidence, the security service officer indicated to him then that he was to be taken to an Arab country — something his lawyers say shows British knowledge of the plan to render him to Morocco. They also believe that flight records relating to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia could establish the route of his rendition flight.

Should Mr Mohamed be sent to trial at the Military Commission, the case will further strain relations between Britain and America. The UK is opposed to capital punishment and has been increasingly critical of the treatment of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay.

Both Tony Blair and Mr Brown have called for the closure of the prison camp at the US naval base in Cuba which still holds nearly 300 inmates, many of whom have been unlawfully detained for more than five years.

The former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, also expressed concerns about the legally flawed system of the military tribunals, set up to try non-US citizens and which one law lord likened to “kangaroo courts”. Any convictions supported by findings from the military commissions are bound to provoke an international outcry. Human rights lawyers regard the tribunals as an affront to natural justice because they do not comply with the rules to ensure a defendant receives a fair trial.

Mr Mohamed’s own account of the abuse he claims to have suffered includes a graphic account of being tortured in Morocco: “They cut all over my body, including my private parts, saying it was better just to cut it off as I would only breed terrorists. This went on for weeks every day. I felt like I was being stung by a million bees at once. The floor was full of blood … All this time they kept reading out their [story] to me and saying if you say this story as we read it, you will just go to court and all this torture will stop. I could not take any more of this torture and, after months of torture, I repeated what was read out to me. That lessened some of the torture but it was not over.”

Recent medical reports indicate Mr Mohamed may have reached the end of his psychological tether. In his letter to Mr Brown, Mr Mohamed writes: “It is long past time to end this matter. I have been next to committing suicide this past while. That would be one way to end it, I suppose.”

The men who have been released

Ruhal Ahmed

One of the so-called ‘Tipton Three’ detained in 2002 for over two years by the US, in Afghanistan and Camp Delta. Released March 2004

Asif Iqbal

Born in West Bromwich and left school at 16 to work in a local factory. Released March 2004

Shafiq Rasul

Born in Dudley, West Midlands, he travelled to Pakistan in October 2001. Family lost contact in December 2001. Released March 2004.

Feroz Abbasi

Born in Entebbe, Uganda. Released on 25 January 2005.

Tarek Dergoul

Former care worker in east London. Told family he was flying to Pakistan in 2001 to learn Arabic. Released March 2004.

Jamal Udeen

Web designer from Manchester. Believed to have been captured while a Taliban prisoner in Kandahar Jail. Released in March 2004.

Moazzam Begg

Ran a bookshop in Sparkhill, Birmingham. Released January 2005.

Abdenour Sameur

Algerian deserter who came to Britain in 1999. Granted refugee status in UK in 2000. Released December 2007.

Martin Mubanga

Joint citizen of both the UK and Zambia. Released January 2005.

Richard Belmar

Accused of association with the Taliban and al-Qa’ida. Released January 2005.

Bisher al-Rawi

Iraqi citizen, who became resident in the UK in the 1980s. Released April 2007.

Jamil el-Banna

Jordanian with refugee status in the UK. Rel-eased December 2007.

Omar Deghayes

Libyan granted refugee status by the UK in the 1980s. Released December 2007.

Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer

Originally from Saudi Arabia, living in UK since 1996. Release being negotiated by Saudi Arabia.

UK Police Harrass Youths

3

ukpolice.jpgBy Paul Lewis | The police surveillance team had spotted their target: a 12-year-old boy with freckles and ginger hair. He was known to police for nuisance behaviour. They watched as he walked along a path with friends in the distance, before disappearing down a side street.

When the four boys emerged from the estate’s maze of alleyways, the patrol car was waiting. “Is this that operation, sir?” said one boy. “I don’t want to be on camera.” He already was.

Operation Leopard is the latest weapon in the fight against antisocial behaviour to receive government backing. Pioneered by officers in Essex policing difficult estates, it deploys forward intelligence teams (FITs) – units trained to gather evidence at foxhunts, protests and football matches – in areas suffering from crime.

FIT officers target a hit list of individuals who are “known to police”, and subject them to repeated surveillance. Last week the Guardian was given unprecedented access to the latest operation on the Five Links estate in Laindon, near Basildon.

For civil rights groups, the operation is an Orwellian technique that persecutes individuals who have committed no crime. But for police, the “in your face” approach works and, unlike covert surveillance, it requires no special authorisation.

Essex police claim there has been a “100%” drop in crime on target estates during recent operations. Their surveys indicate the so-called “harass a youth” strategy is popular in the community.

Before the previous Operation Leopard, 27.8% of residents on the estate told police they had recently witnessed crime or antisocial behaviour. In the weeks after the operation, that dropped to 8.5%.

Home Office support for the tactic comes as confidence in asbos once the government’s flagship tool for combating antisocial behaviour has disintegrated. Earlier this month the government released figures to show use of the orders had dropped by 34%.

In a speech this month widely received as marking the decline of the asbo, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, singled out the Essex force’s initiative for praise. “Operation Leopard is exactly the sort of intensive policing that can bring persistent offenders to their senses,” she said. “It creates an environment where those responsible for antisocial behaviour have no room for manoeuvre and nowhere to hide, where the tables are turned on offenders so that those who harass our communities are themselves harried and harassed.”

Essex police, who have scheduled 12 more operations this year, have since been approached by police forces across Britain for information on their techniques.

Troublemakers

Last week’s three-day operation began with officers hunched over laminated mugshots of 14 “targets” on the Five Links estate. Sergeant Simon Mathias, in charge of neighbourhood policing, briefed two community support officers, two special constables and a team of FIT officers on the individuals he had identified as troublemakers. All were male, and most were under 18. One was just 11. Between them they had convictions for robbery, battery, criminal damage and carrying weapons.

Mathias explained that officers would work in shifts, roaming the estate in search of the targets. Occasionally, he said, they should visit the targets’ homes. Officers were instructed to film “any individuals” seen associating with them. All footage would be kept for “evidence and intelligence” purposes. “We’re going to be more proactive, more intrusive,” said Mathias. “But it’s going to all be in the public domain, and all in the interests of preventing crime and antisocial behaviour.”

Nicknamed Alcatraz because of its fortress-like appearance, the Five Links estate has high levels of crime. It is also notoriously hard to police when confronted, suspects easily melt into a web of backstreets that police call “the rat run”.

During the first afternoon, two youths were reported on the roof of a school and, after a chase, were caught. They were in a group filmed earlier in the day for associating with a target. “It shows that we’re stopping the right people,” said Mathias.

Although officers claimed targets could choose not to be filmed, none of those stopped in the presence of the Guardian around 15 suspects and associates were given that choice.

“It winds me up. I can’t go nowhere without them following me,” said Michael, 18, after what he said was his fourth stop. “I got back from work and as soon as I got out the van they were just taking photos of me straight away zooming in on all the patterns I’ve got in my hair.”

Michael’s mother complained to police that he was being harassed. “You can understand the parents,” an FIT officer remarked later. “But, you know: tough. You won’t control them we will.”

By the third day the group actively began to evade police. They spent time indoors, playing computer games, or ventured off the estate on to a nearby patch of grass to play football. Some lifted their hoods every time they saw a patrol car.

Lee, 19, said he had been stigmatised. “I admit I was a little shit back in the past, but who ain’t?” he said. “I’ve grown up now I’m chilled these days. The old bill don’t let us move on. They keep on classing us as criminals.”

For civil rights groups, which have complained about Operation Leopard, this is precisely the problem. Some activists have launched a counterattack, subjecting FIT officers to surveillance. Turning their own cameras on FIT, activists have started posting officers’ names, faces and badge numbers online.

Adversarial

Back at the station, the officers logged on to one of the websites, Fitwatch, and vented their frustration at “revenge attacks”. One said being filmed felt “unnerving”.

During patrols the adversarial nature of what one FIT officer called “the hunt” was on show. Some officers developed derogatory nicknames for the teenagers they were stopping. But when talking to their teenage targets, the officers strove to build a rapport. They joked about the situation, and told the teenagers to rest assured they had done “nothing wrong”.

Sergeant Gavin Brook, who helped devise Operation Leopard in January, was the only FIT officer who agreed to be named. He acknowledged there were civil liberty implications, but added: “You have to weigh up causing a bit of annoyance to 12 or 14 youths, against the 2,000 or 3,000 residents whose lives have been improved.”

Many Five Links residents backed Brook’s argument, saying any initiative that put large numbers of police on the street would deter nuisance behaviour. But others, particularly long-time residents, were sceptical about it working when the cameras were off, or felt the method would make teenagers more hostile.

Autism Risk Linked to Distance From Power Plants

2

autism.jpgBy Leslee Dru Browning | How do mercury emissions affect pregnant mothers, the unborn and toddlers? Do the level of emissions impact autism rates? Does it matter whether a mercury-emitting source is 10 miles away from families versus 20 miles? Is the risk of autism greater for children who live closer to the pollution source?

A newly published study of Texas school district data and industrial mercury-release data, conducted by researchers at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, indeed shows a statistically significant link between pounds of industrial release of mercury and increased autism rates. It also shows — for the first time in scientific literature — a statistically significant association between autism risk and distance from the mercury source.

“This is not a definitive study, but just one more that furthers the association between environmental mercury and autism,” said lead author Raymond F. Palmer, Ph.D., associate professor of family and community medicine at the UT Health Science Center San Antonio. The article is in the journal Health & Place.

Dr. Palmer, Stephen Blanchard, Ph.D., of Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio and Robert Wood of the UT Health Science Center found that community autism prevalence is reduced by 1 percent to 2 percent with each 10 miles of distance from the pollution source.

“This study was not designed to understand which individuals in the population are at risk due to mercury exposure,” Dr. Palmer said. “However, it does suggest generally that there is greater autism risk closer to the polluting source.”

The study should encourage further investigations designed to determine the multiple routes of mercury exposure. “The effects of persistent, low-dose exposure to mercury pollution, in addition to fish consumption, deserve attention,” Dr. Palmer said. “Ultimately, we will want to know who in the general population is at greatest risk based on genetic susceptibilities such as subtle deficits in the ability to detoxify heavy metals.”

The new study findings are consistent with a host of other studies that confirm higher amounts of mercury in plants, animals and humans the closer they are to the pollution source. The price on children may be the highest.

“We suspect low-dose exposures to various environmental toxicants, including mercury, that occur during critical windows of neural development among genetically susceptible children may increase the risk for developmental disorders such as autism,” the authors wrote.

Study highlights

* Mercury-release data examined were from 39 coal-fired power plants and 56 industrial facilities in Texas.

* Autism rates examined were from 1,040 Texas school districts.

* For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by all industrial sources in Texas into the environment in 1998, there was a corresponding 2.6 percent increase in autism rates in the Texas school districts in 2002.

* For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by Texas power plants in 1998, there was a corresponding 3.7 percent increase in autism rates in Texas school districts in 2002.

* Autism prevalence diminished 1 percent to 2 percent for every 10 miles from the source.

* Mercury exposure through fish consumption is well documented, but very little is known about exposure routes through air and ground water.

* There is evidence that children and other developing organisms are more susceptible to neurobiological effects of mercury.

Implications

“We need to be concerned about global mercury emissions since a substantial proportion of mercury releases are spread around the world by long-range air and ocean currents,” Dr. Palmer said. “Steps for controlling and eliminating mercury pollution on a worldwide basis may be advantageous. This entails greener, non-mercury-polluting technologies.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated environmental mercury releases at 158 million tons annually nationwide in the late 1990s, the time period studied by the Texas team. Most exposures were said to come from coal-fired utility plants (33 percent of exposures), municipal/medical waste incinerators (29 percent) and commercial/industrial boilers (18 percent). Cement plants also release mercury.

With the enactment of clean air legislation and other measures, mercury deposition into the environment is decreasing slightly.

Limitations

Dr. Palmer and his colleagues pointed out the study did not reflect the true community prevalence rates of autism because children younger than school age are not counted in the Texas Education Agency data system. The 1:500 autism rates in the study are lower than the 1:150 autism rates in recent reports of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Furthermore, the authors note that distance was not calculated from individual homes to the pollution source but from central points in school districts that varied widely in area.

Data sources

Data for environmentally released mercury were from the United States Environmental Protection Agency Toxics Release Inventory. Data for releases by coal-fired power plants came from the same inventory and from the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality. Data for school district autism came from the Texas Education Agency.

Journal Reference and Source:

Palmer, R.F., et al., Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence. Health & Place (2008), doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.02.001.

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (2008, April 25) ((http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/5…)

How McCain Has Supported Bush

2

mccain1.jpgBy Jason Rosenbaum | CQ’s Presidential Support studies try to determine how often a legislator votes in line with the President’s position:

CQ tries to determine what the president personally, as distinct from other administration officials, does and does not want in the way of legislative action. This is done by analyzing his messages to Congress, news conference remarks and other public statements and documents. 

So, these studies only track votes when the President has an explicit, stated opinion on a bill.

According to CQ, Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007:

Presidential Support

CQ’s Presidential Support numbers do not include votes that legislators miss – in other words, missing a vote on an issue Bush supported did not lower McCain’s score. Now, it is a well known fact that Senator McCain misses the most votes in the Senate. In fact, he was crowned the most absent Senator in 2008. Therefore, when John McCain even bothered to show up and vote in the Senate – which wasn’t often – he voted with Bush 100% of the time.

John McCain and George Bush believe the same things on virtually every issue – the list of their agreements goes on for pages. But a better judge of a politician’s views is not how he talks, but how he votes. John McCain – when it counted and when he showed up in the Senate to do his job in 2008 – never deviated from George Bush’s position. Not once. 100%.

It’s all there in black and white. John McSame – just like Bush.

UN chief “shocked” over Zimbabwe’s murdered activists

0

un1.jpgGeneva – The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said she was shocked Wednesday by the news that several more political activists had been found murdered in Zimbabwe.

She condemned the killings as well as the continuing harassment of aid workers, human rights defenders and other members of civil society.

A number of bodies of slain political activists for the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), had reportedly been discovered over the past week.

One of the victims was reportedly MDC provincial treasurer Shepherd Jani, whose body was found three days after he had been reported abducted by four armed men.

‘It is hard to get a very precise picture of the full range of the violence, or the exact number of politically motivated extra-judicial killings,’ Arbour said.

‘At one level, there appears to be an increasing pattern of people being targeted for politically motivated assassination. At another, arrests, harassment, intimidation and violence, directed not just at people with political affiliations, but also at members of civil society, are continuing on a daily basis.’

The High Commissioner urged the Zimbabwean authorities to investigate ahead of the presidential run-off election on June 27.

Arbour said that the news of more killings in Zimbabwe also gave a sharper edge to the recent large-scale violence directed against migrants and refugees in neighbouring South Africa.

For some of the Zimbabweans being chased from their homes and jobs in South Africa, it was more than an economic issue.

‘They now face a potentially a life-threatening situation in both countries. I welcome the steps the South African government has taken recently to clamp down on the xenophobic violence, and hope that such scenes are never seen again in South Africa,’ Arbour said.

The Genealogy of Torture and Democracy

0

torture4.jpgBy Shannon Jones | The horrifying scenes of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the mistreatment of detainees at the US concentration camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba have brought the issue of the officially sanctioned state use of torture into the international spotlight.

The widespread employment of torture by US military and intelligence agencies has been accompanied by an unrelenting assault on democratic rights at home. The “war on terror” has been used to justify warrantless wiretaps, detention without charges and other attacks on constitutional rights. The Bush administration, with the complicity of the US Congress, has asserted virtually dictatorial power, proclaiming its right to seize and hold indefinitely anyone it deems an “enemy combatant.”

Darius Rejali, in his recently published book Torture and Democracy, documents the continued widespread employment of torture. He provides a meticulously detailed account of the use of torture techniques by both authoritarian and bourgeois democratic governments from the Spanish Inquisition to the present. He reaches the conclusion that the so-called industrial democracies, the United States, Britain, and France in particular, have been responsible for developing and exporting a large portion of the torture techniques currently employed throughout the world.

Rejali, an Iranian-American, is a professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon and is regarded as a leading expert on the torture issue and its consequences for society. He has authored several previous works on the topic, including, Torture and Modernity: Self, State and Society in Iran.

The author’s principle thesis is that the rise of human rights monitoring since the 1970s has not reduced the use of torture, but merely driven regimes that practice torture to utilize “clean” methods that are more difficult to detect. He points in particular to the rise of electro-torture and stun technology as indicative of this trend.

Rejali is sharply critical of apologists for the US use of torture. He rebuts claims that so called “harsh interrogation” techniques defended by Bush administration lawyers–included forced standing, hooding, starvation, thirst, mind-altering drugs, and sleep deprivation, among others–do not constitute torture. He demonstrates that similar methods were denounced when employed by foreign governments against US soldiers, for example by Japan and Germany during WWII.

As for the CIA practice of waterboarding, Rejali points out that it is a torture technique dating back to the 17th century that later found its way to the US via soldiers returning from the Philippine War.

He notes, “The limitations placed on the CIA’s ‘enhanced interrogations’ are almost identical to those imposed by Gestapo chief Muller in 1943 on the Gestapo’s ‘sharpened interrogation’” (p. 503).

Rejali correctly points out that the use of torture is not simply an issue relating to the treatment of prisoners captured during America’s overseas military interventions. He notes the long history of torture techniques, e.g., electric cattle prods, the so-called third degree, etc., employed by police departments on prisoners in the United States, citing for example the recent police torture case in New York City involving Abner Louima. He warns that torture techniques learned by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually show up in American policing.

He strongly opposes equipping police with stun guns and tasers because the misuse of these devices on prisoners is difficult to detect, making them ideal torture devices.

Rejali also rebuts the reactionary and ignorant arguments put forward by Zionist apologist Alan Dershowitz and others who favor so-called torture warrants. He points out that there is no documented case of torture uncovering a “ticking bomb,” and that torture is more likely to produce unreliable information than other forms of intelligence. Further, he argues that torturers always go beyond the approved methods.

Rejali’s work, however, is marred overall by an apolitical approach, which treats the question of torture in an abstract manner, largely separate from the policy aims and class interests of the regimes that employ it.

While documenting the continued pervasive use of torture, despite legal prohibitions, from local police departments to state security agencies, Rejali is unable to draw any significant conclusions about what this says about the character of US society. This is in no small part due to the fact that he uncritically accepts the premises behind the so-called “war on terror” that are being used to justify the atrocities committed by the United States and other imperialist powers.

The author treats Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as though they were unrelated to the assault on democratic rights within the United States. Further, he makes no critical assessment of the character of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus implicitly accepting the premises behind these reactionary neo-colonial adventures.

The book makes for difficult reading. The author adopts a detached, academic, almost matter-of-fact approach in describing some of the most horrific human abuses, cataloging the history of every known torture technique and its usage by country. While this certainly required a huge amount of research, the accumulation of such a mass of detail ultimately ends up numbing the reader and detracting significantly from the overall impact of the book.

One reviewer suggested the book could serve as sort of a torture manual. While this undoubtedly was not the intention of the author, one wonders if all this detail was necessary to support his contentions.

One of the conclusions drawn by Rejali is that torture is a craft, passed on by individual torturers, and not a science. He advances this thesis as a rebuttal to claims by American radical academic Noam Chomsky that the US Central Intelligence Agency has acted as the principal distributor of torture techniques during the last half of the 20th century.

However, whatever its precise role in spreading specific torture techniques, there is no doubt that the CIA has assisted right-wing client regimes that employ torture, especially in Latin America. Rejali’s rebuttal of Chomsky thus appears insincere, aimed more at distancing himself from a left-wing critique of US imperialism than in adding to public understanding about torture.

On page 22, he asks rhetorically, “How is it that democracy and torture can coexist?” But he does not ask the more pertinent question, “What is the state of American democracy under conditions where the ruling authorities openly assert their right to practice torture in defiance of domestic laws and international conventions?”

He explicitly rejects a class-based analysis of society, dismissing what he terms the “ruling elite hypothesis,” which argues that “democratic states are ruled by an elite who, for whatever reason, want to hide their exploitative state in the guise of a genuinely democratic government” (p. 411).

In essence, the book is a plea to state authorities to recognize that torture is not in their best interest. The author argues that torture is ineffective, corrupting and demoralizing. He writes: “In the broadest sense, this book offers states good reasons to avoid torturing prisoners…. [I]nstitutionalized torture is the farthest thing from political realism; indeed, it is downright foolish in some cases. The most effective ways of exercising violence and gathering information depend on public cooperation or at least willing informants” (p. 26).

In this regard, Rejali pays a great deal of attention to the experience of the French in Algeria in the 1950s and early 1960s. Of the French battle against the Algerian anti-colonial insurgency he writes, “What is important here is that democratic institutions were unwilling or unable to stop the turn to torture. One after another the judicial system, the legislature, the opposition parties and the press failed … the consequences for France were severe. In 1958, the army threatened to intervene in national politics for the first time since Napoleon’s coup of eighteenth Brumaire, leading to the collapse of the Fourth Republic. In 1961 the army finally did organize a putsch and failed” (p. 47).

In an interview in the February 2008 edition of Harper’s Magazine he writes, “As I show in Torture and Democracy, the Battle of Algiers turned in favor of the French only after Paul Aussaresses, who ran the torture policy, was replaced by the very smart and canny Col. Yves Godard, and it was his informants, not Aussaresses’ torture policy, that gave the French the big breaks they needed. Goddard knew how intelligence really worked.”

In the same interview he calls it a “hopeful” sign that so far “clean” methods of torture are being employed because it means “government leaders know that people are watching.”

By implication, what Rejali is proposing then are “clean” colonial wars where the occupiers exercise restraint and balanced judgment. But the author does not cite examples because none exist.

How is it that state torture, a relic of medieval barbarism, flourishes in the 21st century? In Chapter Two the author advances a series of “models” to explain why purportedly democratic states like the US practice torture: for information, for confessions and as a means of intimidation. But the author evades the main point. While it is true that the US and other Western democracies have covertly practiced torture in the past, what is new is that the US ruling class now openly embraces and defends these methods. The sanction of torture and other wholesale violations of democratic principles, such as suspension of the right of habeas corpus, are unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Behind the breakdown of the constitutional rule of law is the staggering growth of social inequality in the United States and globally. The US is a society so polarized along class lines that democratic forms of rule are breaking down. The top 1 percent of the US population controls 34.3 percent of the net worth of all households and 20 percent of all income. By contrast, the poorest 40 percent controls just .2 percent of wealth.

The United States incarcerates more of its own people than any other country in the world, 1.6 million or about 1 out of every 100 US adults. In 2007 it was fifth in the world behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in the number of executions.

The intensification of the assault on democratic rights is also bound up with the turn to military aggression and conquest overseas by the US corporate establishment. The attempt to seize the resources of the oil-rich Middle East and subjugate the people of the region requires the use of massive violence. It requires the suppression of opposition to this agenda within the United States as well.

Thus, no amount of moral appeals or attempts to apply pressure to the ruling authorities can reverse the trend toward the suppression of civil liberties, including the open sanction of torture. The defense of democratic rights is bound up with a fight against the source of social inequality and war, which is the capitalist profit system itself.

Torture and Democracy, Darius Rejali, Princeton University Press: 2007, 880 pp., $39.50

Lecturers defy government over ID cards

0

idcard1.jpgBy Anthea Lipsett | Lecturers voted overwhelmingly to oppose and defy the government’s plans to introduce identity cards at the University and College annual congress in Manchester today.The government plans to pilot the controversial identity cards with international students, which lecturers warned could deter them from choosing to study in the UK.

In January, the Tories accused the government of “blackmailing” students into holding identity cards in order to get student loans.

Dave Goode from Cambridge University, who proposed the motion that was passed, talked of the “horror and contempt” of identity cards and called on members to back the NO2ID campaign.

Mike Cushman, from the LSE, had led research into identity cards and called on members to oppose their introduction as “citizens and members of society, as trade union members and education trade union members”.

He said the Home Office would like society to believe that identity cards would “end terrorism … benefit fraud … illicit health service use … identity theft … and there would be no more queues and constant sunshine in Manchester”.

To applause he said the government wanted to “delegitimise dissent” and union members should fight back.

“We know it’s going to be piloted on non-EU international students – another barrier to students coming to our universities at a time when we’re facing greater international competition,” he said.

Malcolm Povey from Leeds University said: “We live in the most disciplined and rigid society throughout the history of human evolution. Every aspect of our lives is subject to control by the state. These cards are yet another step in this direction.

“To me, these cards will form part of the scapegoating and divisive agenda of government and employers. We’re already seeing this as a challenge to academic freedom.”

For instance, he said lecturers in Palestine would be subject to very strict controls if they were to get a job in the UK.

No sign al Qaeda has WMD capability – US official

1

al-qaeda.jpgReuters | There’s no sign that al Qaeda has acquired the capability to use weapons of mass destruction, a U.S. intelligence official said Tuesday, ahead of an anticipated release of a video by the group urging militants to use such arms.

“At this point there isn’t evidence they’ve obtained it,” the official said, referring to weapons of mass destruction capability. “But it’s clearly their intent and it’s something we need to be aware of and concerned about.” (Reporting by Randall Mikkelsen, editing by Philip Barbara)

Olmert urged to stand down over corruption claims

0

barak.jpgBy Donald Macintyre | The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s most powerful coalition partner has called on him to step aside in the face of widespread anger at allegations that he had repeatedly received envelopes stuffed with cash from a US businessman.

In the wake of testimony by the businessman Morris Talansky that he had personally handed over $150,000 (£76,000) for Mr Olmert during a period of some 15 years, the Defence Minister and Labour Party leader Ehud Barak urged the Prime Minister to leave office — either permanently or for as long as the police investigation against him continues.

But while Mr Barak’s intervention triggered potentially the most serious threat yet to Mr Olmert’s political survival, it did not come with a deadline. Nor did it shake Mr Olmert’s apparent determination to stay in office until or unless he is formally indicted.

Mr Barak called on Mr Olmert to release the reins of government “through [self-] suspension, vacation, resignation or declaring himself incapacitated” and warned that he would trigger elections if the Prime Minister did not stand down or was not replaced by his colleagues in the ruling Kadima party.

Saying that Mr Olmert could not at once “deal with the challenges facing Israel, such as Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, Iran and the captive soldiers” and at the same time handle “his own affairs”, he added: “Therefore, acting out of concern for the good of the country… I believe the Prime Minister must disconnect himself from the day-to-day running of the government.”

According to a survey in the daily newspaper Haaretz, 70 per cent of those polled — and 51 percent of voters in Kadima — do not believe Mr Olmert’s version that the money he received from the American businessman went only for his election campaigns.

Mr Barak launched his intervention at a news conference in the Knesset building after Mr Talansky’s testimony — dismissed as “twisted” by Mr Olmert’s lawyers — appeared to contradict the Prime Minister’s insistence that he had not benefited personally from any payments made to him over the period under investigation.

Mr Olmert’s aide, Tal Zilberstein, told Israeli television “the press conference changed nothing”. “The Prime Minister was not considering resigning, nor taking a leave of absence, nor any of the other suggestions raised at that press conference,” he said. To do so would be tantamount to an admission of offences of which he intends “to prove his innocence”.

Uncertainty remains about how ready Mr Barak is to carry out his threat to lead his party out of the coalition and so trigger an election which the current polls suggest he would not win. While some of his allies suggested that the “moral message” he conveyed would increase his popularity, the polls indicate at present that Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud would be the biggest party after any new election.

The one factor that could alter that landscape would be if Mr Olmert were to be replaced as Kadima leader by Tzipi Livni, the Foreign Minister. She has reportedly incurred Mr Olmert’s anger by not notably rallying to his support but she is deemed to be the most popular politician in the country. However, she has rivals within Kadima such as Shaul Mofaz, the former chief of staff in the military who has a base among political activists though much less so in the country.

Ms Livni would also be best placed — among Kadima politicians — to inherit Mr Olmert’s efforts to conclude a “shelf agreement” on a two-state solution with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Concern that these could now grind to a halt were underlined yesterday when Nabil Abu Rudeineh, an aide to Mr Abbas, said there was “no doubt that what is happening in Israel will have negative repercussions on the negotiating track”.

Sima Kadmon, a columnist for the Yedhiot Ahronot daily, wrote in a front-page commentary yesterday: “The issue here is the unassuming way in which an elected official takes into his hands huge sums of money in cash, credit card or as a loan. Where is the shame? Where are we living?”

Sleaze and scandal in Israeli politics

* Omri Sharon, son of ex-prime minister Ariel Sharon, began a seven-month prison term in February 2008 after conviction on campaign funding violations. His father is mentioned in the inquiries but has not been charged.

* Finance minister, Avraham Hirchson, resigned in July 2007 under suspicion of embezzling millions from a union he used to run.

* Israel’s President, Moshe Katsav, forced to resign in June 2007 amid rape and sexual harassment charges.

* Olmert ally, Haim Ramon, convicted in March 2007 of forcibly kissing a female soldier. After a light sentence, Ramon returns to Olmert’s cabinet as Vice Premier.

* President Ezer Weizman is forced to resign in 2000 under suspicion of accepting money from a businessman.

* Prime Minister Ehud Barak and aides suspected in 2000 of campaign finance irregularities. No charges are filed.

* Decorated general Yitzhak Mordechai resigns from cabinet in 2000 after being charged with sexually assaulting female workers. He is convicted and given suspended sentence.

* Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suspected in 1997 of engineering appointment of attorney general in exchange for support from the Shas party, but is not charged.

* Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin resigns in 1977 before an election in which his wife is found to have an illegal foreign currency account in the US.

Vets for Peace Booted from National Memorial Day Parade

0

vetsforpeace.jpgBy Matthew Rothschild | There is one group of veterans that isn’t allowed to march in the national memorial parade in Washington on Monday. That’s the Veterans for Peace, Delwin Anderson Memorial chapter, based in D.C. It’s named after a World War II vet who fought in Italy and then worked for the VA for many years designing programs for injured veterans.

The group had applied to join the National Memorial Day parade.

And initially, anyway, it was accepted.

But then, late last month, the group was told that it didn’t meet the criteria to participate.

The American Veterans Center, which runs the parade, told them “we cannot have elements in the parade that have any type of political message or wish to promote a point of view.”

But other groups, like the American Legion, will be participating in the parade.

Its creed is to defend “God and country” and to “foster and perpetuate a 100 percent Americanism.”

And check out the list of major sponsors for the parade. They include: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, the nation of Kuwait, the U.S. Army, and even the NRA.

“We’re striving to keep political statements out of the parade,” says Jordan Cross, communications director of the American Veterans Center. “Last year, we had two groups who supported the war, and we turned them down.”

Cross says that when the American Veterans Center looked more closely at the Vets for Peace application and “saw what they were requesting, to carry a coffin in the parade, and all that jazz,” it decided not to let them participate.

Michael Marceau, a wounded Vietnam vet, serves as vice president of the D.C. Vets for Peace group. “We’re puzzled,” he said, adding that he felt “very disrespected.”

Caroline Anderson, the widow of Delwin Anderson, was supposed to ride in the parade in a convertible. Bashful, she doesn’t want to talk about herself or on behalf of the Vets for Peace chapter. But she is not happy about the expulsion. “It’s a great disappointment,” she says, “to feel that other veterans would not allow them to be with them and march, just because they’re for peace.”

John Bolton Escapes Citizen’s Arrest

1

johnbolton.jpgBy Stephen Adams – The Telegraph | John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, has escaped an attempted citizen’s arrest as he appeared at the Hay Festival. Security guards blocked the path of columnist and activist George Monbiot, who tried to make the arrest as Mr Bolton left the stage.The former ambassador – a key advisor to President George W Bush who argued strongly in favour of invading Iraq – had been giving a talk on international relations to more than 600 people at the literary festival.

Mr Monbiot was blocked by two heavily-built security guards at the end of the one-and-a-half hour appearance, before he could serve a “charge sheet” on him.

After being released by the guards the columnist – a fierce critic of the 2003 American-led invasion – made a dash through the rain-soaked tented village in a failed attempt to catch up with Mr Bolton.

A crowd of about 20 protestors, one dressed in a latex George Bush mask, chanted “war criminal” as Mr Bolton was ushered away.

Mr Monbiot said moments later he was “disappointed” that he had been blocked from making the citizen’s arrest.

“This was a serious attempt to bring one of the perpetrators of the Iraq war to justice, for what is described under the Nuremberg Principles as an international crime,” he said.

During Mr Bolton’s talk, to a packed-out audience, Mr Monbiot had asked Mr Bolton what difference there was between him and a Nazi war criminal.

Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

On the war’s legality, he added: “This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government.”

A citizen’s arrest can be carried out under certain circumstances by a member of the public, if they believe a person had carried out a crime, under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Earlier, festival director Peter Florence had said they had sought legal advice and been told carrying out such an arrest would be “completely unlawful” given the circumstances.

He said: “”The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker.”

A spokesman for The Guardian, for which Mr Monbiot writes a regular column, said he was acting in a “personal capacity”.

Iran to unveil new warfare equipment

0

iran-warfare.jpgPress TV | Iran’s Defense Minister announces plans to unveil 30 new military hardware projects developed by Iranian experts in the upcoming year. Speaking on the sidelines of a Wednesday cabinet meeting, Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar said Iran’s Defense Ministry would unveil projects to mass produce electronic warfare, aerospace, naval, and ground equipment in the coming months.

Referring to the naming of the new Iranian year by the Leader as the year of ‘innovation’ and ‘flourishing’, Najjar described the newly developed equipment as essential for Iran’s Armed Forces.

He added that 70 other new projects had been put on display at a military exhibition staged in the southwestern city of Shiraz.

In response to embargoes imposed on Iran over its nuclear program, the country has launched a campaign for self-sufficiency in its defense industry.

Amnesty urges next US president to ban torture

0

close-gitmo.jpgAFP | Rights watchdog Amnesty International yesterday urged the next US president to close the “war on terror” prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, ban all forms of torture and stop propping authoritarian regimes.

In its annual report, Amnesty said it was crucial for the new US leader to restore America’s moral authority around the world following President George W Bush’s administration’s “dismal record.
“As the world’s most powerful state, the USA sets the standard for government behavior globally,” it said.

“With breathtaking legal obfuscation, the US administration has continued its efforts to weaken the absolute prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment,” it said.
“The world needs a USA genuinely engaged and committed to the cause of human rights, at home and abroad.”

The Bush administration has come under fire over its treatment of terror suspects and its past use of waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique that it refuses to call torture.
“In November 2008, the US people will elect a new President,” Amnesty said as senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton battle for the Democratic nomination to face Republican candidate John McCain.

“For the USA to have moral authority as a human rights champion, the next administration must close Guantanamo and either try the detainees in ordinary federal courts or release them,” the London-based group said.

“It must ban evidence obtained through coercion and denounce all forms of torture and other ill-treatment no matter to what end,” it said. “It must ditch support for authoritarian leaders.”
“And it must be ready to end US isolation in the international human rights system and engage constructively with the UN Human Rights Council.”

Amnesty also criticised Washington’s support for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a key ally of the US in the “war on terror.”

Ireland accused of failing on flight rendition

0

rendition.jpgRTÉ News | US assurances that Irish airports are not being used for rendition are not worth the paper they are written on, according to the Secretary General of Amnesty International.Speaking to RTÉ News on the publication of Amnesty’s annual report, Irene Khan accused European countries like Ireland of failing to put in place safeguards against rendition.

Amnesty International says that despite repeated calls by the Council of Europe, no government has yet put in place adequate measures to prevent their territory being used by the US for the secret transfer of detainees to detention, which is known as rendition.

The Government says it accepts US assurances that Ireland is not being used for rendition.

It is 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but Amnesty accuses world leaders of what it sees as their failure to deliver on it.

It expresses hope that the next president of the US will close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

Amnesty points to human rights abuses in Burma as the most glaring example of a decline in the global influence of the US and the EU.

In the Middle East it highlights the 2008 death toll for Palestinian and Israeli victims, which already exceeds the figure for all of 2007.

Amnesty also says it expects China, as an increasingly significant global power, to improve its human rights record both at home and abroad.

In the report, Amnesty International condemns Russia for its repression of political dissent, but sees the installation of President Dmitry Medvedev and new leaders taking over elsewhere in the world as a sign of hope for the future.

Read Amnesty International’s 2008 State of the World’s Human Rights report

Brown: To Be More Than an Accessory to War Crimes

0

tariqali.jpgBy Tariq Ali | Power can shape “truth”, but not for ever. That is one lesson that could be learned from the series of electoral defeats that mark the end of New Labour’s weightless hegemony. There is something grotesque about the daily denunciations of Brown by hard-core Blairites in Parliament and their media acolytes, who barely uttered a word of criticism as the country was dragged into two wars and New Labour prettified the Thatcherite social and economic agenda, now calling for the removal of Brown. As if his removal and replacement by a robotic Blairite (Miliband senior, Purnell and, amusingly enough, even Milburn is mentioned in this regard) would do the trick.

Brown was fully implicated in the New Labour project and funded its hyper-militarism. He is too weak to even mimic Zapatero in Spain and Rudd in Australia by withdrawing British troops from Iraq. Instead, one of his zombies devised the pathetic idea of Armed Forces Day to celebrate militarism and encourage school-leavers to take up killing foreigners as their main subject and graduate or die in the university of the world.

The fact is that New Labour’s time is up. When it came to power waving the Union Jack in 1997, the social landscape had already been wrecked by Thatcherism. The phallic architecture of the deregulated financial companies dominated the city, the old gents and their cozy networks were consigned to clubland. Silicon and pharmaceutical firms, funded by Japanese and American capital and immunized against a trade-union movement, neutered by the state, sprouted along the M4 corridor southwest from London and Reading.

The old textile towns were reduced to the status of cemeteries; iron and steelworks had been ploughed to rubble. The old working class was dead. In the transference of class wealth and power, Thatcherism and its neocon New Labour worshippers were eminently successful. Wealth disparities had increased during the Blair/Brown years. Many of the cash-starved utilities had foundered in private hands. Schools and hospitals continued to deteriorate. As railway privatization proved a disaster, New Labour “radicals” were thinking of how the “revolution of choice” could privatize health and education.

From the start New Labour was pledged to consolidate the Thatcherite paradigm rather than offer anything different. Blair’s model was to depoliticize Labour (and the electorate) by preaching against the sin of “ideology” (i.e. social democracy) in the name of a new, beyond left-and-right, trendy Starbucks-style capitalism. And so it was decreed that Labour should become little more than a British version of the US Democratic Party with cheerleaders and all, though it is more reminiscent of the Republicans. Domestically, Brown would aim for fiscal-surplus levels usually only demanded of the Third World, to be ameliorated by a few low-cost anti-poverty measures.

While all this was going on there was little opposition within the Labour Party or the major trades unions. As long as they were in power with over-sized, if unrepresentative majorities, the brothers and sisters might grumble a bit in private, but power was what really mattered. Look at them now as they squeal in anguish at the thought that they might lose their jobs. Members of the Cabinet who have helped deregulate the country will find something or the other if the economy doesn’t collapse, but for New Labour cannon-fodder the world outside the bubble offers little hope. It’s too late now. They should accept that the party’s over. Desperate squabbling to retain power at all costs without any political principle involves will not endear them to the electorate and is unrealistic in any case.

As for Gordon Brown, he may be a lame-duck prime minister, but he could still do something decent. After all, he has nothing to lose now except his job. He could withdraw British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and, like the Irish Republic, permit a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Worth remembering that Blair’s massive majorities were the product not of voter enthusiasm but of a winner-takes-all electoral system, which helped to mask the collapse of the Conservatives, the country’s historic party of government. The Tory recovery is a sign of how low New Labour has fallen and marks its end.

Brown could push through two constitutional measures badly needed at home: a fully elected second chamber and proportional representation. It might help reverse a growing alienation of the young from the political process. Were he to realize that he owes the country something, he might still make the history books and as more than an accessory to war crimes.

UK ready to scrap killer cluster bombs

0

clusterbomb.jpgBy Richard Norton-Taylor | The government is preparing to scrap Britain’s entire arsenal of cluster bombs in the face of a growing clamour against weapons that have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians.

Officials are paving the way for the unexpected and radical step at talks in Dublin on an international treaty aimed at a worldwide ban on the bombs.

Well-placed sources made clear yesterday that despite opposition from the military, the government is prepared to get rid of the cluster munitions in Britain’s armoury: the lsraeli-designed M85 artillery weapon used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and in attacks on Lebanon two years ago; and the M73, part of a weapons system for Apache helicopters.

“The prime minister is very much behind this process and wants us to sign [the treaty]”, a senior Foreign Office source said yesterday.

Ireland, which is chairing the talks, wants a treaty text to be adopted tonight. “If we sign up to the treaty we will lose the M85 and the M73”, the source said. While the government appears happy for British forces to get rid of their M85 weapons immediately, it wants a “phasing out period” for its M73s.

The agreement, expected to be confirmed today, ends a long-running Whitehall dispute which has pitted the Ministry of Defence against the FO and Department for International Development. The MoD says the number of cluster bombs in the armoury is “operationally sensitive” but concedes that decommissioning them will cost tens of millions of pounds.

Participants in the talks were still embroiled last night in the vexed question of whether troops from countries who sign up to the ban could go on operations with those, notably the US, that do not. Preventing them from doing so could lead to breaches in other treaty commitments, notably involving Nato, and would have serious practical implications, British officials say. The government also wants to allow the US to stockpile cluster weapons at American bases in the UK.

Pressure would be applied on the US not to use its cluster weapons in joint operations with countries which had banned them, officials suggest.

Cluster weapons are highly controversial because they scatter small “bomblets” over a wide area. Many of them do not explode on impact and are activated later by civilians. They caused more than 200 civilian casualties in the year after the Lebanon ceasefire, and more civilian casualties in Iraq in 2003 and Kosovo in 1999 than any other weapon system.

The M85 was fired by British troops around Basra during the invasion of Iraq. According to the MoD, they made a “direct contribution to saving the lives of UK service personnel”.

The M73 rocket, part of the Apache’s weapons system, is fired from pods on the attack helicopters and can also be fitted to Harrier jets. In its defence of their use, MoD officials have argued that they were “direct fire” weapons – in other words a pilot firing them can see the target – and that a single weapon had fewer than 10 “bomblets”.

However, that figure refers to the number in just one rocket pod, and an Apache can carry a total of 684 in its cluster weapons, campaigners say.

Human rights groups campaigning for a ban on all cluster bombs said yesterday the planned treaty was being threatened by the refusal of the US to remove stocks from its airforce bases on UK territory.

Simon Conway, a former soldier and the director of Landmine Action UK, said: “Gordon Brown has pushed the Dublin negotiations in the right direction. Now is the time for him to have the courage of his convictions and tell the US that it cannot store these outdated and indiscriminate weapons on UK soil.”

Article 1 of the planned treaty, due to be signed in Oslo in early December, prohibits assistance with the use, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions. The US, Israel, Russia, China, India and Pakistan are not taking part in the talks.

Iraq War May Have Increased Energy Costs by $6 Trillion

energy-iraq.jpgBy Geoffrey Lean | The invasion of Iraq by Britain and the US has trebled the price of oil, according to a leading expert, costing the world a staggering $6 trillion in higher energy prices alone. The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido), told The Independent on Sunday that the price of oil would now be no more than $40 a barrel, less than a third of the record $135 a barrel reached last week, if it had not been for the Iraq war.

He spoke after oil prices set a new record on 13 consecutive days over the past two weeks. They have now multiplied sixfold since 2002, compared with the fourfold increase of the 1973 and 1974 “oil shock” that ended the world’s long postwar boom.

Goldman Sachs predicted last week that the price could rise to an unprecedented $200 a barrel over the next year, and the world is coming to terms with the idea that the age of cheap oil has ended, with far-reaching repercussions on their activities.

Dr Salameh, director of the UK-based Oil Market Consultancy Service, and an authority on Iraq’s oil, said it is the only one of the world’s biggest producing countries with enough reserves substantially to increase its flow.

Production in eight of the others — the US, Canada, Iran, Indonesia, Russia, Britain, Norway and Mexico — has peaked, he says, while China and Saudia Arabia, the remaining two, are nearing the point at of decline. Before the war, Saddam Hussein’s regime pumped some 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, but this had now fallen to just two million barrels.

Dr Salameh told the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil last month that Iraq had offered the United States a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened up 10 new giant oil fields on “generous” terms in return for the lifting of sanctions. “This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price,” he said. “But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil.”

Chris Skrebowski, the editor of Petroleum Review, said: “There are many ifs in the world oil market. This is a very big one, but there are others. If there had been a civil war in Iraq, even less oil would have been produced.”

David Strahan: What happens next? The expert’s view

At just under 86 million barrels per day, global oil production has, essentially, stagnated since 2005, despite soaring demand, suggesting that production has already reached its geological limits, or “peak oil”.

Recession in the West may not provide relief on prices. There is increasing demand from countries such as China, Russia and the Opec countries, whose consumers are cushioned against rising prices by heavy subsidies. The future could unfold in a number of ways:

Oil price collapses

Fuel subsidies could suddenly be scrapped, dousing demand. Cost pressures have forced Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan to cut them, but China is hardly strapped for cash. Opec producers are under no pressure to abolish subsidies; as the oil price rises they get richer. Prospect: very unlikely.

Peace could break out in Iraq, the long-disputed oil law agreed, and international oil companies start work on the world’s largest collection of untapped oil fields. Prospect: vanishingly unlikely.

Oil price stabilises or moderates

Deep recession in the West might cut oil consumption enough to offset growth in the developing world and Opec, or even engulf them too, softening prices. Prospect: unlikely in the short term.

Oil price soars

Russian oil output has gone into decline; Saudi Arabia has shelved plans to expand production capacity, and advisers to the Nigerian government predict its output will fall by 30 per cent by 2015. More news like this, expect oil at $200 a barrel. Prospect: likely.

Big oil producers will increasingly divert exports for home consumption. Opec, Russian and Mexican exports expected to fall, pushing oil to $200 by 2012. Prospect: highly likely.

The writer is author of ‘The Last Oil Shock’, John Murray, lastoilshock.com

Peak oil

After 150 years of growth, the oil age is beginning to come to an end. “Peak oil” is the common term for when production stops increasing and starts to decline. At that point what have been ever-expanding and cheap supplies of the resource on which all modern economies depend become scarcer and more expensive, with potentially devastating consequences.

Pessimists believe that production has passed its peak. Optimists say it may be 20 years or so away — which would give us some time to prepare — but are now muted. Last week the hitherto optimistic International Energy Agency admitted that it may have overestimated future capacity. Chris Skrebowski, editor of ‘Petroleum Review’ and once an optimist himself, believes that the world is now in “the foothills of peak oil”. Prices may ease a bit over the next few years, but then the real crunch will come. The price then? “Pick a number!”

Travel

Oil provides 95 per cent of the energy used in transport, so this will be hit hard and soon. People are likely to go on using their cars, but airlines are expected to be the first to suffer. On Thursday, British Airways’ chief executive Willie Walsh declared that the era of cheap flights was over, suggesting that those environmentalists who have made them their main target for combating climate change may have been wasting their breath.

At least three carriers have already gone bust this year. Last week, American Airlines said it was cutting routes, laying off staff, and charging US passengers $15 to check in a bag because of a $3bn rise in its fuel bills. Even Michael O’Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, says the oil price is “really hurting”. On Thursday, Credit Suisse analysts said his company would slip into the red if oil prices rose just a little more, to $140 a barrel.

Cars

The world’s biggest oil well, it is said, lies beneath Detroit. US vehicles get an average of only 25 miles per gallon. Dramatically improving this would do more to ease the oil crunch than any likely new discovery. But new measures recently approved by Congress would increase the average only to the 35mpg already being achieved by China. Europe does better, if not well enough, at 44mpg.

Rising fuel prices are already beginning to drive change. Sales of 4x4s are plummeting in both the US and Britain, and those of hybrids — which do 60mpg are soaring. As the price climbs further, manufacturers will unlock long-prepared plans for much more efficient vehicles. “Plug-in” hybrids, charged up with electricity overnight, save another 45 per cent in petrol consumption. Further down the line is the “hypercar” — made of tough, light plastic — which could cross the US on a single tankful.

Houses

All new houses in Britain will have to be zero carbon — burning no fossil fuels such as oil — by 2016, the Government announced, and housebuilders are struggling to meet the target. At present the standard can be reached only at great expense, but the industry is confident of bringing the cost down as mass production kicks in. It is even more important to adapt existing homes.

The key step is to super-insulate the house to make it as energy-efficient as possible — and only then to provide renewable energy sources. Solar water heaters, ground source heat pumps and boilers powered by wood pellets are favourites. Rooftop windmills do not work well enough yet. Photovoltaic panels, which get electricity from the sun, are expensive but their price should come down. Britain has lagged behind other countries. Soaring energy prices should shake things up.

Shopping

Effectively, almost everything is partially made of oil, and so is going to get more expensive. About 10 calories of oil are burned to produce each calorie of food in the US, and farming a single cow and getting it to market uses as much as driving from New York to Los Angeles. Some 630g of fuel is used to produce every gram of microchips.

The cult of local, seasonal produce will enter the mainstream, as everyone learns about food miles and a modern-day Dig for Victory grips gardeners — bad news for the farm workers overseas who provide 95 per cent of our fruit and half our vegetables. Trips to out-of-town supermarkets will seem extravagant, heralding a high street renaissance and a new surge in online grocery shopping, and soon we’ll all be eating our own potatoes.

Third World

Poor countries and their peoples will be hit by a devastating double whammy as both their fuel and food prices increase. Last year, when oil cost only about half as much, countries from Nepal to Nicaragua were hit by fuel shortages. At least 25 of the 44 sub-Saharan nations are facing crippling electricity shortages.

As oil is used in agriculture, its increased cost will also drive up the price of food, making more and more people go hungry. Worse, expensive petrol is bound to increase the drive towards biofuels made from maize and other crops, which then brings the world’s poorest people into competition with affluent motorists for grain — a contest they cannot win. Just one fill-up of a 4×4’s tank with ethanol uses enough grain to feed one person for a year.

Emerging economies

China and India and other developing countries will help to drive up demand for oil and compete for scarce supplies. This has already helped to raise prices: demand for oil from Western countries has actually fallen over the past two years, but the emerging economies have more than made up the slack. And they have the money to do so.

Chinese and Indian consumers have so far been insulated from the effects of the price increase by heavy government subsidies, and their industrial revolutions and rapid growth are largely fueled by oil. There is little sign that the growth in demand will slacken These countries are also likely to follow the time-honored Western tradition of making deals with oil-exporting countries — and backing unpleasant regimes — to try to secure supplies.

A Real Inside Job; Anthrax

anthrax.jpgAfter Downing Street | Someone just pointed this out to me. FBI claims to be continuing anthrax investigation. They’ve narrowed it to “about four” suspects and “at least three” of them are from Fort Detrick.

FBI Focusing on ‘About Four’ Suspects in 2001 Anthrax Attacks
By Catherine Herridge and Ian McCaleb, Fox News
Friday , March 28, 2008

WASHINGTON – The FBI has narrowed its focus to “about four” suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.

Among the pool of suspects are three scientists – a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist – linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.

The FBI has collected writing samples from the three scientists in an effort to match them to the writer of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed to two U.S. senators and at least two news outlets in the fall of 2001, a law enforcement source confirmed.

The anthrax attacks began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, further alarming a nation already reeling from the deaths of 3,000 Americans. Five people were killed and more than a dozen others were infected by the deadly spores in the fall of 2001.

A leading theory is that the anthrax was stolen from Fort Detrick and then sealed inside the letters. A law enforcement source said the FBI is essentially engaged in a process of elimination.

Much of the early public focus fell on a Fort Detrick scientist named Steven Hatfill, who is suing federal authorities for identifying him as a person of interest. Now the FBI is focusing on other scientists at the facility.

“Fort Detrick is run by the United States Army. It’s the most secure biological warfare research center in the United States,” a bioterrorism expert told FOX News.

Asked to comment on the likelihood that the anthrax originated at the facility, the expert said:

“It’s not suprising, except that it would underscore that there was serious security deficiencies that existed at one time at Fort Detrick – the ability of researchers to smuggle out some type of very sophisticated anthrax weapon and in some quantity. And, nevertheless, it was possible.”

In December 2001, an Army commander tried to dispel the possibility of a connection to Fort Detrick by taking the media on a rare tour of the base. The commander said the Army used only liquid anthrax, not powder, for its experiments.

“I would say that it does not come from our stocks, because we do not use that dry material,” Maj. Gen. John Parker said. The letters that were mailed to the media and Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy all contained powdered anthrax.

But in an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

“Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared … to duplicate the letter material,” the e-mail reads. “Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, ‘But I told the General we didn’t make spore powder!'”

Asked for comment, an Army spokeswoman referred all calls to the FBI. The FBI would not comment about the pool of suspects, but a spokeswoman said the investigation clearly remains a priority.

Orwellian Ubiquitous Computing?

0

orwellian.jpgBy Daniel Taylor | “…just by walking down the street you could be subject to a personal biometric system, you could be scanned by the gateway of the transit system, there could be something embedded in the street or in the flooring beneath you… you could be touching other tangible interfaces in the environment around you… the lamp posts and the other features of the streetscape could have informational services… and last but not least there’s the surveillance element, there’s a UAV, a robotic helicopter which is also surveying the cityscape and communicating with all of these devices… This is really what I mean by a transformation of the relationship between user and device. This person is not a user anymore in any real sense of the English world, they are a subject.”

It may seem like a vision of a distant science fiction world, but this scenario laid out by Adam Greenfield, author of “Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing“, could be just around the corner. In fact, at this very moment in South Korea an entire city, a “U-city”, is being built that utilizes ubiquitous technology. It had it’s first test run in March of last year. Several other countries are currently planning, or are currently building cities modeled around South Korea’s U-city.

What exactly is Ubiquitous Computing?

An “Everyware” world, as Adam Greenfield calls it, is a world in which computers are embedded and merged seamlessly everywhere in the environment. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags communicate their position and other information constantly in a vast network. Everyday objects become “searchable” as if they were part of the interconnected world wide web. Surveillance in an “Everyware” world is perfected to a degree that is unimaginable. Scientific management of people and the environment we inhabit becomes possible, and marketers’ ultimate dreams come true.

Watch this clip as Adam Greenfield explains ubiquitous computing (skip ahead to 1:30 to hear his explanation)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXox8IJvmE[/youtube]

As computer chips become smaller and their processing power increases exponentially, ubiquitous computing has become a practical reality. As Wired News reports, ubiquitous systems are to be rolled out in New York City next year,

“The Architectural League of New York invites architects, artists, designers, technologists, engineers, urbanists, or teams thereof, to submit qualifications for an exhibition that will critically explore the evolving relationship between ubiquitous/pervasive computing and urban architecture.

The League will commission five to seven teams to develop urban interventions—to be installed in and around New York City in spring 2009—that will imagine alternative trajectories for how various mobile, embedded, networked, and distributed forms of media, information and communication systems might inform the architecture of urban space and/or influence our behavior within it.”

Consumer convenience is a central selling point for ubiquitous computing technology. The well established consumer base for mobile devices was discussed at the March 2008 International Conference on the Internet of Things in Zurich, Switzerland (sponsored by Google, IBM and others) as serving as a means of acclimating individuals to the presence and use of ubiquitous technology. Possible marketing plans were discussed to introduce “self scanning” through the use of mobile devices to “scan” physical products and browse the items on digital mobile screens in a manner similar to internet shopping. Andreas Schaller, a senior engineer for Motorola, presented information to the Zurich conference. Schaller’s presentation is outlined in the conference proceedings,

“The next step is to Internetenable physical objects – connecting people with things and even things with things. The Internet of Things will enable connectivity not just between people and their computing devices, but between actual, everyday things. By enabling connectivity for virtually any physical object that can potentially offer a message, the Internet of Things will affect every aspect of life and business in ways that used to be the realm of fantasy – or even beyond fantasy.

…

To ensure a fast adoption rate it is necessary to start with low hanging fruit technologies like barcode scanning by camera, which will become a “free” feature for mobile devices morphing into high end camera phones.”

Ubiquitous Surveillance

On top of the consumer layer of ubiquitous computing – which will likely be its most visible and emphasized aspect – sits the incredible surveillance capability of this technology. With video surveillance cameras protruding from every building it isn’t very hard to figure out that you are being watched, but with the internet of things the surveillance grid is merged seamlessly and invisibly into the entire environment. In an internet of things, every object, as well as people who are wearing RFID tagged clothes or are using electronic devices, would be “readable” by a computer or wireless network. The object’s (or person’s) details, exact location and other information could be obtained electronically by invisible sensors in sidewalks, roads, or doorways.

In a document dated February 2000, Hewlett Packard’s Internet and Mobile Systems Laboratory announced that, “We want to make people, places, and things web-present.” The document details the infrastructure of the “internet of things”,

“The convergence of Web technology, wireless networks and portable client devices provide new opportunities for computer communications systems designs. At HP Labs we have been exploring these opportunities through an infrastructure to support “web presence” for people, places and things. Our goal is a bridge between the World Wide Web and the physical world we inhabit. This bridge includes the ability to interact with devices such as printers from a browser using standard HTTP communication. It also includes the ability to provide people, places and things — electronic or otherwise — with a web resource that is used to store information about them and which is automatically correlated with their physical presence. We aim to provide users, particularly mobile users, with support for their everyday activities, which mostly concern physical objects other than PC’s.” [emphasis added]

Marketers also see the rise of ubiquitous computing as opening the doorway to scientifically crafted advertising. Web history is already used to target computer users with ads based on their browsing behavior, and it is quite easy to see how that model could be applied to the “internet of things”. Google is currently developing ad technology which uses your computer’s microphone to listen to key words being spoken by you or your nearby television which triggers relevant ads on your computer screen. Mobile devices are already being tracked and monitored through stores and other public places in the U.K. for marketing purposes. According to the report,

“Foot traffic monitoring firm Path Intelligence, based in the city, is testing patent-pending surveillance technology that continuously tracks mobile phone signals to understand the movement of shoppers as they flow through retail centres or public amenities.

…

Through this technique, it is possible to gather data on how many people are in a store at a specific time, how many customers visit specific stores, and how shoppers group stores together. In addition, the firm says that the system can also help organisations optimize the layout of their space and improve their retail tenancy mix.”

South Korea’s U-City: A Model of the Future?

South Korea is at the forefront in implementing ubiquitous technology. An entire city, New Songdo, is being built in South Korea that fully utilizes the technology. Ubiquitous computing proponents in the United States admit that while a large portion of the technology is being developed in the U.S., it is being tested in South Korea where there are less traditional, ethical and social blockades to prevent its acceptance and use. As the New York Times reports,

“Imagine public recycling bins that use radio-frequency identification technology to credit recyclers every time they toss in a bottle; pressure-sensitive floors in the homes of older people that can detect the impact of a fall and immediately contact help; cellphones that store health records and can be used to pay for prescriptions.

These are among the services dreamed up by industrial-design students at California State University, Long Beach, for possible use in New Songdo City, a large “ubiquitous city” being built in South Korea.

…

Much of this technology was developed in U.S. research labs, but there are fewer social and regulatory obstacles to implementing them in Korea,” said Mr. Townsend [a research director at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, California], who consulted on Seoul’s own U-city plan, known as Digital Media City. “There is an historical expectation of less privacy. Korea is willing to put off the hard questions to take the early lead and set standards.” [emphasis added]

A smaller U-city in South Korea, Hwaseong Dongtan, has already been partially completed and tested. A promotional video for the Hwaseong Dongtan U-City can be seen here. The heavily invested in U-City model of South Korea is currently being exported worldwide.

Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, Bill Gates’ Microsoft Corporation is involved with the technological development of South Korea’s U-Cities. A Microsoft press release on May 9th of this year reported that,

“Microsoft Corp. will play a key role in creating a ubiquitous computing environment for future citizens and businesses of Songdo International Business District (IBD). The city of the future is currently under construction in Incheon just 40 miles southwest of Seoul, South Korea. Songdo will be the first “new” city in the world designed and planned as an international business district.”

What will happen to traditional notions of privacy in an “Everyware” world? Could individuals and dissidents potentially be electronically blacklisted and denied access to cashless payment systems and transit systems as if they were a banned web page in the “internet of things”? It remains to be seen whether the ubiquitous computing infrastructure can be fully realized, but it is a technological trend with vastly important implications that is worth keeping an eye on.

Appeal from Tony Benn / Stop the War Coalition

1

tonybenn.jpgBy Tony Benn | The destruction of Iraq continues; its people killed amidst bombings and atrocities, a million or more dead, many more than two million driven from their homes, the social and economic infrastructure shattered. In Afghanistan the US military is spending $65,000 a minute and there are four times as many air strikes than in Iraq.The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in untold suffering for the people of these countries. Yet British troops remain in both countries.

The International Peace Conference we organised in London in December agreed to hold anti-war demonstrations across the world in March 2008. The UK demonstration takes place in London on 15 March. I hope you will join me there.

This requires many thousands of pounds for national and international co-ordination; running costs for the national office, printing of leaflets and posters, travel costs and much else.

Stop the War is wholly dependent on donations, money-raising events, affiliation fees from individuals, peace groups, trade unions and other organizations. Unfortunately this is never enough.

Can you help us? Click here to find out how you can donate.

With best wishes

Tony Benn,
President Stop the War Coalition

American Psychological Association Supports Torture

0

americanpsychologicalassoci.jpgBy Stephen Soldz | Since 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) has steadfastly asserted that psychologists participating in detainee interrogations protects detainees by helping to keep these interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective.” Last week, the APA’s Ethics Director Stephen Behnke seized upon newly released portions of an official investigation of US detainee abuse, called the Church Report, as an opportunity to reinvigorate support for the APA policy of psychologist participation in interrogations.

In a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The APA’s Dr. Behnke stated:

“In carefully reviewing the documents, we note that according to the information obtained by the ACLU, psychologists supporting interrogations ’emphasized their separation from detainee medical care’, and that a psychologist who suspected abuse ‘recommended the interrogation not proceed and brought in medical personnel to evaluate the detainee.’ According to these documents, APA’s policy of engagement served the intended purpose: to stop interrogations that cross the bounds of ethical propriety.”

To give Dr. Behnke credit, he did acknowledge the abuses described in the newly released material as “abhorrent.” However, any unbiased “careful review” of the documents falls far short of supporting Dr. Behnke’s conclusion. Quite the contrary, the report raises new concerns about the roles of psychologists in US interrogations.

Dr. Behnke’s letter to the ACLU was widely distributed within the APA as a defense of the association’s long-contested policy. It therefore important to carefully examine his claims in the context of what is known about interrogation abuses in Iraq. In a separate article, Trudy Bond responded to Dr. Behnke’s claims in the same letter, questioning his assertions that the APA is willing to adjudicate reports of psychologists participating in detainee abuse. I will focus instead here on examining Dr. Behnke’s claim that the Church Report supports the APA’s policy of participation in detainee interrogations. In this process I briefly revisit previous justifications for APA policy.

Newly Released Church Report Materials

On May 30, 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced the release, under the Freedom of Information Act, of previously redacted portions of the Church Report on US military detainee abuses. This material contains numerous reports of physical and mental abuse, including several detainee deaths. The report makes clear that:

“[M]edical personnel often have exposure to the circumstances of detainee treatment.”

In discussing a number of these deaths the report states:

“We do not know if medical personnel reported suspicions of detainee abuse in this case, but the circumstances probably should have led them to consider detainee abuse.”

Although the language is sanitized, this statement nevertheless strongly points to the failure of medical personnel to take appropriate action in the face of likely interrogation abuse. Yet, in only one of eight deaths judged “suspicious for abuse” is there evidence that an Army physician reported the abuse. Thus, even in the face of potential homicide, medical personnel, for the most part, appear to have remained silent.

With regard to psychologists, the report stated:

“In Iraq, we interviewed two military personnel and one civilian serving in this capacity. All three emphasized their separation from detainee medical care. Only one believed he had observed or suspected detainee abuse. No details were offered, except that, when this occurred, he recommended the interrogation not proceed and brought in medical personnel to evaluate the detainee.”

The newly released material also reports that interrogation techniques [authorized by a September 2003 memorandum from commanding General Ricardo Sanchez] continued to be widely used until at least July 2004, well after some techniques were retracted in October 2003. Other techniques were banned in May 2004 [in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal]. These included:

” Isolation.”

” Environmental Manipulation: Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g. adjusting temperature or introducing an unpleasant smell)…. [Caution: Based on court cases in other countries, some nations may view application of this technique in certain circumstances to be inhumane. Consideration of these views should be given prior to use of this technique.]”

” Presence of Military Working Dog: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations.”

” Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock.”

” Sleep Management: Detainee provided minimum 4 hours of sleep per 24 hour period, not to exceed 72 continuous hours.”

” Stress Positions: Use of physical postures (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, ect.) for no more than 1 hour per use. Use of technique(s) will not exceed 4 hours and adequate rest between use of each position will be provided.”

As was confirmed by the just released Justice Department Inspector General report on FBI involvement in abusive interrogations, these techniques were derived from the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) program to train US military personnel how to resist breaking under torture. As the Defense Department Inspector General reported, these techniques were “reverse engineered” by military and intelligence psychologists into US interrogation techniques. Authorization to use these techniques was hidden as, even after the Abu Ghraib scandal, the administration refused to release the Sanchez memo for nearly a year. These techniques, according to the Church Report, continued in widespread use long after their use had been retracted.

Special Forces

According to accounts by individuals like former Iraq Army interrogator Tony Lagouranis, these SERE techniques were regularly used by Special Forces in Iraq. Other interrogators learned of them, directly or indirectly, from Special Forces and attempted to imitate the techniques used by these revered units. Abuses by the Navy SEALS, a Special Forces unit, were reported by Lagouranis:

“They would actually have the detainee stripped nude, laying on the floor, pouring ice water over his body. They were taking his temperature with a rectal thermometer. We had one guy who had been burned by the navy SEALs. He looked like he had a lighter held up to his legs. One guy’s feet were like huge and black and blue, his toes were obviously all broken, he couldn’t walk.”

Further reports of abuse by Special Forces include the New York Times’s March 19, 2006 article chillingly entitled “In Secret Unit’s ‘Black Room,’ a Grim Portrait of U.S. Abuse”:
“American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government’s torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room.
In the windowless, jet-black garage-size room, some soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball….
Placards posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, “NO BLOOD, NO FOUL.” The slogan, as one Defense Department official explained, reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: ‘If you don’t make them bleed, they can’t prosecute for it.’ ”
This unit combined elements from throughout the Special Forces:
“The task force was a melting pot of military and civilian units. It drew on elite troops from the Joint Special Operations Command, whose elements include the Army unit Delta Force, Navy’s Seal Team 6 and the 75th Ranger Regiment.”
There are numerous other reports of pervasive abuse by troops across Iraq. Thus Capt. Ian Fishback and two other members of the 82nd Airborne Division told Human Rights Watch in 2005 that the abuse in their unit was routine. As reported in the New York Times:
“In separate statements to the human rights organization, Captain Fishback and two sergeants described systematic abuses of Iraqi prisoners, including beatings, exposure to extremes of hot and cold, stacking in human pyramids and sleep deprivation at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base near Falluja.”
Capt. Fishback also quoted an Army Ranger, a Special Forces unit, as saying (after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004):
“I talked to an officer in the Ranger regiment and his response was, he wouldn’t tell me exactly what he witnessed but he said “I witnessed things that were more intense than what you witnessed,” but it wasn’t anything that exceeded what I had heard about at SERE school”
Military Intelligence
Military Intelligence units in Iraq were also involved in much of the detainee abuse. Thus, the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] inspected detention facilities across the country and, in a leaked February 2004 report, described systematic abuse by military intelligence throughout Iraq. It states:
“persons deprived of their liberty under supervision of the Military Intelligence were at high risk of being subjected to a variety of harsh treatments ranging from insults, threats and humiliations to both physical and psychological coercion, which in some cases was tantamount to torture, in order to force cooperation with their interrogators” (p. 3-4).

The ICRC further reported:

“In certain cases such as in Abu Ghraib military intelligence section, methods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information. Several military intelligence officers confirmed to the ICRC that it was part of the military intelligence process to hold a person deprived of his liberty naked in a completely dark and empty cell for a prolonged period to use inhumane and degrading treatment, including physical and psychological coercion” (p. 11).

It is important to note that no one was prosecuted or convicted at Abu Ghraib for isolating or humiliating prisoners, or for putting prisoners in ‘stress positions.’ These were considered standard operating procedures by the prosecution. The convictions were handed down for taking the infamous photographs or when there was evidence of physical abuse that went beyond these techniques.

The Church Report

It is relevant to understand that the Church Report is widely viewed as an attempt to whitewash detainee abuse through sidestepping the extent to which abuse was standard operating procedure and thus reducing command responsibility for that abuse. Thus Human Rights Watch characterizes the Church Report as a partial cover-up containing patent falsehoods:

“The Church report was supposed to be the definitive report on the development of interrogation techniques and detainee abuse in the “global war on terror” but the unclassified summary suggests a careful attempt – months after the Schlesinger and Fay/Jones report put the Pentagon on the defensive – to present a version of the facts that would not cause any trouble for the hierarchy. Time and again, the summary goes out of its way to rebut any inference that government policy was to blame, to the point of straining credibility and flatly contradicting the earlier reports. The report concluded that there was ‘no single, overarching explanation’ for the ‘few’ cases in which detainees had not been treated humanely.

Although Secretary Rumsfeld and General Sanchez both approved the use of guard dogs to strike fear in detainees, and although guard dogs were featured prominently in the Abu Ghraib photos, the Church executive summary states that ‘it is clear that none of the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bear any resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater.’ Indeed, the only mention of dogs in the entire summary is the patently false statement that in Afghanistan and Iraq ‘interrogators clearly understood that abusive practices and techniques – such as … terrorizing detainees with unmuzzled dogs … – were at all times prohibited.’ ”

Given the nature of this report, it should be taken as a statement of what cannot be denied, and not as a definitive account of the nature or the extent of detainee abuse.

Previous APA Policy Justifications

The APA has utilized many questionable arguments and deceptive tactics to justify psychologists’ participation in interrogations. In 2005, the APA appointed a Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). This Task Force was given the mandate to determine APA policy on psychologists’ participation in detainee interrogations. The majority of the Task Force membership, it turns out, consisted of military and intelligence psychologists who played roles in post 9/11 interrogations at Guantánamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the CIA’s “black site” torture centers. Not surprisingly, this task force emphasized psychologists important role is aiding national security by participating in these interrogations.

In support of its policy the APA has highlighted every available report of psychologists resisting interrogation abuses. While finding small pockets of resistance would hardly defend the policy, the APA has been able to offer only three incidents of psychologists ostensibly opposing the abusive interrogation policy. This despite the central role of psychologists in interrogations at Guantánamo and the CIA black sites and their participation in interrogations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The most noteworthy example offered thus far has been that of Michael Gelles, a Navy Criminal Investigative Service psychologist. Gelles forcefully opposed opposed some of the worst abuses committed at Guantánamo and reported them to his commander, leading to policy changes. While Dr. Gelles acted honorably and may have helped change policies, one should remember that, long after these interventions the ICRC found conditions at Guantánamo continued to be abusive. As the New York Times described the ICRC findings during their June 2004 visit:

“[I]nvestigators had found a system devised to break the will of the prisoners at Guantánamo, who now number about 550, and make them wholly dependent on their interrogators through ‘humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions.’ Investigators said that the methods used were increasingly ‘more refined and repressive’ than learned about on previous visits.

”The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture,’ the report said. It said that in addition to the exposure to loud and persistent noise and music and to prolonged cold, detainees were subjected to ‘some beatings.’ The report did not say how many of the detainees were subjected to such treatment.”

Thus, whatever successes Dr. Gelles’ achieved, they did little to dismantle the abusive system, described in the ICRC report as “tantamount to torture.” Even Dr. Gelles’ valiant attempt to oppose these interrogation techniques did little, in the end, to keep interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective.”

The APA has also at times pointed to Col. Larry James as an example of a psychologist successfully opposing torture. But there is simply no evidence to support this claim. Col. James was the Chief Psychologist on the Joint Intelligence Task Force in charge of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) at Guantánamo in early 2003. As the Red Cross noted when they returned to Guantánamo a year after col. James’ departure, conditions had only become increasingly “more refined and repressive” since Col. James was stationed there. Additionally, during Col. James’ tour at Guantánamo, the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures were adopted mandating a minimum of four weeks isolation for all new detainees:

“to enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation process. It concentrates on isolating the detainee and fostering dependence of the detainee on his interrogator.”

The Joint Intelligence Task Force, of which Col. James was the Chief Psychologist, was in fact assigned the role of deciding when a detainee had been sufficiently disoriented, disorganized, and dependent on his interrogator enough to be released from this isolation. When this policy was described in Harpers online, Dr. Behnke, the APA’s Ethics wrote a letter agreeing that this use of isolation was unethical for psychologists:

“With the recent posting on the Internet of what has been identified as the U.S. military’s 2003 operating manual for the Guantánamo detention center, attention has been directed to the use of isolation and sensory deprivation as interrogation procedures. APA policy specifically prohibits using any such technique, alone or in combination with other techniques for the purpose of breaking down a detainee.”

Nonetheless, even after this information became public, APA officials have continued to cite Col. James to audiences as an anti-torture hero.

APA and the Newly-Released Materials

Contained in the newly released sections of the Church Report is an official acknowledgement that psychologists in so-called Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs) functioned in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But what had not been clear before is that these BSCTs are “mostly within Special Operations, where they provide direct support to military operations.” That is, the BSCT psychologists were, as described above, within the units especially known for using brutal means for dealing with detainees (Arrigo & Bennett, 2007).

Given this context, it is especially misleading that the APA’s Ethics Director points to two vague sentences in the report to argue that this material supports the APA’s policy of “engagement” with the Bush administration’s interrogation regime. Here are the relevant sentences from the Church report:

“In Iraq, we interviewed two military personnel and one civilian serving in this capacity. All three emphasized their separation from detainee medical care. Only one believed he had observed or suspected detainee abuse. No details were offered, except that, when this occurred, he recommended the interrogation not proceed and brought in medical personnel to evaluate the detainee.”

Given that these BSCT psychologists are “mostly within Special Operations” and are assigned to military intelligence, a curious reader might wonder about the routine nature of interrogations witnessed or participated in by the BSCT psychologists. These routine interrogations likely included techniques approved by the September 2003 memorandum from Gen. Sanchez which the very same Church Report materials document were still in widespread use through at least July 2004. Given this background, there is a more plausible reading of these sentences. It is most likely that what was “abuse” to a BSCT psychologist were interrogation tactics that went beyond those authorized by the September 2003 memo as ‘standard operating procedure.’ That is, given the “No Blood, No Foul” attitude of many Special Forces units, “abuse” would very likely be tactics that led to serious and visible physical harm. The fact that the BSCT “brought in medical personnel to evaluate the detainee” also supports such an interpretation. In years of reading and writing about detainee abuse in Iraq and elsewhere, I have never seen accounts of medical personnel being brought in to examine victims exposed “merely” to psychological abuse such as isolation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, or exposure to loud noises or freezing temperatures. It is unlikely that this sole report of a psychologist reporting abuse was referring to these widespread, but standard, abuses.

Can I prove my interpretation of this passage is the correct one? No. The wording is ambiguous and “no details were offered.” But Dr. Behnke’s claim that these newly released materials provide evidence that “APA’s policy of engagement served the intended purpose — to stop interrogations that cross the bounds of ethical propriety” — is totally unsupported. In contrast, my interpretation is grounded in knowledge about detainee abuse in Iraq and about the Church report. Dr. Behnke’s “careful” review of these documents does not attempt to understand the role of psychologists in abuse of detainees but, like U.S. “intelligence” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, fixes the data around established APA policy.

Reference
Arrigo, Jean Maria, & Bennett, Ray. (2007). Organizational Supports for Abusive Interrogations in “The War on Terror.” In Torture Is for Amateurs, special issue of Peace and Conflict, 13 (4): 411-421.

Students Denied Legal Aid

5

edo.jpgSchNews | Reckon students are all bone-idle skiving filth who haven’t even got the wit to tie their shoelaces properly? Well then you’d be in disagreement with Judge Parsons (of Brighton magistrates). He’s just refused legal aid to seven students up in front of his bench for ‘aggravated tresspass’ (punishable by up to three months inside) on the grounds that “they are intelligent enough to represent themselves”.

The seven are accused of D-locking and supergluing to EDO MBM’s infamous factory of death in Brighton on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. Despite the fact that the student protesters are all in their first year and none are studying law, the judge is perhaps paying the defendants a compliment in considering them equal in legal know-how to a barrister (who study for around six years before they are considered ready to defend their clients). They are under stringent bail conditions to stay away from EDO MBMs factories.

Of course legal aid is gradually being whittled away for all of us (See SchNEWS 618). But the decision to cut off the supply this time is interesting in the light of how many cases against EDO protestors have ended in failure for the authorities (See SchNEWS 535). Campaign spokesman Andy Beckett told SchNEWS “By robbing these defendants of their rights to adequate legal representation, the authorities are launching an attack on our campaign as a whole. They’ve been forced to drop cases when it looked as if evidence of police collusion with the factory owners was about to emerge. But that evidence only emerged after careful examination by trained solicitors. The whole thing smacks of a desperate attempt to secure convictions against supporters of our successful campaign”.

The National Union of Students is up in arms at this abuse of the student’s status to trick them out of their right to legal representation. In the words of the USSU education officer; “That students are being denied legal assistance simply because they are students is disgraceful. A fair and public trial is a human right. When students take on international arms dealers without legal representation it is laughable to claim that the proceedings could be fair or equal. At a time when civil liberties are under attack nationally, this court is specifically targeting students as an isolated and disempowered group.”

To support the defendants, fight for civil liberties and take action against the arms trade join Smash EDO at the Carnival Against The Arms Trade…

Over 60% of People Do Not Trust the Government

trustinthegovernment.jpg

By Mick Meaney – RINF Breaking News | A poll conducted by the World Public Opinion (WPO) has found that over 60% of the population of Great Britain and the United States do not trust their governments. The poll showed that 67% of Brits have low levels of trust in the Labour Government while 60% of Americans feel the same way about the Bush Administration.

Overall dissatisfaction of government responsiveness was much higher with 77% of Brits and an even higher percentage, 83% of Americans.

With each passing year, we see Western Governments becoming more brazen with lies and imposing limits on our freedoms and privacy.

The poll also asked “Whose Benefit is Country Run For?”

Unsurprisingly, 60% of Brits perceive their government as serving powerful special interests rather than the interests of the people as a whole, likewise 80% of Americans said the same.

Distain for corporate influence on governments is clear, but perhaps the lack of faith in the government goes even deeper. Obviously there has been fabrication of evidence and spinning lies to the population in order to gain support for the illegal invasion and occupation of nations.

Then there is the use of outlawed weapons in those occupied countries, which cause damage for generations to come, and of course the propaganda which is fed to and disseminated by the mainstream media, all which is becoming increasingly less effective as the ‘alternative’ media grows.

Maybe issues closer to home has also damaged trust in the government. A weakening economy while national debt goes through the roof, or possibly the high levels of surveillance we must endure thanks to new anti terrorism laws which give the government access to every aspect of our lives.

This is of course just the tip of the iceberg; there is no single issue that has caused the majority of the population to mistrust their government. It is an accumulation of constant betrayal over many years which has lead to the decay in trust and possibly more importantly, the loss of hope within the people.

Lorry drivers to shut down London roads in protest

2

lorry.jpgLorry drivers are to pour into London tomorrow for what organisers hope will be the largest-ever fuel duty protest in the capital. Hauliers are angry at soaring fuel prices which have resulted in the average cost of diesel passing far beyond the 120p-a-litre mark.

Led by lorry drivers from Kent, the protest is expected to attract hundreds of hauliers from all around the UK.

The convoy will make its way to central London, parking close to Marble Arch.

Transport for London has said the A40 will be closed between White City and Edgware Road in west London tomorrow from 10am until 3pm so the demonstrators can park their lorries.

The westbound carriageway of the A40, going out of London, will remain open.

A delegation from the demonstrators will hand in a letter to 10 Downing Street demanding the immediate introduction of an essential user rebate which would allow heavy goods vehicles to claim some of the fuel duty back.

Mike Presneill, a leading member of Transaction 2007, who is helping to organise the protest, said: “Fuel is rocketing. The Government has the power to act but appears not to be listening. Hundreds of UK transport firms are being driven to the wall.

“Thousands of UK jobs are being lost.

“Foreign hauliers are entering the UK with cheaper fuel purchased abroad.

“They contribute nothing to our economy. We are paying the highest rate of fuel duty in the UK. All we are asking for is that the Government introduce an essential user rebate so that we can compete on a level playing field with continental hauliers.”

Kent-based haulier Peter Knight said: “This is the economics of the mad house. If the Prime Minister doesn’t listen the Government will lose out.

“As UK hauliers we pay enormous amounts of tax to the UK Exchequer – we pay employment tax, road tax and of course fuel duty. If we are wiped out, the work will be done by foreign hauliers who pay nothing to the UK in tax. It is madness.”

Bracing itself: London is expecting an invasion of 1,000 truckers in th latest round of fuel protests

Bracing itself: London is expecting an invasion of 1,000 truckers in the latest round of fuel protests

Tories pledge to curb use of CCTV cameras

0

cctv.jpgBy James Kirkup | Mr Davis told the Society of Conservative Lawyers that the widespread use of closed circuit television (CCTV) risks infringing civil liberties. He proposed new rules on the use of CCTV and penalties for people and bodies that use the cameras to invade the privacy of the public. He also promised measures to improve the quality of CCTV footage to aid prosecutions.

Mr Davis said: “There is no argument for having CCTV which both infringes on our civil liberty but is of such poor quality it does nothing to protect us or provide evidence to bring perpetrators of crime to justice – as happens now.

“Conservatives would ensure any CCTV has to be maintained at sufficiently high standard to provide evidence admissible in court.

“We would also strictly limit access to these images to the police and other relevant agencies until they get to court, and set a mandatory punishment for breaches of these rules that infringe the privacy of the individual.”

Britain is one of the heaviest users of CCTV in the world, with more than 4.2 million CCTV cameras across the country, one for every 14 people.

But there are growing questions about the cameras’ value.

Det Chief Insp Mick Neville, the officer in charge of CCTV for the Metropolitan Police, last month warned that the surveillance systems are often ineffective because they are badly maintained or sited, or their footage is not properly monitored and used.

Graeme Gerrard, the head of CCTV at the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said cameras often fail to act as a deterrent for drunken yobs in town centres.

About £200 million has been spent on erecting more CCTV cameras across the country over the past 10 years, leading the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, recently to refer to “surveillance Britain”.

Bookmakers announced on Tuesday they had stopped taking bets on the outcome of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, with the Conservatives heading for an overwhelming victory.

Ladbrokes said the book had been closed after the Conservatives became 16-1 odds-on favourites.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that at least 15 members of the shadow cabinet are to travel to Crewe tomorrow in an unprecedented attempt to secure the Tories’ first by-election gain in more than 25 years.

Path Intelligence – Phorm for shopping centres?

0

phorm.jpgSpy Blog | Just in case you thought that Phorm was the only threat to your privacy, here is an example of similar “no opt out” snooping technology being installed in the infrastructure of a public space, a shopping centre, which secretly snoops on individuals, without their informed prior consent, in the hope that advertising and sales revenues can be maximised.

There is no way, short of switching off your mobile phone, of opting out or avoiding this snooping scheme.

The Times has a story:

From Times Online May 16, 2008Shops secretly track customers via mobile phone

Signals given off by phones allow shopping centres to monitor how long people stay and which stores they visit

Jonathan Richards, San Francisco

Customers in shopping centres are having their every move tracked by a new type of surveillance that listens in on the whisperings of their mobile phones.

The technology can tell when people enter a shopping centre, what stores they visit, how long they remain there, and what route they take as they walked around.

All the same issues about the lack of informed, prior consent of members of the public who have been, or are now being snooped on in secret, for the commercial benefit of others, apply to Path Intelligence Ltd. (technology provider), the shopping centres (public infrastructure providers), and retailers (profit makers), just as they do to Phorm (technology provider), the Internet Service Providers (public infrastructure providers) and web advertisers (profit makers).

If you look at the demonstration (needs Flash) of the interactive mapping and reporting software which Path Intelligence seem to have developed for this snooping technology, you will see that it could also be easily applied to display and analyse inputs from other “spy on the public without their knowledge or consent” technologies which exploit things which large numbers of people might be carrying on their persons, like BlueTooth or unkilled consumer product RFID tags, or “Biometric” Passports or ID Cards.

It should be relatively simple to link such a system to the existing CCTV surveillance camera networks which modern shopping centres all employ.

Sharon Biggar, the company’s chief operating officer, said that one of the stores which had already deployed the receivers did not want its name revealed for fear of alarming its customers.

Who is this snooping retailer ? Why should we not boycott them ?

The company that makes the dishes, which measure 30cm (12 inches) square and are placed on walls around the centre, said that they were useful to centres that wanted to learn more about the way their customers used the store.

A shopping mall could, for example, find out that 10,000 people were still in the store at 6pm, helping to make a case for longer opening hours, or that a majority of customers who visited Gap also went to Next, which could useful for marketing purposes.

10,000 people in a store sounds positively dangerous. Perhaps they mean within the shopping centre.

Why would large crowds of shoppers still milling around at closing time not be utterly obvious to human staff, without the need for this snooping technology ?

It has already been installed in two shopping centres, including Gunwharf Quays in Portsmouth, and three more centres will begin using it next month, Times Online has learnt.

The other shopping centre may well be newly refurbished The Cascades, also in Portsmouth – there appears to

In the case of Gunwharf Quays, managers were surprised to discover that an unusually high percentage of visitors were German – the receivers can tell in which country each phone is registered – which led to the management translating the instructions in the car park.

Why could none of the shopping centre staff or retail shop staff determine that there were lots of German speaking visitors ?

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) expressed cautious approval of the technology, which does not identify the owner of the phone but rather the handset’s IMEI code – a unique number given to every device so that the network can recognise it.

But an ICO spokesman said, “we would be very worried if this technology was used in connection with other systems that contain personal information, if the intention was to provide more detailed profiles about identifiable individuals and their shopping habits.”

Errr… it is a shopping centre stuffed full of CCTV cameras and private security guards – who seriously believes that this FootPath(tm) snooping will never be used in conjunction with CCTV ?

Only the phone network can match a handset’s IMEI number to the personal details of a customer.

Path Intelligence, the Portsmouth-based company which developed the technology, said its equipment was just a tool for market research. “There’s absolutely no way we can link the information we gather back to the individual,” a spokeswoman said. “There’s nothing personal in the data.”

Nonsense ! Path Intelligence lists a long list of possibly commercially useful benefits of their system to shopping centre operators and retailers, most of which can and should only be accomplished through the use of anonymous aggregated statistics.

However, if you read the last section of the list of claimed benefits for the FootPath(tm) product, they admit that it is capable of identifying individuals

Security:

* Identify unauthorized individuals in ‘no go’ areas of the centre
* Identify suspicious ‘left’ luggage

How is it possible to do this with truly anonymous data ? Either there is a “whitelist” of individual authorised staff phones or a “blacklist” of alleged individual “troublemaker” phones, or there is one watchlist database with different status flags.

This visualisation graphic screenshot clearly shows that shoppers can be tracked individually. The apparent “walking through walls” effect is an artifact of the path that the software uses to join the periodic data points, which are probably about 5 to 10 minutes apart, i.e. when your mobile phone makes a handshake with the network, to check signal strength with the neighbouring mobile phone cell tower base stations.

Path_Intelligence_individual_shopper_tracking_visualisation_300.jpg
See the original screenshot here.

The description of the features of the PI Explorer software which analyses the data from the snooping antennas includes:

Security alerts that send an SMS message should a security situation be identified

Just as with Phorm, it is up to Path Intelligence to prove and reassure the general public that it is impossible for their system to be abused. We will not simply take it on trust, from people with commercial or other motives for extending the surveillance capabilities of a system, which does not have any way for people to opt out of being snooped on.

Can you spot the IMEI snooping antennas ?

The Times article says that the first secret trials of this technology on the unsuspecting public are being conducted by this Portsmouth based company seem to be at the local Gunwharf Quay shopping centre, although we suspect that it may have also been tested, or is still in use, at the Cascades shopping centre, also in Portsmouth (there seems to be a Cascades demo on the Path Intelligence website, as well as a West Quay one)

We would welcome any photos and location reports from any Spy Blog readers who can spot the locations of the mobile phone signal snooping antennas – “30cm (12 inches) square “.

PathIntelligence_FootPath_IMEI_snooping_antenna.jpg

(original image from The Times article)

See the Gunwharf Quay shopping centre maps.

What is the density of the snooping antennas required in order to achieve a location accuracy of 1 to 2 metres indoors ?

The receivers together cost about £20,000 to rent per month. About 20 of the units, which are unobtrusive, cream-coloured boxes about the size of a satellite dish, would be needed to cover the Bluewater shopping centre.

Bluewater (near Dagenham in London), is a much larger shopping centre than Gunwharf Quays

Are there any Warning Signs or notices on display at these shopping centres, which warn their customers or potential customers and other members of the public that their mobile phones are being tracked ?

Can these systems also track IMEI signals from the neighbouring area outside of the shopping centre or its car parks ?

N.B. Similar location snooping results could be achieved by the Mobile Phone Networks, and their Location Based Data services, especially at, say, Airports, where there are lots of mobile phone micro-cells or pico-cells installed, to try to grab profitable business account customers and tourists with expensive call roaming charges on their network rather than on their rivals networks, when the visitors first switch on their mobile phones after landing.

Secure Web interface ?

Those Spy Blog readers who remember our criticisms of various Mobile Phone Location Based Services systems launched in recent years, will know that we are rightly sceptical when we see that such potentially sensitive data e.g. the location of your children, is not being processed and securely stored locally, but is happily being uploaded and then made available via the inherently insecure internet.

Path Intelligence Explorer is our secure, internet delivery solution. Your data can be accessed 24/7, allowing you the convenience to interrogate your information from anywhere in the world

What proof is there that such a web based system is not vulnerable to unathorised access from anywhere in the world ?

There is no indication that this data is strongly encrypted, either when it is being uploaded from the snooping antennas, nor when a customer downloads web based graphical or Excel spreadsheet reports.

Why not use it in Prisons instead ?

There is a place for this mobile phone location snooping technology, to operate without the informed consent of the people whose mobile phone locations are being tracked by the FootPath(tm) system , but that is not in any public shopping areas. It could and should be deployed in every prison, given the vast numbers of illegal mobile phones which are smuggled into British prisons every year.

See Thousands of Mobile Phones seized in UK Prisons – evidence of corruption ?

There have been attempts to use similar RFID badge based location tagging in a couple of US Prisons, so as to keep prison gang members under surveillance.

Please do not deploy such prison panopticon technology against the innocent public.

Illegal to spoof IMEI

The first reaction of some of our more technically proficient readers might be to start thinking of ways to devise IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identifier) spoofing devices, to frustrate any such snooping system.

However, apart from probably disrupting the local mobile phone system for other users, including possible life saving calls to the Emergency Services, this would be illegal in the United Kingdom and punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a serious enough offence to invoke extradition proceedings from abroad, if necessary.
See Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Act 2002

This badly worded Act criminalises the mere possession of equipment or software (i.e. a computer and a serial cable or BlueTooth connection) which may be used, or the actual act of changing an IMEI without the written permission of the (usually foreign) handset manufacturer (incredibly, not, the UK based mobile phone network operator),.-

This Act has been recently amended to also criminalise simply advertising or offering such an IMEI re-programming service or product.

Note that the stupid wording of this Act also criminalises any spoofing or changing of IP addresses or MAC addresses of BlueTooth or WiFi or internet data connected WAP phones, SmartPhones etc. which connect to the internet via GSM or 3G data services i.e. most modern mobile phones, PDAs and portable computers which can act as mobile telephones.

Concerns grow over snooping watchdog

0

monitors.jpgBy Michael Peel | Britain may have sleepwalked into a surveillance society, but you would not know that from the watchdog supposed to stop it happening. Seven-and-a-half years and more than 600 cases into its life, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal — which deals with public complaints about unreasonable official snooping — has upheld just a single claim.

The disclosure comes amid growing concerns about the use of tough surveillance powers by hundreds of local councils and other authorities to monitor petty street crime, boat-owners accused of illegal fishing, and even parents suspected of lying about their addresses to get their children into better schools.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal told the Financial Times it had backed just one complaint about unwarranted official spying since it was set up in October 2000. Up to December 2006 it had dealt with 554 cases, a number that is likely to have risen by at least 100 since then.

Privacy campaigners say the tribunal’s reluctance to uphold complaints is a sign that there are too few safeguards against misuse of broad-ranging surveillance laws brought in by the government.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, a pressure group, said a lack of funding meant the tribunal had never “produced a finding that is of any value to anybody whatever”.

“All of these bodies that proclaim oversight function suffer from the same symptom: they were never expected to do anything dynamic.”

Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, has warned that Britain has sleepwalked into a “surveillance society” without much debate about what has happened. According to Mr Thomas, each person has their image captured on average 300 times a day by closed-circuit television cameras, while car number plate readers are forecast to take 50m pictures a day this year.

Almost nothing is known about the surveillance complaints that come before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, as it does not make its rulings public and does not tell unsuccessful claimants why their claims were rejected. Even the ruling made in the case of the successful claim remains confidential.

Although the tribunal said it had made six judgments that would be published because they dealt with important points of law, only one of these — dating back to 2006 — is available on the website so far. David Payne, tribunal secretary, said “resource problems” at the tribunal meant it had not yet had time to post the others, although it would do so in due course.

The tribunal monitors the use of the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which gives almost 800 agencies — including the country’s 474 local councils — powers to conduct surveillance and access communication records, as well as giving a more limited number of authorities, including the security services and the Scottish Executive, the right to intercept telephone and e-mail traffic.

The diverse areas in which “necessary” and “proportionate” surveillance is permitted under the act include tax collecting, protecting public health and safeguarding “the interests of the economic well-being of the UK”.

A local authority in Poole, Dorset, has come under fire in the past few weeks for its vigorous use of snooping powers, including to work out the school catchment area a family lived in and to identify the people responsible for repeatedly damaging an apartment door entry system.

‘We Are Stuck’ With Guantanamo, Gates Says

0

gitmo2.jpgDefense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who last year said he would look for ways to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison, has told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee that his inter-agency effort has been brought to a “standstill” by what he called “a serious not-in-my-back-yard problem.”

Gates said there are “about 70” detainees whom the United States is prepared to send back to home countries. But those governments “either won’t accept them or we are concerned that the home government will let them loose once we return them.”

Making that prospect more real was the U.S. military‘s announcement that one of the people who set a suicide bomb in Mosul, Iraq, this month was identified as Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who was captured in Afghanistan, sent to Guantanamo and released in 2005 after three years there. Al-Ajmi was released when he returned home.

“What do you do with that irreducible 70 or 80, or whatever the number is, who cannot be let loose but will not be charged and will not be sent home?” Gates asked.

Seeking that answer, he said he had talked to members of Congress, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and other Bush administration officials. “I haven’t found anybody who wants these terrorists to be placed in a prison in their home state,” he said.

The result, he said, “is that we are stuck” with Guantanamo Bay.

Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also discussed the fiscal 2009 Defense Department budget in their appearance before the subcommittee.

In response to a question from Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mullen acknowledged that the “continuous escalation” of the $180 billion in costs associated with pay, benefits and health care for the all-volunteer active-duty and reserve armed forces “does not bode well for a military of this size.”

“There are limits which we will hit which will, in the constraints that exist, force us to a smaller military or force us away from any kind of modernization or programs that we need for the future, or curtail operations,” Mullen said.

Gates called the rising cost of health care “one area that not only concerns us but where we believe we have to get under control.” He said the Defense Department’s health-care costs went from $19.5 billion in 2001 to the projected $42.8 billion sought for next year. Within that figure, he said, are military retirees, who are eligible, along with family members, for Tricare medical and dental programs.

Gates said that by fiscal 2011, “65 percent of the people being served by [the Pentagon‘s health-care] budget will be retirees.”

When it was begun in 1995, Tricare Prime had annual enrollment fees of $230 for a single retiree or $460 for a family. Many retirees are in good health and are often working in other jobs, and premiums have not increased since the program started.

Gates said there is a $1 billion shortage in the Pentagon’s proposed fiscal 2009 health-care budget that it hopes to fill with a small increase in premiums for younger retirees.

Veterans groups and others so far have succeeded in persuading Congress not to approve the price hike. Gates said a Tricare premium increase for retirees could help slow rising health costs “without impinging on those who are in the service today.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-S.D.) asked Gates why the United States will still be paying $2.5 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces next year, when the Baghdad government will earn $70 billion from oil exports this year. Gates replied that U.S. support has dropped each year as the Iraqis have paid more. But he added that by paying something, the United States can continue to keep an eye on the progress of Iraqi security forces.

“We need to scale this gradually . . . so we can keep an oar in, in terms of the quality and in terms of making sure that the training is of the kind that we’d want,” he said.

He added that although the Pentagon continues to provide Iraq with U.S. weapons and equipment, it is gradually moving Iraq to buy those same arms from American suppliers.

National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines — but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them to fineprint@washpost.com.

Indictment and Trial of Bush and Cheney

0

cheney.jpgBy David Swanson | Remarks made on May 24, 2008, in Radford, Va., at the Building a New World Conference: http://www.wpaconference.org. In a December 31, 2007, editorial, the New York Times faulted the current president and vice president of the United States for kidnapping innocent people, denying justice to prisoners, torturing, murdering, circumventing U.S. and international law, spying in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and basing their actions on “imperial fantasies.” If the editorial had been about Bush and Cheney robbing a liquor store or killing a small number of people or robbing a small amount of money or torturing a single child, then the writers at the New York Times would have demanded immediate prosecution and incarceration. Can you guess what they actually demanded? They demanded that we sit back and hope the next president and vice president will be better.

I read a nice column within the past week or so on CommonDreams.org by a college professor named David Orr. He opened with these lines:

“The 44th president will assume office with powers greatly enlarged by his or her predecessor. Drawing on recent precedents, the next president could launch preemptive wars with only minor interference from Congress, ignore the ancient right of habeas corpus and imprison political enemies, spy on American citizens without serious legal restraint, use practically any federal agency for political purposes, manipulate the press in ways inconceivable prior to 2000, corrupt the federal justice system for political gain, destroy evidence in criminal cases, use the Justice Department to prosecute members of the opposing party, offer lucrative no-bid government contracts to friends, expand the creation of private security armies, use torture, create secret prisons, assassinate inconvenient foreign leaders, circumvent laws with signing statements, and a great deal more. Such things are now possible because the system of checks and balances carefully written into the Constitution and explained in great detail in the Federalist Papers were weakened as a result of historical circumstances of the 20th century, but systematically and with great forethought by the administration of George W. Bush.”

Orr noted, accurately I think, that

“The expanded powers of one president typically are carefully guarded by their successors. Republican or Democrat the next president will be advised to distance the office from the more controversial actions of George W. Bush, but only as a matter of expediency, not for reasons inherent in the Constitution or the law. If so, we will have crossed the line into executive tyranny.”

But he went on to urge the next president to take action, to “support the appointment of a special prosecutor to thoroughly investigate the possible illegalities involved in the recent expansion of presidential power not to exact political revenge, but as the first step toward recalibrating the presidency to the Constitution. Second, he or she should appoint a Blue Ribbon panel of experts in Constitutional Law and the presidency to make recommendations to Congress about the restoration of the office.”

I’m inclined to agree that this is one of the approaches we should pursue, with a number of caveats. First, this will be pointless with a President McCain and difficult with a President Obama. Second, blue ribbon panels of experts, including congressional committees, have been screaming their recommendations for years. We know which bills to repeal, which powers to re-criminalize. And we know already as undisputed openly confessed to fact that the current president has committed crimes that should put him away for life. The investigations have been done. It’s only the prosecution that’s needed.

So, the question, as far as prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department goes, should Obama become president, will be whether Obama will approve of prosecuting Bush, Cheney, et alia. Some weeks back, around the time of the Pennsylvania primary, a Philadelphia News Reporter asked Senator Obama that question. Obama did not bring up the topic himself. The reporter raised it. He then reported as follows:

“The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects. I mentioned the report in my question, and said ‘I know you’ve talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there’s also the issue of justice, and a lot of people — certainly around the world and certainly within this country — feel that crimes were possibly committed’ regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department ‘would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed.’

“Here’s his answer, in its entirety:

“‘What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, 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 — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.'”

Obama did not say he prefers prosecution to impeachment for political reasons. He said he’s opposed to both because he doesn’t know of any crimes having been committed, and he hasn’t seen any exceptional circumstances, but that he’s open to prosecution should he discover that crimes have been committed. We can leave to one side the fact that many impeachable offenses are not crimes, and the question of why Obama is waiting until 2009 to look into this seemingly important issue, as well as the question of what in the hell WOULD constitute exceptional circumstances. I want to focus on what Obama already knows, because we all know it, because it’s public knowledge.

The current president has openly confessed to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and with it the Fourth Amendment. He’s on videotape repeatedly lying about not doing so over a period of years, and he’s on videotape brazenly confessing to doing so after he had been caught. Eavesdropping in violation of FISA is a federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, for each violation. Obama knows this but trusts members of the media not to point it out. And if they won’t point it out now, can we be sure we’ll persuade them to point it out later?

The president has developed a habit of asking his vice president’s lawyer to draft things called “signing statements” after he signs bills into law. These statements openly announce the president’s intention to violate certain sections of new laws, and they are all openly posted on the White House website. Twice in the past year the Government Accountability Office has reviewed sample collections of Bush signing statements, and each time found that in many cases, Bush has already violated the laws he announced he had the right to violate. The studies have listed which laws these are. Senator Obama knows this, yet claims he would need an investigation to discover whether any crime has occurred.

It is a felony to make false statements to Congress or to defraud Congress with misleading statements. Bush has done so in writing and orally, about the gravest matters, including the grounds for war. Bush and Cheney and gang’s lies about Iraqi weapons and ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make many of the same claims to this day, claims that have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Obama knows this. He talks frequently about how he himself opposed the war before he supported it.

It is illegal for the president to misappropriate public funds or to violate the War Powers Resolution, both of which he did by secretly taking money from Afghanistan to begin the work of invading Iraq and to launch bombing raids before receiving congressional authorization. This is not disputed, and there is no question that Obama knows about it.

Federal laws and international treaties prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, as well as secret detentions, denial of due process, and rendition to other nations for purposes of torturing. Torture has been advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs, and recently by a public confession by the president. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed bans on torture with signing statements.

It is a violation of the National Security Act to fail to keep all Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees “fully and currently informed” of intelligence activities, such as the warrantless surveillance programs.

Bush has violated the Stored Communications Act of 1986 and the Communications Act of 1934 by obtaining millions of U.S. customer telephone records without obtaining a subpoena or warrant, without customer consent, and outside of any applicable “emergency exceptions.”

Bush has routinely violated federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other whistleblowers.

Bush has violated federal regulations requiring the disciplining of those who leak classified information whether they intend to or not.

Back in the summer of 2006, prior to exposure of numerous crimes by Bush and Cheney, Congressman John Conyers released a report called “The Constitution in Crisis”, in which he listed dozens of laws that had already been violated by Bush and Cheney.

It’s a felony to order former White House staffers not to comply with subpoenas.

It’s a violation of the UN Charter and therefore of Article VI of the US Constitution to launch a war of aggression against Iraq or to threaten one against Iran. Those threats are on videotape.

And it is a violation of international and US law to target civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, to use antipersonnel weapons including cluster bombs in densely settled urban areas, to use white phosphorous as a weapon, to use depleted uranium weapons, and to employ a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs. Under the command of George W. Bush, the U.S. military has engaged in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian populations, including by blocking roads, cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel stations, planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing houses, and plowing down orchards. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids collective punishment and the targeting of civilians. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes that Convention the law of the land.

At some point we have to simply choose to stop listing the crimes. For many of these crimes no investigation is needed or even possible or conceivable. The President says he violated FISA. What better evidence is imaginable? An impeachment or a prosecution could take a day. What we need is not time and resources but the will and the pressure to make it happen.

You can buy John Conyers’ report in bookstores, but he refuses to hold impeachment hearings. Instead he sends requests and FOIA requests and subpoenas and contempt citations, and most of them get sent back with little snide remarks effectively telling him where he can stick it. Should we have a President Obama and a Democratic House and/or Senate, it will be interesting to see whether the Judiciary Committee and other committees renew their subpoenas and contempt citations and whether the new Justice Department enforces them. Of course, I’ve phrased that in reverse order. If the Justice Department still doesn’t want to enforce them, the Congress will cease issuing them. If the old White House and administration has not destroyed all its documents, then whether subpoenas for documents are reissued will depend on whether the new White House wants to hand them over.

The optimists among us expect great things in this regard from Obama and believe he’s wisely holding his hand close to his chest. I think he would be much wiser to let it be known that a vote for him would put the least popular president and vice president in history behind bars. That could give him a landslide, and it’ll take a landslide for him to overcome election fraud.

But Obama’s not taking that approach, which suggests that persuading him to act will be an uphill fight. We can do it, but it’ll be a struggle, and it should begin now, and it should include a push for impeachment. I expect that we will see a stronger push for impeachment in the House in the coming months. And, remember, there are past impeachments and trials that have taken a total of two days. Eight months is plenty of time. And if we get to impeachment, we will get to indictment for certain. If we don’t get to impeachment, Bush and Cheney’s strongest defense in court will be to argue that they were never impeached.

Of course, we also have the possibility of prosecution in a foreign court or even an international court, and we should do what we can from this country to encourage those avenues. There have been cases filed against Rumsfeld already, and Bush’s rumored hideaway in Paraguay has now become part of a nation with a government opposed to his agenda. So, the Pinochet approach is a possibility. Lawyers should be working night and day to make this happen, and the rest of us should support them.

Prosecutors and judges do not operate in a vacuum. Activism and public education have a huge impact, and that is something we can all help with. We can hold forums like this one. We can contact the media. We can build progressive media. We can pass local and state resolutions. We can even file court cases.

The National Lawyers Guild is urging Congress to appoint a special prosecutor, independent of the Justice Department, to “investigate and prosecute high Bush officials and lawyers including John Yoo for their role in the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.”

The Guild’s new 14-page paper explains how lawyers, including Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, and William Haynes, counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes. The lawyers said that the Department of Justice would not enforce federal laws against torture, maiming, assault and stalking.

Guild President Marjorie Cohn recently testified in Congress that it was “reasonably foreseeable” the lawyers’ advice “would result in great physical and mental harm or death to many detainees”; more than 100 have died, many from torture. Torture, like genocide, slavery and wars of aggression, is absolutely prohibited at all times. No country can ever pass a law that would allow them.

Cohn testified that Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, Ashcroft, and Bush are liable under the War Crimes Act and the Torture Statute.

Congress could appoint a special prosecutor or begin impeachments or use inherent contempt (that is, the Capitol Police) to compel testimony. But it will only act if forced to by us.

My friend John Bonifaz filed a law suit against the President before the invasion of Iraq on behalf of congress members and military families claiming an invasion would be unconstitutional without a proper congressional declaration of war. John consulted last year with a professor at Rutgers University, who worked up a case with his students for a full year, and last week filed it in Federal District Court in Newark, New Jersey. The Complaint, filed on behalf of a number of peace groups, seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the President’s decision to launch a preemptive war against a sovereign nation in 2003 violated Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which assigns to Congress the power to Declare War.

Every peace and justice group in the country should be working with lawyers, choosing their favorite crime, and filing a suit, the point being to change the public conversation until we reach the point that a prosecutor will act.

Also last week in Milano, Italy, 25 CIA agents and an Air Force colonel went on trial in absentia for kidnapping a man on an Italian street and renditioning him to Egypt to be tortured. The victim’s wife testified for over six hours. A newspaper report read:

“Nabila at first rebuffed prosecutors’ requests to describe the torture her husband had recounted, saying she didn’t want to talk about it. Advised by prosecutors that she had no choice, she tearfully proceeded: ‘He was tied up like he was being crucified. He was beaten up, especially around his ears. He was subject to electroshocks to many body parts.’
“‘To his genitals?’ the prosecutors asked.
“‘Yes,’ she replied.”

The judge said that the current and immediate past prime ministers of Italy will be required to testify during the trial.

A couple of weeks ago, an Iraqi sued U.S. contractors for torture. Emad al-Janabi’s federal lawsuit, was filed in Los Angeles, and claims that employees of CACI International Inc. and L-3 Communications punched him, slammed him into walls, hung him from a bed frame and kept him naked and handcuffed in his cell. More such suits are needed, hundreds more.

And it is important to keep in mind that the United Nation’s recognition of the US occupation of Iraq will end on December 31st, which may make US mercenaries and contractors subject to Iraqi law, which may make the Pentagon pull the plug on the whole thing. We should be alert to this possibility and be ready to push it.

We should also follow the example of Brattleboro and Marlboro, Vermont, towns that have passed resolutions requiring local law enforcement to arrest Bush or Cheney should they ever set foot there. The more towns that do it, the more higher officials hear about it.

We’re like the people watching out the window as a woman is robbed in the street, all assuming that someone else is telling the police. We should ALL be telling the police every day.

Go to http://convictbushcheney.org for more.

The War on Drugs – ’30 Years of Failure’

1

line.jpgRadley Balko | HBO’s critically acclaimed drama The Wire wrapped up its final season in March. The show has been widely praised for its raw and cynical realism, its huge cast of multidimensional characters interweaving across complex story arcs, and above all its knowing look at the decline of a major American city. Over five seasons, co-creators David Simon and Ed Burns–a former reporter for the Baltimore Sun and a former narcotics officer with the Baltimore Police Department, respectively–explored Charm City’s docks, labor unions, crumbling public school system, and troubled police department, along with the particular brand of political corruption that infects a dying city.

Although both are unreservedly men of the left, Simon and Burns created a show that eviscerated Democratic governance, capturing the futility and spectacular failure of local institutions. The Wire serves as a primer on unintended consequences, public choice theory, and the way politics poisons civil society. Characters showing even a hint of nobility are almost inevitably punished by indifferent, plodding bureaucrats, overly ambitious politicians, or the damaging actions of well-meaning public employees. The results can be heartbreaking, as when broken policies drive a promising circle of middle school students to bleak destinies.

The Wire’s greatest accomplishment may be its unprecedented, painfully accurate portrait of the drug war. Never before has television so honestly captured the brutality of black markets, the folly of statistics-driven law enforcement, and the twisted incentives that confront cops and drug merchants alike. This may be why, as Simon told Reason in 2004, the show is beloved by street-level police officers and drug dealers.

Ed Burns, 62, came to writing late in life, after a tour in Vietnam and two decades working homicide and narcotics in the Baltimore Police Department. He also taught seventh grade in Baltimore’s public schools, an experience he has said compared psychologically with Vietnam. In 1997 Burns and Simon, who met when Simon was covering cops, co-wrote The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood, the acclaimed true story of a single intersection in drug-plagued West Baltimore that later became an Emmy-winning HBO miniseries. In January of this year, as The Wire was closing out its run, Burns and Simon finished shooting a new HBO miniseries based on Evan Wright’s book Generation Kill, an account of the first days of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Senior Editor Radley Balko interviewed Burns via telephone in February.

Reason: This season of The Wire has focused pretty heavily on the media. What do you think the media do well when it comes to covering criminal justice issues, and what do you think they do poorly?

Ed Burns: I think a lot depends on who’s doing it. In specific cases, you can do extremely well as a reporter. My problem is more with the basic philosophy of how it’s done. It’s like a laser beam. They cover a specific aspect, or a specific trial, or a specific murder in a way that simplifies things, that makes them very stereotypical. It only takes one sentence to name the victim of a crime and the street where the crime took place. So they’re really only reporting something that we know is going to happen–because the conditions are there to make it happen–but they don’t go beyond that. There’s no context in crime reporting. That’s the problem.

Reason: Slate’s media critic, Jack Shafer, has said that the media are at their absolute worst when covering the drug war. Do you agree with him, and if so why do you think that is?

Burns: Take just the term “war on drugs.” I mean, they’re not warring on drugs. They’re warring on drug addicts and the users and the small-time dealers. They’re warring on neighborhoods. They’re warring on people who can’t stand up to them. They’re not warring on major dealers.

You can follow it in any city; I don’t care how small it is or how big it is. If the paper is pretty avid about covering who’s getting locked up, you’ll notice that they’re not getting the big guys. They’re not getting the big stakeholders.

I think their whole approach is almost as if they were trying to separate us, trying to separate the classes by saying, “Look what’s happened down there. Look at these people down there, these people and what they’re doing.”

When I was teaching, you’d have a kid in, say, his junior year of high school. And you’d give him a list of things he could possibly do when he gets out. He could be a doctor, lawyer, all this kind of stuff. We’d make one of the options “drug addict,” and there are kids who always check it off.

The media report as if these kids have all of these options, and they consciously make this decision to become a drug addict, and to risk the consequences of going up to the corner and getting themselves killed. That decision was made for him long before that kid got to be in the 11th grade. A lot of guys don’t even get that far.

This idea that there are lots of options for these kids and they choose a life on the corner, that’s too simplistic. But it’s the way these things get covered.

Reason: We interviewed your co-producer, David Simon, just before The Wire’s fourth season. He said that though The Wire may be cynical about institutions, it treats its characters with a lot of affection. But the last two seasons seem to have gotten even more cynical. Many of the characters who show promise seem to either succumb to character flaws or actually get punished for doing the right thing. Are viewers to take anything away from The Wire other than that our major institutions are failing and there’s little reason for hope?

Burns: Well, I don’t think there’s much reason for hope if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, even though you know it’ll never work. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said that if you get on the wrong train, running down the aisle in the opposite direction really doesn’t help. Basically that’s what we’ve done, we’ve gotten on entirely the wrong train, and we keep sprinting down the aisle in the other direction, trying to pretend that if we run fast enough, we can get it together and turn things around. We’re losing more than we’re winning, and there’s no reason for it.

I mean, if you go into West Baltimore, or East Baltimore, or any of these cities in the ghettos, and you pick up a stone and you throw it, you’re probably going to hit a nonprofit. They’re all over the place. They aren’t working, because again we’re all on the same wrong train. The nonprofits are fragmented. The whole thing is fragmented. It just doesn’t work.

So no, I don’t think we’re being cynical. I think we’re being factual. We’ve been fighting the drug war for 30 years. Thirty years of failure. But there’s some reason that we persist in this. What is it? We never explore why that is. But you just can’t spend this much money and get these few results and continue on like this. Someone has to start wondering what the fuck is going on.

Reason: Critics have said the city of Baltimore is really the central character in The Wire. Recently, we’ve seen some interesting developments in violent crime statistics. Large cities like New York and Los Angeles have continued with improvements that started in the 1990s, but smaller and medium-size cities like Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis seem to be getting bloodier. Do you have any theories as to why that might be?

Burns: Yeah, sure, absolutely. I think New York’s murder rate was under 500 in 2007, and that’s out of a population of 8 million people. Baltimore’s murder rate was somewhere around 282 for a population of around 600,000 people. So we’re very close to New York just in raw numbers. The reason is that New York has an economy. There’s a vitality there. There are things happening. People have jobs.

In places like Baltimore, Detroit, and Cincinnati, the jobs that were there are gone. The manufacturing-based jobs are gone, and without that kind of job, it’s very, very difficult to jump-start the economy. There’s no prospect for Baltimore having jobs in the near future. If you look at Baltimore now, what you’re seeing is a very decayed inner core. The east side of the city is being bought up by Johns Hopkins [the university and hospital]. They’re building a biotech park which is going to employ 6,000 people, but of those 6,000 people, you’ll be lucky to get three people who were originally from those neighborhoods. They just aren’t qualified.

Reason: You’ve said that too many narcotics police today have developed a gung-ho, cowboy mentality. You traced this trend back to the 1972 movie The French Connection. Could you elaborate?

Burns: Well, it’s just dumb. The Godfather, or The French Connection, which came out in the early ’70s, those movies set the stage for both sides of the drug war. In The French Connection, Det. Popeye Doyle had this very cynical, harsh, rough, law-breaking type of drug style that sort of set the tone in how street narcotics guys work. Very flippant. What the movie didn’t pick up, and what you didn’t see, is all the intense surveillance and hard work that would go into a drug bust back then. But they put out the idea of this guy who cracks heads, especially in that scene where they went and they shook the bar down. That became iconic. And that is the way the cops were afterward. I mean, you’d see white cops in black neighborhoods looking like Serpico, and they’re not undercover. It was just this mind-set that took over of how you’re supposed to dress and act and the way you’re supposed to be.

The Godfather had a similar effect on the other side. It basically taught these emerging heroin gangs how to do business, how you set up your structure, with the code and the organization, the way you should have a boss, under-bosses–you know, capos. It got black, inner-city heroin dealers into the same mind-set.

Reason: How common do you think that is, drug dealers taking tips from the entertainment world? I’ve read that some dealers actually get advice from The Wire, particularly when it comes to communication systems they can use to evade police surveillance.

Burns: Well, if they’re looking at what we’re telling them, they won’t be learning much, because the technology has been out there. The Marlo Stanfields of today–those guys I think of as mid-level drug dealers–there are just so many of them. They’re like the salmon going up the river. There’s really no way for law enforcement to stop all of these guys. There are just too many of them. So the ones who take a modicum of precautions, the ones who are smart enough to stay low key, they’re completely under the radar screen, because it would just take too much work to even figure out who these guys are and how to catch them. Only the really, really careless ones get caught.

Reason: What’s your feeling on the militarization of domestic police departments, particularly as it relates to the drug war?

Burns: I think this whole thing was driven by the concept of numbers. You can quantify numbers, so if you’re in a war and you’re racking up numbers–numbers being arrests–it sets that military tone. Sort of like the way we’ve historically measured the success of wars in terms of casualties. The police departments that work in these hard neighborhoods are basically armies of occupation. Their job is to keep these people suppressed.

In Baltimore two years ago, they locked up 115,000 people from a population of 600,000. Now, let’s assume that they didn’t lock up anybody under the age of 8 or over the age of 70. They didn’t lock up that many white middle-class people. That’s an awful lot of people from one particular group getting put behind bars. And many times, they’re getting locked up for things like sitting on the stoop drinking a beer, pissing in the alley, or just jaywalking in the street.

Reason: The old “broken windows” theory?

Burns: [Laughs] Yeah. James Q. Wilson’s trick. It doesn’t work. In fact, what it does do is alienate the police department from the community. So you’re an army of occupation, and because you’ve alienated the community, you’re not getting any information. That’s a bad situation.

It’s the same thing they discovered in Iraq, oddly enough. Once they got away from the idea of suppression, they started getting much more information from Iraqis. The soldiers and Marines in Iraq basically use many of the techniques developed by law enforcement. They do the same type of searches. They gather the same type of information. They collate it the same way. They use cell phone data. They’re doing everything that law enforcement normally does. But they’re only successful when they’re connected with the people.

In Baltimore, they’re not connected to the people because they’ve alienated everyone in the neighborhood. So when you need to know something, when you need information, where do you go?

Reason: What do you make of the “Stop Snitchin’” movement, the street campaign that discourages people from cooperating with police, which seems to have started in Baltimore?

Burns: Well, again, it’s something that’s incidental. It’s a symptom. If the police were connected, if the police were actively involved with the people in the neighborhood, the amount of information they would be getting would be so great that the whole idea of snitching wouldn’t be important. When I was a cop, having informants was a rare thing. They were looked down upon. I had sometimes as many as 50 guys working for me. I didn’t have to go out on the street. I could sit by the phone and just wait for the information to come. But you got that by being decent to people, working with them, helping them out on their little charges, stuff like that. That’s a lot of work, and a lot of money comes out of your pocket to keep them happy and cooperative, but the amount of information you get back is profound.

Cops aren’t taught to do that anymore because today it’s all about numbers. You can get a number by just going up on the corner and grabbing somebody and getting a bag off of him. That’s the easy thing. If taking a guy in for drinking a beer on the street is a “1,” and catching the kingpin is a “1,” well, it takes two minutes to catch the guy with the beer can. It could take you two years to catch the kingpin. If numbers are all the department cares about, then the guy who pursues the kingpin is wasting his time.

And it is all about numbers. It’s how they talk, how they rate themselves. The fact that the murder rate in Baltimore stays constantly above the norm would seem to be an indication that maybe they should try something different. But they’re bankrupt. They don’t have any idea what they need to do because they’re separated from the people. They’re not of the people. You’re policing as an army of occupation, not as police in the community. And that just doesn’t work.

Reason
: David Simon once wrote that you are “the living manifestation of lost wars,” since you were a soldier in Vietnam, a cop fighting the drug war, and a teacher in the public school system. Do you agree those three wars were or have been lost? Are there any institutional similarities you’ve observed that contributed to those three failures?

Burns: Well, we definitely lost Vietnam. And we lost Iraq. And we’ll lose any war where we allow an insurgency to exist. As for the war on drugs, I don’t think we’ll ever recover from the mind-set we’ve gotten into to fight it. The educational system is an absolute and total disaster. And that of course is fueling the drug war, because there are so many kids who have no alternative but to spend their time on the corners.

The failure is institutional because no one sets out to lose these wars. This is dangerous stuff, self-defeating stuff. Education has no relevance. It doesn’t mean anything to these kids because they can’t connect to it. They spend those eight years or nine years in school because they have to. Of course, they have to learn something. And what they learn is how to sit quietly in a corner and make the school become a kind of training ground for the corners. The administration and the teachers basically become surrogate cops. And the kids play through these fantasies with the stand-in “cops” until they’ve tested their mettle enough to go up on the corners and try it with the real guys.

We’ve had 20, 30 years of this stuff, and 20, 30 years of spending billions of dollars on failed systems. And if you go to one of the private schools and see these kids in action and then go to an inner-city public school, you can see the chasm. There’s separation even in the way of being, in the way they think, in how they operate. It’s profound, but it’s nothing new. We’ve been doing this for a long time.

Reason: How would you describe your personal politics?

Burns: Liberal. Liberal to radical.

I’m pretty fed up with what’s going on.

Reason: Is there any concrete policy you can think of that would lead to the more community-oriented style of policing you’ve described?

Burns: You would have to change the nature of the institution. You’d have to stop making it a numbers game. Now, how do you do that with people who’ve been inculcated with this idea that it’s all about numbers? These guys have got computers, they’ve got charts, they’ve got all this kind of stuff, and it all revolves around locking people up. Clearly, that’s not the way to go. But it’s how they sell themselves to politicians, and how they sell themselves to these community relation groups. This stuff is about locking people up.

The police should be focused on the most serious crimes, and in Baltimore the most serious crimes are murder, rape, and robbery. So you try to diffuse the other stuff, but you have to start putting your resources into those. Because if a person kills someone in the neighborhood, the neighborhood knows who did it. If the police don’t catch that person, and that guy’s walking around having beaten a murder, all the police credibility goes out the window.

It’s the same thing if you go up on the corner and you roust an addict while the guy sitting across from the addict has a gun. Everybody in the neighborhood knows he’s got the gun because he’s the bodyguard. And you don’t grab him. The people are thinking, well, maybe the dude is paying the police off. Why else would they grab the harmless addict but not the guy with the gun? Again, the problem is that the police are operating without information and playing to the numbers. If I’m locking you up for petty stuff, you’re not going to be telling me shit. If I’m locking you up two and three times a month, you’re especially not going to tell me anything.

So how do you change all of this? You change the numbers game. You require police to reconnect with the people, and you start focusing everybody on the major crimes, the ones that make living very, very difficult–murder, rape, and robbery.

Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article

0

indymedia.jpgIndymedia | Before turning to the article, it is worth noting that the issue’s Editorial makes similar allegations about Indymedia UK. “For many of us,” it starts, “a visit to Indymedia UK is a frustrating experience.” “Most exasperating,” it then goes on, “are the countless posts obsessed with the Israel-Palestine conflict, which are telling of some of the political viewpoints we are happy to associate with.” Countless?! Obsessed?! Happy to associate with?!!

During the 17 months since it was created in January 2007, the Palestine topic has had an average of less than one feature per month (0.8). While some months had no features at all about or related to Palestine-Israel (Feb 2007, Apr 2007, Sep 2007 etc.), others had two (May 2007, Jul 2007, Oct 2007 and Apr 2008). Some of these were UK features, which appeared on the UK startpage, whilst some were only regional (e.g. about local protests or actions) which appeared on regional IMCs startpages. The topic also attracted around 45 posts per month on average (ranging between 27 and 61, depending on the political weather in Palestine-Israel). The only exception was March 2008 (after the escalations in Gaza), which saw 84 posts. March 2008 was the only month when about 11% of all posts published on Indymedia UK had the Palestine topic ticked (84 out of 763). For all other months since January 2007, the percentage was somewhere between 5% and 10%.

Although the editorial admits that the “conflict in the Middle East” is “one of the major atrocities of our time, as the lives of ordinary Palestinians are being destroyed by the bulldozers of a well-equipped army,” it claims that “the issues that are driving this conflict” are “nationalism, religion [and] imperialism.” So the Palestinian liberation struggle is merely motivated by nationalistic and/or religious issues? And the discriminatory and repressive Israeli policies are simply “imperialism”?

“But to have a radical critique of those issues,” the piece continues, “we need to see beyond Israel=evil and Palestine=good.” While no one in Indymedia is advocating or endorsing such simplistic views, there a is big danger in equating the oppressor and the oppressed. As a colonial, racist state, Israel, as a state/system/project, is inherently evil, in the same way that we say capitalism or imperialism is evil. And the victims’ self-defence methods, however ‘uncivilised’, cannot be just dismissed because they do not fit our Western (liberal) activist models, when resistance for them often means fighting for their very survival. “Mostly, however,” the editors then claim, “the opinions presented on Indymedia make the problems of the world seem like one big Jewish conspiracy,” ignoring the fact that such views are so obviously racist/reductionist and have been consistently challenged and hidden on Indymedia.

Finally, the editors ask this loaded question, “What makes Indymedia UK so appealing to conspiracy theorists?” and argue that “it’s not just the open publishing format” but, rather, “it’s the familiarity of the view that the world is run by a few multinationals, Americans and Israelis.”

Indeed, conspiracy theories take a lot of activists’ energy and could be ‘harmful’, in the sense that they paint the ‘movement’ in a bad/mad way (as if its image, without that, is so clean and shiny!). But it is crucial to remember that, in face of the states’ and mainstream media’s relentless efforts to conceal the truth, people, and especially activists, often find themselves forced to contemplate, speculate and doubt what they are being sold, because they have lost, over the years, all faith in what those in power tell them to believe to justify their crimes. Conspiracy theories are thus an ‘act of resistance’. To argue that ‘we’ do not really need them to act and that they would not add anything ‘we’ do not already know, is ignoring the sad reality that people usually do not act out of general moral criticisms; they often need something shocking and disturbing to get off their bums.

It is important to stress here that Indymedia does reject all racially based conspiracy theories (e.g. ‘Jews control the world’, ‘Jews or Arabs did 9/11’ and the like). To argue whether 9/11 or the Iraq war were planned or utilised by some cynical politicians and intelligence services is a totally different argument. After all, history is full of cases like this and it’s not like it hasn’t happened before and won’t happen again and again as long as a few morally corrupt and money-driven individuals and institutions have so much power over people’s lives.

Unprofessional

Turning to the article itself, the first thing one notices is its provocative and misleading title. It employs the largely Western mainstream media-constructed image of Hamas as a terrorist organisation and suggests that Indymedia blindly supports it. The second bit of the title declares, without any evidence throughout the article, that Indymedia is “losing support” and promises its readers of explaining the reason, which does not really happen.

“Go Hamas, Go!!!” was, in fact, the title of a comment on an article published on Indymedia UK [2] about the ‘darkness scenes’ (candle-lit meetings) staged by the Hamas-led Palestinian government to highlight the suffering of Gazans due to the siege and sanctions imposed by Israel earlier this year. The comment basically says that it is legitimate for Hamas to “utilise [Israel’s] war crime as a backdrop for a photoshoot.”

The SHIFT article starts with a quote by Naomi Klein that goes, “Every time I log on to activist news sites like Indymedia.org which practise ‘open publishing’, I am confronted with a string of Jewish conspiracy theories about September 11 and excerpts from the Protocol of the Elders of Zion.” While Klein is not actually talking about Indymedia UK but the global Indymedia site, which has far less and less active volunteers and moderators, as well as Open Publishing in general, it is worth noting that the quote is from an article published in The Guardian back in 2002 [3]. It is, indeed, one of Open Publishing’s problems that contributors can post all kind of rubbish, but whether the admin collective endorse, or tolerate, that or not is a totally different question.

The first parts of the SHIFT article ‘borrow’ extensively from an Indymedia UK feature [4] on the ‘Atzmon-Greenstein affair’, which the article discusses in some detail drawing on that feature. It is, however, surprising and unprofessional of the author that it does not mention the feature. The reason is perhaps best understood when one tracks down the ideological/editorial twists in the article and the differences between it and the feature.

Misleading

Without any warrant or hesitation, the author declares from the beginning that “in the past few months the site Indymedia.org.uk has lost support from many activists for letting anti-Semitic posts go unchallenged.” Not only does the author not cite any evidence that Indymedia UK has “lost support”, s/he also claims, without giving any examples, that “anti-Semitic posts” went “unchallenged”.

The average for hidden posts out of all posts published with the Palestine topic ticked is 12% (95 out of 811 for the period Feb 2007-Apr 2008). This is more or less the same as with other topics, such as Iraq (also 12%), and is not very far from the UK hiding average (19%), taking into account that a lot of spammers (mere links, commercial ads, announcements etc.) usually use the UK publish form and do not always tick topics.

The only instance the article mentions is Gilad Atzmon’s controversial article “Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath”, which generated a lot of discussion and disagreement exactly because moderators could not agree that it was anti-Semitic.

A few lines later, the author again claims that “the Atzmon affair, as it has become known, led to heated discussions, personal accusations, and a loss of credibility for UK Indymedia amongst some of its moderators, in activist circles and even in the wider leftist movement.” Could it just be the case that the author him/herself is generalising, or projecting, his/her own opinion onto the “wider leftist movement”?

The article then continues with some distortion and/or misrepresentation of what happened: “At the height of the affair, three active Indymedia moderators resigned from the collective [they were, in fact, two; the third had nothing to do with this affair] giving many readers [which readers?] the impression that the obsession [what obsession?] with the Palestine-Israel conflict had gained the upper hand [how exactly? Wasn’t the issue anti-Semitism?].”

As a retraction, perhaps, the author then admits that “Indymedia.org.uk has been the target for anti-Semitic posts before and many have been hidden straight away with reference to the guidelines.” However, s/he follows that with another misrepresentation: “In this latest affair however the guidelines did not seem conclusive enough to judge what is anti-Semitism and what isn’t.” Again, the author fails to grasp the fact that the racism guideline already covers anti-Semitism but the issue here was that not all moderators agreed that the article was anti-Semitic, and hence racist.

The article then dedicates a 6-paragraph section to discuss “The Atzmon Affair”. The ‘summary’, however, is clearly biased and misrepresenting (it is worth comparing it with the Indymedia feature mentioned above). For example, the author (intentionally?) misinterprets a statement by Atzmon, which s/he wrongly ascribes to an audio interview conducted by a UK Indymedia activist (it is actually from an article by Atzmon entitled “On Anti-Semitism”, published in December 2003 [5]). The quote reads: “There is no anti-Semitism any more. In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-Semitism has been replaced by political reaction.” The author claims that, by this statement, Atzmon, “once again, affirmed that the hatred of Jews and Israel is simply caused by themselves,” without explaining to us how “political reaction” to Israel is the same as “hatred of Jews”.

Lies?

In a section supposedly about the “Resignations and resolution attempts” (following the Atzmon-Greenstein spat), the author claims that “many more articles appeared, some promoted, some not, that attempted to prove that Jews had built ‘the last openly racist state on the planet’ or that ‘the situation of the Palestinians is little different than the situation of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII’.” A few lines later, s/he adds, “Blog reposts about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict multiplied and have since taken up a large part of the newswire.” But since the author does not reference any of these “many more articles” that were allegedly so obviously racist but were not only kept showing but also promoted, it is difficult to respond to such allegations.

In the period between 14 Feb and 31 Mar 2008, there were 220 posts on Israel-Palestine. Of these, 31 were IMEMC reports, 22 on UK actions and events and 12 reports from inside Palestine. That’s almost 30% and most of these were promoted/promotable. Some 65 appear to come from a persistent disinformation troll and were mostly hidden; another 30 were posted by a user who posts a lot of Israle-Palestine material to Indymedia sites worldwide, usually reposts of corporate coverage with commentary; and 13 were complaints about moderation, which should take place on the moderation list. Together these three categories constitute almost 50% of the total. The rest (20%) was divided between Latuff cartoons, commentaries and reposts from blogs or other media. So the claim that “blog reposts […] have since taken up a large part of the newswire” is totally unfounded.

As to the two quotes above (still without any referencing or context), the first is apparently from an article [6] about the Israeli policy in Gaza, which the author says is “as evil as it is self-defeating”. The article is reposted from a blog called “The Vineyard of the Saker” [7] by someone describing him/herself as “a ‘legal alien’ currently living in the Imperial Homeland.” The context within which the quote appears is this: “The main, over-arching, issue Israel, as a self-described “Jewish state”, is facing today is not terrorism or Iranian nukes but demographics. Israel, as the last openly racist state on the planet, considers it vital to keep a Jewish majority within its borders. This is why a council of rabbis gets to decide who qualifies as “Jew” and who does not, and why the so-called law of return makes any Jew on the planet eligible for relocation to Israel and Israeli citizenship (even if this Jew is non-religious, does not speak Hebrew or Yiddish, and does not care in the least about Israel) while those Arabs who were born in today’s Israel and who were expelled from their homes and towns are not allowed to return even though such a right is enshrined in international law.” This is hardly racist or anti-Semitic unless one regards any criticism of Israel’s racial policies as racism.

The second quote is from a short comment [8] on an article about the UN condemning the Israeli collective punishment of Gaza (the brutal siege and sanctions). The comment says that “the situation of the Palestinians in Gaza (and even in the West Bank) is little different than the situation of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII.” Now this might be an exaggeration and it is not really funny seeing people ‘competing for victimhood’, but ‘monopolising victimhood’ the way Zionists do, for example, is not funny either (see the following comments on the same thread).

It is worth noting that both articles/comments were published in January 2008, i.e. during the Israeli siege of Gaza and the worldwide protests condemning it. So, to respond to the SHIFT article’s complaint that posts about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict “multiplied”, this can be explained as the site users’ reacting to world political events, which is pretty normal and true of all other topics on Indymedia UK.

That month (January 2008), the Palestine topic saw 51 posts, slightly above the average (45). The number increased steadily during the following months, with the Gaza crisis unfolding and protests taking place throughout the world, culminating in 84 posts for March 2008. The same is probably true for comments but, unfortunately, we do not have any statistics for these at the moment to back that up.

The SHIFT article then goes on to complain that “comments such as ‘Long live Palestine’ or even ‘Go Hamas Go’ were no longer hidden,” without enlightening us when they used to get hidden and why they should be. As mentioned above, the “Go Hamas Go” comment mainly argued that it is legitimate for Hamas to “utilise [Israel’s] war crime as a backdrop for a photoshoot.” It does not suggest any support for Hamas or cheering for the killing of Israelis. As to the SHIFT author’s rant about Hamas, one can probably only raise eyebrows at how a supposedly radical, alternative writer in a supposedly radical, alternative magazine could reiterate such mainstream propaganda crap, with a typical Western activist’s patronising value-judgement that takes ‘others’ struggles out of their political/historical contexts.

The second ‘worrying’ quote (“Long live Palestine”) [9] seems to come from a ‘Western’ activist and merely concludes with that slogan (almost like a signature) after congratulating the author of a report (incidentally about an Atzmon event in Brighton) on the “great summing up of the background to this latest debacle in Greenstein’s vicious campaign.”

The article further claims that “many” of these comments “were posted [by] agitators based in Canada and the US, who have recognised Indymedia UK’s willingness to host their posts.” Besides asking the author how did s/he got to know this, given the near-total anonymity of posters on Indymedia, one cannot help wondering what s/he understands from Open Publishing?

“‘Nazimedia’?”?

In fact, the author does appear to understand that well but seems to have other things in mind. In a section provocatively titled “Nazimedia”?, s/he declares, “It thus became evident that the problem did not just lie with the open publishing format. Some Indymedia activists began to pursue an agenda that belittled anti-Semitism.” And what is this agenda that “belittled anti-Semitism”? Well, the publishing of a feature about the siege on Gaza titled “Israel keeps its promise of a ‘Holocaust’ in Gaza” [10].

But before we go into that, it is worth mentioning that the total number of Palestine-related features during the 17 months since the topic was created is 15 out of 134 UK startpage features or, more accurately, out of 324 UK and regional features. That is just 4.6%. In comparison, the Iraq topic, for example, has received 20 features during the same period.

The feature’s title was somehow turned in the article to “Israel keeps its promise of a Holocaust upon the Palestinians”. Not only is this a careless mistake, the omission of the quotation marks surrounding the word “Holocaust” -which indicate the feature’s authors’ reservation and the fact that it was the word used by Israeli deputy Defense Minister threatening Palestinians before the escalation in Gaza in February this year- that omission might well be ill-intended and in line with the image the author has been trying to paint of Indymedia UK throughout the article. The full paragraph where this is explained in the feature reads: “On February 29th, the Israeli deputy Defense Minister provoked outrage after threatening Palestinians with a “holocaust”. Matan Vilnai told the Israeli army radio that “the more [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” The same twisted logic is used by the far-right and Holocaust deniers to blame Jewish people for the Nazi Holocaust.”

The article (intentionally?) misrepresents both what happened in Gaza and the feature itself. The feature, it claims, “argued that Israel’s deadly military raids aimed at some Hamas officials and Gaza gunmen amounted to plans to unleash a ‘Holocaust’ and a ‘full-scale war’ on Palestine.” It also does not support with any evidence its claim that the feature was published “despite obvious discontent amongst many Indymedia users.” The feature was proposed on 4 March 2008 [11] and not a single objection or reservation was posted to the imc-uk-features list, so it was published the following day after the usual 24 hours waiting period. Of course, the feature, like anything else about Palestine, did attract quite a few comments later on (36 in total), 10 of which were hidden as complaints about moderation, which should take place on the moderation list, or simply because they were abusive or discriminatory, which breach the Editorial Guidelines.

The suggestion in the subtitle that Indymedia has become or is becoming “Nazimedia” is cheap and defamatory, to say the least. To put that word in quotation marks and follow it with a question mark does not really spare the author or editors the responsibility, especially that none of the comments, showing or hidden, on that particular feature used the word “Nazimedia”, although it has been used by some trolls in the past [12]. And despite ‘assuring’ readers that “Indymedia Uk is not run by a collective of anti-Semites”, the article further claims that the collective has tried to “redefine the Holocaust” and that comments supporting that “remained on the newswire”, while “all complaints were hidden within minutes.”

It is also worth noting that most of these allegations/accusations were posted by well known trolls/disinfo agents who get hidden straight away all the time. So the whole theory in the article that Indymedia UK has “lost support” seems to be based on hidden disinfo posts and comments (see the Atzmon-Greenstein feature mentioned above for more details). As an edited print magazine, the editors of SHIFT and the author of the article haven’t probably had much experience with full-time trolls and organised disinformation campaigns, which they simply dismiss as another conspiracy theory by some Indymedia admins with a secret agenda!

Yes, really, what is anti-Semitism?

Towards the end of the article, the author contends that there is “nothing new” about the allegations against Indymedia admins of “being blind to anti-Semitrism.” S/he further concludes that “the Indymedia UK collective is unlikely to agree whether Atzmon or Latuff are anti-semitic” and that “in many ways it would be a futile endeavour.” More important, s/he continues, “is the question why controversial and provocative posts that compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany find their way onto Indymedia newswires in the first place” and “what attracts anti-semites to the website?”

After repeating the problem with Open Publishing and that the Editorial Guidelines might not be “up to date with current developments in radical politics,” s/he has this to say: “Sadly, Indymedia offers a platform to invent caricutures of the Israeli state and of its policies. Instead of recognising the political context, it helps to perpetuate an image of Israel, and of Jews, as sinister conspirators with a secret plan to turn the worlds into one massive settlement.” Really?! Where did Indymedia UK do that other than some anti-Semitic posts that get “immediately hidden or deleted”, in the author’s own words.

Perhaps the author of the article, along with the SHIFT editors, need to sit down (after publicising their magazine on Indymedia! [13]) and reread the ‘Holocaust’ and Atzmon features carefully without prejugements and hasty accusations. Or better even, post their complaints to the appropriate lists and join the collective discussions about what is anti-Semitism and what is Zionism and how to deal with them.

Notes:

[1] http://www.shiftmag.co.uk. The full text of the article is available here http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398746.html?c=on#c196133

[2] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/390275.html?c=on#c188459

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/25/comment.guardiancolumnists

[4] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392188.html

[5] http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html

[6] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389886.html

[7] http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

[8] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389757.html?c=on#c187974

[9] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388930.html?c=on#c187195

[10] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/393065.html

[11] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-March/0304-cv.html

[12] http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-it-called-nazimedia_12.html

[13] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398746.html

[14] All the site statistics and figures above were gathered by IMC UK techies on 20 May, 2008, for the purpose of this article.

US: Respect Rights of Child Detainees in Iraq

1

kids-iraq.jpgHuman Rights Watch | US forces in Iraq should ensure that children it takes into custody are treated according to their status as children, and given prompt judicial review and access to independent monitors, Human Rights Watch said today. On May 22, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child will meet in Geneva to review US compliance with the international treaty banning the use of child soldiers, which requires states to help with the recovery and reintegration of such children under their control.

US military authorities, operating as the Multinational Forces in Iraq, were as of May 12, 2008 holding 513 Iraqi children as “imperative threats to security,” and have transferred an unknown number of other children to Iraqi custody. According to a recent report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), children in Iraqi custody are at risk of physical abuse.

“In conflicts where it was not directly involved, the US has been a leader in helping child soldiers re-enter society,” said Clarisa Bencomo, Middle East children’s researcher at Human Rights Watch. “That kind of leadership is unfortunately missing in Iraq.”

On May 22, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child will meet in Geneva to review US compliance with the Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict, which the US ratified in 2002. The treaty bans the recruitment and use of persons under 18 in hostilities by any party to a conflict, and requires states to provide all appropriate assistance for the physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of such children under their jurisdiction or control.

Since 2003, the US has detained some 2,400 children in Iraq, including children as young as 10. Detention rates rose drastically in 2007 to an average of 100 new children a month from 25 a month in 2006. The US holds most children at US Camp Cropper in Baghdad, but has also held children at the main US military detention facility, Camp Bucca near Basra. US officials earlier this year told Human Rights Watch that they separate children from adults at these facilities but do not separate very young or particularly vulnerable children from other child detainees.

In early 2007, a 17-year-old boy was reportedly strangled to death by a fellow child detainee at Camp Cropper.

Child detainees, no differently from adults, may be interrogated over the course of days or weeks by military units in the field before being sent to the main detention centers. They have no real opportunity to challenge their detention: earlier this year US officials told Human Rights Watch that children are not provided with lawyers and do not attend the one-week or one-month detention reviews after their transfer to Camp Cropper. In addition, children have very limited contact with their families. While the US does assign each child a military “advocate” at the mandatory six-month detention review, that advocate has no training in juvenile justice or child development.

As of February 2008, the reported average length of detention for children was more than 130 days, and some children have been detained for more than a year without charge or trial, in violation of the Coalition Provisional Authority memorandum on criminal procedures. That memorandum’s section on “security internee process” states, “Any person under the age of 18 interned at any time shall in all cases be released not later than 12 months after the initial date of internment.”

“The vast majority of children detained in Iraq languish for months in US military custody,” Bencomo said. “The US should provide these children with immediate access to lawyers and an independent judicial review of their detention.”

In August 2007, the United States opened Dar al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom) at Camp Cropper with the stated intention to provide 600 detainees, ranging in age from 11 to 17, with educational services pending release or transfer to Iraqi custody. However, in May 2008, US military officials in Baghdad told Human Rights Watch that only “200 to 300” of the 513 child detainees were enrolled in classes at Dar al-Hikmah. Currently, children who are excluded from the program do not receive any other educational services.

Like adults, children transferred to Iraqi custody are at risk of abuse and poor conditions of confinement. A US military official in Baghdad told Human Rights Watch this month that the US was delaying the transfer of 130 child detainees to Iraq’s al-Tobchi juvenile detention facility because of conditions there.

The UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) found that overcrowding at al-Tobchi was causing hygiene problems during visits in October and November 2007. At the time the facility was operating at close to double its normal capacity of 200 beds, and children were sharing beds or taking turns to sleep on the floor without mattresses.

To date, the United States has not released statistics on the number of children it has transferred to Iraqi custody for trial. According to UNAMI, 89 children transferred from US to Iraqi custody had been convicted of offenses by December 2007. Between December 2007 and March 2008, there was a drop of 450 children in US custody, but the United States has not made known whether they were released or transferred to Iraqi custody.

Human Rights Watch calls on US military forces in Iraq to:

– Ensure children in its custody receive prompt access to independent legal assistance and family visits;
– Provide children with prompt review of detention by an independent judicial body;
– Release children who have been detained for more than a year, in compliance with Section 6, Article 5 of Coalition Provisional Authority Memo 3 (revised) of June 27, 2004;
– Separate very young and other particularly vulnerable children from other detainees;
– Allow UNICEF, UNAMI, and other independent monitors confidential access to children in US custody;
– Refrain from transferring physical custody of children to Iraqi authorities pending trial when there is reason to believe they will be at risk of abuse; and,
– Ensure the right to education and recreation of all children in US custody.

Background

Since the declared end of the US occupation of Iraq in June 2004, detained persons should be provided due process under international human rights law. Security Council Resolution 1546 and its successors allow for internment of Iraqis “for imperative reasons of security.” However, the United States improperly uses this language to justify holding the detainees without judicial review and other basic rights, as if the operative law were the Fourth Geneva Convention on the treatment of civilians during international armed conflict.

Human rights law, as found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, requires that all persons arrested be brought promptly before a judge, have access to legal counsel and family members, be charged with a cognizable criminal offense, and receive a prompt trial meeting international fair trial standards. It also requires states to provide every child “such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor.”

Under international juvenile justice standards, children accused of criminal offenses must have access to specialized juvenile justice systems, with specially trained judges, prosecutors, and attorneys working in a framework of restorative justice and social rehabilitation. The arrest and detention of a child must be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Detained children should be separated from adults, and are entitled to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance in challenging detention.

Monbiot plans citizen’s arrest of John Bolton

40

monbiot1.jpgBy George Monbiot | We have all but forgotten the war with Iraq. We tend to see it now as little more than a “political mistake”, like the 10p tax fiasco or Labour’s mishandling of the byelection campaign in Crewe. The press and public attention have moved on and focused on more pressing matters, like the price of property.

But this mistake has killed or injured hundreds of thousands of people in a country that was doing us no harm. Mistakes of this kind – an unprovoked war of aggression – were characterised by the Nuremberg tribunals as “the supreme international crime”. Mistakes of this kind would, in any regime governed by international law, see their perpetrators put behind bars for the rest of their natural lives. But the great crime of the Iraq war has been normalised and domesticated.

So successful has this process of normalisation been that in three days’ time one of its perpetrators will be coming here – to Hay-on-Wye, the epicentre of polite society – to promote his book and sell some copies. I do not regret the fact that he is coming here – far from it – but I see it as a sign of the extent to which the great crime he helped to commit is viewed as an ordinary part of the political process.

John Bolton first made the demand for a war against Iraq as a signatory of an open letter sent to President Clinton by the Project for a New American Century in 1998. In 2001 he joined the Bush administration as the hilariously-titled Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control in the State Department. He appears to have been imposed on the department by Dick Cheney, to play the role of Colin Powell’s minder.

He immediately started destroying international law, successfully waging war against the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the biological weapons protocol, a treaty on small arms and light weapons and, perhaps presciently, America’s participation in the International Criminal Court.

In April 2002, Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Jose Bustani. Bustani’s offence was to have offered to resolve the dispute over Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, by sending weapons inspectors to Iraq.

Bolton helped to promote the false claim, through a State Department fact sheet, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger. He was instrumental in assembling and promoting the bogus case for war.

Only when those who help to launch illegal wars fear punishment will future governments desist from launching them. As citizens I believe we have a duty to try to deter future war crimes. So I propose that we allow John Bolton to speak here, and then carry out a citizen’s arrest.

Section 24A of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 permits any citizen to “arrest without a warrant … anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty” of an offence.

I do not want to advocate something I am not prepared to do myself. I was planning to stay at home on Wednesday, but I now intend to come back, listen to Mr Bolton speak, and then carry out this arrest. I hope that others at Hay might join me.

Oil: A global crisis

5

oil-crisis.jpgThe Iraq War means oil costs three times more than it should, says a leading expert. How are our lives going to change as we struggle to cope with the $200 barrel? Geoffrey Lean reports.

The invasion of Iraq by Britain and the US has trebled the price of oil, according to a leading expert, costing the world a staggering $6 trillion in higher energy prices alone.

The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido), told The Independent on Sunday that the price of oil would now be no more than $40 a barrel, less than a third of the record $135 a barrel reached last week, if it had not been for the Iraq war.

He spoke after oil prices set a new record on 13 consecutive days over the past two weeks. They have now multiplied sixfold since 2002, compared with the fourfold increase of the 1973 and 1974 “oil shock” that ended the world’s long postwar boom.

Goldman Sachs predicted last week that the price could rise to an unprecedented $200 a barrel over the next year, and the world is coming to terms with the idea that the age of cheap oil has ended, with far-reaching repercussions on their activities.

Dr Salameh, director of the UK-based Oil Market Consultancy Service, and an authority on Iraq’s oil, said it is the only one of the world’s biggest producing countries with enough reserves substantially to increase its flow.

Production in eight of the others — the US, Canada, Iran, Indonesia, Russia, Britain, Norway and Mexico — has peaked, he says, while China and Saudia Arabia, the remaining two, are nearing the point at of decline. Before the war, Saddam Hussein’s regime pumped some 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, but this had now fallen to just two million barrels.

Dr Salameh told the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil last month that Iraq had offered the United States a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened up 10 new giant oil fields on “generous” terms in return for the lifting of sanctions. “This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price,” he said. “But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil.”

Chris Skrebowski, the editor of Petroleum Review, said: “There are many ifs in the world oil market. This is a very big one, but there are others. If there had been a civil war in Iraq, even less oil would have been produced.”

David Strahan: What happens next? The expert’s view

At just under 86 million barrels per day, global oil production has, essentially, stagnated since 2005, despite soaring demand, suggesting that production has already reached its geological limits, or “peak oil”.

Recession in the West may not provide relief on prices. There is increasing demand from countries such as China, Russia and the Opec countries, whose consumers are cushioned against rising prices by heavy subsidies. The future could unfold in a number of ways:

Oil price collapses

Fuel subsidies could suddenly be scrapped, dousing demand. Cost pressures have forced Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan to cut them, but China is hardly strapped for cash. Opec producers are under no pressure to abolish subsidies; as the oil price rises they get richer. Prospect: very unlikely.

Peace could break out in Iraq, the long-disputed oil law agreed, and international oil companies start work on the world’s largest collection of untapped oil fields. Prospect: vanishingly unlikely.

Oil price stabilises or moderates

Deep recession in the West might cut oil consumption enough to offset growth in the developing world and Opec, or even engulf them too, softening prices. Prospect: unlikely in the short term.

Oil price soars

Russian oil output has gone into decline; Saudi Arabia has shelved plans to expand production capacity, and advisers to the Nigerian government predict its output will fall by 30 per cent by 2015. More news like this, expect oil at $200 a barrel. Prospect: likely.

Big oil producers will increasingly divert exports for home consumption. Opec, Russian and Mexican exports expected to fall, pushing oil to $200 by 2012. Prospect: highly likely.

The writer is author of ‘The Last Oil Shock’, John Murray, lastoilshock.com

Peak oil

After 150 years of growth, the oil age is beginning to come to an end. “Peak oil” is the common term for when production stops increasing and starts to decline. At that point what have been ever-expanding and cheap supplies of the resource on which all modern economies depend become scarcer and more expensive, with potentially devastating consequences.

Pessimists believe that production has passed its peak. Optimists say it may be 20 years or so away — which would give us some time to prepare — but are now muted. Last week the hitherto optimistic International Energy Agency admitted that it may have overestimated future capacity. Chris Skrebowski, editor of ‘Petroleum Review’ and once an optimist himself, believes that the world is now in “the foothills of peak oil”. Prices may ease a bit over the next few years, but then the real crunch will come. The price then? “Pick a number!”

Travel

Oil provides 95 per cent of the energy used in transport, so this will be hit hard and soon. People are likely to go on using their cars, but airlines are expected to be the first to suffer. On Thursday, British Airways’ chief executive Willie Walsh declared that the era of cheap flights was over, suggesting that those environmentalists who have made them their main target for combating climate change may have been wasting their breath.

At least three carriers have already gone bust this year. Last week, American Airlines said it was cutting routes, laying off staff, and charging US passengers $15 to check in a bag because of a $3bn rise in its fuel bills. Even Michael O’Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, says the oil price is “really hurting”. On Thursday, Credit Suisse analysts said his company would slip into the red if oil prices rose just a little more, to $140 a barrel.

Cars

The world’s biggest oil well, it is said, lies beneath Detroit. US vehicles get an average of only 25 miles per gallon. Dramatically improving this would do more to ease the oil crunch than any likely new discovery. But new measures recently approved by Congress would increase the average only to the 35mpg already being achieved by China. Europe does better, if not well enough, at 44mpg.

Rising fuel prices are already beginning to drive change. Sales of 4x4s are plummeting in both the US and Britain, and those of hybrids — which do 60mpg are soaring. As the price climbs further, manufacturers will unlock long-prepared plans for much more efficient vehicles. “Plug-in” hybrids, charged up with electricity overnight, save another 45 per cent in petrol consumption. Further down the line is the “hypercar” — made of tough, light plastic — which could cross the US on a single tankful.

Houses

All new houses in Britain will have to be zero carbon — burning no fossil fuels such as oil — by 2016, the Government announced, and housebuilders are struggling to meet the target. At present the standard can be reached only at great expense, but the industry is confident of bringing the cost down as mass production kicks in. It is even more important to adapt existing homes.

The key step is to super-insulate the house to make it as energy-efficient as possible — and only then to provide renewable energy sources. Solar water heaters, ground source heat pumps and boilers powered by wood pellets are favourites. Rooftop windmills do not work well enough yet. Photovoltaic panels, which get electricity from the sun, are expensive but their price should come down. Britain has lagged behind other countries. Soaring energy prices should shake things up.

Shopping

Effectively, almost everything is partially made of oil, and so is going to get more expensive. About 10 calories of oil are burned to produce each calorie of food in the US, and farming a single cow and getting it to market uses as much as driving from New York to Los Angeles. Some 630g of fuel is used to produce every gram of microchips.

The cult of local, seasonal produce will enter the mainstream, as everyone learns about food miles and a modern-day Dig for Victory grips gardeners — bad news for the farm workers overseas who provide 95 per cent of our fruit and half our vegetables. Trips to out-of-town supermarkets will seem extravagant, heralding a high street renaissance and a new surge in online grocery shopping, and soon we’ll all be eating our own potatoes.

Third World

Poor countries and their peoples will be hit by a devastating double whammy as both their fuel and food prices increase. Last year, when oil cost only about half as much, countries from Nepal to Nicaragua were hit by fuel shortages. At least 25 of the 44 sub-Saharan nations are facing crippling electricity shortages.

As oil is used in agriculture, its increased cost will also drive up the price of food, making more and more people go hungry. Worse, expensive petrol is bound to increase the drive towards biofuels made from maize and other crops, which then brings the world’s poorest people into competition with affluent motorists for grain — a contest they cannot win. Just one fill-up of a 4×4’s tank with ethanol uses enough grain to feed one person for a year.

Emerging economies

China and India and other developing countries will help to drive up demand for oil and compete for scarce supplies. This has already helped to raise prices: demand for oil from Western countries has actually fallen over the past two years, but the emerging economies have more than made up the slack. And they have the money to do so.

Chinese and Indian consumers have so far been insulated from the effects of the price increase by heavy government subsidies, and their industrial revolutions and rapid growth are largely fuelled by oil. There is little sign that the growth in demand will slacken These countries are also likely to follow the time-honoured Western tradition of making deals with oil-exporting countries — and backing unpleasant regimes — to try to secure supplies.

Conflict

Last week. the embattled Gordon Brown — “incredibly focused” on oil, according to his spin-doctors — began playing the blame game. “It is a scandal,” he said, “that 40 per cent of the oil is controlled by Opec and that their decisions can restrict the supply of oil to the rest of the world.”

Someone should tell him that he should be blaming geology — or God — and that, as oil production peaks, Opec countries simply will not be able to pump more. But he is not alone; four US senators warned Saudi Arabia that if it did not step up the flow, the US might withdraw its military support.

There will be much more of this as supplies tighten. Three years ago, a US army report predicted oil would soon peak, and security risks increase. Expect oil wars. But, of course, we have already had one — in Iraq.

Reasons for Starting Your Own Garden

0

garden.jpgNaturalNews | The Season of Spring is lavish with its abundance. Before we even ask, nature blesses us with every shade of color and profusion of green. Far and wide, beauties of nature are bursting forth with new growth and blossoms. Our copious supply abounds everywhere. Everyone is relieved spring has finally sprung for nature is teeming with plenty for everyone. Yet, our country is presently experiencing numerous economic, environmental, and health crises.

Concerns from reducing pollution, greenhouse gases, energy consumption, and the burden on our landfills, to protecting our increasingly scarce water supply, plants and animals from extinction, and against serious threats to human health, have risen on the list of public interests causing many more people to “go green”. There are simple but meaningful actions people can take to save our planet for future generations including choices to recycle, composting, using energy efficient light bulbs, or using barrels to collect rainwater.

Consequently, over the last year one reason gardening is witnessing tremendous growth nationwide is because people who love fresh food are reducing environmental costs of mass-producing and shipping food all over the globe by drastically reducing “food miles” and simply choosing to grow their own. With this culinary trend towards fresh, local cuisine one knows exactly what they are serving and eating. Among the numerous reasons more than 70 million US gardeners grow their own fruit, veggies, and herbs includes reasons for health, to save money, to teach children, and to share.

Another enormous dilemma in America is our growing hunger plight. According to a 2007 USDA report, over 35 million Americans experienced food insecurity in 2006. In other words, there are tens of millions of Americans including over 12 million children who are not sure when or where their next meal will come from. Our nation’s largest charitable hunger relief organization, Second Harvest reported in “Hunger in America 2006” over 25 million Americans depend on emergency food services annually with the hardship currently exploding.

Many food banks struggle to meet the need for food assistance to the point where now they only serve people living within their zip code area. By 1995 to contend with this ever-growing predicament, the Garden Writers Association (GWA) launched their Plant a Row (PAR) program (http://www.gardenwriters.org/Par/index.html) encouraging gardeners to donate their extra produce to food banks and local soup kitchens serving the homeless and hungry. Wherever a local Committee exists, the GWA PAR program provides direction, training support, and materials for businesses, church groups, home gardeners, schools, and youth and community organizations making a difference in their community for their neighbors. Through their simple people-helping-people approach they have made a significant impact on reducing hunger. In 2005 mainly through the media, GWA PAR efforts provided, without government subsidies or bureaucratic red tape, more than 1.5 million pounds of fresh produce to over 5.5 million hungry recipients. Throughout the U.S. and Canada their total donations have reached nearly 10 million pounds.

If these reasons don’t persuade your interest in gardening, take into account the quandary we are in two different wars and our soldiers are returning home daily. During World War I and World War II private residence gardens provided up to 40% of the vegetable produce consumed thereby reducing the strain on the food supply. Such devotion doesn’t exist now. Are you aware the Veterans Health Administration confirms an average 126 veterans per week for a total of 6,552 veterans per year are committing suicide? Sorrowfully there are about 18 veterans suicides per day, which hasn’t happened in previous wars. Imagine after war coming home with health and psychological problems to unemployment, high prices, and a non-responsive government. Consider welcoming home your local returning weary vet by donating a row of garden produce to assist them as they re-assimilate.

Some seed companies have even stepped up to meet some of these types of community needs by donating seeds to qualifying organizations. Two examples of companies with seed donation programs are Seeds of Change ((http://www.seedsofchange.com/donations/…) and Park Seed ((http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/cli…) .

Interestingly, there is even a Victory Gardens organization in Oregon specifically devoted to supplying untreated, organically grown or certified organic open-pollinated and heirloom seeds (http://www.victoryseeds.com/TheVictoryGarden/) .

With all the supplies and options available, gardening is much easier today. Between the Internet, the local County Extension Agencies, and gardening supply businesses, a plethora of information is available to make your 2008 gardening endeavors great. Gardeners contribute to saving the planet for our children, future generations, and us. So whether you are motivated by concerns about the environment, feel a civic duty, just want to share with your neighbors, need a new hobby, teaching children, or whatever your impulse might be, pick up some seeds and supplies and Happy Gardening!

Mass Funding For War While There’s Poverty At Home

dollarbill.jpgBy Paul Craig Roberts | The US Senate has voted $165 billion to fund Bush’s wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq through next spring. As the US is broke and deep in debt, every one of the $165 billion dollars will have to be borrowed. American consumers are also broke and deep in debt. Their zero saving rate means every one of the $165 billion dollars will have to be borrowed from foreigners.

The “world’s only superpower” is so broke it can’t even finance its own wars.

Each additional dollar that the irresponsible Bush Regime has to solicit from foreigners puts more downward pressure on the dollar’s value. During the eight wasted and extravagant years of the Bush Regime, the once mighty US dollar has lost about 60% of its value against the euro.

The dollar has lost even more of its value against gold and oil.

Before Bush began his wars of aggression, oil was $25 a barrel. Today it is $130 a barrel. Some of this rise may result from run-away speculation in the futures market. However, the main cause is the eroding value of the dollar. Oil is real, and unlike paper dollars is limited in supply. With US massive trade and budget deficits, the outpouring of dollar obligations mounts, thus driving down the value of the dollar.

Each time the dollar price of oil rises, the US trade deficit rises, requiring more foreign financing of US energy use. Bush has managed to drive the US oil import bill up from $106 billion in 2006 to approximately $500 billion 18 months later–every dollar of which has to be financed by foreigners.

Without foreign money, the US “superpower” cannot finance its imports or its government’s operation.

When the oil price rises, Americans, who are increasingly poor, cannot pay their winter heating bills. Thus, the Senate’s military spending bill contains more heating subsidies for America’s growing legion of poor people.

The rising price of energy drives up the price of producing and transporting all goods, but American incomes are not rising except for the extremely rich.

The disappearing value of the US dollar, which pushes up oil prices and raises the trade deficit, then pushes up heating subsidies and raises the budget deficit.

If oil was the reason Bush invaded Iraq, the plan obviously backfired. Oil not merely doubled or tripled in price but quintupled.

America’s political leaders either have no awareness that Bush’s wars are destroying our country’s economic position and permanently lowering the living standards of Americans or they do not care. McCain says he can win the war in Iraq in five more years and in the meantime “challenge” Russia and China. Hillary says she will “obliterate” Iran. Obama can’t make up his mind if he is for war or against it.

The Bush Regime’s inability to pay the bills it is piling up for Americans means that future US governments will cut promised benefits and further impoverish the people. Over a year ago The Nation reported that the Bush Regime is shedding veteran costs by attributing consequences of serious war wounds to “personality disorders” in order to deny soldiers promised benefits.

Previous presidents reduced promised Social Security benefits by taxing the benefits (a tax on a tax) and by rigging the cost of living adjustment to understate inflation. Future presidents will have to seize private pensions in order to make minimal Social Security payments.

Currently the desperate Bush Regime is trying to cut Medicaid health care for the poor and disabled.

The Republican Party is willing to fund war, but sees everything else as an extravagance. The neoconized war party is destroying the economic prospects of American citizens. Is “war abroad and poverty at home” the Republican campaign slogan for the November election?

Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. He is author or co-author of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury’s Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell.

TV News Stresses Strategy, Downplays Issues

0

tv-news.jpgTV news coverage of the presidential primaries has focused on campaign strategy rather than candidates’ stands on issues, and gave some candidates 100 times more coverage than others, according to a new study by FAIR.

FAIR studied primary election coverage on the nightly broadcast network newscasts in the six weeks leading up to February 5, often referred to this year as “Super-Duper Tuesday,” when 24 states held primaries or caucuses.

Of the 385 news stories aired on ABC World News, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News:

– 252 stories were mainly about campaign strategy–the “how” of getting elected–and 79 of those were only about strategy.

Only 19 stories, or one story in 20, were mainly about issues.

Eighty six percent of the stories were about campaign strategy/analysis, while 41 percent mentioned issues.

– When issues such as the economy, immigration and the Iraq War were present in a story, they were more often than not referred to in passing, usually in relation to polling.

In the 55 stories that raised the Iraq War as an issue, the networks made no mention of any of the Democrats’ plans for troop withdrawal or their stances on the troop “surge.”

– There was a vast discrepancy in the amount of coverage candidates received, with Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney all receiving over 900 mentions, while Joe Biden, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich received ten or fewer mentions.

Kucinich appeared only seven times, with four of those reporting on his exiting the race.

The full study is available at: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3368

‘Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’

0

Press TV | Iraq’s most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a ‘security accord’ between the US and Iraq. The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with “the US occupiers” as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.

The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.

The remarks were made amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country.

While the mainstream media keep mum about the accord, critics say the agreement would virtually put Iraq under the US tutelage and violate the country’s sovereignty.

The source added Ayatollah Sistani, however, backed PM al-Maliki’s government and its efforts and that of the nation to establish security in the country.

The mandate of US troops in Iraq will expire in December 2008 and al-Maliki’s government is under US pressure to sign ‘a mutual security agreement’ which would allow the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq.

Washington’s plan has so far faced fierce protests by religious figures including Ayatollah Seyyed Kazem Haeri, another senior Shia cleric, and it is expected that other religious figures join the efforts to prevent the deal.

The US has signed similar agreements with countries like Japan and South Korea and thousands of US troops are now stationed in the countries.

SB/RE

US residents in military brigs? Govt says it’s war

0

bush-ftonline.jpgBy MATT APUZZO | If his cell were at Guantanamo Bay, the prisoner would be just one of hundreds of suspected terrorists detained offshore, where the U.S. says the Constitution does not apply. But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.

Al-Marri’s capture six years ago might be the Bush administration’s biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president’s wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

There is little middle ground between the two sides in al-Marri’s case, which is before a federal appeals court in Virginia. The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe. Al-Marri’s lawyers say that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe.

___

A Qatari national, al-Marri came to the U.S. with his wife and five children on Sept. 10, 2001 – one day before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. He arrived on a student visa seeking a master’s degree in computer science from Bradley University, a small private school in Peoria, Ill.

The government says he had other plans.

According to court documents citing multiple intelligence sources, al-Marri spent months in al-Qaida training camps during the late 1990s and was schooled in the science of poisons. The summer before al-Marri left for the United States, he allegedly met with Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The two al-Qaida leaders decided al-Marri would make a perfect sleeper agent and rushed him into the U.S. before Sept. 11, the government says.

A computer specialist, al-Marri was ordered to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system and serve as a liaison for other al-Qaida operatives entering this country, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the Sept. 11 attacks.

A week after the attacks, Congress unanimously passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It gave President Bush the power to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the attacks.

The FBI interviewed al-Marri that October and arrested him in December as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. He rarely had been attending classes and was failing in school, the government said.

When investigators looked through his computer files, they found information on industrial chemical suppliers, sermons by bin Laden, how-to guides for making hydrogen cyanide and information about chemicals labeled “immediately dangerous to life or health,” according to Rapp’s court filing. Phone calls and e-mails linked al-Marri to senior al-Qaida leaders.

In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the country, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.

On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.

A military brig allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is for.

But al-Marri was not in Guantanamo Bay.

“The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. “Today it’s Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there’s no going back.”

Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al-Qaida safe house in a U.S. suburb?

Sulmasy says no. That’s how Congress wrote the bill and “if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language,” he said.

That would require the politically risky move of pushing legislation to make it harder for the president to detain suspected terrorists inside the U.S.

Al-Marri is not the first prisoner who did not fit neatly into the definition of enemy combatant.

Two U.S. citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, were held at the same brig as al-Marri. But there are differences. Hamdi was captured on an Afghanistan battlefield. Padilla, too, fought alongside the Taliban before his capture in the United States.

By comparison, al-Marri had not been on the battlefield. He was lawfully living in the United States. That raises new questions.

Did Congress really intend to give the president the authority to lock up suspected terrorists overseas but not those living here?

If another Sept. 11-like plot was discovered, could the military imprison the would-be hijackers before they stepped onto the planes?

Is a foreign battlefield really necessary in a conflict that turned downtown Manhattan into ground zero?

Also, if enemy combatants can be detained in the U.S., how long can they be held without charge? Without lawyers? Without access to the outside world? Forever?

These questions play to two of the biggest fears that have dominated public policy debate since Sept. 11: the fear of another terrorist attack and the fear the government will use that threat to crack down on civil liberties.

“If he is taken to a civilian court in the United States and it’s been proved he is guilty and it’s been proved there’s evidence to show that he’s guilty, you know, he deserves what he gets,” his brother, Mohammed al-Marri, said in a telephone interview Friday from his home in Saudi Arabia. “But he’s just been taken there with no court, no nothing. That’s shame on the United States.”

Courts have gone back and forth on al-Marri’s case as it worked its way through the system. The last decision, a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would “alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic,” the judges said.

The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.

“What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?” Judge William B. Traxler asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

The court seemed torn.

One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.

Whatever the decision, the case seems destined for the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the first military trials are set to begin soon against detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Marri may get one, too. Or he may get put back into the civilian court system. For now, he waits.

Indymedia and Anti-Semitism

1

Shift Magazine | For many of us a visit to Indymedia UK is a frustrating experience. Its open publishing newswire reveals an array of bizarre opinion posts, advertisements for activist meetings, petition requests and photo stories mixed in with the odd action or demonstration report. However, the number and diversity of articles on the newswire are more than an inconvenience. Most exasperating are the countless posts obsessed with the Israel-Palestine conflict, which are telling of some of the political viewpoints we are happy to associate with.

Yes the conflict in the Middle East is one of the major atrocities of our time, as the lives of ordinary Palestinians are being destroyed by the bulldozers of a well-equipped army. The issues that are driving this conflict — nationalism, religion, imperialism — should be essential topics for the radical left. But to have a radical critique of those issues, we need to see beyond Israel=evil and Palestine=good. Mostly however, the opinions presented on Indymedia make the problems of the world seem like one big Jewish conspiracy. The question of what makes Indymedia UK so appealing to conspiracy theorists is worth asking. It’s not just the open publishing format. Rather, it’s the familiarity of the view that the world is run by a few multinationals, Americans and Israelis.

It’s worth pointing out again what we said in our first issue (and will continue to say): capitalism is not a conspiracy! There is no conscious effort by a few high-paid execs and political leaders to manipulate the rest of us. No one stands outside of capitalism; no one pulls the invisible strings: rather it should be understood as an inherently social process where domination is abstract.

Ultimately then, it’s a matter of targets. Theory does not translate easily into action. This year, the Climate Camp had another difficult target discussion. This time it boiled down to the question of what presents the biggest threat to climate stability. Most would see the burning of fossil fuels as the greatest idiocy. But others cited figures that would suggest that the erosion of rainforests through the industrial use of biofuels is the bigger threat.

Targets are tricky. In 2007 we criticised the decision to hold the camp at Heathrow. We argued that “instead of showing the interconnectedness of the Social and the Ecological, Climate Camp [had] picked the individual as the point of attack” by focusing on the ‘unethical’ lifestyle choices of those who fly. Moralistic arguments against individual consumer behaviour did not allow for an anti-capitalist critique of society. In 2008 (as in 2006) the target is coal; applying our criticisms at the point of production offers a better platform for exploring the social roots of environmental problems. We’ve now got the opportunity to pick up our argument where we left it at Drax, and most importantly, to move forward with it. This year the Climate Camp has to talk about capitalism as a social process, and not slip back into talking about ethical lifestyle choices. E.ON, BAA and the government have no interest in furthering runaway climate change. But they are faced with the alternative of making profit (and burning fossil fuels along the way) or going bust. Like we said, no one stands outside of capitalism.

We cannot vilify the big multinational and glorify the small organic farm. It’s not a game of villains and heroes. This is what we find problematic with the Israel-bashing on Indymedia: it falsely personifies social forms of domination. When it comes to deciding on targets it should be these foreshortened critiques of capitalism (which can be dangerously reactionary) that are on the top of our list.

All War All The Time

1

allwar.jpgBy Sam Smith | As it tries to recover from the most expensive failure in American military history, the Pentagon has its eyes on an easier target. The beauty of this adversary is that it is not from an indecipherable culture, it doesn’t speak a strange language and it doesn’t scatter IEDs in the path of Hummers. In fact, it’s not even armed and its headquarters, far from concealed in the mountains of Pakistan, are easily found in the high rises of Washington, DC. The new foe: The State Department, USAID and other civilian diplomatic and development operations – proving once again that our military leaders’ real skill set is not fighting mile by mile on some foreign battlefield but line by line in the domestic budget.

There is no doubt that the domestic surge is working. Between 2002 and 2005, the share of government development assistance flowing through the Pentagon rose from 6% to 22%.

Stewart Patrick and Kaysie Brown, in a paper last fall for the Center on Global Development, outlined the problem:

These trends have stimulated concerns that U.S. foreign and development policies may become subordinated to a narrow, short term security agenda — at the expense of broader, longer-term diplomatic goals and institution building in the developing world — and that U.S. soldiers may increasingly assume responsibility for activities more appropriately conducted by civilians skilled in development challenges. . .

We attribute growing U.S. reliance on the U.S. military to carry out reconstruction, development, and capacity-building activities to three factors: an overwhelming focus within the Bush administration on programs that can help in the global war on terror, particularly in unstable, conflict-prone, and post-conflict countries; the vacuum left by civilian agencies, which struggle to deploy adequate numbers of personnel and to deliver assistance in highly insecure environments; and a general failure on the part of the U.S. government to invest adequately in non-military instruments of global engagement, including by creating deployable U.S. civilian post-conflict capabilities. . .

A less polite way of looking at it is that the military is aggressively and greedily invading territory that traditionally has been left to civilians. Of course, anyone familiar with the militarization of law enforcement will not be surprised, but the new stakes should not be underestimated. Do we really want to turn civilian development activities that have lent our country honor over to a crowd that is in no small part to blame for America’s current pitiful world reputation?

o
At the end of the Cold War, a top Soviet official promised America one last horrible surprise: the loss of an enemy. It was as the Greek poet Constantine Cavafy had written early in the century:

Night is here but the barbarians have not come.
And some people arrived from the borders,
and said that there are no longer any barbarians.
And now what shall become of us without any barbarians?
Those people were some kind of solution.

A decade later, a Pentagon office still sported a sign that read, WANTED: A GOOD ENEMY. It was not long after the Cold War, in fact, that the military went out shopping for new enemies to buck up the welfare fathers of the defense industry. It had not yet received the budgetary blessing – heralded by a handful of young men with box cutters – of Iraq and Afghanistan. Who could have imagined that so few could cause so much fear among so many? Who would have thought that, instead of pursuing the perps, you could turn the whole affair into the most expensive war in history and the first to be waged against a perpetual abstraction – terror – rather than an actual country? Who would have dreamed that the public could be sold the notion that the way to deal with guerillas was to engage in warfare that would increase the number of their allies?

Instead, mostly unreported, America’s political and military planners worked hard developing an external threat to compensate for the disappearance of the USSR. Although in the short run, the Pentagon had been remarkably successful in exempting itself from the deficit-cutting hysteria, there was always the danger that the public and politicians might start asking too many questions.

So uncertain was the trumpet, in fact, that planners were forced to resort to abstractions that were not only uninformative, they were truly absurd. Thus, we were told to spend hundreds of billions to protect ourselves against a generic composite peer competitor, myriad formless threats, and even, god forbid, an asymmetrical niche opponent. (What did you do in the last war, Daddy? Well, son, I killed 14 generic composite peer competitors and would have wasted more if a frigging asymmetrical niche opponent hadn’t got me in the chest.)

As Clinton’s budget director Franklin Raines told a meeting of high level Pentagon officials, “We will protect your purchasing power.”

o
Thus is was not surprising to see a new enemy starting to turn up in the military planners’ mind: the US citizen. For the first time since the Civil War, American government officials began seriously considering the possibility of armed conflict in, and occupation of, their own country. There was a growing assumption that the interests of those with power and those without might diverge to the point of insurrection.

The major media steadfastly ignored the trend despite ample evidence lying about. For example, Defense Week reported that “Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer said the Army needs to focus more on homeland defense and welcomes a ‘mission creep’ into that area.” A 1996 article by military historian and strategist Martin van Creveld in the Los Angeles Times argued that

As the 20th century draws to an end, it is time that military commanders and the policy makers to whom they report wake up to the new realities. In today’s world the main threat to many states, including specifically the US, no longer comes from other countries. Either we make the necessary changes, or what is commonly known as the modern world will lose all sense of security and dwell in perpetual fear.

Perhaps most startling was an article in the Winter 1992 issue of Parameters, a quarterly published by the US Army College. The author was Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., a graduate of Villanova School of Law, the Armed Forces Staff College, and a distinguished graduate of the National War College. He had been named by the Judge Advocates Association as the USAF’s outstanding career armed services attorney. In short, not your average paranoid conspiracy theorist. Dunlap’s article was called “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.”

In it, Dunlap quoted one of Washington’s journalistic cherubs, James Fallows, who wrote in a 1991 article

“I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to invent a security threat and turn the job over to the military . . . The military, strangely, is the one government institution that has been assigned legitimacy to act on its notion of the collective good.

Fallows was not alone within the Washington establishment. Stephen Rosenfeld of the Washington Post wrote a column praising an Army advocate of Dunlap’s nightmare. Rosenfeld described US Army Major Ralph Peters this way:

“At home, use of the military appears inevitable to him — though not yet to an American consensus — “at least on our borders and in some urban environments” . . . He would dutifully prepare for the traditionally ‘military’ missions, plus the new one of missile defense. But he would be ready to engage with drugs and crime, terrorism, peacekeeping, illegal immigration, disease control, resource protection, evacuation of endangered citizens . . .”

What Dunlap described and Peters advocated was not a bold military stroke against the civilian society, but simply a coup by attrition. Something similar seems to be going on now, only the target is not our domestic, but our foreign, affairs. The goal: all war all the time, with the Pentagon in charge of as much as possible.

o
Before raising philosophical questions about whether the military should be supplanting the civilian in matters of diplomacy and development, some sense of scale is useful. Based on figures from a few years ago, for example, the amount of money the military spent annually on useless – in fact heavily counterproductive – drug interdiction and anti-drug activities was nearly a half billon dollars. This was approximately the same sum being spent by USAID on agriculture, or the environment, or child survival and maternal health or family planning. And it was vastly more than was spent on higher education or diseases other than AIDs.

One example of how the military has infiltrated civilian diplomacy has been the new African Command. You may not have noticed too many wars against the U.S. in that part of the world, but the Pentagon has managed to con Congress into a grand operation that includes, according to its website, achievements such as the following:

– U.S. service members from the Combined Task Force-Horn of Africa gathered with residents of Mikocheni on May 15 to celebrate the completion of a newly built health clinic. The Jaypal Singh Babhra Memorial Clinic was completed by U.S. service members of the CJTF-HOA. . .

— A group of 20 sailors from the U.S. Navy’s USS Momsen visited a school in the port city of Mombasa on May 7, as part of a community relations program called Project Handclasp. Project Handclasp is a U.S. Navy program that provides donated items such as books, clothes, toys, and medical. . .

— The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa funded the renovation of the Mokowe Primary School in Mokowe, Kenya,and helped construct a fence to secure the facility.

Patrick and Brown cautiously describes the Pentagon’s African mission this way

According to DoD, the new command’s primary mission will be “shaping” activities, designed to ameliorate troubling trends in the region by helping to eliminate the roots of extremism, terrorism and violent conflict before they reach a crisis, rather than traditional operations involving the use of force. . .

“The Pentagon’s new focus on conflict prevention and its commitment to U.S.-government-wide policy planning and implementation are to be welcomed. What has not yet been satisfactorily explained is how AFRICOM’s interagency process will interact with other U.S. programs and activities – and how DoD will ensure that its military activities do not compete with, undermine, or overshadow U.S. development and diplomatic objectives throughout the continent. The risks, which are both symbolic and practical, will need to be carefully managed. From a public diplomacy perspective, the elevation of AFRICOM to a position of apparent leadership in integrating U.S. policy toward Africa may create the damaging impression (or allow U.S. adversaries to argue) that the United States has a militarized approach to the continent.46 More substantively, the enormous asymmetry between the resources available to the Pentagon, on the one hand, and the State Department, USAID and other civilian agencies, on the other, raises the danger that any “shaping” activities that emerge from AFRICOM will be dominated by U.S. defense priorities while giving short shrift to broader political and developmental considerations, (including the democratic accountability of those same security forces). . .

“In a recent briefing, the head of the AFRICOM Transition Team, Rear Admiral Robert Moeller, declared that “Strategic Success” for the new command would include the achievement of the following goals:

– An African continent that knows liberty, peace, stability, and increasing prosperity

– Fragile states strengthened; decreased likelihood of failed states; all territory under the control of effective democracies

-Economic development and democratic governance allow African states to take the lead in addressing African challenges. . .

What is impressive about these strategic objectives – beyond their breadth — is how few lend themselves to DoD leadership. Generally speaking, the U.S. military is not well-equipped, by its mandate and personnel, to expertly address the structural sources of underdevelopment, alienation and instability in target countries. Although requisite skills can sometimes be found within the civil affairs component of the U.S. Army, few soldiers possess deep expertise on matters of governance, development, and the rule of law. . .

Finally, a number of European officials have expressed misgivings about the integration of U.S. counter-terrorism and development agendas, suggesting that the new command could complicate common approaches to Africa within the donor community. . .

To be sure, there is far from total agreement on the nature and distance of this shift in the military, even within the Pentagon. There are, for example, plenty of Army and Marine officers who would just as soon not be running day care centers in Tanzania.

Even Defense Secretary Gates seemed to side with traditional diplomatic and development approaches in a recent speech in which he praised the role of civilian agencies. According to the Pentagon release:

Speaking at the Academy of American Diplomats in Washington, the secretary said there is bipartisan support on Capitol Hill to devote more resources to the State Department and other civilian agencies.

Since the war on terror began, President Bush, defense officials and military officers have stressed that all parts of the federal government must work together to combat extremists — that the military can put in place conditions for security, but civilian agencies are the repositories of expertise on governance, economics, agriculture and so on. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan need these skills to cement progress in place.

“There is a need for a much greater integration of our efforts,” Gates said. “There is clearly a need for a better way to organize interagency collaboration.”

The problem with the civilian agencies providing the personnel has not been a lack of will, but a lack of capabilities, Gates said. The State Department has about 6,600 Foreign Service officers. To put it in perspective, that’s barely enough to crew one carrier battle group in the Navy, the secretary said.

The upshot is that when civilian agencies cannot deploy personnel, service members step in to take up the slack. The provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan and Iraq are primary examples of this, Gates said. The teams, which have slots for officials from the departments of agriculture, commerce, treasury, justice and so on, were staffed by military personnel so they effort could get up and running quickly.

“There aren’t deployable people in agriculture and commerce and treasury and so on that are prepared to go overseas,” Gates said. And these skills are desperately needed, he emphasized.

Which all sounds comforting until you discover who’s going to be assigned to whom:

Defense personnel have always worked in the State Department, but now State Department personnel are assigned to DoD, especially with the combatant commands. The newly formed U.S. Africa Command, for example, has a large number of State Department personnel assigned to the organization. U.S. Southern Command also has a large number of personnel from civilian agencies as integral members of the command. . .

And he also called the civilian agencies a “combat multiplier,” hardly a reassuring description of peaceful diplomacy.

Now consider this from an Economist article on Gates’ philosophy:

In a recent article, General Peter Chiarelli, an adviser to Robert Gates, America’s secretary of defence, says more money has to be spent not on the Pentagon but on the “non-kinetic aspects of our national power”. He recommends building up the “minuscule” State Department and USAID development agency (so small it is “little more than a contracting agency”), and reviving the United States Information Agency.

As the American army expands, some thinkers. . . say it needs not just more soldiers-nor even linguists, civil-affairs officers and engineers-but a fully fledged 20,000-strong corps of advisers that will train and “embed” themselves with allied forces around the world. The idea makes army commanders blanch, but they do not question the underlying assumption.

As the American media has found in Iraq, embeddedness is not the repose of equals.

o
Then there is the controversial Defense Department draft directive going around on the topic of irregular warfare that some believe lays down the basis for much further intrusion on civilian roles. The directive would replace one that had already staked out sizable new turf, of which Patrick and Brown wrote:

Chastened by its failure to plan for postwar Iraq and the chaos that resulted, the Pentagon has cast off its former aversion to nation-building. This shift was cemented in November 2005 with the signing of DoD Directive 3000.05, which declared that the U.S. military would henceforth treat “Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations” as a core mission, on a par with combat operations. Decidedly broad in scope, this directive extends DoD’s mandates and programs to a wide range of activities that are typically the province of civilian agencies, including reforming the security sector, establishing institutions of governance, reviving market activity and rebuilding infrastructure. While the directive openly recognizes that many of these tasks are more appropriately carried out by civilian actors and agencies, it also states that this may not always be possible in highly insecure environments or where such civilian capabilities do not yet exist.”

Still another way it all might look is described in American Diplomacy by Sam J,. Holliday, a West Pont graduate and a former director of Stability Studies [sic] at the Army War College, and a retired army colonel.

Today there are two broad contending views regarding policy formulation and implementation for irregular warfare:

1. Focus the military on conventional war against the armed forces of other states and focus the Foreign Service on diplomacy and negotiations to avoid war, while muddling through irregular warfare.

2. Recognize irregular warfare as being distinctive from both war and peace by creating a new Department of Stability with career personnel dedicated to irregular warfare. . .

The first view has strong support within the military from those that do not want war-fighting forces to be used for internal security against insurgents attempting to overthrow those in authority. They do not want to be the handmaidens of “political strife,” and they want to avoid the cruel, violent, and unrewarding activities of internal conflict. . . This first view sees the solution in a plan that unites all agencies of the U.S. government. These agencies have different philosophical, political, and institutional agendas. Therefore, how to coordinate all U.S. government agencies involved in foreign affairs (State, Defense, Justice, CIA, NSA, etc.) during policy formulation is the critical challenge. Until this is done there will be turf battles, uncertainty, delays, and ineffectiveness. . .

A Stability Department would allow the development of career personnel (military and civilian) dedicated to determining and using the means, strategies, tactics, and methods necessary for irregular warfare. This should make both policy formulation and implementation more effective and more efficient. The result would be professionals without preconceptions shaped by war fighting or diplomacy, without institutional allegiance to either the military establishment or the foreign policy establishment, and without mindsets appropriate only for either war or peace. Hopefully these professionals would be able to determine how to achieve stability through equilibrium at the lowest possible costs. . .

Key to the concept of irregular warfare and a Department of Stability is the assumption of perpetual conflict, a chronic absence of peace and America’s continued colonial dominance, which others that see shrinking by the day. A Department of Stability would certainly seem as odd to young students a century from now as reading about the bureaucracy of British colonialism under Queen Victoria does today.

Besides, all morality aside, if there is one thing our time should have taught us it’s that war is about the dumbest way to go about anything that there is. After all, even the exceptionally well equipped and righteous America hasn’t won a real war against a comparable enemy since WWII and when you add in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq and then find yourself falling back on Grenada for props, it may finally be time to think of other approaches.

This has not, of course, been the fault of the troops, but of the star bedizened galaxy under which they serve, of presidents with testosteronic insecurities, and of toy boys on Capitol Hill willing to gamble our nation to satisfy another defense contractor aka campaign contributor. After all, even the best boatswain’s mate can’t save a ship from the rocks if those on the bridge can’t, or won’t, read the chart.

The tragedy of modern military history is how much courage has been sacrificed for so many puerile, pointless or psychopathic ends. Which is one good reason you want the better part of your foreign policy run by civilians and not generals.

o
Another reason diplomats, development officials and civilians now working with the Pentagon are concerned abut the expansion of the military role was well outlined by an aide to General Petraeus:
At present, the U.S. defense budget accounts for approximately half of total global defense spending, while the U.S. armed forces employ about 1.68 million uniformed members. By comparison, the State Department employs about 6,000 Foreign Service officers, while the U.S. Agency for International Development has about 2,000. In other words, the Department of Defense is about 210 times larger than USAID and State combined – there are substantially more people employed as musicians in Defense bands than in the entire foreign service.

There are plenty who won’t be all that happy having to deal with a military surge into diplomacy, including international non-profits, some of our allies and UN organizations. It is also hard to imagine rock stars throwing themselves into global fundraising fests when they know the money will go to pad the budget of a General Petraeus.

Here is how one civilian professional – who represents others who do a lot work for the Pentagon – reacted to the proposed new directive:

As I understand things, if this change were to be implemented, we would have the following:

The connection between State and Defense to harmonize stability and reconstruction operations would become moot because the funding and control of the stability operations would be subsumed under “irregular warfare.” It would be up to DoD to decide if they needed to bring in civilians to help them out.

It would become even more difficult for civilian organizations and agencies to be involved in any comfortable way, given that all humanitarian aid, providing essential services, building local governance, etc., would become part of “irregular warfare.” In fact, I can’t think of a single humanitarian aid organization that would agree to become involved in “irregular warfare.”

This would continue and extend the idea that “irregular warfare” is an appropriate approach to dealing with fragile or failed states, with post-conflict situations, or preventing future conflicts. Such policies will be completely rejected by the civilian agencies of the US Government, NGOs, the international community, without even attending to what the fragile states would think.

We would have even more power and control in the military, creating an even greater imbalance between the civilian agencies and the military that are supposed to be working to “harmonize” their activities now. They are so underfunded and undermanned at this point that it is very difficult to manage the civilian side of the “harmonization” process effectively.

The military would then be left with a mission to provide for stability operations across the board for which they do not have training, are not equipped to do, have not been able to successfully accomplish (witness Iraq and Afghanistan), which would mean that the U.S. capacity to contribute to serious peace building efforts would be seriously undermined even further than it is now.


The military takeover of traditionally civilian foreign policy roles is part of a mission creep that has been going on a long time. My first article on the topic was 12 years ago when the concerns were the military’s expansion of the futile and terribly damaging drug war and its growing interference with domestic civil liberties.

Things have only gotten worse since. Now diplomacy and international development are joining the target list for the mission creep, by a military that has finally found a battleground it truly likes. And we, the citizens funding it all, will once again lose the war.

Gordon Brown faces ‘quit now’ calls as Labour MPs panic

0

Gordon Brown was facing public and private pressure to consider quitting for the sake of his party last night after the Crewe by-election “catastrophe” left ministers and Labour MPs convinced that they could not win with him at the helm.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, was being earmarked by senior backbenchers as the figure to tell Mr Brown that they had lost confidence in him and that he should step aside unless there was a swift improvement in Labour’s fortunes.

Graham Stringer was the first Labour MP to call for Mr Brown to go, saying that the party needed a new leader to save it from “disaster” at the next election.

Ivan Lewis, the Health Minister, said that Crewe & Nantwich, where the Conservatives overturned a 7,000 Labour majority to win with their own majority of nearly 8,000, could mark the “beginning of the end” for Labour.

Cabinet sources said that a majority of ministers now doubted whether Labour could turn around its current deficit with Mr Brown in charge. Senior ministers were among those who told The Times privately that the party could not do nothing if it seemed to be heading towards certain defeat.

They said that a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on June 2 would be critical to Mr Brown’s future. If the Prime Minister fails to impress, there is speculation that a senior party figure is ready to go public and call for him to quit.

One former Cabinet minister said there was a 20 to 30 per cent chance that Mr Brown would himself offer to step down if he believed that doing so would help his party.

No immediate move against Mr Brown appeared likely. Most ministers believe that he must be given until at least the conference season to re-establish himself. But last night Labour MPs were canvassing the names of candidates – Mr Straw, David Miliband, Alan Johnson, James Purnell and Andy Burnham – who they would expect to step forward if Mr Brown were persuaded to move out.

The Prime Minister brushed aside questions about his leadership and promised to steer the country through difficult times after the formerly safe Cheshire seat fell to the Conservatives with a 17.6 per cent swing.

David Cameron hailed the result as the “end of new Labour” and promised to build his own “coalition for change” to take the Tories back to power.

Mr Brown seemed highly unlikely to face a leadership challenge from former Cabinet ministers such as Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn, who have been deeply critical of him. MPs believe that such a move would scar Labour and mean certain defeat at the general election. But they said it was the role and duty of the Cabinet to tell Mr Brown that he had become a liability if they perceived that to be the general view in the party.

Mr Straw, as the most senior figure in the Cabinet, was being advanced as the ultimate “man in a grey suit” to tell the Prime Minister that he should consider quitting, a job he was unlikely to welcome because he would almost certainly regard himself as a potential leader to replace Mr Brown.

Cabinet ministers insisted there was no malevolence towards Mr Brown, and there there was a sadness for him that things had gone so wrong. But they said that Crewe had shown that people were no longer prepared to respect Mr Brown.

One senior critic of Mr Brown said the Crewe result was a catastrophe, particularly after the Government had suddenly come up with £2.7 billion to appease taxpayers – to no effect – in the middle of the campaign. That was the sum announced by Alistair Darling to compensate people who lost out from the 10p tax rate abolition.

The renewed burst of speculation about Mr Brown’s future dismayed No 10 and other ministers. Ed Balls, Mr Brown’s closest ally, went to his defence. The Schools Secretary said: “These are difficult times, times when you need strong leadership, values and experience. Gordon Brown has the right values and experience as a leader but it is not going to be turned around in a week.”

Tessa Jowell, the Olympics Minister, said: “If people think we are more interested in turning in on ourselves rather than facing up to dealing with the problems that people face in their daily lives, they will punish us for it.”

But Mr Stringer, a former whip, gave public voice to the private expressions of many ministers when he said: “Is it more damaging for the party to change the leader or cross our fingers and hope that things get better?” It was time, he said, for a senior Cabinet figure to mount a leadership bid to save the party from a “disaster” at the next election.

100 arrested in Indonesia over fuel protest

0

AFP | Police arrested more than 100 protesters in the Indonesian capital Saturday after some burnt tyres and threw molotov cocktails during a rally over fuel price rises, police said. Indonesia hiked the cost of fuel by nearly 30 percent from Saturday in response to soaring global oil prices, and a ballooning subsidy bill, leaving hard-pressed households facing even more economic woes.

“More than 100 people have been detained for questioning,” a police officer identified only as Ari told AFP.

He said that hundreds of students staged the rally early Saturday in front of the National University in South Jakarta over the price rise decision.

“Protesters have thrown small fuel bombs (molotov) towards the police and burned tyres on the streets,” he said.

Police also arrested about 26 protesters who rallied outside the presidential palace at midnight on Friday, when the price rise came into effect, Detikcom News Website reported.

A police officer said protesters had no permit to stage a rally there.

In Bandung city in West Java, 1,000 protesters from hardline Muslim group Hizbut Tahrir held a protest Saturday morning to condemn the government’s move on prices, local ElShinta radio reported.

Many ordinary Indonesians say higher fuel prices combined with the recent surge in the cost of food will put an intolerable strain on family budgets.

The price hike sparked protests across the sprawling archipelago of 234 million people when it was flagged earlier this month by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The government defended the decision on Friday, saying in a statement that even with the hike, fuel was still subsidised and “lower than in poor countries such as East Timor.”

Time to bin ID cards? Calls for Brown to “bite the bullet”

0

By Nick Heath | The government is facing calls to cancel its ID card scheme after it announced that all of the five remaining IT suppliers have now been short-listed to deliver the system.

Opponents questioned whether the complex £2bn system has any chance of being run effectively or competitively when the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) has just five companies left to choose from and five parts of the contract to fill.

CSC, EDS, Fujitsu, IBM, and Thales made the shortlist to win the five parts of the single “framework contract”, including a £500m deal to replace the existing passport application system, the £500m biometric fingerprint and photograph database, the £500m card production scheme, a £10m self contained scheme to produce the cards for “critical” workers such as airport staff and a scheme to provide parts of a UK Border Agency case management system.

The IPS will award the three- to 10-year procurement deals starting with critical workers scheme this year and will continue to award procurements through to late summer next year.

IPS executive director Bill Crothers said they had about 150 technical meetings with the final candidates to establish their suitability.

He told silicon.com: “We decided on the five because all of them are qualified to do what we want.

“All five of these companies are absolutely past the standard that we expect.

“We have definitely got a great range and each contractor brings with them a host of talent from five to 15 sub-contractors.”

Crothers said he was confident the different suppliers could gel together to deliver different parts of the ID card system, saying this was guaranteed by shared commercial terms, codes of practice and financial incentives and sanctions.

But shadow home secretary David Davis said: “Along with growing evidence of the risks and costs of ID cards, we have seen declining commercial interest, reflected in the dwindling numbers bidding for contracts.

“The case for ID cards has collapsed. Gordon Brown must now take a decision, bite the bullet and cancel this ill-fated project.”

Phil Booth, national co-ordinator of ID card pressure group NO2ID, said: “How are they expecting to get best value for money when they are awarding contracts to every single company staying in the process.

“They need to get a proper specification for what they want to do and retender to get a proper competitive process, this is a recipe for disaster.”

Crothers said the ID scheme would be rolled out over the next four years, starting with about 10 million “critical” workers in 2009, young people in 2010 and the rest of the UK public in 2011/12, when people will have a choice of a passport or ID card or both.

He denied the early mini system for critical workers would be any less robust than the full ID card programme.

Foreign nationals coming to the UK will be issued with ID cards from November this year under a scheme run by the UK Border Agency.

London bus drivers to get DNA ‘spit kits’

0

1-8001.jpgLondon’s bus drivers who are spat at will be able to collect the saliva in a DNA ‘spit kit’ so the assailant can be identified when their saliva samples are sent off to the police national database for analysis. The kits have been used in Tube stations for years.

At the same time, the Metropolitan Police Service’s Transport Operational Command unit is setting up a work place violence unit to investigate violence against bus drivers across London. And new guidelines for courts have recommended tougher sentences for those who assault people working in the public sector or provide a service to the public such as bus drivers and tube staff.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said: “We have the finest bus drivers in the world in London and it saddens me that they may find themselves the victims of this disgusting activity. These kits will increase the likelihood of being able to track down perpetrators and sends them a clear message that this foul behaviour will not be tolerated.

“We are determined to make public transport a safer place through measures such as the ban on passengers carrying open containers of alcohol and I am aware that this will ask more of our drivers. However, I hope they will agree that by providing support such as the new workplace violence unit we are fulfilling our pledge to protect them.”

Steve Burton, director of community safety and enforcement at Transport for London, added: “Spitting at drivers is unacceptable and will not be tolerated and with these DNA kits … London’s bus drivers can collect the DNA evidence needed for a successful prosecution.”

– The London Assembly’s transport spokesperson Val Shawcross has accused Boris Johnson of ignoring people with disabilities by replacing bendy buses with a new generation of Routemaster style vehicles. The Mayor’s comment that conductors would help people on and off the platform was “deeply patronising” and offensive to people with disabilities, parents with buggies and elderly people. “It’s a pretty Victorian attitude,” she said.

– Transport unions are not happy at the appointment of Tim Parker as TfL head. Parker was once dubbed “the Prince of Darkness” by unions and has a reputation for cutting costs. He will also become First Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive of the GLA Group and will be paid a £1 salary.

Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, said: “This is a scary moment for London’s commuters. Tim Parker is one of the multimillionaire elite private-equity buccaneers who asset- stripped the AA by cutting jobs and cutting services and raising prices to customers.”

Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union, said: “The world’s finest metro system does not need an asset-stripper or a Prince of Darkness.”

McCain’s Plan – Millions Will Lose Insurance Coverage

1

plan.jpgBy Jo Hartley | Americans need to be aware of what Senator John McCain’s health care plan entails. Under the guise of fighting health care inflation, he is targeting the employer-provided system that currently covers over 60 percent of the non-elderly population. This would effectively force people who now have health insurance through their employers to purchase individual health care plans through unregulated insurance companies. Instead of reducing health care costs, this would increase it.

In the effort to create his health care policy, McCain appears to have turned to his financial supporters in the health care industry for advice and direction. What they have come up with is an extremely ideological plan based on the premise that the problem in our health care industry is that we have too much insurance. Their thoughts is that if we have to buy our health care with money directly out of our pockets instead of through employers we will force physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies to become more efficient.

That’s their theory. Here are the facts.

Most Americans already pay at least a part of their premiums out of their own pockets. There are also the ever increasing co-payments that we are running into more and more. This is already resulting in people who have what is considered “good insurance” to carefully weigh each doctor visit. The end result is that even now millions of Americans aren’t getting the health care they need. This is driving health care costs up, not down.

McCain also has a plan to tax workers’ health care premiums that are employer provided. The consensus among both conservatives and liberals is that this will likely result in employers ending the health care benefits they provide for their employees.

Here’s the kicker. McCain doesn’t argue these facts. The huge ordeal that would result because of his health plan (millions of families losing their insurance coverage and needing to find alternative coverage) is not an unintended consequence. He would prefer that Americans purchase insurance as individuals.

McCain would also like to do away with regulations that require companies to insure patients with pre-existing conditions, require benefits to be provided that do not exclude certain medical conditions, and prevent companies from charging exorbitant premiums for substandard benefits. He would give you the “freedom” to buy your insurance through private companies that may be in other states with differing regulations. Obviously many of the big insurance companies are doing their homework right now to determine which states would be the most advantageous to place their corporate headquarters if McCain wins the presidency.

Part of McCain’s plan is a refundable tax credit to help pay for health insurance ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families). Last year the average annual expense for the most common type of insurance plan was $11,765. This means that the average family would pay roughly $6,765 after subtracting the $5,000 tax credit —- approximately double what the average employee pays for their share of their current premiums.

To reiterate, McCain’s goal is for Americans to pay more for their health care because he believes this will lead them to think harder before seeking medical care.

McCain and his supporters in the insurance industry would also create something they are calling a Health Savings Account. This is a savings account attached to an insurance plan with very high deductibles making it essentially a catastrophic health plan. For normal doctor visits, you would deduct money from your savings account until it’s empty. After there is nothing left are you wondering how you will pay for your health care? Good question!

This combination is known as “consumer-directed health care.” Although it is promoted as a way to save money, the impact on our economy and society will not be positive. This will leave millions of people with substandard medical coverage, more health problems, and higher incidences of health cost-related financial problems.

It would also place the insurance industry and the drug industry in ever more control of America’s health care system.

The release of McCain’s health care plan is a test for our country’s mainstream media. Health care experts who are grounded in reality will have to tell reporters that there is nothing to support McCain’s claims that his plan will reduce health care costs. Will the media get to the bottom of the story?

The bottom line is this: McCain’s health plan is set to greatly increase the number of uninsured Americans and it will likely do nothing about high health care costs. The number of Americas who cannot afford good health insurance for their families is going to increase. Will the mainstream media get this story right?

25 USA Military Officers Challenge Official 9/11 Account

Pakistan Daily | Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD    “A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”

Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept the four hijacked planes on 9/11, Col. Bowman said, “I’m an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I’ve done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. … Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That’s not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”

During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.

Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom    Former U.S. Air Force pilot Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom wrote in a 2007 statement to this author, “When 9/11 occurred I bought the entire government and mainstream media story line. I was a lifelong conservative Republican that voted for Bush/Cheney, twice. Curiosity about JFK’s death, after a late night TV re-run of Oliver Stone’s movie, got me started researching and digging for the truth about his assassins.

“My research led me to a much more important and timely question: the mystery of what really did happen on 9/11. Everything that seemed real, turned out to be false. The US government and the news media, once again, were lying to the world about the real terrorists and the public murder of 2,972 innocents on 9/11.
“The ‘Patriot Act’ was actually written prior to 9/11 with the intention of destroying the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was passed by Congress, based upon the government’s myth of 9/11, which was in reality a staged hoax. 9/11 was scripted and executed by rogue elements of the military, FAA, intelligence, and private contractors working for the US government.

“In addition to severely curtailing fundamental rights of Americans, the 9/11 crime was then used by this administration, the one I originally voted for and supported, to justify waging two preemptive wars (and most likely a third war), killing over 4,500 American soldiers, and killing over one million innocent Afghan and Iraqi people.

“It was all premeditated. Treason, a false flag military operation, and betrayal of the trust of the American people were committed on 9/11 by the highest levels of the US government and not one person responsible for the crimes, or the cover-up, has been held accountable for the last six years.

“After reading fifteen well-researched books, studying eight or nine DVD documentaries, and devoting months of personal research and investigation, I have arrived at one ultimate conclusion: The American government and the US Constitution have been hijacked and subverted by a group of criminals that today are the real terrorists. They are in control of the US government and they have all violated their oaths of office and committed treason against their own citizens.”

Capt. Daniel Davis    Capt. Daniel Davis is a former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. After his military service, Capt. Davis served for 15 years as a Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division and then devoted an additional 15 years as founder and CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company.

In a statement to this author, Capt. Davis wrote, “As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.”
Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam, Capt. Davis also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.

Capt. Davis continued, “Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there’s no way all four of them could!

“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is difficult for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled ‘terrorists’. Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State’.”

Major Jon I. Fox is a former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot and a retired commercial airline pilot for Continental Airlines with a 35-year commercial aviation career. In 2007, in support of the Architects and Engineers[3] petition to reinvestigate 9/11, he wrote, “On hearing the military (NORAD/NEAD) excuses for no intercepts on 9/11/2001, I knew from personal experience that they were lying. I then began re-checking other evidence and found mostly more lies from the ‘official spokesmen’. Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel. Structures do not collapse through themselves in free fall time with only gravity as the powering force.”

Commander Ralph Kolstad    Retired U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot Commander Ralph Kolstad started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. In a statement to this author, he wrote, “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now six years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.”

Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor.
Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”

He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, “Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?”

But no major element of the official account of 9/11 is spared from Commander Kolstad’s criticism. Regarding the alleged impact site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, PA, he asks, “Where is any of the wreckage? Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?”

Commander Kolstad also questions many aspects of the attack on the World Trade Center. “How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn’t the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just doesn’t add up.”

“Why did the second building collapse before the first one, which had been burning for 20 minutes longer after a direct hit, especially when the second one hit was just a glancing blow? If the fire was so hot, then why were people looking out the windows and in the destroyed areas? Why have so many members of the New York Fire Department reported seeing or hearing many ‘explosions’ before the buildings collapsed?”

Commander Kolstad summarized his frustration with the investigation and disbelief of the official account of 9/11, “If one were to act as an accident investigator, one would look at the evidence, and then construct a plausible scenario as to what led to the accident. In this case, we were told the story and then the evidence was built to support the story. What happened to any intelligent investigation? Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don’t believe the official ‘story’ and why I want the truth to be told.”

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski    A Pentagon eye-witness and a former member of the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret), is a severe critic of the official account of 9/11. A contributing author to the 2006 book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, she wrote, “I believe the [9/11] Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research.”

She continued, “It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics.”
Col. Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon on 9/11 in her capacity as Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense when Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon. She wrote, “There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile.’ [Secretary Rumsfeld also publicly referred to Flight 93 as the plane that was “shot down” over Pennsylvania.]

“I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … [A]ll of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

“The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. … But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

“The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. … More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.”

The improbability of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 is a major concern of these officers and a growing number of scientists, engineers and architects. The building was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, the Federal government has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to the failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”

Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford    Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), an attack pilot with over 300 combat missions, wrote in 2007 to the Michigan Daily, “Our government has been hijacked by means of a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ and a lot of otherwise good and decent people who are gullible enough to think that the first three steel-framed buildings in history fall down because they have some fires that the fire fighter on the scene said could be knocked down with a couple of hoses and through which people walked before they were photographed looking out the holes where the plane hit. One of these, Building 7, was never hit by a plane and even NIST is ashamed to advance a reason for its collapse. And, miracle of miracles, these three buildings just happened to be leased and insured by the same guy who is on tape saying they decided to ‘PULL’ the last one to fall.”
During his 20 year military career, Col. Lankford’s decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross, and 32 awards of the Air Medal.

In a statement to this author, Col. Lankford wrote, “September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes. The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has been used to justify all manners of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger.”

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas    Another harsh critic of the official account of 9/11 is Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret). A former combat fighter pilot, Col. Latas is currently a commercial airline pilot.

Col. Latas is a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. In 2007 he was interviewed by the group’s founder, commercial airline pilot, Rob Balsamo, regarding the group’s documentary video, Pandora’s Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77, which focuses on the 9/11 Commission’s account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the data from the Flight Data Recorder alleged by the NTSB to be from Flight 77.
In the interview, Col. Latas said, “After I did my own analysis of it, it’s obvious that there’s discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that’s where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening.”

A highly decorated fighter pilot, Col. Latas was awarded the Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. His combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. During his 20-year Air Force career, he also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer, as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and as President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board.

Col. Latas concluded, “And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you’ve [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found. And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don’t accept the excuses that we’re hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation.”

Capt. Eric H. May

Commander Ted Muga    

Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret), is a former Army Intelligence Officer who also served as an inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team. He is one of many signers of a petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11. In 2005, he wrote: “As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally ’round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida. In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. …

Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it: as a matter that implies either

A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse …

B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East …”

Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret), is a Navy aviator, who, after retirement, had a second career as a commercial airline pilot for Pan-Am.
In a 2007 interview on the Alex Jones Show, Commander Muga stated, “The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it’s not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. … I just can’t imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
“And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. … I mean, hell, a guy doesn’t give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

“And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There’s a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. …

“Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they’re designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you’re going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it’s bordering on impossible.”

Col. George Nelson    

“In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident,” wrote Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret), a former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.

“The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view,” continued Col. Nelson, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force War College and a 34-year Air Force veteran.
“With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …

“As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.”

Maj. John M. Newman, PhD

Capt. Omar Pradhan

Col. Ronald D. Ray    Maj. John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret), is the former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency. In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing, he said, “It falls to me this morning to bring to your attention the story of Saeed Sheikh, whose full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and his astonishing rise to power in Al Qaeda, his crucial role in 9/11, which is completely, utterly, missing from the 9/11 Commission report…

“The 9/11 Commission which studied US intelligence and law enforcement community performance in great detail, (maybe not so much great detail, but they did), neglected to cover the community’s performance during the weeks following the attacks to determine who was responsible for them, not a word about that in the Report.

“The Report does discuss the immediate US responses but the immediate investigation is never addressed, and anyone who has closely studied the post-9/11 investigation knows that the first breakthrough came two weeks into the investigation when the money transfers from the United Arab Emirates to the hijackers were uncovered.

“Furthermore, if you have studied that investigation, you know there is no disputing that while investigators may have struggled with the identity of the paymaster, they were clear about one thing, he was Al Qaeda’s finance chief. For this reason alone you have to ask why the 9/11 Commission Report never mentions the finance chief’s role as the 9/11 paymaster.”

Capt. Omar Pradhan, U.S. Air Force, is a former AWACS command pilot and Flight Instructor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In a 2007 statement to this author, Capt. Pradhan wrote, “As a proud American, as a distinguished USAF E-3 AWACS Aircraft Commander (with 350+ hours of combat time logged over Afghanistan and Iraq), and as a former U.S. Air Force Academy Flight Instructor, I warmly endorse the professional inquiry and pursuit of comprehensive truth sought by the Pilots for 911 Truth organization and the PatriotsQuestion911 website.”

Another senior officer questioning the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan. A highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart), he was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 — 1994), and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. He was Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. (1990 — 1994).

In an interview on Alex Jones’ radio show on June 30, 2006, Col. Ray described the official account of 9/11 as “the dog that doesn’t hunt”, meaning it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In response to Alex Jones’ question, “Is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?” Col. Ray replied,“I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that’s accurate. That’s true.”
“After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back,” wrote Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret), in a statement to this author.

A retired fighter pilot, Col. Razer served as an instructor at the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program and flew combat missions over Iraq. He continued, “The ‘collapse’ of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein’s video taped confession in which he states ‘they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse.’

“We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic’. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it,” he concluded.

Maj. Scott Ritter

Maj. Douglas Rokke, PhD

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer    

Maj. Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps, is a former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer who also served as Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq 1991 – 1998. In 2005, he said: “I, like the others, are frustrated by the 9/11 Commission Report, by the lack of transparency on the part of the United States government, both in terms of the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to putting out on the table all facts known to the 9/11 case.”

Maj. Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret), former Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project and 30-year veteran, had this to say about the explosion at the Pentagon on 9/11, “When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.”

The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to 9/11: Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar. There is no mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been identified by the Department of Defense anti-terrorist program known as Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2006, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve, former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts, stated: “[B]asic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining and analytical tools … resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence collection — and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several other of the 9-11 terrorists as having links to Al Qaeda leadership a full year in advance of the attacks. …

“After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER team, … the 9-11 [Commission] staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them. … It was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims — to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a ‘preconceived’ conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell. … I consider this a failure of the 9-11 staff — a failure that the 9-11 Commissioners themselves were victimized by — and continue to have perpetrated on them by the staff as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that ABLE DANGER’s findings were ‘urban legend’.”
A 23-year military intelligence veteran, Col. Shaffer was recently awarded the Bronze Star for bravery in Afghanistan. In a 2005 interview on Fox News, Col Shaffer asked, “Why did this operation, which was created in ’99 to target Al Qaeda globally, offensively, why was that turned off in the Spring of 2001, four months before we were attacked? I can’t answer that, either. I can tell you I was ordered out of the operation directly by a two-star general.”

Supporting Col. Shaffer’s statement, Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy, currently Commanding Officer of the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf and former head of the Able Danger data mining program, stated in 2005: “I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command. I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in January/February 2000.” Capt. Phillpott is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, who during his 23 years of Navy service has been awarded the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three Meritorious Service Medals, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, two Navy Commendation Medals, and the Navy Achievement Medal.

Joel Skousen

Gen. Albert Stubblebine    Former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot Joel M. Skousen also questions the official account of 9/11. After his military service, Mr. Skousen served as Chairman of the Conservative National Committee in Washington DC and Executive Editor of Conservative Digest.

“In the March 2005 issue, PM [Popular Mechanics] magazine singled out 16 issues or claims of the 9/11 skeptics that point to government collusion and systematically attempted to debunk each one. Of the 16, most missed the mark and almost half were straw men arguments – either ridiculous arguments that few conspiracists believed or restatements of the arguments that were highly distorted so as to make them look weaker than they really were. …

“I am one of those who claim there are factual arguments pointing to conspiracy, and that truth is not served by taking cheap shots at those who see gaping flaws in the government story … There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse [of the Twin Towers] …

The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon] and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives.”

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret), former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), is a strong critic of the official account of 9/11. In a 2006 video documentary he said, “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”

During his 32-year Army career, Gen. Stubblebine also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Gen. Stubblebine is one of the inductees into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
“There is a well-organized cover-up of the events of 11 Sep 2001. The 9/11 Commission was a white-washed farce. There is evidence that US Government officials had advance knowledge of and are probably implicated in the events of 9/11,” wrote retired military physician, Col. James R. Uhl, MD, U.S. Army (ret), in a statement to this author.

“A huge body of physical evidence has been ignored, suppressed, and ridiculed by the media and by our Government. Why did WTC 7 collapse? It was never hit by an airplane and was apparently brought down by explosives. How could Al-Qaida terrorists have had access and time to plant bombs in a top secret installation? Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to seek the reason for the WTC 7 collapse?” continued Col. Uhl, a 38-year Army veteran, who served in several theaters of operations, from Viet Nam through Iraq.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg    Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions and a retired commercial pilot, who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.

According to Capt. Wittenberg, “The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S., plain and simple.

In the 2007 documentary video, 9/11 Ripple Effect,he said “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower.
“I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist, to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding its design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, Capt. Wittenberg said, ”The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous … It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”

Col. Ann Wright

Capt. Gregory Zeigler    Another senior officer questioning the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret), who said in a 2007 interview with Richard Greene on the Air America Radio Network, “It’s incredible some of these things that still are unanswered. The 9/11 Report — that was totally inadequate. I mean the questions that anybody has after reading that.”

Col. Wright is one of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. She served for 13 years on active duty and 16 additional years on reserve duty in the U.S. Army. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served for 16 years as a U.S. Diplomat. She served as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan and she helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001.

She continued in her interview: “How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action? And I totally agree. I always thought the Pentagon had all sorts of air defense sort of equipment around it; that they could take out anything that was coming at it. And for a plane to be able to just fly low right over Washington and slam into that thing is just — I mean, you still just shake your head. How in the world could that happen?”

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, is a former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. In a 2006 statement to this author, Capt. Zeigler wrote, “I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. That was when I realized that the perpetrators had made a colossal blunder in collapsing the South Tower first, rather than the North Tower, which had been hit more directly and earlier.

“Other anomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers’ names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7, the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon, the impossibility of ordinary cell phone (as opposed to Airfone) calls being made consistently from passenger aircraft at cruising altitude, etc., etc., etc.”

Shortly after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, a group of over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. In addition to two former senior CIA officials and several U.S. State Department veterans, the signers included Lt. Col. Robert Bowman and Capt. Eric H. May, both mentioned above.

The petition stated, in part, “We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

4. Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

5. Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?”

These questions and many others still remain unanswered three years after the petition was submitted and six years after the terrible events of 9/11. As the statements of these twenty-five former U.S. military officers demonstrate, the need for a new thorough, and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, deranged, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America’s security and the future of the entire world.

Schneier: Our Data, Ourselves

0

yourdata.jpgBy Bruce Schneier | In the information age, we all have a data shadow. We leave data everywhere we go. It’s not just our bank accounts and stock portfolios, or our itemized bills, listing every credit card purchase and telephone call we make. It’s automatic road-toll collection systems, supermarket affinity cards, ATMs and so on.

It’s also our lives. Our love letters and friendly chat. Our personal e-mails and SMS messages. Our business plans, strategies and offhand conversations. Our political leanings and positions. And this is just the data we interact with. We all have shadow selves living in the data banks of hundreds of corporations’ information brokers — information about us that is both surprisingly personal and uncannily complete — except for the errors that you can neither see nor correct.

What happens to our data happens to ourselves.

This shadow self doesn’t just sit there: It’s constantly touched. It’s examined and judged. When we apply for a bank loan, it’s our data that determines whether or not we get it. When we try to board an airplane, it’s our data that determines how thoroughly we get searched — or whether we get to board at all. If the government wants to investigate us, they’re more likely to go through our data than they are to search our homes; for a lot of that data, they don’t even need a warrant.

Who controls our data controls our lives.

It’s true. Whoever controls our data can decide whether we can get a bank loan, on an airplane or into a country. Or what sort of discount we get from a merchant, or even how we’re treated by customer support. A potential employer can, illegally in the U.S., examine our medical data and decide whether or not to offer us a job. The police can mine our data and decide whether or not we’re a terrorist risk. If a criminal can get hold of enough of our data, he can open credit cards in our names, siphon money out of our investment accounts, even sell our property. Identity theft is the ultimate proof that control of our data means control of our life.

We need to take back our data.

Our data is a part of us. It’s intimate and personal, and we have basic rights to it. It should be protected from unwanted touch.

We need a comprehensive data privacy law. This law should protect all information about us, and not be limited merely to financial or health information. It should limit others’ ability to buy and sell our information without our knowledge and consent. It should allow us to see information about us held by others, and correct any inaccuracies we find. It should prevent the government from going after our information without judicial oversight. It should enforce data deletion, and limit data collection, where necessary. And we need more than token penalties for deliberate violations.

This is a tall order, and it will take years for us to get there. It’s easy to do nothing and let the market take over. But as we see with things like grocery store club cards and click-through privacy policies on websites, most people either don’t realize the extent their privacy is being violated or don’t have any real choice. And businesses, of course, are more than happy to collect, buy, and sell our most intimate information. But the long-term effects of this on society are toxic; we give up control of ourselves.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

1

bush-murder.jpgBy Vincent Bugliosi | With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I’ve been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for “the little guy”), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain’s run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I’m giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That’s almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That’s just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he’d still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

Let’s look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush’s cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about “the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war.” Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn’t Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?

Al Franken, on the “David Letterman” show, said, “Bush lied to us to take us to war” and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying “Bush lied to us in his budget.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that “Bush’s distortions misled Congress in its war vote” and “No president of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war.” But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions? If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride?

The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, “the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11 … inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans.” But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn’t say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else.

In a Nov. 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that “the president and his top advisers … did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It’s obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein’s weapons and his terrorist connections.” But if it’s “obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans” in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what? No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you’re just going to go on to the next paragraph?

I’m not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph.

In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush “intentionally misled” the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush’s position on global warming or immigration. Didn’t the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.

If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren’t speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.

On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it 10 times that “someone should put a bullet in his head.” That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first-degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.

Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting — that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom — many have argued that “Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes” (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.

*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction.

**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life (“Please don’t kill me,” Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis “Scooter” Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.

In Bush’s two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom killed one person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush’s perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors.

Never Having to Say You’re Sorry

0

By Sam Gardiner | Earlier in the week the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) issued another of its dossiers. This one addresses nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Remember the IISS track record with dossiers? Their most famous report came in September 2002 when we were told Iran could be as close as two years to having a nuclear weapon. Remember the interviews with the authors of the study?

  • Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction: “Yes.”

Chemical and biological weapons:

  • “On chemical weapons, our net assessment is that Iraq has probably retained a few hundred tons of mustard gas and precursors…”
  • “As for biological weapons, Iraq probably retained substantial growth media and perhaps thousands of liters of anthrax…”

And if we don’t do something in the next six months,

  •  “…we’ll end up with a regime in Baghdad with nuclear weapons in two years’ time.”

The study became a major tool of those arguing for the invasion of Iraq in both the UK and the United States. It was used by Tony Blair and was a favorite of the US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Image

IISS report 2005

In September 2005 IISS did another study. This one was “Iran’s Strategic Weapons Programs: A Net Assessment.” Although the authors of this study were more cautious, they did declare that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in five years or so.

In neither the press materials or in the press conference did IISS make reference to the serious errors that had been made in the assessment of Iraq’s WMD programs.

Now we have the most recent study. The caution has gone. The editor of the study boldly declared, “We take it for granted that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.” Without explanation, he dismisses he US National Intelligence Estimate that did not take that for granted.

Again, there is no reference to the previous bad assessment or the assessment Iran could have a weapon in just two years from now.  

Doing studies means never having to say you are sorry.

The Telegraph, the Times and the Guardian carried stories this week on the IISS study. All three had frightening headlines: “Middle East in nuclear race to match Iran,” “Iran’s nuclear programme ‘may spark Middle East weapons race,’” and “Iran’s nuclear programme could be triggering a race to develop atomic weapons in the Middle East, a study warned.”  

All three of the stories were probably good journalism. The reporters, two of them diplomatic editors, represented the IISS study well. None of them, however, reminded us of the history of previous IISS mistakes or of their own newspaper’s mistakes in covering previous studies.

I guess doing journalism also means never having to say you are sorry.

Notes 

* These statements are from a phone interview by LA Weekly with Colonel Terence Taylor on September 20, 2002. Taylor was one of principal authors of the study.

“Immoral Hazard” – A review of Jeremy Grantham’s book

0

By Stephen Lendman – RINF | So says Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of Boston-based investment firm Grantham, Mayo and Van Otterloo, now known as GMO. Some call him the philosopher king of Wall Street because of his highly insightful views on markets and the economy, usually with a longer-term perspective. In a profession of touts, fast-buck and scam artists, Grantham’s commentaries are notably refreshing. They’re detailed, scholarly, sober, clear and especially important at a time of unparalleled excesses, great economic uncertainty, voices ranging from gloom and doom to blue skies and all clear ahead, so who knows what to believe. Few people sort things out better than he, and whether right or wrong, he makes consummate sense and should be taken seriously.

He calls his latest commentary “Immoral Hazard” and takes straight aim at the perpetrators. It’s not the first time, and with good reason. Bad policy yields bad results with former Fed Chairman Greenspan Exhibit A.

Grantham notes: “It’s not that the former Fed boss…was incompetent that is remarkable. (It’s that even now) so many people (still) don’t seem to get it.” Do they “just believe high-quality, self-justifying blarney?” Or do they think top jobs ipso facto “attract great talent by divine right?” Often, the most important jobs get “mediocrities” like Greenspan and the current White House occupant. Even worse, Washington is infested with them.

Grantham first learned of Greenspan in the late 1960s when he headed economic consulting firm Townsend-Greenspan & Co. Even then, his assessment was unsparing: “To be brutally honest, he was considered run of the mill by anyone I knew then or have met later who knew” of his work. Consider his “famous” January 1973 call that “it is rare that you can be as unqualifiedly bullish as you now can.” It was right at the start of a punishing recession and 60% two-year market decline in real terms, second only at the time to the 1929 crash.

Never one to equivocate, Grantham cuts to the chase and draws blood: Greenspan’s call “was one of the first of a long line of terrible prognostications for which he has remarkably ‘not’ been remembered,” except by a few historians and analysts like Grantham. He seemed to pop out of nowhere to become Fed Chairman in 1987, not for his professional skills but for plenty of political ones. The Greenspan years and what’s so far followed haven’t been “our finest hour in the US.”

A smattering of skilled leaders handled things way back compared to the “rudderless” kind under Greenspan and today. Moments (far too few) showed “vision, leadership and backbone.” They then gave way to political opportunism and “easy paths taken” for short-term gains – most notably since the Reagan era. Referring to when Greenspan became Fed Chairman, Grantham continued saying we’re “get(ting) ready to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Great Moral Hazard.” Asset bubbles are tolerated because of who wins and loses. If managed well, speculators and Wall Street profit hugely, bail out at tops (the old pump and dump scheme), then let the public take the pain. No problem though if they miscalculate. Fed Chairmen like Greenspan and the current maestro step in with bailouts.

It’s called “moral hazard,” and the term goes way back – to the 1600s. English insurance companies then used it in the late 17th century. In the modern era, it got more study in the 1960s, but at the time didn’t imply fraud, immoral behavior or outsized excess. Economists used the term to describe market inefficiencies when risks are displaced. It was before what became known as the “Greenspan put,” or the idea that Fed Chairmen provide insurance – to bail out investors who take imprudent risks, so take even greater ones since winning is always guaranteed. But only for high-rollers.

Moral Hazard 101 – A Brief Case Study

Take Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), for example, and its dream team management:

— a former highly respected Salomon Brothers fixed income chief who became tainted by the firm’s auction-rigging scandal; no matter, he remained highly regarded by Wall Street;

— a former Fed Vice-Chairman; and

— two economics Nobel laureates.

They played high-stakes poker with little regulatory oversight and used their good names to do very risky things – like putting on interest rate swaps at market rates for no initial margin; borrowing 100% of value of top-grade collateral held; using that cash to buy more securities, then using them as collateral for more borrowing. In other words, it was a scheme to theoretically leverage to infinity, LTCM practically did it, and for a while it worked.

Things began unravelling in 1998. It started in July when Salomon Smith Barney announced it was liquidating its dollar interest arbitrage positions. LTCM took a hit, then things got worse when in August Russia declared a moratorium on its rouble and domestic dollar debt. Panic ensued, it spread to other markets, risky investments fled to high quality ones, then they were sold to raise cash.

LTCM was one of many large investors affected. By September, it dropped 52% in value and needed new capital to avoid a dilemma that could impact all of Wall Street if not addressed. LTCM’s balance sheet assets were leverage thirtyfold to $125 billion, then tenfold more by off-balance sheet transactions for a total valuation of around $1 trillion – or too big to fail. If they folded, a financial panic could ensue, so the situation was critical. Enter the Fed after some initial high-stakes maneuvering failed. It engineered a multi-billion dollar bailout to avoid a greater financial market collapse.

It worked, but it’s no way to run an economy. Bad examples keep getting repeated and each time show up worse. That’s precisely today’s dilemma. The stakes are enormous. No one for sure knows to what degree, and there’s even less assurance how things will play out.

Minsky on Markets

He’s passed but surely smiling and saying I warned you. His economic writings were mostly ignored in the prosperous 1980s and 1990s, but current market turbulence proved him right. He constructed a “financial instability hypothesis” building on the work of John Maynard Keynes. It showed how speculative bubbles grow out of outsized greed. Finally, asset values collapse in the end-game part of a seven-stage up-then-reverse journey downward. It’s a “Minsky Moment” when euphoria turns to panic, investors bail out, and meltdown ensues.

That’s how markets reacted to the Greenspan-caused tech bubble. They sold off hugely, then reinflated from outsized monetary and fiscal stimulus. Last summer, they peaked, dropped sharply, stabilized in April after a lesser Minsky reversal, but there’s no way to know if it’s over. Grantham doesn’t think so. Neither do others. More on that below.

Economist Michael Hudson Cuts Through the Clutter

Hudson is an economist and President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET). He’s also a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, a former Wall Street financial analyst, and a no-nonsense critic of the current economic environment. He notes how recent events show that “economic royalists” and “money changers” run things and have “mismanage(d) our economy into dire straights of unprecendented risk – (a combination of reckless) debt creation, euphemized as ‘leveraging’ and ‘wealth creation.’ “

Few regulatory checks remain, and anything goes “under the guise of ‘saving the system.’ ” If money manipulators hadn’t endangered it, no fix would be needed. Now with systemic trouble of undetermined proportions, trillions of dollars are being misdirected. They’re going for wars and bailouts instead of helping beleaguered homeowners who were manipulated for profit, face possible foreclosure, job loss, and likely hard times ahead.

Hudson says what’s going on is “an economy-wide Ponzi scheme (for) creditors to lend debtors enough money (for their) interest costs so as to keep current on their loans.” The idea was for various asset prices (stocks, bonds, real estate) to be inflated enough so debtors could pledge them as collateral at higher market valuations for more loans.

It worked as long as valuations rose. When they fell, all bets were off, and here’s how trouble started and spread:

— cracks in the multi-trillion dollar US securitization markets showed up last summer; they created liquidity crises for two Bear Stearns hedge funds; they were heavily into sub-prime mortgages; Bear Stearns was a Wall Street outlier; it was much unloved on the street, notorious for taking outsized risks, and that made it very vulnerable for a run on its assets when the opportunity came; it happened in March and forced the firm to sell out for pennies on the dollar after 85 years in business;

— the initial damage spread to a little-known German bank, IKB; it forced the European Central Bank (ECB) to provide large amounts of liquidity to stem the damage;

— it became apparent that trouble was systemic; it could touch down anywhere and likely hardest where greatest risks were taken – in America; and

— intervention wasn’t working; panic didn’t stop; reserve hoarding took hold instead; and a run on commercial paper began – the kinds international banks issued in Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs).

The bottom began to fall out, and the problem was how to stop a growing debacle from becoming catastrophic. The solution, of course, was “immoral hazard” by bailing out transgressors, and the bigger they are, the greater the bailout amounts. Hudson calls it a “trillion-dollar bailout of bad mortgage debt” while homeowners go begging.

It began in March with heaps of hyperbole selling it. Multi-billions poured out. Money supply growth exploded. It now averages a near-monthly 18%. Deficits are mounting, and fiscal spending is just as outsized, but not much of it reaches households even with the so-called “rebate.” In the meantime, real wages keep falling. Oil and food prices are skyrocketing. Real unemployment tops 12%. Consumer inflation is nearly as high, and real GDP (not the phony official number) hovers around -2%. Most other economic numbers are just as worrisome, so manipulating magic fixes them.

We’re in uncharted territory, problems are huge, they’re systemic and structural, and Hudson says “the Fed and Treasury officials seem to be making up new rules on a daily basis – that receive only….perfunctory” congressional oversight. Speculation is being rewarded, anything goes, and bailing out Wall Street and big banks takes top priority.

It gets worse. It costs trillions. No one knows where it will end or if it will work, and there’s nothing left over for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other essential social and national infrastructure needs.

Hudson puts it this way: “The historic road to serfdom is that of debt peonage to a financial oligarchy concentrating wealth in its own hands….The problem for society….is that finance finds its major gains to lie not in raising living standards, but in promoting a free lunch for its customers — while turning corporate profits, monopoly rent-seeking and real estate price gains into a flow of interest to itself, by advancing the credit to finance the purchase of these assets and privileges.”

The only way out is to “scale back existing mortgages (especially ones with negative equity) to reflect the plunge in property values today.” Once principal is “reduced to realistic levels,” fixed rate mortgages would replace ARMs.

Financial institutions won’t accept this or whatever other ways it costs them, and therein lies the problem. Blaming victims is much simpler along with bailing out culprits – when they’re too big to fail. Hudson calls for some high-octane populism to change things. Unfortunately, not a hint of it is in sight, and debt levels are so high they “cannot be paid….given the nation’s heavy military and trade deficits.” It’s hammered the dollar and “rais(ed) dollarized prices for oil and other raw materials.”

It gets worse. Foreign central banks and investors keep funding our excesses, and US spending, of course, depends on them. The more they lend us, the more we need in a never-ending dependency cycle. It bankrupted Medici bankers in the Renaissance era and got Adam Smith to conclude that governments don’t repay outsized debts. They either default, declare a moratorium, or repudiate them. Not fit subjects for discussion, but you can bet foreign debt holders weigh them as they debate whether to keep the daisy chain going.

It’s got plenty of US investors concerned as well, and a notable one is bond guru Bill Gross. In an April commentary he wrote: In his judgment, “the private credit markets have forfeited their privileged right to operate relatively autonomously because of incompetence, excessive greed, and (at times) fraudulent activities.”

In an earlier Financial Times interview he also criticized government quick fix schemes. He further blasted hedge funds as “unregulated bank(s)” and a “con” and said complicated financial instruments “exacerbated” credit problems, and over-leveraging “lead(s) to an implosion at the edges….of this new financial marketplace.”

He’s also very worried about declining home prices that many on Wall Street publicly pooh-pooh. He calls a 20% valuation decline “much more” of an economic shock than falling equities “because the amount of homeowner leverage is so much greater. A 20% negative adjustment not only wipes out all ownership equity for millions of Americans, it turns their homes ‘upside down’ – incentivizing them to let their gardens grow weeds instead of lettuce.” He believes systemic crisis is possible if the decline isn’t stopped. He’s not alone in that judgment, but few agreeing get heard.

Consider damage already done. The current Case-Schiller Index shows home prices declining at a 32% annual rate. A year ago, it was 8%. The risk is a huge 4.6 million home inventory or nearly double the 2.6 million past 20 year average. Even more worrisome is that 2.27 million homes sit empty and that’s besides all the others banks own from foreclosures. It’s double the year ago number.

If these properties keep deflating and hit the dangerous 20% level Gross mentions, millions will lose their equity, consumption and credit will be hit, and banks will keep writing-off greater amounts no one wants to contemplate. Robert Shiller believes home prices may equal or exceed the 30% drop of the 1930s. That’s $6 trillion in today’s dollars, or $80,000 for every US homeowner. The Fed can keep injecting liquidity but only for so long, and it may not work. If bank losses are great enough, they’ll need all they can get to stay afloat, but for some it may not be enough. Not a pretty picture and no way to know how bad things may get.

Placing Blame Where It’s Due According to Grantham

Grantham looks back at 2007 and awarded three prizes for “odd prognostications.” They’re named in Greenspan’s honor. First prize went to Citicorp’s CEO Chuck Prince for enthusiastically taking on more credit at a time markets were over-extended and peaking. He subsequently wrote off billions of worthless assets, $17 billion in first quarter 2008 alone, risked the bank’s solvency, and got himself replaced by a new CEO.

Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke took second prize for “incomprehensible misreading of obvious data by an apparently well-informed source.” In late 2006, he said what he now regrets (or should) – that “US housing prices merely reflect a strong US economy.” His cohort at Treasury, Hank Paulson, got third prize for his spring 2007 comment that subprime problems were “contained.”

Not if you own one or too many of those junk assets written down to a fraction of their original value. Grantham calls the crisis the most important one since World War II. It’s more global than others. Its tentacles are everywhere. Speculative greed and broad asset overpricing caused it. Loose regulatory and irresponsible Fed policies allowed it. Perpetrators point fingers elsewhere, and no one’s got backbone enough to fess up to their to their own mistakes and transgressions.

Before this ends, according to Grantham, it’s “likely to make the S & L crisis look contained.” As a per cent of GDP, write-downs this time are on the order of two to three times greater now than then. But there’s no precise way to know their full impact or to what degree monetary and fiscal stimulus will contain the damage or delay its final resolution. They won’t be papered over, and writer/economist William Engdahl puts it this way:

Greenspan was a tool of the monied interests who gave him his job. He “knew who buttered his bread” and returned their favors manyfold. He engineered many crises and used them all to “advance and consolidate the influence of US-centered finance over the global economy, almost always to the severe detriment of the economy and broad general welfare of the population.” His 18 year tenure was undistinguished to say the least. “It can be described as rolling the financial markets from successive crises into ever larger ones…”

It remains to be seen if his “securitization revolution was a ‘bridge too far,’ ” spelling the beginning of the end of US dominance as an economic power. The “true significance” of today’s crisis (nowhere near resolved) lies right in his lap. Engdahl lists his menu of malpractice in serving the “Money Trust,” meaning Wall Street and big banks. In each case, it yielded big short-term gains, greater long-term losses, and successively greater crises. A new Fed Chairmen has to solve them. Bailout is his strategy. It may help in the short-term. The jury is still out. The policy is flawed. It assures greater crises ahead, and at some point the music stops.

Bernanke may end up being too smart by half. We’re awash in problems that one analyst calls three simultaneous imploding bubbles:

— a property, mainly housing, price one;

— a mortgage finance one; and

— an alphabet soup of CDOs, SIVs, SPVs, and a whole menu of levered-up, high-risk securitized assets amounting to financial alchemy.

Grantham also takes aim at them and sees lots more write-downs and defaults ahead before it ends. He cites a longer-term problem as well – “that all debt standards fell so that losses will accumulate right across the entire credit system.” Even worse, it came at a time equities were overpriced, still are, and particularly higher-risk ones. Further, “profit margins are spectacularly above average” in some sectors, margins are being squeezed, and markets finally caught on that “all risk is dangerous.”

Grantham’s research shows that all markets eventually revert to their means and for months have been “well into a massive repricing of both risk and asset prices” to get there. Before it started last July, we reached “the lowest risk premium, by far, ever recorded.” It needs lots of heaving lifting to return it to more normal levels. And, of course, it’s a painful process, a drag on the economy, and will likely take years to fix. In Grantham’s judgment, through 2010 “to clean house completely,” and when it ends “the amount of write-downs (may likely) start with a ‘T.’ “

Blame it on a Fed Chairman whose name starts with “G,” and Grantham has been unsparing on him before. Referring to the 1990s dot.com and tech excess, he blamed him for engineering the largest ever stock market bubble and bust in history through incompetence, timidity, dereliction of duty or a combination of all three. It didn’t matter because Wall Street types made fortunes, then got plenty of early warning to exit to let small investors take the pain.

Undeterred, Greenspan was at it again in the current cycle that’s now being unwound. But this time, multiple bubbles were created, with housing and mortgage ones most affecting households. Grantham (like Gross) calls them “much rarer and more dangerous than stock bubbles” because they affect so many people. Even worse, with over half of all housing wealth borrowed and “on much less credit-worthy terms,” it’s very much “more dangerous than normal.”

It’s the Fed’s job to watch over:

— mortgage quality;

— the soundness of repackaging mortgages; and

— off balance sheet commercial banking that should have been stopped or curtailed.

“And what did Alan Greenspan do this time? Absolutely nothing” except whine about a little excess in housing when it was already out of hand. Even then he implied not to worry because “the housing boom will soon simmer down.” And Bernanke is even more feckless with comments like “The housing market merely reflects a strong US economy.” Grantham portrays him as a Greenspan clone, just as incompetent, and someone having “extraordinary faith in efficiency to the point of denial.” Above all, like Greenspan, he’s there to serve the “Money Trust” that appointed him.

And he’s done it since taking over. First, by “stimulat(ing) at all costs” and repeating the same mistakes as his predecessor. Grantham calls 2008 “the year of Santayana: we ignored history and (are) condemned to repeat it.” Housing price deflation is its most notable feature. It’s what affects households most, and that, in turn, reverberates through the economy. Greenspan and Bernanke paid it no heed. Each now accepts no blame, and Grantham calls it “shameful.” It’s far worse than that at a time people are suffering, and the current Fed Chairman gets accolades for bailing out bankers while paying only lip service to homeowners.

By creating asset bubbles, Fed policy caused their dilemma, and Grantham believes their deflating may be the greatest of all threats to financial and economic stability. It stands to reason that efforts must be made to avoid the worst possible outcome. That means curbing speculation is key. Minsky was right that short of that financial crises are inevitable and excess is always the cause.

Grantham sums it up saying: it’s important or even vital “to our financial well-being that the Fed recognizes a responsibility to move against” this behavior that comes with a huge price. Greenspan’s response: “I have no regrets on any of the Federal Reserve’s policies that we initiated….” Grantham calls that “chutzpah that even Paul Bremer would have to admire.”

Engdahl calls it a “financial tsunami.” It triggered a “crisis of confidence.” High-risk securities were most affected. So were sub-prime mortgages. Then the whole “edifice of securitized debt” began unravelling, triggered by its weakest link collapse. Its effect is global and “a crisis not even comparable to the 1930s Great Depression.”

High-quality municipal debt got hit. Interest rates on them “rose to the highest ever relative to Treasuries.” It makes financing unaffordable and caused states and local agencies to “pull out of the $330 billion floating (auction-rate) market where costs have doubled since January.” New York and London bond fund managers say it’s the worst they ever saw. High interest rates aggravate fiscal crises even with the Fed cutting fed funds and discount rates. Some call it pushing on a string. Time will tell if it’ll work. Engdahl is dubious. He sees depression spreading. It creates “a self-reinforcing downward spiral. The process is in its early stages….”

With market turbulence somewhat quieted after a sharp April rebound after months of declines, unanswered questions remain. Is it a lull, a turnaround, or the eye of the storm before its harshest side hits? Grantham and Engdahl see trouble. Bernanke’s fingers are crossed. European central bankers as well, while Americans fear losing their homes and jobs the longer the crisis goes on and deeper it gets.

Direst forecasts have it in its early innings with the worst of things ahead. Only in the fullness of time will we know, but some things are clear. None of this happened by chance. Nor should it have in the first place. A combination of financial malpractice, outright fraud, and greed are to blame. The same mistakes keep getting repeated. The costs keep going higher. Sooner or later they matter, and some day it’ll be too late to fix them. Some day may be closer than smart money folks think. Stay tuned, be cautious, and ignore Fed Chairmen and politicians promising miracles. If things were sound and improving, they wouldn’t have to keep reminding us

Billions of Dollars Unaccounted For in Iraq

0

iraq-billions.jpgMotherJones | Want to see a signature worth $320 million? Click here. It belongs to Jack Gardner, an official with the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, who in July 2003 authorized that amount to be transferred to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance for the payment of Iraqi salaries. There are no other records of the transfer, just Mr. Gardner’s John Hancock. Now that’s power.

The payment is but one example of the process by which U.S. dollars have disappeared without a trace into the confusion (and, yes, corruption) of Iraq reconstruction, confounding Pentagon auditors who are now trying to find out where all that money went… and what exactly, if anything, the U.S. got in return.

One such auditor is Mary L. Ugone, the Pentagon’s deputy inspector general for audit. Her testimony this morning before Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) Committee on Oversight and Government Reform coincided with the release of a new report from Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General, which reviewed over 180,000 payments made by the Pentagon to contractors in Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt, totaling approximately $8.2 billion. Of that, the Pentagon admits that it cannot properly account for how $7.8 billion–“a stunning 95% failure rate in following basic accounting standards,” Waxman said in his opening statement.

The IG report details how $135 million was paid to the governments of the United Kingdom, South Korea, Poland, and others contributing troops to Iraq without any mechanism for determining how it was used. Another $1.8 billion in seized Iraqi assets were also simply given away, without any accountability. IG investigators examined 53 payment invoices. Not one made note of the money’s ultimate destination.

Together with a separate Pentagon IG report released last November, which showed the Defense Department could not account for at least $5 billion issued to Iraqi security forces (causing it to lose track of nearly all of the 13,508 rifles, machine guns, and RPGs it provided to Iraqi troops), today’s report sets the new total of Pentagon Iraq funds lost or stolen at almost $15 billion.

To date, Pentagon auditors have referred 28 cases to criminal investigators.

Rice’s Lies About Torture

0

condarice.jpgBy Dave Lindorff | Is anyone surprised that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says that the Bush/Cheney administration’s authorization of torture of captives has been consistently legal and in compliance with all treaties the US has signed, including the Geneva Conventions?

After all, she was at the meetings in the White House in 2001 at which various acts of torture, ranging from waterboarding to exposure to extreme heat and cold, to enforced long periods in stress positions, and to treatments which have not been disclosed (no doubt because they are so outrageous and offensive to common decency) were imagined, proposed and approved for use-–meetings that were manifestly criminal in nature and in violation of international and US law.

The US was “a different place” in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, Rice told a group of people at a town hall meeting in Mountain View, Calif. on Thursday. But even though the administration’s “top priority” at the time was allegedly “preventing new attacks and not necessarily observing fine legal points,” the woman who at that time was Bush’s National Security Advisor, says “President Bush made clear that we were going to live up to our obligations at home and to our treaty obligations abroad.”

Well of course she’d say that. But in fact, let’s look at those “fine legal points.”
The Third Geneva Convention Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War defines prohibited torture as follows:

“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

It’s kind of hard to see how that rather thorough definition of torture–which as a treaty signatory is the definition by which the US is supposed to live–can accommodate the waterboarding, sexual humiliation, months in solitary confinement, faked executions, days in stress positions, etc. which were approved by Rice and her fellow inquisitors and the nation’s commander in chief.

But no matter. Rice says that even if things were kind of harsh back in 201 and 2002, today “the ground is different.” She says soothingly, “We now have in place a law that was not there in 2002 and 2003.”

Well, actually no. Because when that new law was put in place by Congress, the president issued a signing statement saying that he would not be bound by it. Asserting a claim of “unitary executive,” created out of thin air by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John You and Assistant Attorney General (and now federal appeals court judge) Jay Bybee, Bush has claimed that for the duration of the so-called “War on Terror” he has all the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches rolled into his own hands, and as such is not bound by acts of Congress, or by orders of the court. (Yoo and Bybee are also the mob attorneys who advised Bush that any interrogation methods that fell short of causing death or “pain equivalent to death or organ failure” would not be torture.)

The truth is that the Bush/Cheney administration, with the clear knowledge and authority of the president and vice president and of Rice herself, went on to torture captives in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo Bay, and in countless “black sites” around the globe, well into 2006 at least, and continues to torture captives now. Those tortured have even included children.

Condi Rice seems to be hoping to return to Stanford University after she leaves office at the end of this benighted and criminal administration this coming January. If she does, she will, I am sure, have to at some point confront my colleague Barbara Olshansky, who has just spent her first year there at the Stanford Law School as a professor of international human rights. Barbara, who co-authored “The Case for Impeachment” with me (St. Martin’s Press, 2006), was for several years the lead attorney for several hundred of the detainees at Guantanamo, and has also looked into the conditions under which US prisoners are being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan–another torture center that got its start down that road with the capture and torture of John Lindh back in October, 2001–the first documented case of such abuse.

One would hope that the students of Stanford would raise such a stink about having a war criminal like Rice running their school that they would either prevent her from getting the job, or drive her from the campus.

Until then, the least we can do is make her explain how waterboarding and other measures applied under her guidance and with her approval as National Security Advisor, can possibly comply with the Geneva Conventions which the US has signed.

FBI files indict Bush, Cheney and Co. as war criminals

0

By Bill Van Auken | The most stunning revelation in a 370-page Justice US Department Inspector General’s report released this week was that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had formally opened a “War Crimes” file, documenting torture they had witnessed at the Guantánamo Bay US prison camp, before being ordered by the administration to stop writing their reports.

The World Socialist Web Site, together with human rights groups and other opponents of US militarism and repression, has long insisted that the actions of the Bush administration–the launching of wars of aggression, assassinations, the abduction and detention of civilians without trial and, most repugnant of all, torture–constitute war crimes under any legitimate interpretation of longstanding international statutes and treaties.

To have this assessment confirmed, however, by the IG of the Justice Department, the only senior official there not answerable directly to the White House, and by agents of the FBI, an agency not known for its sensitivity to questions of democratic rights, is an indication of the rampant character of these crimes as well as the crisis they have engendered within the US government and America’s ruling elite as a whole.

The report makes it absolutely clear that torture was ordered and planned in detail at the highest levels of the government–including the White House, the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the Justice Department. Attempts to stop it on legal or pragmatic grounds by individuals within the government were systematically suppressed, and evidence of this criminal activity covered up.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House on these new revelations. Responses from other agencies directly implicated in the crimes at Guantánamo were indicative of the general atmosphere of impunity in which the torture detailed in the IG’s report continues to this day.

“There’s nothing new here,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. A State Department spokesman, meanwhile, described the charges contained in the report as “pretty vague.”

Pretty vague? One can’t help but wonder what the spokesman would consider explicit. The report contains page after page of testimony by FBI agents on the sadistic and sickening practices carried out at Guantánamo.

In one section, the report states: “[An FBI Agent] recalled that, at some point during the interrogation, the military officer ‘put water down’ a seated detainee’s throat. He said he guessed that the purpose of the water was to give the detainee the sensation that he was drowning, so that he would provide the information that the interrogator wanted. [The agent] stated that the detainee was gagging and spitting out water. He said that the detainee appeared to be uncomfortable, and assumed that he had trouble breathing.”

Consider the account of the interrogation of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian national who was arrested by his own government, turned over to US forces and brought to Guantánamo in 2002:

“He was left alone in a cold room known as ‘the freezer,’ where guards would prevent him from sleeping by putting ice or cold water on him…

“He was subjected to sleep deprivation for a period of 70 days by means of prolonged interrogations, strobe lights, threatening music, forced intake of water, and forced standing.

“He was deprived of clothing by a female interrogator;

“Two female interrogators touched him sexually and made sexual statements to him;

“Prior to and during the boat ride incident, he was severely beaten.”

In addition, the document says, he was “led to believe he was going to be executed, and urinated on himself,” and was told that his mother and family would be detained and harmed.

Hundreds of FBI agents witnessed torture
Similar episodes were described, according to the IG report, by literally hundreds of FBI agents, who witnessed CIA, military and private contractor interrogators carry out illegal acts of torture and abuse against detainees.

In addition, the report cites: several agents who reported instances of beatings, 30 agents who reported witnessing prolonged shackling of detainees in stress positions, 70 agents who reported detainees being subjected to sleep deprivation, 29 agents who had information on the use of extreme temperatures in order to “break the detainees’ resolve to resist cooperating” and 50 agents reporting the use of extended isolation to “wear down a detainee’s resistance.”

In addition, four agents reported the kicking and beating to death of two detainees in Afghanistan who had been subjected to prolonged shackling in a standing position.

The episodes of torture detailed in this report are the tip of the iceberg.

They do not include the treatment of Murat Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen born in Germany, who was arrested during a trip to Pakistan in the fall of 2001 and was handed over to US officials for a $3,000 bounty. First taken to the US base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, he was then transferred to Guantánamo. While by 2002 the US authorities concluded that Kurnaz had nothing to do with terrorism, he was imprisoned until the middle of 2006 and released only because of pressure from the German government.

Barred from entry to the US, he testified via video link to a sparsely attended hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week.

“I did nothing wrong and I was treated like a monster,” he said. He told how he was subjected to electric shocks, being suspended by his wrists for hours and subjected to the ‘water treatment,’ in which his head was stuck into a bucket of water and he was punched in the stomach, forcing him to inhale the liquid. (The Justice Department Inspector General’s report, it bears noting, affirmed that this last form of torture did not constitute “waterboarding,” but did represent “an effort to intimidate the detainees and increase their feelings of helplessness.”)

“I know others have died from this kind of treatment,” said Kurnaz. “I suffered from sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, religious and sexual humiliations. I was beaten multiple times.”

“There was no law in Guantánamo,” Kurnaz concluded. “I didn’t think this could happen in the 21st century…. I could never have imagined that this place was created by the United States.”

The inmates held at Guantánamo represent barely 1 percent of those detained at US prison camps and secret jails run by the military and the CIA in Iraq, Afghanistan and other points around the world. An estimated 27,000 people are being held without charges, much less trials, many of them simply having disappeared into Washington’s global gulag. Some are held on prison ships, others in secret dungeons run jointly by the CIA and regimes to which it “outsources” detainees, like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco, where other, cruder forms of torture–being buried alive, given electric shocks or slashed with scalpels–are employed.

The report also reconfirms that the revolting scenes captured in the photographs taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that came to light four years ago–naked and hooded men being subjected to torture and sexual humiliation by US guards–were no aberration. The methods described in the report–forced nudity, the use of attack dogs in interrogations, chaining detainees in “stress” positions, leading them around on dog leashes, draping them in women’s underwear–were identical to those officially blamed on a “few bad apples” at Abu Ghraib.

Sadistic torture “orchestrated” from the White House
The uniformity of abuse at these widely separated facilities is evidence that the psychopathic and criminal sadism inflicted upon those detained by US forces was planned and orchestrated from the top.

Indeed, as ABC News revealed last month, top administration officials on the so-called Principals’ Committee–Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft and National Security Council Adviser Condoleezza Rice–conducted detailed discussions on “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which, according to ABC, “were almost choreographed–down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.”

Bush subsequently told ABC that he was “aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

The report establishes that FBI and Justice Department officials advised the White House National Security Council of their concern that the practices witnessed by the agents were “gravely damaging … the rule of law” at Guantánamo.

In the end, however, they were told to back off, and they complied, thereby becoming accomplices in this criminality and its cover-up.

The revelations in the FBI report have provoked no significant protests or demands for action from the Democrats in Congress, or for that matter from the party’s presidential contenders, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom have made torture an issue in their campaigns.

The New York Times Tuesday carried a lead editorial titled, “What the FBI agents saw,” which laid out the details of the report and stated that it “shows what happens when an American president, his secretary of defense, his Justice Department and other top officials corrupt American law to rationalize and authorize the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners.”

The paper’s conclusion: “The Democrats must press for full disclosure” through hearings to uncover “the extent of President Bush’s disregard for the law and the Geneva Conventions.” This, they tell their readers, “is the only way to get this country back to being a defender, not a violator, of human rights.”

Such is the impotence of erstwhile American establishment liberalism. The extent of the Bush administration’s outright criminality has been thoroughly exposed over the course of several years.

The wholesale and deliberate violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture are, under international law, war crimes–just as the FBI recognized they were. What is demanded is not another toothless congressional hearing, but rather the constitution of a war crimes tribunal. Those responsible must be held accountable.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft should be placed on trial. Those like former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington and Justice Department deputy assistant secretary John Yoo, who crafted the pseudo-legal arguments legitimizing torture, should be prosecuted as well, together with those military and intelligence officials who directed the criminal practices at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and other CIA and military camps and prisons.

The Democratic leadership has no desire or intention to fight for such a reckoning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders have repeatedly insisted that impeachment of the president and vice president is “off the table.” They have no interest in pursuing the administration on the issue of torture because they themselves are complicit, with Pelosi and other senior congressional Democrats having been briefed extensively on the criminal methods employed at Guantánamo, which they approved and concealed from the American people.

On a more fundamental level, the Democrats have been complicit in a policy of global militarism and aggression–carried out under the mantle of a “global war on terrorism”–which is directed at using armed force to further the interests of America’s ruling oligarchy. It is this criminal strategy–resulting in the loss of over 1 million Iraqi lives–that has given rise to the crime of torture itself.

Nonetheless, the deepening crisis of American capitalism is creating the conditions for profound shocks and changes in political and social relations that may well result in Bush, Cheney and Co. standing in the dock as war criminals.

Such a trial is vitally necessary from the standpoint of halting these ongoing crimes, preventing the use of similar methods against political opposition within the US itself and politically educating the American people.

Burma ‘to allow in all aid workers’

0

AP | Burma’s ruling junta has agreed to allow “all aid workers” into the country to help cyclone survivors, the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said today.

Mr Ban’s comments came after a crucial two-hour meeting today with the junta leader, Senior General Than Shwe.

When asked if he thought the agreement was a breakthrough, Mr Ban said: “I think so.”

Burma’s junta has until now refused to allow an unimpeded influx of foreign aid and experts to reach survivors of Cyclone Nargis, which hit the country on May 2-3.

At least 78,000 people were killed and another 56,000 are unaccounted for.

After Gitmo: The Government’s Responsibility

1

gitmo-torture.jpgBy Aziz Huq | After Gitmo: The American Government is Legally and Morally Responsible for Giving Innocent Prisoners a New Life in the U.S. The US Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutional challenges filed by Guantánamo detainees to their six-year-plus imprisonments. It may not do so until June. Yet politicians already are lining up to ensure that, however the Court rules, a full remedy for the Bush Administration’s errors proves impossible.

Last month, Republican senator Sam Brownback of Kansas made a pre-emptive strike against any plan to move detainees to the United States. Responding to vague plans to transfer detainees to military facilities in Fort Leavenworth, in his home state, Brownback argued that logistical and technical barriers would make such detentions unfeasible.

Brownback’s localism obscures more than it reveals. He assumes that the central problem of unwinding Guantánamo will be how to “store” the remaining detainees, whom he presumes to be too dangerous to be released. He is wrong. The most pressing problem, one that will persist whatever the Supreme Court does, is the fate of detainees who have been seized in error — innocent men who now cannot be returned to their home countries due to the risk of torture.

Brownback has things precisely backward. Rather than worry about the hypothetically guilty at Guantánamo (for in fact no one there has been fairly convicted of any crime), the priority should be how to deal fairly with the innocent.

The most fair and plausible solution for these detainees is resettlement within the United States, a solution only a handful of courageous Guantánamo lawyers have sought to date. Yet the American public has yet to recognize this.

A recent report by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights documents the cases of at least fifty Guantánamo detainees who are at high risk of torture if they are returned to their home countries. However exposed such detainees were before, being repeatedly branded as dangerous terrorists by the Bush Administration has entrenched their at-risk status beyond repair. Recent repatriations from Guantánamo to Tunisia and Russia have moved detainees to prisons with even worse conditions–and with less access to legal or humanitarian assistance–than they had at the Cuban base.

Indeed, the implausibility of safe repatriation in such circumstances is now so evident that even the conservative US Court of Appeals in Washington has held that courts can stay transfers to examine the risk of torture.

To be sure, resettlement within the United States for any of the Guantánamo detainees is a political non-starter. In a global context, moreover, it is but a small fraction of the larger failure of the United States to deal equitably with the human fallout from its national security policies. US responses to the Iraqi refugee crisis in Jordan and Syria have been far from adequate. Nor has the United States honored the loyalty of Iraqis who worked with diplomats and the military in the post-invasion period.

Yet as all of the presidential candidates have recognized, Guantánamo imposes tremendous, perhaps unique, reputational drag on the United States’s public campaigns against terrorism, and some resolution must be found.

Rather than honestly dealing with the problems thrown up by the Bush Administration’s erroneous detention decisions, the Administration and its supporters are now moving to use Guantánamo as an election-year wedge issue by advocating new “solutions” for the detainees. A preventive detention statute is high on the agenda.

Such innovations — echoes of past “solutions” for problem populations — would merely momentarily dislodge Guantánamo from the public eye. They would do nothing to solve the pressing concern of innocent detainees whom the United States refuses to release. But it is a measure of the Bush Administration’s success in shifting the terms of debate that internment akin to that used against the Japanese-Americans in World War II or against Catholics in 1970s Northern Ireland is now being touted as a compromise solution.

Nor can Guantánamo be resolved by dispersing detainees to incarcerations in new and distant prisons. Since the United States has failed to hold its allies in Pakistan, Egypt and Syria to even minimal standards of decency, despite the influence foreign aid and military cooperation bring, we have forfeited the right to absolve ourselves of responsibility for what those countries do. To claim that detainees can be returned to those countries in good conscience is risible.

In all events, the Administration has forfeited any credibility when it comes to dealing equitably and securely with detainees. Its lead should be ignored. Resolving the farrago of prideful stupidities that lead to Guantanámo means accepting that the United States has imprisoned and abused innocent men for years–and accepting this not just as an intellectual matter but also as a matter of practical morality.

Resettlement within the United States for Guantánamo detainees who were improperly detained, who the military wants to release, and who cannot be sent to their home country due to the risk of torture, should not be an impossible sell. In one case recently argued in Washington, attorneys for Chinese Uigher detainees pressed a compelling argument for that remedy. Whether or not they succeed in the courts, the Uighers’ case should prevail as a matter of public policy.

For even conservative politicians increasingly understand the need to redeem those society has cast out into jails. The Second Chance Act, which strengths post-incarceration rehabilitation programs, has many conservative supporters, including the good Senator from Kansas. But if empathy can extend to those convicted and sentenced, why should be it withheld from those who have never been convicted, except in a court of public opinion jerry-rigged by the prosecutors?

To do otherwise would be somewhat like solving the problem of wrongful convictions by re-sentencing defendants to death.

The election year will bring many proposals to “fix” Guantánamo involving preventive detention or national security courts. None of these ideas addresses the stain the prison has left on America’s reputation. None provides any hope to the wrongly imprisoned. None yields a real solution. A meaningful response accepts responsibility for the shattered lives and stolen years of wrongful imprisonment in the hands of the United States, a responsibility that can be plausibly met only by treating detainees the same way as other refugees who have no safe port of call — by opening prison doors to new lives in America.

Aziz Huq directs the liberty and national security project at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. He is co-author of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror (New Press, 2007)

Iraqi TV station says U.S. troops killed cameraman

0

cameramankilled.jpgBy Aseel Kami and Khalid al-Ansary | An Iraqi television station accused U.S. troops on Thursday of shooting dead one of its cameramen as he walked to his Baghdad home. Colleagues of Wisam Ali Ouda at the Afaq television channel said he was among 11 people killed by U.S. soldiers in eastern Baghdad’s Obaidi district on Wednesday morning.

The U.S. military has said its troops shot dead 11 militants, but police and several residents said at least some of the dead were civilians killed by U.S. snipers.

“Wisam was one of our most prominent cameramen. His killers have no values or humanity,” the station’s director, Mohammed Thiab al-Baidhani, said. “We will loudly condemn those who kill journalists.”

A spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad, Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover, denied any civilians were killed during Wednesday’s military operation in Obaidi.

“All extremists were positively identified as committing a violent act or posed a threat to commit a violent act before each engagement,” he told Reuters.

There have been conflicting accounts of Wednesday’s shootings in different parts of the Obaidi district. It lies close to Sadr City, the main stronghold of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, where Iraqi troops backed by tanks have launched an operation to take control of the streets.

Police said the dead included an elderly man and three street cleaners, but also at least three Sadr militants.

Colleagues of Ouda, 32, who was buried in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday, said they had made pendants bearing his image to commemorate him.

“He was a close friend, we filmed a lot together. It’s a tragedy,” cameraman Ali Adnan said.

Iraq, which witnessed significant growth in the media after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, is the most dangerous place in the world for journalists to work, according to a New York-based journalism watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Iraqi journalists have been targeted because of their work or caught up in the cross-fire of Iraq’s many-sided conflict.

Early this month gunmen shot dead Sarwa Abdul-Wahab, a female Iraqi reporter, in Iraq’s northern city of Mosul.

About 130 journalists, both Iraqi and foreign, have been killed in Iraq since 2003.

(Additional reporting and writing by Tim Cocks, editing by Mark Trevelyan)

How the Government Is Passing Secret Laws

2

secretlaws.jpgBy Sean Gonsalves | Once upon a time, a team of federal attorneys went before the Supreme Court only to discover that their entire case was based on a revoked executive order and therefore moot.

True story. Look it up. Panama Refining Company v. Ryan. The revoked presidential order was understandably missed by the attorneys. The revocation had never been made public — an example of what legal scholars refer to as “secret law.”

Cases like that caused Congress, in the ’30s and ’40s, to pen legislation aimed at bringing order to the dissemination of vital government information, amid the chaotic complexity of state administrative laws and downright shoddy record-keeping. Congress also established statutes to keep a growing body of secret law in check.

That’s how we got the Federal Register Act of 1935, the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 and the golden key to open government (and investigative reporting) — the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Those legislative acts exemplify one of the defining features of American government — the publicizing of laws and regulations. The political philosophy isn’t hard to understand. Secret laws are the antithesis of a free and open society, which explains why the first U.S. Congress mandated that every “law, order, resolution, and vote (shall) be published in at least three of the public newspapers printing within the United States.”

But, never mind — for the moment — the decline of newspapers, and the harmful implications it has for democratic governance. Even more alarming is the underreported increase of unpublicized “secret laws,” clandestinely cultivated in recent years.

We’re talking everything from secret interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to secret Presidential directives and transportation security orders.

And don’t let the word “opinion” throw you off. If, for example, they’re “opinions” issued by the OLC — like the now infamous Yoo torture memos — those kind of “opinions” are binding on the executive branch.

So, while the Washington press heavy-hitters were analyzing flag pins and pastors, a Judiciary subcommittee hearing was held on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government”.

Among the half-dozen or so witnesses to testify was the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, Steven Aftergood — one of the nation’s preeminent authorities on secret law. What should have been a top-story across the country was rendered invisible by a tsunami of triviality.

Here’s some testimony you probably missed:

“There has been a discernible increase in secret law and regulation in recent years” to the point where “legislative intervention” is required to “reverse the growth.”

Unsurprisingly, secret law really became entwined with the government during the Cold War. But today, “secrecy not only persists, it is growing. Worse, it is implicated in fundamental political controversies over domestic surveillance, torture, and many other issues directly affecting the lives and interests of Americans.”

The law that governs espionage activity has been re-interpreted by the FISA Court, the specific nature of which has not been disclosed to the public?

In August 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the court on First Amendment grounds to make public those legal rulings, after redacting classified information. The court denied the ACLU petition, claiming it didn’t have the expertise to decide what information should be redacted.

The denial was issued despite it being evident “that there is a body of common law derived from the decisions of the (FISA court) that potentially implicates the privacy interests of all Americans. Yet knowledge of that law is deliberately withheld from the public. In this way, secret law has been normalized to a previously unknown extent and to the detriment, I believe, of American democracy,” Aftergood testified.

Other areas of concern: “there appears to be a precipitous decline in publication of OLC opinions in recent years … In 1995, there were 30 published opinions, but in 2005 there were 13. In 1996, there were 48 published opinions, but in 2006 only 1. And in 1997 there were 29 published opinions, but only 9 in 2007.”

“One secret OLC opinion of particular significance, identified last year by Sen. Whitehouse, holds that executive orders, which are binding on executive branch agencies and are published in the Federal Register, can be unilaterally abrogated by the President without public notice.”

Such orders mean “Congress is left with no opportunity to respond to the change and to exercise its own authority as it sees fit. Worse, the OLC policy … implies a right to actively mislead Congress and the public.”

Here’s something else that’s been waaaay underreported. As of January 2008, the Bush administration has issued 56 National Security Presidential Directives on a range of national security issues. Most of those directives have not been disclosed. “Texts of the directives or descriptive fact sheets have been obtained for about a third of them (19),” Aftergood testified. Only the titles have been obtained on 8 of the directives and absolutely no information is available for 10.

Congress has also gotten in on the action, having “participated in the propagation of secret law through the adoption of classified annexes to intelligence authorization of bills, for example.”

Aftergood concluded his testimony, rightly observing that “it should be possible to identify a consensual middle ground that preserves the security of genuinely sensitive national security information while reversing the growth of secret laws.”

That’s why he’s pushing for the passage of the State Secrets Protection Act — S. 2533 — which aims to balance conflicting interests of secrecy and public disclosure.

“The rule of law, after all, is one of the fundamental principles that unites us all, and one of the things we are committed to protect. Secret law is inconsistent with that commitment.”

Of course, whenever someone points out how civil liberties have taken a back-seat in the name of “national security” under Bush, what’s the typical response of true believers?

They call talk radio, blog and write letters-to-the-editor about how “liberals” and “leftists” aid and abet terrorists with a naive insistence that America’s political leaders adhere to quaint luxuries like long-established Constitutional freedoms.

The old saw — “loose lips sinks ships” — has been replaced by another now familiar brain-dead mantra: “if you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” But the metastasizing growth of secret law pulls the rug out from underneath that flimsy argument. And for obvious reason: you can’t know what you don’t know.

Is Amsterdam turning into a prudish backwater?

1

amsterdam.jpgBy Frank Scimone | The owners of cafés in the centre of Amsterdam are again up in arms against what they say is the umpteenth attempt to turn the city into a prudish provincial backwater.

A majority of the Amsterdam district council ‘Amsterdam Centrum’ have voted in favour of a measure that would forbid customers from sitting outside on a terrace past midnight. A Dutch newspaper says the centre of Amsterdam is moving another step towards becoming a ‘Staphorst on the Amstel’. Staphorst is considered the most strict and devout Calvinist town in the Netherlands.

Council ruling
Previously the district council ruled that customers cannot drink while standing. The free newspaper De Pers quotes an owner of a pub in Amsterdam, who says with a deep sigh:

“Now we’ll have to hire an extra employee to act as a sort of police officer who will walk around seeing to it that customers don’t drink while standing. They will also have to ensure that customers are gone (from the terrace) by midnight… when they’d rather sit there until four.” Earlier, the council ruled that outside terraces cannot be heated because it is a waste of energy and hence environmentally unfriendly.

Conflict with businesses
In recent years the district council, which was founded in 2002, has come into conflict with the owners of pubs, cafés and nightclubs as well as members of the gay community who say that a mania for rules and regulations is making Amsterdam prudish, provincial and boring.

The district council has also been criticised for ordering the closure of 150 terraces, banning the construction of new hotels and organising fewer events.

“Cleaning up” the Red Light District
The Amsterdam City Council is also in the process of “cleaning up” the city. Permits for a large numbers of rooms in the Red Light District, where prostitutes stand behind windows, are being rescinded.

The rooms are being turned into fashion shops and the women replaced by mannequins in designer clothes. Recently the town council ordered the closure of the famous sex club Yab Yum as well as the live-sex theatre Casa Rosso.

One website which has collected thousands of signatures protesting against the council’s policies writes:

“This is where Rembrandt rose to fame, Michiel de Ruyter departed for his epic journeys, the great author Descartes wrote his best works and (besides Paris) the first city to erect lights…we were then progressive. Now…our city seems more like a provincial village than one with the allure of an international metropolis…The beautiful vibrant city centre is being literally paralysed. A city is a city with all of its achievements, as well as its bad habits…When someone moves to the country he can’t ask for a ban on fertiliser, roosters and mooing… Amsterdam should remain Amsterdam. A fantastic place where for centuries freedom and individual development have been of paramount importance.”

Here Come the Trials: A Military Commissions Cheat Sheet

joanne-mariner.jpgBy Joanne Mariner | In the more than six years since President George Bush first announced the creation of military commissions to prosecute detainees allegedly responsible for terrorism, war crimes, and other misdeeds, there has not been a single full-blown military commission trial. (An Australian prisoner accepted a plea bargain last year and received a short sentence, which he served back in his home country.)

This should change in the next few months. The trial of Guantanamo detainee Salim Hamdan is now set to start on July 21, with motions hearings beginning on July 14. A few other detainees have already been arraigned; others are awaiting arraignment. In all, thirteen defendants are currently facing trial. (Charges had also been sworn against another defendant, Mohammed al-Qahtani, but he was so badly tortured while in US custody, tainting any statements that he made, that the Pentagon decided to drop his prosecution.)

Former chief military commissions prosecutor Moe Davis has testified to the political pressures that his office faced to push cases forward this year, particularly cases involving defendants implicated in the September 11 attacks. There was a strong feeling, he explained, “that if we didn’t get this thing rolling before the election it was going to implode.” Davis left the military commissions office last year.

Eight days ago, charges were referred against five detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who were among the group of 14 transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006. A sixth so-called high value detainee, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is also facing charges for his alleged involvement in the 1998 bombing of the US embassy in Tanzania.

Below is a cheat sheet summarizing basic information about the defendants, the charges against them, and the key developments in their cases.

The First Cases

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 37-year-old Yemeni, was captured by Afghan forces and handed over to the US military in late 2001. He is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism based on claims that he served as Osama bin Laden’s driver and transported weapons and other supplies to aid in fighting against US and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Hamdan was previously charged with conspiracy before a military commission in July 2004, under the original military commissions system established by President Bush. He challenged the legality of the commissions, and won in a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June 2006. Yet three months later, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which authorized a new system of military commissions, under which Hamdan and the other detainees listed here are now being tried.

New charges against Hamdan were referred on May 10, 2007, and he was arraigned on December 5, 2007. (He had been scheduled to be arraigned on June 4, 2007, but at that hearing the judge dismissed the charges against him and another detainee, Omar Khadr (discussed directly below), without prejudice.)

Omar Khadr, a 21-year-old Canadian, was just 15 when he was captured and seriously injured in a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002. The US has accused Khadr of throwing the grenade that killed US Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer and injured two others. He is charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying.

Even though Khadr was a juvenile at the time of his capture, the United States has refused to acknowledge his status as a minor, or to apply universally-recognized standards of juvenile justice in his case. Both US and international law allow for detention of juveniles only as a last resort, require juveniles to be provided educational opportunities and housed separately from adults, and mandate a prompt determination of all cases involving children. Yet Khadr has been incarcerated with adults, reportedly subjected to abusive interrogations, and not provided any educational opportunities. In addition, he was detained for more than two years before he was provided access to an attorney, and for more than three years before he was charged. He was initially charged in the first round of military commissions, which were struck down by the Supreme Court. Another two years passed before he was re-charged before the current military commissions.
New charges against Khadr were referred on April 24, 2007, and he was arraigned on November 8, 2007.

Mohammed Jawad, a 23-year-old Afghan, has been in US custody since he was 17. He is charged with attempted murder and intentionally causing serious bodily injury. The US government alleges that while in Afghanistan in 2002 he threw a grenade at a military vehicle, injuring two US soldiers and their interpreter.

As with Omar Khadr, the US has ignored the fact that Jawad was a juvenile at the time of his alleged offense. Whereas other children detained at Guantanamo were given special housing and education programs, and were eventually released to rehabilitation programs in Afghanistan, Jawad was housed with adults, was not provided rehabilitation assistance, and was held for over six years prior to being charged. Jawad has told a panel of US military officers that he falsely confessed after being beaten and tortured by Afghan police when first taken into custody in 2002.

Charges against Jawad were referred on January 30, 2008, and he was arraigned on March 12. At his arraignment he told the judge, “I am innocent and I want justice and fairness.”

Other Pending Cases

Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, a 33-year-old Saudi who has been in US custody since 2002, is being charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism and material support for terrorism based on alleged connections to al-Qaeda that date back to 1996.

The issue of evidence obtained through abuse is likely to be a central concern in this case. Al-Darbi was held in the US detention center at Bagram, Afghanistan, for eight months in late 2002 and 2003, during the period when some of the worst abuses took place there. Al-Darbi has said that while at Bagram, US soldiers kicked him, beat him, dragged him around by his calves, and hung him by his wrists for days on end.

Charges against al-Darbi were referred on March 3, 2008, and he was arraigned on March 13. Further proceedings in his case are scheduled for late May.

Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi, a 47-year-old Sudanese national, is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. The US government alleges that from 1996 to 2001 he served as a driver and armed guard for Osama bin Laden, and that from 1998 until 2001 he provided security, transportation and supply services for an al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan. The US also claims that he fought with al-Qaeda as part of a mortar crew.

Al-Qosi has alleged that he was subject to abuse at Guantanamo, including sexual humiliation and brutal interrogation. In a lawsuit filed in 2004, al-Qosi stated that female interrogators rubbed their bodies suggestively against detainees and that US soldiers or interrogators performed sex acts in front of prisoners and displayed hardcore pornography. He also said that detainees were strapped to an interrogation room floor, wrapped in an Israeli flag, and then subjected to “constant pounding of deafening music.” An FBI agent in August 2004 reported in an email that he observed a detainee at Guantanamo sitting in an interview room “with an Israeli flag draped around him, loud music being played and a strobe light flashing.”

Charges against al-Qosi were referred on March 5, 2008, and he was arraigned on April 20. At his arraignment, he read a statement describing his plans to boycott his trial, explaining that he viewed the proceedings as illegitimate and unjust. Further proceedings in his case are scheduled for late May.

Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al-Bahlul, a 37-year-old Yemeni, was one of the first detainees to be transferred to Guantanamo when the facility opened in 2002. He is charged with conspiracy and solicitation to commit murder, attack civilians, attack civilian objects, destroy property, commit terrorism, and provide material support for terrorism, based on claims that he received military training in Afghanistan and acted as a “media secretary” for Osama bin Laden.

During al-Bahlul’s initial appearance before the first round of military commissions in 2005 he requested permission to choose a lawyer from Yemen, his home country, but the request was denied. When he appeared again a year later, he requested permission to represent himself, stating that he had no expectation of justice from a system created by his American enemies–that request was also denied.

The first case against him was thrown out when the Supreme Court declared the initial military commissions unlawful, but the US government referred new charges against him in the revamped military commissions on February 26, 2008, and was arraigned on May 7. At his arraignment, Bahlul declared that he would be boycotting his trial. He also indicated that he wanted to represent himself, but it was not clear whether he would participate in future proceedings in any way.

Mohammed Kamin, an Afghan estimated to be about 30, is charged with providing material support for terrorism, based on claims that, among other things, he received arms training at al-Qaeda camps. Charges against Kamin were referred on April 7, 2008, and he is scheduled to be arraigned on May 21.

The Prosecutions for the September 11 Attacks

Charges of involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks were referred against five defendants–all of them former CIA prisoners–a little more than a week ago. The five prisoners are currently scheduled to be arraigned on June 5. Given the enormous complexity of these cases, both factually and legally, the understaffing and lack of preparedness of military defense counsel–and the fact that all of the defendants face a possible sentence of death–it is unlikely that these cases will make great progress this year.

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, a citizen of Pakistani, has been charged with conspiracy, attacking civilians and civilian objects, causing serious bodily injury, murder, destruction of property, hijacking, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism, based on claims that he ordered flight simulation and training videos and transferred large sums of money to the 9/11 hijackers in the US.

Abdul Aziz Ali was arrested in April 2003, but (like his co-defendants) he was not transferred to Guantanamo until September 2006.

Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin ‘Attash, a Yemeni national, has been charged with conspiracy, attacking civilians and civilian objects, causing serious bodily injury, murder, destruction of property, hijacking, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism. Bin ‘Attash is specifically accused of having been instructed by Osama bin Laden to obtain a US visa so he could travel to the US and receive pilot training in order to participate in the eventual hijacking. It is also alleged that he applied for a US visa in 1999 but was denied, after which the government claims he continued to do research for al-Qaeda and facilitated travel for the 9/11 hijackers.

Although bin ‘Attash arrested and placed in US custody in April 2003, he was not transferred to Guantanamo until September 2006. In the interim he was held incommunicado in secret CIA detention facilities, where he was effectively “disappeared.”

Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, a Yemeni national, has been charged with conspiracy, attacking civilians and civilian objects, causing serious bodily injury, murder, destruction of property, hijacking, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism. The US government claims that Binalshibh was chosen by bin Laden to be one of the participants in the 9/11 hijackings, but was unable to enter the United States because his repeated requests for a US visa were denied.

Although Bin al-Shibh was arrested in Pakistan in September 2002 and transferred to US custody, he was not sent to Guantanamo until four years later. In the interim he was believed to have been interrogated and held incommunicado in secret CIA detention facilities, where he was effectively “disappeared.” A Jordanian former detainee, who claims that he spoke to Bin al-Shibh in detention, said that Bin al-Shibh was rendered to Jordan for some period of time, where he was badly tortured with electric shocks, sleep deprivation, and other abuse.

Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi, originally from Saudi Arabia, has been charged with conspiracy, attacking civilians and civilian objects, causing serious bodily injury, murder, destruction of property, hijacking, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism. The government claims that Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi helped research flight schools for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and administered bank accounts for several of the hijackers.

Al-Hawsawi was reportedly arrested and transferred to US custody in March 2003, but was not transferred to Guantanamo until September 2006. In the interim he was held incommunicado in secret CIA detention facilities, where he was effectively “disappeared.”

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an approximately 44-year-old Kuwaiti, has been charged with conspiracy, attacking civilians and civilian objects, causing serious bodily injury, murder, destruction of property, hijacking, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism, for his alleged role in planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He is believed to be the main architect of the attacks, and he admitted responsibility for them in a 2002 interview with Al Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda.

Mohammed was indicted in New York in 1996 for his alleged involvement in a Philippines-based plot to blow up 12 US-bound commercial airliners in a 48-hour time period. The indictment, which was made public in 1998, and federal arrest warrant provide details of how he operated within al Qaeda. Mohammed was arrested in March 2003 and held in secret CIA custody for more than three years. During his Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing at Guantanamo, held on March 10, 2007, Mohammed claimed that he was tortured while in CIA custody and that as a result, he made false confessions about both himself and others. In addition, he alleged that his young children were detained and abused as well, a story that others have reported. The details of Mohammed’s allegations from the transcript of his CSRT hearing are redacted, but the CIA acknowledged on February 5, 2008, that the agency had subjected him and two other detainees to “waterboarding” in the period of 2002 to 2003.

Waterboarding, a torture technique in which a prisoner is made to feel like he is drowning, violates both the federal anti-torture statute and the War Crimes Act. Although the CIA videotaped the interrogations in which terrorism suspects were waterboarded and subjected to other “severe interrogation techniques,” the CIA confirmed that at least two videotapes documenting the interrogations had been destroyed in 2005. Several officials said that the tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that the video could expose agency officials to legal liability.

The Embassy Bombing Prosecution

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian believed to be about age 34, has been charged with murder, attacking civilians and civilian objects, causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property, terrorism, and conspiracy for his alleged involvement in the August 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The US is seeking the death penalty in his case.

Ghailani was previously indicted by US federal prosecutors for his role in the embassy bombings. Four co-defendants were put on trial in federal court in 2001 and sentenced to life without parole, but Ghailani was a fugitive at the time. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2004, held incommunicado in secret CIA detention for two years, where he was essentially “disappeared,” and transferred to Guantanamo in September 2006.

He is now slated for trial by military commission. The only new charge contained in the military commission indictment alleges that Ghailani continued to provide material support and resources to al-Qaeda from 1998 until 2004.

Charges were sworn against Ghailani on March 31, 2008, but they have not yet been referred against him (the convening authority of the military commissions has the option of amending or dropping the charges during this period).

Joanne Mariner is a human rights lawyer in New York.

Criminal DNA left unchecked for 13 months

0

1-800.jpgPSCA | A report has found “significant shortcomings” in the Crown Prosecution’s Service’s (CPS) data handling. In January 2007 Dutch police sent a disc containing 2,159 DNA profiles from crime scenes so the UK police could analyse them. However, the report, which was undertook by the CPS chief executive Peter Lewis, found checks on the DNA profiles did not start until February 2008.

The report revealed that in the year before the blunder was uncovered, at least 11 of the individuals wanted for serious crimes in the Netherlands, including rape and murder, went on to commit offences in the UK, including assault and non-payment of fines.

Lewis’s report said the data was unexpectedly sent to the CPS, not the police, by ordinary business post and was not addressed to a particular department or individual. The correct lawyer received it in April 2007 but then began a long and unexpected period of absence, the report said. Although the lawyer returned to work in October, the disc was not collected until 11 January 2008.

There were no data security issues as far as they were aware and did not believe the disc was ever copied or left the building, the report said. Instead, the report has blamed individual failings and said they were now facing disciplinary action.

The most serious weakness in the initiative was “the extremely regrettable failure of CPS personnel to deal appropriately and expeditiously with the disk of DNA profiles unexpectedly entrusted to the CPS”, Lewis said.

“For this failure, and the delay to the process caused by it, the CPS apologises unreservedly.”

Lewis said changes were already being made to internal processes to prevent the same thing happening again.

In a written statement, Baroness Scotland the Attorney General, said there was a “highly regrettable” delay in processing the information. However, she said it proved the value of exchanges of data which could lead to the prosecution of criminals, who would not be bought to justice otherwise. Baroness Scotland also said it demonstrated how useful a national DNA database would be.

Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, David Howarth, said the report exposed a “catalogue of incompetence”.

“The lack of proper protocols governing this sensitive information is alarming. The government simply hasn’t thought through the risks associated with large scale exchanges of data and has been making up policies as it goes along,” he said.

“This exposes how ridiculous ministers’ plans to further extend the DNA database are, given their total inability to handle the data they already have.”

Howarth concluded: “Operating competently will catch far more criminals than collecting the DNA of innocent people.”

Olmert to U.S.: Impose naval blockade on Iran

1

olmert.jpgBy Barak Ravid and Amos Harel | Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has proposed in discussions with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran as one of several ways to pressure Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment program.

Although the White House denied a published report that U.S. President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term in January, the Bush administration is said not to have ruled out entirely the possibility of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

A story in the Jerusalem Post quoted an unidentified official as claiming that a “senior member” of Bush’s entourage to Israel last week made the statement about attacking Iran in a closed meeting. However, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the article is “not worth the paper it’s written on.” She added that the administration’s preference and actions for dealing with Iran remain through peaceful diplomatic means.

Israelis who spoke to Bush and his entourage while they were in Israel last week said they had the impression that the military option “is on the table,” and that the president felt a sense of deep obligation to overcome the Iranian threat.

The Iranian issue was central in Olmert’s meeting over lunch Monday with Pelosi, together with 12 other members of Congress in the bipartisan delegation Pelosi led. Among those present were House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, and heads of the House Appropriations Committee, Nita Lowey and Gary Ackerman.

“The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves,” Olmert told Pelosi, adding that the international community needed to take much more drastic steps to stop Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Olmert also said there was a great deal of space between the present sanctions and military action. Aggressive action could be taken that was not violent, Olmert told Pelosi.

Olmert’s suggestions mainly involved continued efforts to isolate the Iranian regime. Olmert proposed two possible courses of action: first, a naval blockade of Iran using the U.S. fleet to limit the movement in and out of Iran of its merchant ships.

The second option Olmert proposed was to place limitations on Iranian aircraft, business people and senior members of the regime at airports throughout the world. “Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime,” Olmert said.

Members of the American delegation also spoke about how to pressure Iran. Pelosi herself said at a press conference Monday that a whole series of moves were on the table to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear status.”

Livni: United front

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Pelosi at a meeting that “the effectiveness of the sanctions depends on a united front by the countries of the world.” Livni added that when there are those who create commercial options for Iran, the efficacy of sanctions was reduced. “When Iran sees the foreign minister of Switzerland wearing a veil when she comes to to Ahmadinejad to sign an agreement, it concludes that the world is not united against it,” Livni said.

Olmert is scheduled to fly to Washington in two weeks for another working meeting with Bush that will focus on the Iranian issue. During Bush’s visit last week, he met with Olmert privately, as well as together with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, to discuss the options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

Senior government officials in Jerusalem said they were satisfied with the talks and Bush’s speech in the Knesset on Iran. They said they believed Bush would make good on his declarations.

Meanwhile, diplomats in Vienna said a new attempt by Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to probe allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms has failed. ElBaradei was said to have been hopeful a month ago when he announced a new attempt to investigate allegations that Iran has tried to make atomic arms. However, the diplomats told The Associated Press yesterday that Iran denies such activities.

DU Shells Used by U.S. Worse Than Nuclear Weapons

du.jpgNaturalNews | The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the U.S. military may lead to a death toll far higher than that from the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II. DU is a waste product of uranium enrichment, containing approximately one-third the radioactive isotopes of naturally occurring uranium. Because of its high density, it is used in armor- or tank-piercing ammunition. It has been fired by the U.S. and British militaries in the two Iraq wars and in Afghanistan, as well as by NATO forces in Kosovo and the Israeli military in Lebanon and Palestine.

Inhaled or ingested DU particles are highly toxic, and DU has been classified as an illegal weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations.

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated that 50 tons of DU dust from the first Gulf War could lead to 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. To date, a total of 2,000 tons have been generated in the Middle East.

In contrast, approximately 250,000 lives were claimed by the explosions and radiation released by the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

“More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing [of nuclear bombs] has been released from DU weaponry since 1991,” said Leuren Moret, a U.S. nuclear scientist. “The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive.”

Because DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the Middle East will, for all practical purposes, be radioactive forever.

The two U.S. wars in Iraq “have been nuclear wars because they have scattered nuclear material across the land, and people, particularly children, are condemned to die of malignancy and congenital disease essentially for eternity,” said anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott.

Since the first Gulf War, the rate of birth defects and childhood cancer in Iraq has increased by seven times. More than 35 percent (251,000) of U.S. Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared with only 400 who were killed during the conflict.

U.S. Soldiers Did ‘Dirty Work’ for Chinese Interrogators

0

chines-interrogators.jpgBy JUSTIN ROOD | U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay allegedly softened up detainees at the request of Chinese intelligence officials who had come to the island facility to interrogate the men — or they allowed the Chinese to dole out the treatment themselves, according to claims in a new government report.

Buried in a Department of Justice report released Tuesday are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantanamo and interrogate Chinese Uighurs held there.

According to the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, an FBI agent reported a detainee belonging to China’s ethnic Uighur minority and a Uighur translator told him Uighur detainees were kept awake for long periods, deprived of food and forced to endure cold for hours on end, just prior to questioning by Chinese interrogators.

Susan Manning, a lawyer who represents several Uighurs still held at Guantanamo, said Tuesday the allegations are all too familiar.

U.S. personnel “are engaging in abusive tactics on behalf of the Chinese,” she said Tuesday. When Uighur detainees refused to talk to Chinese interrogators in 2002, U.S. military personnel put them in solitary confinement as punishment, she said.

Heart experts warn Tasers deadly

0

tazer.jpgBy Suzanne Fournier | Tasers can cause fatal cardiac arrest and are even more dangerous if the subject is agitated, stressed and experiencing pain from the high-voltage device, two top Vancouver heart specialists said Tuesday.

Dr. Michael Janusz, a heart surgeon at Vancouver General Hospital and UBC told the Braidwood Inquiry into Taser use Tuesday that “Tasers almost certainly can cause cardiac arrest in humans, particularly in people with underlying heart disease.”

Janusz told retired judge Tom Braidwood that the risk of dying after being Tasered is similar to the chances of dying after major heart surgery.

Janusz quoted San Francisco cardiologist Dr. Zian Tseng’s findings of about “1.4 per cent mortality for individuals subdued by police using a Taser.. (which) is similar to the mortality risk of a coronary artery bypass operation.”

And Dr. Charles Kerr, a “cardiac electrophysiologist” at St. Paul’s and UBC, said that police should routinely carry defibrillators if they plan to employ Tasers and should be trained to initiate resuscitation after using the Taser on someone who is then unresponsive.

Kerr said that although the Taser may be “better than a bullet” and may have its place in policing, he is also concerned about the potential effect Tasering could have on the approximately 35,000 British Columbians who have either a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

 Outside the inquiry, Janusz said he had viewed the bystander video of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski being Tasered at the Vancouver airport and dropping to the floor seconds later, jerking his legs spasmodically and then falling motionless.

“That was really awful, a tragedy,” said Janusz.

The inquiry continues Tuesday afternoon with the evidence of a New Westminster police sergeant.

Braidwood is inquiring into Taser use by municipal police, sheriffs and corrections officers and in the fall, will hold a further inquiry into Dziekanski’s death, once the RCMP investigations are complete.

Consciousness of Guilt: Genocide in Iraq?

1

genocide-iraq.jpgCounterpunch | Despite the precipitous plunge in his popularity and growing criticism of his competency, character, and style, George W. Bush is not really that much different from other presidents with respect to his hegemonic ambitions or his proclivity to use force to achieve foreign policy objectives. Continuing historical patterns, President Bush and all presidents since World War II have committed horrendous crimes against humanity in order to protect and advance American interests under the guise of liberating people from under the jackboot of brutal dictators or communist subversives, bringing democracy to totalitarian states, improving the lives of those who are suffering and eradicating terrorism.

These are laudable goals reflecting prevailing shibboleths domestically. These goals are an alluring mantle for the real paradigm governing foreign policy which is the pursuit of American interests with total indifference to the consequences to people victimized by American “ideals”.

The gaping discrepancy between the stated goals of American foreign policy and its praxis is best exemplified by the apogee of war crimes: genocide. In its pursuit of these lofty goals, the United States has committed genocide in Iraq. Intervention resulting in genocide at the very minimum proves that American government’s professed motives for foreign policy decisions are altogether specious.

Rationalizations for the application of military force have been based on euphemistic doctrines which have no basis in American or international law. George W. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war was not new to foreign and defence policy strategists but can be traced back to Dean Acheson’s doctrine dismissing the applicability of international law to the United States as outlined in a speech to the American Society of International Law in 1963 in which he argued that:

The power, position and prestige of the US had been challenged [Cuban Missile Crisis] by another state and the law does not deal with such questions of ultimate power — power that comes close to the source of sovereignty. [1]

In other words, national interests including meretricious threats to the sovereignty of the American State supersede international law despite the fact the United Nations Charter makes provisions for these exigencies.

The growing appetite for the unilateral application of force resulted in the “humanitarian intervention” or “illegal but legitimate” doctrine during the Clinton and Bush presidencies. This doctrine validated acts of preemption that justified the use of force whenever a threat was neither imminent nor substantial but necessary to defend the security interests of the United States against a perceived threat easily manufactured through the propaganda of fear.

Invading and occupying Iraq under the pretext of a preemptive war, a country already decimated by Dessert Storm, sanctions and no-fly-zones, represents the quintessential tragedy and hypocrisy of American foreign policy. To verify that the American Government is guilty of genocide in Iraq, I will establish a set of criteria based on the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and apply them to Iraq.

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets out a number of criteria to evaluate whether or not a war crime attains the magnitude of genocide. These criteria are not without controversy but by examining the scholarly literature on the subject and the judgments of the International Criminal Court, I have established conservative standards to assess whether or not the American Government is responsible for genocide in Iraq.

According to the Convention:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:

a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
c) Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Although the phrase “in whole or in part” sounds ambiguous, its ambit has been restricted by judgments of the International Criminal Court. According to the Rapporteur for the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court, “The accused aimed to destroy a large part of the group in a particular area.”

The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia concluded that “The killing of all members of a group within a small geographical area” was tantamount to genocide.

Notwithstanding the imprecision of these definitions of “part”, the area in Bosnia referred to in the ruling sets a baseline for future cases. The architect of the Convention, Raphael Lemkin, intended to define “in part” as a level of destruction sufficiently substantial to imperil the existence of the group. Shedding even further light on this problem, the Convention itself considers attempted genocide to be punishable under the Convention implying that intent alone is sufficient to establish guilt.

“Intent” is another term in need of clarification. Apart from direct evidence through orders, statements, or coordinated acts, intention can be shown if “Acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which may have been avoided by a change in that policy.” [2]

The Genocide Convention defines two basic levels of guilt: the direct commission of genocide and complicity to commit genocide.

Complicity in genocide must embody:

Intentional participation;
Knowledge of the genocidal intent of the perpetrators;
Organizing, planning, supplying arms, training intelligence, or direct military support.
One example of direct American genocide, Iraq, has suffered massive destruction to its infrastructure, the economy and human life, particularly since the imposition of American sanctions in 1990 and the bombing in 1991. UN Resolution 661 mandated sanctions against Iraq originally to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The resolution was worded in such a way as to grant the United States a veto over which products could be traded with Iraq. The American government exploited that veto to severely punish the people of Iraq in the hope that they would overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves.

According to a 1993 UNICEF study, “What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement toward food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place.” [3]

Declassified documents divulge the fact that the Americans were aware of and responsible for a humanitarian crisis caused by the sanctions. A Defense Intelligence Agency report on January 18, 1991 concludes that:

Failing to secure supplies [for Iraq] will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences; if not epidemics of disease…Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventative medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks.[4]

On January 15, 1991, B-52s were flying towards their targets in Iraq and cruise missiles were fired from ships in the Indian Ocean. Iraqi defences were incapable of offering any resistance.

Restricting the bombing to only military targets was not part of the U.S. war plan whereas targets included hospitals, electric utilities, schools, factories, water treatment plants, irrigation systems, food storage facilities and community health centres. Over 200,000 people died, the majority of whom were civilians.

In 2003, George Bush Junior inflicted further atrocities on the devastated people of Iraq and on a country virtually bombed back into pre-industrial times by another so-called war. As of today, Iraq has suffered a further one million casualties and four million refugees.

Whether or not the administrations of Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit genocide in Iraq is irrelevant because the consequences of the bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any reasonable person. The actions of these administrations clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily and mental harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring about Iraq’s physical destruction in whole or in part. Iraq is a clear-cut case of genocide.

The carnage resulting from this genocide clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest practice. This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.

David Model is a Professor of Political Science at Seneca College. He is the author of States of Darkness: US Complicity in Genocides Since 1945. He can be reached at: david.model@senecac.on.ca

Notes

[1] Acheson, D. (1968). Dean Acheson’s remark is quoted in Louis Henkin: “How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy.” Columbia University Press. P. 265-266.

[2] Gellately, R., and Kiernan, B. (Eds.). (2003). The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. P. 15.

[3] UNICEF Report. (1993). Children, War, and Sanctions. Cited in Ullrich, G. (1998) “The effects of Sanctions on the Civilian Community of Iraq.”

[4] Defense Intelligence Agency. (1991, January 8). Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities.

UK may store all phone calls and emails

0

email2.jpgNew Scientist | The UK government is considering a massive database to store every person’s emails, phone calls, text messages and internet use. The plan was suggested as a tool to help security forces tackling crime and terrorism.

At the moment, records of phone calls and text messages are kept for up to 12 months by telecoms companies, in compliance with a European Union anti-terrorism directive.

But a new proposal by the UK Home Office would see internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies handing over records containing billions of emails as well as Internet usage and voice-over-Internet calls, media reports said on Tuesday.

Police and security services would only be granted access to the information after seeking permission from the courts. The UK was this year labelled an “endemic surveillance society” by a study of privacy protections worldwide.

Playing catchup

The Home Office said the database could help catch up with rapid changes in communication methods during the past 15 years.

“The changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data and use it to protect the public,” it said in a statement.

“To ensure that our public authorities and law enforcement agencies can continue to use this valuable tool, the government is planning to bring forward the Communications Data Bill.” The draft bill is expected to be released later in the year, but the plan has yet to be discussed by ministers.

Phone calls would not be recorded in full, but the phone numbers involved and the duration of each call would be logged.

Secret records

In 2006, the US National Security Agency was found to be secretly keeping billions of such records. Experts say such records can reveal detailed information about callers’ lives, but that such analysis is unproven as a way to reliably track and catch criminals.

Critics of the new plan have raised concerns about privacy. Jonathan Bamford, Assistant Information Commissioner at the UK government’s regulatory office for data storage, use and privacy said: “We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society.”

Opponents also pointed to the UK government’s recent track record on large databases. A health service database that is the world’s biggest civil IT project has incurred large budget overruns and delays, while a recent security breach saw the whole nation’s child benefit records lost in the post.

FBI Report Details Guantánamo War Crimes

guantanamo-sue.jpgBy ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE | In 2002, as evidence of prisoner mistreatment at Guantánamo Bay began to mount, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents at the base created a “war crimes file” to document accusations against American military personnel, but were eventually ordered to close down the file, a Justice Department report revealed Tuesday.

The report, an exhaustive, 437-page review prepared by the Justice Department inspector general, provides the fullest account to date of internal dissent and confusion within the Bush administration over the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the military and the Central Intelligence Agency.

In one of several previously undisclosed episodes, the report found that American military interrogators appeared to have collaborated with visiting Chinese officials at Guantánamo Bay to disrupt the sleep of Chinese Muslims held there, waking them every 15 minutes the night before their interviews by the Chinese. In another incident, it said, a female interrogator reportedly bent back an inmate’s thumbs and squeezed his genitals as he grimaced in pain.

The report describes what one official called “trench warfare” between the F.B.I. and the military over the rough methods being used on detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The report says that the F.B.I. agents took their concerns to higher-ups, but that their concerns often fell on deaf ears: officials at senior levels at the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council were all made aware of the F.B.I. agents’ complaints, but little appears to have been done as a result.

The report quotes passionate objections from F.B.I. officials who grew increasingly concerned about the reports of practices like intimidating inmates with snarling dogs, parading them in the nude before female soldiers, or “short-shackling” them to the floor for many hours in extreme heat or cold.

Such tactics, said one F.B.I. agent in an e-mail message to supervisors in November 2002, might violate American law banning torture.

More senior officials, including Spike Bowman, who was then the head of the national security law unit at the F.B.I., tried to sound the alarm as well.

“Beyond any doubt, what they are doing (and I don’t know the extent of it) would be unlawful were these enemy prisoners of war,” Mr. Bowman wrote in an e-mail message to top F.B.I. officials in July 2003.

Many of the abuses the report describes have previously been disclosed, but it was not known that F.B.I. agents had gone so far as to document accusations of abuse in a “war crimes file” at Guantánamo. The report does not say how many incidents were included in the file after it was started in 2002, but the “war crimes” label showed just how seriously F.B.I. agents took the accusations. Sometime in 2003, however, an F.B.I. official ordered the file closed because “investigating detainee allegations of abuse was not the F.B.I.’s mission,” the report said.

The inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found that in a few instances, F.B.I. agents participated in interrogations using pressure tactics that would not have been permitted inside the United States. But the “vast majority” of agents followed F.B.I. legal guidelines and “separated themselves” from harsh treatment, the report says.

The report says that the F.B.I. “had not provided sufficient guidance to its agents on how to respond when confronted with military interrogators” who used interrogation techniques that were not permitted by the F.B.I., and that fueled confusion and dissension. But it also says that “the F.B.I. should be credited for its conduct and professionalism in detainee interrogations in the military zones.”

Jameel Jaffer, who tracks detainee issues for the American Civil Liberties Union, took a more critical stance, saying the report shows “the F.B.I.’s leadership failed to act aggressively to end the abuse.” Mr. Jaffer said the report “only underscores the pressing need for an independent and comprehensive investigation of prisoner abuse.”

The report documents in greater detail than ever before the conflict between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. over interrogation methods, which began with the capture of Abu Zubaydah, a senior Qaeda figure, in Pakistan in March 2002. F.B.I. agents began the interrogation using traditional rapport-building methods, and one agent even provided personal care for Mr. Zubaydah, who had been shot three times and grievously wounded, “even to the point of cleaning him up after bowel movements.”

But C.I.A. personnel who took over the case within a few days began to use harsher methods that one F.B.I. agent described as “borderline torture,” and which the C.I.A. has acknowledged included waterboarding, in which water is poured over the prisoner’s mouth and nose to create a feeling of suffocation.

The report describes extensive debate inside the F.B.I. over the next six months over whether it should continue to observe or assist the C.I.A. with interrogations using harsh methods it believed were counterproductive.

F.B.I. officials, including Pasquale D’Amuro, then the bureau’s top counterterrorism officer, believed the physical pressure being used by the C.I.A. was less effective than traditional noncoercive methods, that it would “taint” any future effort at prosecution, and that it “was wrong and helped Al Qaeda in spreading negative views of the United States,” the report says.

After the capture of another Qaeda figure, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, in September 2002, F.B.I. agents again traveled to a secret C.I.A. site where Mr. bin al-Shibh was being questioned. But only in 2003, the report concludes, did the F.B.I. make a “clean break” and choose to have no involvement in the C.I.A.’s harsh interrogations.

The report said several senior Justice Department Criminal Division officials raised concerns with the National Security Council in 2003 about the military’s treatment of detainees but saw no changes as a result. One Justice Department official said he believed that John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, had spoken to Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, about the department’s concerns about interrogation methods being used in late 2002 on Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Qaeda member who was believed to be the so-called 20th hijacker in the attack of Sept. 11, 2001.

But Mr. Ashcroft declined to be interviewed by the inspector general’s office of the department he had headed, an unusual refusal and one that hampered investigators’ effort to learn of discussions inside the National Security Council , the report says.

A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft, Mark Corallo, said the former attorney general had not cooperated because “his conversations with the White House and with staff on national security matters are privileged.”

The report says that while some Justice Department officials believed that the physical pressure techniques being used by the military were wrong, others merely thought they might be ineffective.

A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, noted that abuses at Guantánamo were the subject of a 2005 Defense Department investigation that found no evidence of torture, though it did fault some interrogation tactics and called the Qahtani interrogation degrading and abusive.

The Justice Department said it was pleased that the report “credited the F.B.I. for its conduct and professionalism during interrogations.”

A C.I.A. spokesman said the harsh methods it used were “found lawful by the Department of Justice itself” and were “employed only when traditional means of questioning – things like rapport-building – were ineffective.”

CIA death squads killing with “impunity” in Afghanistan

1

cia-killing.jpgBy Joe Kay | A United Nations investigator released a preliminary report last week citing widespread civilian deaths in Afghanistan, often at the hands of unaccountable units led by the CIA or other foreign intelligence agencies.

The investigator is Philip Alston, a New York University professor serving as the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution. His report provides a partial glimpse into the illegal actions of intelligence agencies, occupying forces, and Afghan police, as they seek to repress opposition to the US-led occupation and US-backed government.

A more detailed final report will be released later this year.

Alston focused on civilian killings by US and other international military forces, citing 200 reported deaths in the first four months of 2008. This figure, however, was based on tabulations by the United Nations and other international organizations, and is undoubtedly a serious underestimation.

In addition to civilians killed in air raids–often targeted indiscriminately at civilian dwellings–Alston reported on “a number of raids for which no state or military command appears ready to acknowledge responsibility.”

In a press conference on Thursday, Alston elaborated, saying, “I have spoken with a large number of people in relation to the operation of foreign intelligence units. I don’t want to name them but they are the most senior level of the relevant places. These forces operate with what appears to be impunity.” The location of the incidents cited in the report indicate that the intelligence agencies in question include the CIA or US Special Operations Forces.

The report cited a few incidents as examples of extra-judicial killings. In January 2008, two brothers were killed in Kandahar province in a raid led by “international personnel.” Alston found that the victims “are widely acknowledged, even by well-informed Government officials, to have had no connection to the Taliban, and the circumstances of their deaths are suspicious. However, not only was I unable to get any international military commander to provide their version of what took place, but I was unable to get any international military commander to even admit that their soldiers were involved.”

Other incidents involved raids by Afghans led by unnamed “international intelligence services” out of bases in both Kandahar and Nangarhar provinces.

“It is absolutely unacceptable for heavily-armed internationals accompanied by heavily-armed Afghan forces to be wandering around conducting dangerous raids that too often result in killings without anyone taking responsibility for them,” the report stated.

The British Independent newspaper provided some additional information. It noted, “A Western official close to the investigation said the secret units are still known as Campaign Forces, from the time when American Special Forces and CIA spies recruited Afghan troops to help overthrow the Taliban during the US-led invasion in 2001. ‘The brightest, smartest guys in these militias were kept on,’ the official said. ‘They were trained and rearmed and they are still being used.’”

The Independent went on to cite one incident involving British forces. “In Helmand, where most of Britain’s 7,800 troops are based, Special Forces were accused of slitting a man’s throat in a botched night raid last year. Security sources now claim the operation was mounted by a secret spy unit.”

Alston also reported on the actions of Afghan police. “They function not as enforcers of law and order, but as promoters of the interests of a specific tribe or commander,” he reported. He cited one incident in which Afghan police massacred a group from a rival tribe. There was no investigation by the government or the occupying forces. In another incident, police killed nine and wounded 42 unarmed protestors in Sheberghan in May 2007.

In general, he found little to no interest among US or Afghan officials in monitoring or following up on civilian deaths. “The level of complacency in response to these killings is staggeringly high,” he said.

At the press conference, he noted, “When I asked for the number of reported civilian casualties over the past year or so, I was told that those figures are either not available in Afghanistan–which I was told by several senior military people–or that they are secret and cannot be provided to me. When I asked for the results of certain cases, to ascertain whether those involved have been punished, I was told that no such information is available here in Afghanistan and that perhaps I should read the newspapers of the countries concerned.”

The fact that the CIA is involved in covert operations in Afghanistan is neither new nor surprising. Already by the 1970s, the CIA had developed ties to sections of the Afghan population, and in particular Islamic fundamentalist elements, in an effort to undermine the Soviet-backed government. Later, the CIA was heavily involved in developing ties to anti-Taliban warlords prior to the US invasion and occupation in 2001.

Following the invasion, Afghanistan–and in particular the Bagram Air Force Base near Kabul–became a transit point for prisoners captured by the United States and destined for Guantánamo Bay, secret CIA prisons, or US-allied countries that practice torture. US intelligence agencies were reportedly also involved in the interrogation of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In 2005, US media reported on the operations of US-backed deaths squads in Iraq, deployed to kill suspected opponents of the US occupation. Yasser Salihee, a special correspondent for news agency Knight Ridder who was investigating the death squads, was killed with a bullet to the head in June of that year. Separate reports related how the US military had modeled Iraqi units on the death squads deployed in Central America during the 1980s to eliminate left-wing opposition to US policies.

While most of the CIA’s actions remain shrouded in secrecy, one CIA contractor was prosecuted for torturing an Afghan prisoner to death in 2003. The contractor, David Passaro, interrogated and beat the prisoner, Abdul Wali, for two days, injuring him so severely that he died two days later.

In a separate development, the New York Times reported on Saturday that the Pentagon is moving forward with the construction of a 40-acre prison complex at the Bagram military base. The current prison, as well as separate prisons run by the Afghans and by the US, are reportedly insufficient to hold the massive number of individuals swept up by the occupying forces.

The facility may also be used for prisoners currently detained in Guantánamo Bay. It will be designed to hold as many as 1,100 people.

Why should we pay the Orwellian licence fee?

1

tv.jpgBy Patrick West | Some government public information services or advertisements on behalf of state services never change. Drink-driving awareness adverts invariably feature a before-and-after narrative, beginning with people shown having a merry old time at the pub, and ending with the aforementioned revellers entombed in a bloodied, twisted hunk of metal. Army recruitment adverts have always suggested that by signing up you can become a kind of ersatz, global social worker, learn some skills, or drive an exciting tank; they never mention that being in the Army may actually involve killing people or getting your head blown off. And TV licence adverts have always relied on the trusty old message: ‘We Know Where You Live’.

The TV licence advert currently gracing our screens is the government’s most menacing and threatening to date. It depicts a city in the form of a computer’s innards, boasting that the government’s computers have access to all of our details, suggesting in the process that the state regards us not as citizens, but as numbers, pieces of data, cogs in the machine. Never mind identity cards, why don’t they just brand us with irons instead?

It is tempting to say that this is akin to Nazi Germany or Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is true that these allusions are all too loosely and inappropriately bandied about. One thinks of Basil Fawlty’s response to guests who were merely complaining about his incompetence: ‘this is exactly how Nazi Germany started’. Yet in the case of the menacing license threats, one may argue that such comparisons with the past are merited. Out of all the forms of undesirable governance, one of the unique features of totalitarianism is its reliance on bureaucracy, technology, statistics and surveillance as means to dehumanise people. Our society may not be totalitarian to the extent that genocide is permitted, but it is becoming so in the way that the contract between state and citizen is interpreted. Certainly, the UK is beginning to resemble countries such as Singapore or China, where political and civil liberties are curtailed in exchange for economic liberalism.

On the other hand, one may interpret this latest advert as a sign of panic and of weakness (after all, who’s going to be afraid of notoriously cack government databases). The case for the abolition of the licence fee has never been stronger, and I suspect that the government knows it. The licence fee is in its death throes.

First of all, since many households have Sky, Freeview or Virgin, the BBC, just like its commercial counterparts, Channel 4 and ITV1, does not command the share of the audience they once did. People are watching other channels, and thus compulsorily paying for a channel they use less frequently. This is partly what made the old radio licence fee so unjustified, which, since the airwaves were liberalised in the 1960s, was abolished in 1971.

The expansion of the television network since the 1990s has also in turn dismissed the unfounded fear that commercial television is incapable of producing sensible and high-brow programmes. The wealth of documentary, news, foreign language and film channels suggests the market can provide – the quality found here is ironically highlighted by the fact the BBC now puts its sensible fare on its non-terrestrial BBC4 channel, and that in order to place EastEnders and its profusion of Casualty spin-offs in prime-time, Question Time comes out just when most people are going to bed, leaving poor old Andrew Neil’s jolly politics show, This Week, to languish in the middle of the night.

The BBC really is its own enemy at times, and antagonises those who are otherwise sympathetic to the Reithian spirit. Radio 4’s jaundiced, liberal-left take on the world is a particular scandal. I don’t mind people being left-wing, I just object to people thinking it is normal – and that anyone who is not is wicked or stupid and in need of re-education.

Auntie is shooting itself in the foot in another area currently, by reminding viewers that they can watch their favourite shows on the BBC website. By doing so, the Beeb is spreading the realisation that you don’t necessarily need a television set to watch television programmes anymore. Many teenagers and young adults are increasingly eschewing television altogether, preferring to watch YouTube. Just as landline telephone lines are vanishing from our homes as mobile phones have made them redundant, I suspect greater technological interactivity will one day see television sets go the same way. So with no TVs, why a TV licence?

By watching programmes on the internet, we can by-pass irritating commercial breaks, whose presence on the other channels has always been cited as a reason to keep the BBC as it is. But commercial breaks will also soon be a thing of the past. The internet and the Sky+ record and fast-forward facilities are making them obsolete, which Sky knows all-too-well, hence the bulk of its revenue comes from subscription charges. There are moves afoot at present to lift the ban on product placement on television programmes, a direct reaction to the waning influence of commercial breaks. So, soon, viewers of Coronation Street may no longer have to endure the unrealistic spectacle of someone asking for ‘a pint of bitter’ at the Rover’s Return (no-one asks for generic beers in pubs) but, perhaps, ‘a pint of Boddington’s’ or ‘a pint of John Smith’s’.

I won’t predict that the licence fee is definitely on its way out. Nor will I necessarily applaud it if it does go, because you know what’s going to happen as a consequence. Australia abolished its TV licence fee in 1974, but its government still funds the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the tune of A$800m per year. India abolished its in 1977, Portugal in 1992, Holland in 2000, Hungary in 2002: all of these countries replaced it with direct state funding. The only difference this made was to cut down on administrative costs, and to alter a tax on televisions from a regressive tax to a proportional one.

So, in a way the issue is not whether to abolish the TV licence fee. The real question is: what should come after? In essence, the quandary remains: should we be taxed to watch television?

Firms await verdict on £2 billion ID cards project

0

no2id.jpgThe Independent | The technology industry will next week learn who the Government has awarded contracts to supply the £2bn biometric identity card programme, the last and among the most secretive of the recent crop of major public-sector IT schemes.

The framework deals under the hammer do not guarantee a role in the ID programme, but only those companies that win a place on the list will be eligible to compete for the lucrative work.

According to insiders, best and final offers have been submitted by the shortlist of Fujitsu, IBM, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), Thales and EDS. A decision is expected next Monday.

The programme has been politically and technologically controversial from the start, and the procurement process has not been smooth either. Of the eight companies shortlisted last October, three — Accenture, BAE Systems and Steria — have dropped out. Should the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) team stick to the original plan for a group of five major suppliers, it is in danger of undermining the credibility of the programme by letting through all the companies still in the race.

Insiders tip CSC as the most likely loser. The company took more than £2bn-worth of NHS IT contracts from Accenture in 2006, giving it responsibility for three out of the five geographical regions of the world’s largest healthcare technology programme. According to sources, CSC’s first main subcontractor, Siemens, dropped out six months ago, and Unisys, which took over from Siemens, stepped down last month.

I was tortured to confess, Pervez tells appeal court

0

pervez.jpgBy Kim Sengupta | Pervez Kambaksh, the Afghan student sentenced to death after being accused of downloading internet reports on women’s rights, yesterday pleaded innocent to charges of blasphemy. He told an appeal court in Kabul that he had been tortured into confessing.

Mr Kambaksh, 24, vehemently denied that he had been responsible for producing anti-Islamic literature. He insisted the prosecution had been motivated by personal malice of two members of staff and their student supporters at the university in Balkh, where he was studying journalism.

He was convicted in proceedings behind closed doors in a trial which he said had lasted just four minutes and where he had been denied legal representation.

Yesterday, in the first public hearing of the case, the prosecution claimed that Mr Kambaksh had disrupted classes at the university by asking questions about women’s rights under Islam. It also said he distributed an article on the subject after writing an additional three paragraphs including the phrase “This is the real face of Islam … The prophet Mohamad wrote verses of the holy Koran just for his own benefit.”

In a highly emotional statement, Mr Kambaksh said: “I’m Muslim and I would never let myself write such an article. These accusations are nonsense, [they] come from two professors and other students because of private hostilities against me. I was tortured by the intelligence service in Balkh province and they made me confess that I wrote three paragraphs in this article.”

Mr Kambaksh represented himself because his family are having difficulties finding a lawyer to represent him after threats by fundamentalist groups that anyone taking on the job would be killed.

The head of the panel of three judges at Kabul, Abdul Salaam Qazizada, adjourned the trial until next Sunday to allow Mr Kambaksh further attempts to find a lawyer. As of last night they had not succeeded. The original trial took place in January. Mr Kambaksh’s appeal was moved to Kabul at his own request, amid fears for his safety in Mazar after international outrage at the sentence. A petition by The Independent to secure justice for him has attracted more than 100,000 signatures.

Prosecutor Ahmad Khan Ayar told the appeals court that the primary provincial court sentence to hang him was “the right decision” according to Islamic law and the Afghan constitution. “Kambaksh has insulted Islam by writing these paragraphs, and he has insulted the Prophet Mohamed. I ask the appeals court to uphold the decision of the primary court of Balkh and sentence him to death.”

Under Islamic law, stipulated in Afghanistan’s constitution, blasphemy is punishable by death. Two other Afghan journalists, accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death, escaped prison and have been given asylum in the West.

Mr Kambaksh’s case has been raised with President Hamid Karzai by Foreign Secretary David Miliband and the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

Iran busts CIA terror network

6

cia-logo.jpgTehran Times – TEHRAN | The Intelligence Ministry on Saturday released details of the detection and dismantling of a terrorist network affiliated to the United States. In a coordinated operation on May 7, Iranian intelligence agents arrested the terrorist network’s members, who were identified in Fars, Khuzestan, Gilan, West Azerbaijan, and Tehran provinces, the Intelligence Ministry announcement said.

The group’s plans were devised in the U.S., according to the announcement, which added that they had planned to carry out a number of acts such as bombing scientific, educational, and religious centers, shooting people, and making public places in various cities insecure.

One of the terrorists was killed in the operation, but the rest are in detention, the Intelligence Ministry said, adding that the group’s main objective was to create fear among the people.

The United States Central Intelligence Agency comprehensively supported the terrorist group by arming it, training its members, and sponsoring its inhumane activities in Iran, the Intelligence Ministry stated.

The terrorists had maps, films, pictures, and sketches of important and sensitive sites in various cities in their possession when they were arrested.

They also had a large number of weapons and ammunition and a great deal of highly explosive chemicals and cyanide.

The blast at a religious center in Shiraz last month was carried out by this group, and it also had plans to carry out similar attacks on the Tehran International Book Fair, the Russian Consulate in Gilan Province, oil pipelines in southern Iran, and other targets, the communiqué stated.

Thirteen people were killed and over 190 others wounded in a bombing carried out on April 12 at the Rahpuyan-e Vessal religious center, which is part of the Seyyed-ul-Shohada Mosque complex, located in a residential area of Shiraz.

Propaganda and the media

4

paper.jpgBy Joseph L. Galloway | Once upon a time, it was widely believed that one of the greatest sins the U.S. government or its temporary political masters could commit was to turn a propaganda machine loose on the American people.

Congress viewed this so seriously that every appropriations bill passed since 1951 has contained language that says no public money “shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States” without the lawmakers’ prior approval.

The Bush administration has been caught violating the propaganda ban before, notably in 2005 in the case of radio host Armstrong Williams, who was paid to endorse President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law.

Particularly abhorrent to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which oversees compliance with the ban, is an agency’s use of “covert propaganda” or “covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties.”

This is why alarm bells should be ringing all over Washington about The New York Times’ disclosure that then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld encouraged a secret Pentagon program to care for and spoon-feed more than 50 retired senior military officers whom the administration deemed reliable friends who could be counted on “to carry our water” on the television and cable networks.

Feeding the military analysts “key and valuable information” in secret briefings by Pentagon and White House officials, the idea went, would make them the go-to guys for the networks and encourage the networks to “weed out the less reliably friendly analysts . . . .”

This 2005 memorandum, addressed to then Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Larry DiRita, added: “This trusted core group will be more than willing to work closely with us because we are their bread and butter.”

Asked about the case of Col. Bill Cowan, who says he was fired as a military analyst for Fox News and cut off from the briefings for criticizing the war effort, DiRita told Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com: “I don’t know anything. I saw that in the story. I’ve heard other assertions to that effect. It was certainly not the intent.”

In a follow-up e-mail exchange between DiRita and Greenwald, Rumsfeld’s former mouthpiece – now Bank of America’s chief spokesman – elaborated on what he said he didn’t remember: “I simply don’t have any recollection of trying to restrict him (Cowan) or others from exposure to what was going on.”

DiRita added: “There are plenty of examples to the contrary – reaching out to people who specifically disagreed with us. One example I recall is Joe Galloway – a persistent critic and apparently popular with military readers. He came in and met Secretary Rumsfeld and we had other interactions.”

Now that’s a real knee-slapper: Me as a poster boy for how Rumsfeld and DiRita “reached out” to their harshest critics even as they stroked and promoted and schemed to embed the old reliables to wax enthusiastic about a war that was going from bad to worse.

Let the record show that Rumsfelds’ folks reached out to me on these few occasions:

  • In early summer of 2003, half a dozen of us were invited to an off-the-record lunch with Rumsfeld in the Pentagon. The defense secretary seemed to have a poor grasp of the reality on the ground in Iraq and was still declaring that we’d do no nation-building there. He saw no insurgency, only a handful of “dead-enders”.
  • In October 2005, DiRita called to invite me to travel with Rumsfeld to the Middle East and Australia. I declined because it conflicted with a long-booked graduation speech I was to give at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. to a class of new Air Force F-16 fighter pilots that included my nephew. DiRita was stunned that I wouldn’t drop a bunch of fighter pilots to be schmoozed by his boss.
  • In November 2005, DiRita invited me to a “one-on-one” lunch with Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. This one I accepted. I arrived to find across the table Rumsfeld, the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace; Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Dick Cody; Joint Staff Director Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp and DiRita. We went at it hammer and tongs for an hour and a half over their conduct of the war and the errors that were costing the lives of American soldiers. As I left, I told Rumsfeld that I’d continue to point out those mistakes every week in my column.
  • In April 2006, DiRita sent me an e-mail telling me that my most recent column was “silly”. That column had discussed an expensive war game the Pentagon conducted about a U.S. attack on a thinly disguised country that obviously was Iran.

A retired Marine general, Paul Van Riper, had been the commander of the “enemy” forces, and he used unconventional tactics to destroy the U.S. Navy flotilla in the Persian Gulf, leaving thousands of sailors and Marines dead. At that point, the commanders stopped the war game, reset everything and imposed new rules forbidding Van Riper from employing those tactics.Van Riper walked out, furious, and requested an investigation. DiRita complained in his e-mail that I was silly to blame Rumsfeld for this and for covering up the investigators’ report. After all, he wrote, Rumsfeld couldn’t be expected to know retired generals several levels below him or to bear responsibility for such matters. His complaint sparked an escalating e-mail war that most reckon DiRita lost. The entire exchange was posted on the Internet and can still be found there.

So much for the Rumsfeld/DiRita outreach to their critics. They were much too busy hand-feeding horse manure to their TV generals, who in turn were feeding the same product to the American public by the cubic yard.

There’s little doubt that this program violated the laws against covert propaganda operations mounted against the American public by their own government. But in this administration, there’s no one left to enforce that law or any of the other laws the Bush operatives have been busy violating.

The real crime is that the scheme worked. The television network bosses swallowed the bait, the hook, the line and the sinker, and they have yet to answer for it.

Cluster Bomb Ban Opposed by US, China, Russia

2

custer-bomb-shell.jpgBy Nick Cumming-Bruce – GENEVA | Believe the advocates of a treaty banning cluster munitions, and the international community is about to take a decisive step toward curbing the use of a weapon that inflicts terrible suffering, particularly on civilians. Believe the US government, and the measure they propose threatens to undermine the NATO alliance that has underpinned Western security since World War II.

Delegates from more than 100 countries will open a conference in Dublin tomorrow that will try to hammer out a treaty banning the production, use, stockpiling, or transfer of cluster munitions – bombs or artillery shells packed with up to several hundred bomblets or submunitions that are sprayed over wide areas of territory.Major producers and stockpilers of cluster munitions, the United States, Russia, and China, will be absent and are opposed to a treaty, but disarmament specialists liken the cluster treaty to the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 banning land mines, which was shunned by the major powers but has proved influential in shaping the policies of countries outside the convention.

Support for a ban on cluster weapons has risen sharply since the 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon, when, according to United Nations estimates, Israeli troops fired some 4 million Vietnam War-era submunitions, of which a quarter failed to explode.

These have reportedly caused more than 200 casualties since the end of the war and required a costly and hazardous cleanup operation by international aid agencies – often funded by Western governments.

In Laos, where the United States dropped 2 million tons of ordnance in the 1970s, including an estimated 260 million submunitions, unexploded weapons still kill and maim people and hinder economic development.

As many as 10 percent to 15 percent of cluster munitions normally fail to explode on impact but those who support the treaty say the figure could be much higher. A study by Handicap International, a nongovernmental organization based in Belgium, found that 98 percent of recorded victims were civilians and one-third of casualties were children.

But after a series of international and regional conferences that have mapped out the broad parameters of a treaty, Dublin is the venue where negotiators have to refine rhetoric into a legally binding instrument governing a weapon system that represents a substantial part of the arsenal of the United States and some of its NATO allies.

“It’s going to be a bruising conference,” said Patrick McCarthy, coordinator of the Geneva Forum, a disarmament research body.

A handful of issues loom as key battlegrounds. One will be the definition of what constitutes a cluster munition, with richer Western nations like Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland pressing for exclusion of sophisticated weapons that have self-destruct mechanisms, target sensors, or a small number of submunitions.

Others, like Germany, want a transition period of up to 10 years during which they can continue to use such weapons while they find replacements.

Among the most contentious is a proposed clause that would prevent those who sign onto the treaty from engaging in joint operations with forces still employing cluster munitions.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company

Is the Creative Internet Just About Dead?

1

internet.jpgBy Annalee Newitz | A couple of weeks ago I went to the annual Maker Faire in San Mateo, an event where people from all over the world gather for a giant DIY technology show-and-tell extravaganza. There are robots, kinetic sculptures, rockets, remote-controlled battleship contests, music-controlled light shows, home electronics kits, ill-advised science experiments (like the Mentos-Diet Coke explosions), and even a barn full of people who make their own clothing, pillows, bags, and more. Basically, it’s a weekend celebration of how human freedom combined with technology creates a pleasing but cacophonous symphony of coolness.

And yet the Maker Faire takes place against a backdrop of increasing constraints on our freedom to innovate with technology, as Oxford University researcher Jonathan Zittrain points out in his latest book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It (Yale University Press). After spending several years investigating the social and political rules that govern the Internet — and spearheading the Net censorship tracking project OpenNet Initiative — Zittrain looks back on the Net’s development and predicts a dystopian future. What’s chilling is that his dystopia is already coming to pass.

Zittrain traces the Net’s history through three phases. Initially it was composed of what he calls “sterile” technologies: vast mainframes owned by IBM, which companies could rent time on. What made those technologies sterile is that nobody could experiment with them (except IBM), and therefore innovation related to them stagnated.

That’s why the invention of the desktop PC and popularization of the Internet ushered in an era of unprecedented high-tech innovation. Zittrain calls these open-ended technologies “generative.” Anybody can build other technologies that work with them. So, for example, people built Skype and the World Wide Web, both software technologies that sit on top of the basic network software infrastructure of the Internet. Similarly, anybody can build a program that runs on Windows.

But Zittrain thinks we’re seeing the end of the freewheeling Internet and PC era. He calls the technologies of today “tethered” technologies. Tethered technologies are items like iPhones or many brands of DVR — they’re sterile to their owners, who aren’t allowed to build software that runs on them. But they’re generative to the companies that make them, in the sense that Comcast can update your DVR remotely, or Apple can brick your iPhone remotely if you try to do something naughty to it (like run your own software program on it).

In some ways, tethered technologies are worse than plain old sterile technologies. They allow for abuses undreamed of in the IBM mainframe era. For example, iPhone tethering could lead to law enforcement going to Apple and saying, “Please activate the microphone on this iPhone that we know is being carried by a suspect.” The device turns into an instant bug, without all the fuss of following the suspect around or installing surveillance crap in her apartment. This isn’t idle speculation, by the way. OnStar, the manufacturer of a car emergency system, was asked by law enforcement to activate the mics in certain cars using its system. It refused and went to court.

Zittrain’s solution to the tethering problem is to encourage the existence of communities like the ones who participate in Maker Faire or who edit Wikipedia. These are people who work together to create open, untethered technologies and information repositories. They are the force that pushes back against companies that want to sterilize the Internet and turn it back into something that spits information at you, television-style. I think this is a good start, but there are a lot of problems with depending on communities of DIY enthusiasts to fix a system created by corporate juggernauts. As I mentioned in my column (“User-Generated Censorship,” 4/30/08), you can’t always depend on communities of users to do the right thing. In addition, companies can create an incredibly oppressive tethering regime while still allowing users to think they have control. Tune in next week, and I’ll tell you how Zittrain’s solution might lead to an even more dystopian future.

Hybrid embryos ‘should be banned’

1

hybrid-embryos.jpgBBC News | Allowing scientists to carry out stem cell research using hybrid human-animal embryos “is a step too far and should be banned”, the Commons has been told.

Senior Tory MP Edward Leigh said there was “no evidence yet to substantiate” the claims this could lead to treatment for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Gordon Brown has urged MPs to back the work, saying it is a “moral endeavour” that could save thousands of lives.

MPs are voting on a series of reforms to embryology laws that date from 1990.

The measures, part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, are aimed at updating laws in line with scientific advances.

‘Useless’

They will be voted on in the House of Commons over the next two days.

Ex-minister Mr Leigh opened the debate on Monday, with an amendment prohibiting outright the creation of hybrid “admixed” embryos.

He said he believed the move was “ethically wrong and almost certainly medically useless, and if not useless, there is no evidence yet to substantiate it”.

The bill would allow regulated research using hybrid or “admix” embryos, where the nuclei of a human cell are inserted into an animal egg.

The resulting embryos would be kept for up to 14 days to harvest stem cells.

But Mr Leigh said: “We do not believe that regulation is enough. We believe this is a step too far and therefore should be banned.” “In embryos, we do have the genetic make up of a complete human being and we could not and should not be spliced together with the animal kingdom.”

Labour’s Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, said Mr Leigh’s arguments were like those used by church leaders against the smallpox vaccine.

“They were wrong and I think you are wrong today,” he said.

In a separate amendment, Tory shadow health minister Mark Simmonds is calling for true hybrids, made by fertilising a human egg with animal sperm, or visa-versa, to be outlawed.

MPs are being given a free vote on four controversial parts of the bill after warnings that some Catholic MPs and cabinet ministers were ready to rebel.

The other three areas are:

  • Saviour siblings: These are babies born from embryos selected because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition. Debate on Monday from about 1830 BST, with vote at about 2200 BST.
  • Role of fathers in fertility treatment: Would end the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the “welfare” of any child created in terms of need for a father. Debate from 1530 BST Tuesday, with vote at about 1830 BST.
  • The upper limit for abortion: Amendments have been put down to the bill to cut from 24 weeks the time limit for abortions. Debate on Tuesday from 1830 BST, with votes at about 2200 BST.

The Roman Catholic Church has branded the use of hybrid embryos as “monstrous” and says tinkering with life in this way is immoral.

Catholic bishops in Britain and the Irish Republic have given £25,000 to scientists using adult stem cells, which is less controversial than using immature ones.

Such cells can be used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating diseases.

After making a strong personal case for using hybrid embryos at the weekend, Mr Brown is expected to be backed on this part of the bill.

Writing in the Observer newspaper, Mr Brown called on MPs to back the use of hybrid embryos, saying such scientific advances could speed up treatment for cancer and conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

Cameron’s position

“The scientists I speak to are committed to what they see as an inherently moral endeavour that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time, millions,” he said.

Mr Cameron said he would be voting in favour of admix embryos and the creation of saviour siblings.

Speaking as he visited Birmingham, he said: “My own approach to this is the law needs updating and the importance of science and research and getting to grips with genetic disease… I want to see the research go forward.”

However, he said he would be voting “against some of the things that won’t be necessary”.

Leading medical research charities, including the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, have issued an open letter also urging MPs to back such research, saying advances in the “understanding and treatment of diseases must not be closed down”.

Scientists at Newcastle University announced last month that they had created the first part-human, part-animal hybrid embryos in the UK.

They were created by injecting DNA derived from human skin cells into eggs taken from cows’ ovaries which had had virtually all their genetic material removed.

Researchers say these human-animal “admixed” embryos could help solve the current problem of the lack of human eggs from which to generate embryos.

The vote on hybrid embryos and “saviour siblings” will take place on Monday, while the vote on the role of fathers in IVF treatment and abortion limits will be held on Tuesday. If the proposals are approved, the new legislation could come into force next year.

Graphic


‘Challenging Authority’

activism.jpgBy Stephen Lendman – RINF | Frances Fox Piven is a Canadian-born Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY). Her career is long and distinguished. She’s the recipient of numerous awards, has combined scholarship with activism, and is the author of many important books. Most notable is her 1971 classic “Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare.” It’s a landmark historical and theoretical analysis of how welfare policy is used to control the poor and working class.

A more recent book is her 2006-published “Challenging Authority” and subject of this review. It’s about how social movements can be pivotal forces for change because ordinary people in enough numbers have enormous political clout. Abolitionists, labor movements and civil rights activists proved it. Piven examines their collective actions plus one other in the four examples she chose – the American Revolution.

Piven’s book is succinct and masterful. Howard Zinn calls it a “brilliant analysis of the interplay between popular protest and electoral politics.” Canadian Professor Leo Panitch says the book is “theoretically profound, yet immensely readable,” and sociologist and social movements expert Susan Eckstein describes the book as “quintessentially Piven-esque.” It “eloquently (shows) how ordinary people….have taken it upon themselves to correct injustices.”

Piven’s theme is powerfully relevant at a perilous time in our history. The nation is at war on two fronts, a third one looms, constitutional protections have eroded, social services erased, the country is militarized, dissent repressed, and the government is empowered to crush freedom and defend privilege at the expense of beneficial social change it won’t tolerate.

Introduction

In light of the current situation, Piven’s introductory Thomas Jefferson quote is relevant. It was his response to the repressive 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. He wrote: “A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles.” Disruptive social actions have done it in the past, and Piven puts it this way: “ordinary people (have) power….when they rise up in anger and hope, defy the rules….disrupt (state) institutions….propel new issues to the center of political debate….(and force) political leaders (to) stem voter defections by proferring reforms. These are the conditions that produce (America’s) democratic moments.”

Electoral participation alone won’t do it. “In the real American political world, numerous obstacles” remain – structural, legal and practical. Despite liberalization of the process through the years, “large numbers of ostensibly eligible voters” are effectively disenfranchised. Former restrictive laws are gone, but new schemes replaced them – intimidation, misinformation, electoral fraud, and the corrupting power of money in a nation beholden to capital at the expense of the greater good.

Piven cites more as well:

— the power of incumbency,

— the two-party system that shuts out independent and minority interests,

— the construct of the law that empowers the powerful,

— the revolving door between business and government,

— the corrupted dominant media,

— the lack of accountability to voters,

— arbitrary redistricting for political advantage,

— believing markets work best so let them,

— disdaining the harm they cause,

— feeling interfering with market excess is “moral trespass,”

— sacrificing democracy in the pursuit of profit,

— and it all turning the public away from a process they no longer trust.

It shows in declining voter turnout with half or less of the electorate showing up at the polls and many without conviction.

Post-WW II, “most political scientists viewed American democracy with a self-satisfied complacency.” It wasn’t perfect, but it was the best possible at the time. Two decades later, system imperfections were more apparent, and more recently political science professor Robert Dahl said our system is “among the most opaque, complex, confusing, and difficult to understand” to show how badly we fare compared to other democracies.

Inequalities are extreme and growing, and Piven calls it “pernicious.” It breeds “patterns of domination and subservience (and) undermines democratic capabilities.” She quotes political analyst Kevin Phillips saying Washington is “the leading interest-group bazaar of the Western World,” and economist Paul Krugman calling our political system “utterly and perhaps irrevocably corrupted.”

Bad as it now is, Piven says democracy “never worked well in the United States.” Citing the 19th century, she notes how it “was stamped and molded by intense religious and ethnic allegiances (that in turn created a culture of) political parties (at all levels) steeped in patronage.” It was at a time corporate power grew and began to gain advantages that are now commonplace and harmful to the public interest.

Nonetheless, egalitarian reform is possible, and Piven recounts four crucial times when it showed up. Each time, protest movements achieved it by influencing American politics, “if only temporarily.” It’s no surprise that power “flows to those who have more of the things and attributes valued in social life.” But times emerge when “workers or peasants or rioters exercise power,” it’s “distinctive….disruptive or interdependent,” and it happens when conditions are right for it to be actualized.

Piven states the “central question” of her book: “given the power inequalities (in America)” and how it corrupts the political process, “how does egalitarian reform ever occur” at all? It’s only been at times of “disruptive protest movements” with their “distinctive kind of power” Piven calls “disruptive power.”

The Nature of Disruptive Power

First a definition of power in the abstract. Piven notes the “widely held thesis that (it’s) based on control of wealth and force” – big landowners over peasants, rich over poor, armies over civilians, and so forth. However, it’s not always the case, and “history is dotted” with examples of “people without wealth or coercive resources….exercis(ing) power, at least for a time.”

She notes how societies organize through cooperation and interdependence, but disparate interests at times conflict. While workers depend on management for jobs, managers, in turn, need a work force to produce. If labor is withheld, production halts. Both sides have leverage. Either one can activate it. Piven calls the “activation of interdependent power ‘disruption.’ ” It’s a power strategy based on “withdrawing cooperation in social relations.” Protest movements “mobilize disruptive power.” They achieve leverage by breaking down “institutionally regulated cooperation” as in strikes, boycotts or riots.

At these times, ordinary people (potentially) have enormous power – “their ability to disrupt institutionalized cooperation that depends on their continuing contributions.” Key is that great reforms in history have been “responses to the threatened (or use of) disruptive power.” In the US, it achieved representative government, ending slavery, the right to organize, social welfare and civil rights. Grassroots bottom-up “disruptive power” produced them.

But it takes more than marches, rallies, slogans, shouting or even violence. It’s also too simplistic to think power from below is there for the taking. Actualizing power depends on the ability to withhold cooperation. But it’s not “actionable” until certain problems are solved:

— recognizing interdependence and the potential power from below such as workers withholding their labor or wives their domestic services;

— the necessity of people breaking rules; rules are power strategies; they allow some people to dominate others, establish property rights, become law, and so forth;

— individuals must coordinate their disruptive power for strategic advantage;

— they must overcome constraints of an entire matrix of social relations; examples are the influence of family ties or the threat of religious excommunication;

— disruptive power must be sustained, cooperation withheld, and be able to withstand whatever reprisals occur; and

— the determination to stay the course in the wake of threats and uncertainty – employers who may hire scabs or relocate their plants and facilities.

New strategies aren’t invented for each challenge. They’re “embedded in memory or culture, in a language of resistance (and) become a ‘repertoire’ (of a) specific constellation of strategies to actualize interdependent power.” New repertoires from below are developed in response to social and economic change. They become “forged in a political process of action and reaction.” Popular struggles change over time, so, for example, food riots became rare and strike actions typical. However, they’re now threatened with weakened labor protections, the growth of temporary workers, and the ability of employers to operate anywhere in the world under WTO rules.

Slowly over time, new repertoires emerge to respond to conditions of the times. Lessons are learned from defeat, anger and defiance builds, and creative imagination invents new solutions to old problems.

The Mob and the State – Disruptive Power and the Construction of American Electoral-Representative Arrangements

Disorderly and defiant crowds or mobs figure prominently in the history of disruptive movements. They played an important role in the Revolutionary War period and years leading up to it. American elites allied with mobs because they grew uneasy about British rule and developed radical ideas about the right of the colonies to self-government. Without mob support, the war with England couldn’t have been won. They provided the troops who fought it.

Most colonists were from England, and by the mid-1700s numbered around 1.6 million. Most had egalitarian ideas and were ordinary people – artisans, apprentices, sailors, laborers, urban poor, farmers, bonded servants, and so forth. They also relied on mob action for results.

In the pre-revolutionary period, “riots and tumults” were commonplace. Bacon’s 1676 Rebellion of discontented frontiersmen and slaves was the first one of note. In the next 100 years, another 18 uprisings erupted (according to Howard Zinn) against colonial governments along with six black rebellions and 40 riots.

Tensions grew as the years passed. They challenged Britain and colonial elites. Inequalities also increased, and they spawned protests against them. One study cited 150 riots in cities and rural areas between 1765 and 1769. In addition, merchants and landowners grew angry with the Crown. In 1763, it sent a standing army to the colonies, introduced new taxes, made demands to billet British troops and to curb colonial assemblies’ power. It introduced the Sugar Act, Tea Act and a new Stamp Act. Colonists resisted and mob action was crucial.

They made Stamp Act enforcement impossible and dumped tea into more than one harbor to prove it, besides the notable December 16, 1773 Boston action. Historian Edward Countryman called it the “final rupture” leading up to war. Those who took up arms wanted popular democracy, and it affected the post-revolutionary drafting of state constitutions. They reflected “egalitarian and libertarian ideas that were spreading up and down the eastern seaboard.” They wanted popular liberty and drafted laws that limited executive powers, established unicameral legislatures or at least powerful lower houses, short terms of office to force elected officials to face voters more often, and essentially make government accountable to the people.

It alarmed the nation’s elites who, in turn, precipitated efforts to reform the new state constitutions and reign in their democratic excesses. Defeating England unleashed electorate demands, and they showed up in popular rebellions. They were fueled by postwar depression, debt, and legislative imposition of poll and property taxes on farmers. They petitioned for relief, got none, so armed mobs closed the courts to stop debtor suits and stave off foreclosure on their farms. Rebellions spread across New England with Daniel Shays leading the most famous one in 1786 and 1787. The rebels were dispersed, but they got amnesty, tax relief, and most imprisoned debtors were released.

Elites were alarmed, excess democracy had to be curbed, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention became the way to do it. There were other problems as well. The Articles of Confederation were unwieldy, had to be replaced, and a new document was needed that would last into “remote futurity” to serve the interests of “the (only) people” who mattered. They were established white male property owning delegates and members of state conventions who rammed the ratification process through in the face of a largely indifferent and uncomprehending populace left out entirely.

The challenge was to offer democratic concessions, create an appearance of democracy, but frame a document for rich property owners in charge of the process for their own self-interest. Only the privileged could vote. Women, blacks, Indians and children couldn’t and most who qualified didn’t bother. The process, and what it produced, showed operatively democracy is little more than fantasy, but it wasn’t designed to appear that way.

The “people” got to elect lower house members, who, in turn, elected senators to the upper chamber. The system stayed that way until the 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) allowed voters in each state to elect representatives to both Houses of Congress.

Also proposed was a chief executive, a national judiciary with a Supreme Court, and provisions for admitting new states with republican governments. In addition, the Constitution had procedures for amendments and much more, including terms of office and staggered elections to prevent too many officials being unseated at the same time. In the end, the final product was a bundle of compromises, yielded little of substance to “the people,” and assured power was left to the powerful.

The Constitution’s opening words were “We the people,” but, in fact, they were nowhere in sight. The framers “engineered a conservative counter-revolution….whose purpose….was to thwart the will of the people in whose will they acted.” Government under the new document was created to fill the vacuum created by the defeat of Great Britain. It restored the essential British commercial and financial system and put it under new management. Monarchal wrappings were removed, everything changed, and yet everything, in fact, stayed the same. Rarely, if ever, was there so much rebellion with so little cause, and with so little to show for it.

Consider the Constitution’s crowing achievement, at least so we’re told – the Bill of Rights. Adopting them made the difference to get 13 states to ratify the document and make it law. Their protections weren’t for “the people.” They were for the privileged who wanted:

— prohibitions against quartering troops in their property;

— unreasonable searches and seizures there as well;

— the right to have state militias protect them;

— the right to bear arms, but not the way the Second Amendment is today interpreted;

— – the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition – largely for the monied and propertied interests;

— due process of law with speedy public trials; and

— various other provisions worked out through compromise; two additional amendments were proposed but rejected; Jefferson and Madison wanted them; Adams and Hamilton were opposed; they would have banned monopolies and standing armies; in the end, the first 10 alone were adopted; we never saw what difference the other two might have made.

Piven’s main point isn’t that “constitution-making” limited “popular power.” It’s that “disruptive power challenges (of the time) could not be (entirely) ignored….” The founders established a republican government, popular liberties (to a degree) were conceded, and the idea (if not the reality) of the “consent of the governed” became a fundamental principle of political thought.

Further, in subsequent decades, suffrage expanded, taxpaying requirements replaced property ones, and these, too, were gradually eliminated. By the 1830s, most white men had the right to vote. It’s unlikely these changes would have happened under British rule. So while was no disagreement on how government was to be run, (in John Adams’ words, by “the rich, the well born, and the able,”) the mob, according to Piven, “played a large if convoluted role in the construction of a new state with at least some of the elemental features of democracy.”

Dissensus Politics, or the Interaction of Disruptive Challenges with Electoral Politics – The Case of the Abolitionist Movement

Piven defines “dissensus” as a tug of war between the need for political leaders to “mobilize majorities” and “disruptive challengers work(ing) to fragment them.” She also calls this “the key to understanding” disruptive protest power over public policy decisions. Political coalitions are at times fragile and vulnerable. When opposition to consensus surfaces and builds, it can be fractious, disruptive, and an “opening (to get) policy concessions on the (breakaway) movement’s issues.”

Case in point – “Abolitionism.” By one estimate, free blacks numbered around 59,000 in 1790. By the start of the Civil War, the total had increased eightfold to about 488,000. In the run-up the the Revolutionary War, slavery issues were contentious with hints early on about what later might develop.

In spite of owning slaves himself, Jefferson’s first Declaration of Independence draft included grievances against the Crown’s involvement in trafficking. Southern representatives took issue, the clause was dropped, and to build postwar consensus the South had to be reassured that their slave system would remain intact.

It led to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution saying that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of allocating congressional representation. According to historian Gary Wills: For southern states, this issue was “a nonnegotiable condition for their joining the Union” and with it they got “a large and domineering representation in Congress.”

Consider some other relevant facts:

— large slave owners had disproportionate power; they controlled state legislatures and selected senators;

— most American presidents until the Civil War were southerners and slaveholders (including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson);

— the first US 1790 census reported 757,000 blacks or nearly one-fifth of the total four million population;

— in 1807, Congress outlawed the importation of African slaves after 1808, yet trafficking illegally brought in another 250,000 until 1860;

— enacted slavery provisions were for the North as well as the South; only Pennsylvania and the New England states outlawed the practice; in 1787, most states were slave states, and the new Constitution protected their holdings;

— intersectional planter, commercial, banking and manufacturing interests tied the North and South together; slavery and cotton enriched the South, production boomed, and northern manufacturing also benefitted;

— the human bondage system affected radical abolitionists; they knew that ending slavery meant “overturning” the Constitution;

— to accommodate consensus politics, compromise was preferable to conflict; to protect the South from the majority nonslave North, “balanced” admission of new slave and free states was agreed on as well as a similar arrangement for presidential and vice-presidential tickets;

— nonetheless, compromises were fragile and sectional conflicts arose; one instance was over the Mexican War, annexation of Texas, and disposition of 650,000 square miles of new territory; neither side was satisfied even though compromise was achievable on matters of tariffs, centralized banking, internal improvements, and free western land.

Given the enormous costs of dissolution, why weren’t both sides committed to preventing it? Piven cites “the strident and disruptive abolitionist campaign with its demands for immediate emancipation. Abolitionism fractured….the sectional accord” that held disparate elements together – until 1860.

Who were the abolitionists? According to Howard Zinn, they were “editors, orators, run-away slaves, free Negro militants, and gun-toting preachers.” Together they “shaped….the movement and contributed to its disruptive power.” Its effects fractured intersectional parties, divided the nation, and led to the Civil War and legal emancipation.

“Evangelical revivalists” were committed to reform. They believed slavery was sinful, and would accept nothing less than ending it. In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison founded The Liberator. It became the voice of militant abolitionism. “Garrison was no gradualist.” He refused compromise and demanded “immediate and unconditional emancipation.”

Others were equally committed. They formed antislavery associations, edited papers, spoke publicly, and by 1841 claimed 200,000 members. Religious passion and enlightenment fervor spread throughout the North. In the South, it was opposed by “Southern rights” societies that used the Bible to claim “slavery fulfilled God’s purposes.” It produced schisms and strife, got Garrison paraded through Boston with a rope around his neck, and vigilante welcoming committees awaited northern abolitionists coming south.

Nonetheless, abolitionism grew, congressional antislavery petitions mounted, Congress claimed no authority to act, and thousands of slaves took matters into their own hands. They resisted by “evasion, sabotage, suicide, or running away.” There were also slave revolts – in 1800 in a march on Richmond; 1811 on a plantation near New Orleans; 1817 and 1818 in Florida; and Nat Turner and 70 other slaves in Virginia “kill(ing) all whites” and sparing no one.

Most disruptive was the Underground Railway with whites and free blacks involved. It defied federal antifugitive laws and freed tens of thousands of southern slaves. Abolitionist disruptions “inevitably penetrated electoral politics.” It fragmented both parties, made compromise impossible, and led to the emergence of the Republican Party. It opposed expanding slavery as new states entered the union, and in 1860 got Abraham Lincoln elected president. His platform – containing slavery and condemning threats of disunion as treason.

The South responded. Seven states seceded, Fort Sumpter was attacked, the Civil War began, four more slave states joined the others, and Lincoln committed to war to restore the union. As conflict wore on, its horrific toll drove him toward emancipation. Piven notes that the “insurrectionary role of the slaves….was probably critical to his decision.” During the war, hundreds of thousands of them refused to work, deserted plantations, and crippled the Confederacy’s ability to feed itself. In addition, around 200,000 slaves fought with the North, and their numbers were significant in achieving victory.

Abolitionism grew, southern secession spurred it, and in January 1865 Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery. Nominally, former slaves got more rights from the Fourteenth (due process and equal protection) and Fifteenth (forbidding racial discrimination in voting) Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

“Abolitionists had triumphed,” they did it through electoral politics by splitting the parties, yet their victory was limited. Post-emancipation, the movement “melted into the Republican Party,” southern and northern leaders became accommodative, and elites in the South “moved rapidly to restore their control over blacks.” Nonetheless, an impressive victory was won even if only marginally, and it would take another century before blacks got any of their constitutional rights.

Movements and Reform in the American Twentieth Century

Throughout American history, disruptive protests were common, yet rarely did any have a “big bang” effect. Decades elapsed between successful abolitionism and New Deal reforms. In the 20th century, Piven notes that almost all important labor, civil rights and social welfare legislation got passed in just two six-year periods – 1933 – 1938 and 1963 – 1968. There was one exception – the 1972 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly poor and people with disabilities.

Great Depression hard times spurred important reforms to provide emergency relief:

— the Civil Works Administration (CWA) for work relief; it reached 28 million people (22.2% of the population);

— overall social spending rose from 1.34% of GDP in 1932 to 5% by 1934 and showed that government works for the people when it wants to;

— the 1935 Social Security Act established the framework for all future income support programs – retirement benefits, unemployment, supplemental income, subsidized housing, and all categories of “welfare;”

— most entitlements expanded in the 1960s – old age pensions; unemployment insurance; quadrupling the numbers of women and children receiving Aid to Dependent Children; Medicare; Medicaid; new nutritional programs, including food stamps and school lunches; federal aid to education; and inner-city development through the Model Cities Act of 1966.

Overall in the 1960s, social spending rose from $37 billion to $140 billion in the post-1965 decade. By the mid-1970s, poverty levels were down from 20% in 1965 to 11%.

Each period also saw political rights expand. Mass strikes of the early 1930s produced the landmark 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). For the first time, it gave labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management and provided legal protections to strike actions. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established national minimum wages and maximum hours. These laws advanced worker rights over the next three decades.

In 1964, civil rights actions got the Twenty-Fourth Amendment passed. It prohibited poll taxes in federal elections, and along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act overrode state and local franchise restrictions that were in place in the South since Reconstruction. As Piven put it: The 1960s civil rights movement “finally won, a century later, the reforms first announced (but never gotten) in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.” In addition, the 1964 Equal Opportunity Act (antipoverty program) provided federal funds for poor communities.

Why these “big bangs” then and not at other times? It’s because they were gotten during periods of “mass disruption” that mobilized “interdependent power from below….” Veterans marched on Washington, rent strikes spread, people commandeered food, labor walkouts occurred, demonstrations demanded relief, so Roosevelt had to act. It wasn’t out of benevolence, and his 1932 platform showed it. It contained the same old 1920s planks that kept Republicans in power throughout the decade. Conditions now changed, disruptive protests demanded help, echoes of the 1917 Russian Revolution were still audible, so Roosevelt acted to save capitalism. He gave a little to save a lot for the privileged who understood the fragility of their position.

The 1960s saw other disruptive protests – this time by a massive black insurgency on one side against white southern “resistance” on the other. It came to a head in the mid-1960s in the form of civil disobedience. It began in the South, spread across the country, resulted in harsh police crackdowns, greater disruptive riots, and they forced the federal government to intervene. Turbulence, social unrest, and a climate of general crisis produced reforms to diffuse the disorder of the times.

Electoral forces also played a role the way Piven explains. She calls the “interplay between electoral shifts and political leaders….the most influential explanation of twentieth-century policy change.” Big bangs were “big electoral” ones. Two credible hypotheses explain how they occur:

— the “mobilization” thesis (during hard times) raising the level of voter turnout; new voters are key; they provide impetus for realignment under this theory; and

— the “conversion” thesis (also during hard times) detaching voters from their traditional Republican Party affiliation; here shifting loyalties explain it.

Either way, political leaders respond, strive to win and/or hold their support, and they enacted social relief measures in the 1930s and 1960s.

More is in play as well as voters by themselves have little influence over policy. In addition, politicians need broad majorities, and building them takes avoiding conflict, building consensus and striking familiar appeals for prosperity, God, country and family. As a result, electoral shifts alone don’t automatically produce bold new initiatives. In fact, they rarely do unless special times produce extraordinary responses. In the 1930s and 1960s, disruptive protests and potential institutional disorder got Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson to act quite differently than they would have had conditions been normal.

Under the right circumstances, protest movements are powerful and provide the impetus for social reform. “The urgency, solidarity, and militancy that conflict generates lends movements distinctive capacities as political communicators.” At least for a brief time, “marches, rallies, strikes and shutdowns can break the monopoly on political discourse otherwise held by politicians and the mass media.” They can bring vital issues to the fore and get politicians (out of fear) to address them. Potential or actual “voter dissensus is the main source of movement influence on public policy.” It was true in the 1930s, again in the 1960s, and the latter victories inspired other movements for women’s rights, the disabled, gays, lesbians, and so forth.

The Times-In-Between

Unfortunately, disruptive movements are short-lived. After a few years they pass as politicians mount rollback initiatives when the pressure is off and they’re able to do it. New state constitutions stripped away hard-won abolitionist reforms. Labor rights underwent a gradual erosion after peaking in the 1930s. Union membership declined from a post-war 34.7% high. It was 16.8% after the Reagan era and is currently around 12% overall today but only 7.4% in the private sector.

Social gains have also eroded, and now have Democrats as much against them as Republicans. Why so is the question? It’s because protest movements lose their energy when the reasons causing them subside. Further, it’s because internal movement dynamics are hard to sustain. They wane from exhaustion. Exhilaration can’t last forever. In addition, defiance entails costs and sacrifice. Strikers lose wages. Workers get fired. Plants relocate, and governments support business and sometimes with force.

Protests also fade when gains are won. They always fall short and yet fail to embolden more action. Movement leaders also get co-opted, become more conciliatory to management, get more enmeshed in party politics, and sometimes run for office at federal, state or local levels. Dissensus has its limits. Inevitably, gains come at the expense of concessions, the movement runs out of energy, disruption ebbs, and hard-won reforms get rolled back. Nonetheless, these are glorious times in our history, momentous advances get achieved, and the lesson is that at other times for other reasons it can happen again.

People in large numbers and with enough will have enormous power provided they use it. Nonetheless, it’s disconcerting that the Constitution was designed as a conservative document to protect what Michael Parenti calls “a rising bourgeoisie(‘s)” freedom to “invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate,” and to assure that (as John Jay believed) “The people who own the country (ought) to run it.”

After Reconstruction, Abolitionists lost out as well. Southern states regrouped, enacted new laws, and curbed the rights of newly freed blacks. The old planter class was gone but not its mentality. A new capitalist planter class replaced it, many from the North, and it proved easy for them to devise new ways to exploit cheap, vulnerable black labor.

The Supreme Court went along much the way it does today. In a number of decisions, it rolled back civil rights gains, including enough of the Fourteenth Amendment to restore near-total white supremacy in the South. Its 1896 “separate but equal” Plessy ruling added insult to its 1857 Dred Scott support for slavery.

Post-war, blacks were nominally free but light years from equality, and southern states intended to keep it that way. Property tests, poll taxes and literacy qualifications were imposed to enforce disenfranchisement. Jim Crow laws multiplied and lynchings became a way of life. Washington was dismissive.

Labor also lost out in the post-New Deal years. What the NLRA gave, Taft-Hartley and other regressive laws took back. Labor got progressively weaker, its leadership became part of the problem, while business ascended to omnipotence with plenty of friendly governments on its side. Early on, workers hoped the Democrat Party would represent them. How could it in the conservative (anti-labor) South and, in the North, where big city bosses ran things. Over time, business took over and effectively created a one-party state with “two right wings,” as Gore Vidal explains.

Post-WW II, Piven notes that America’s economic dominance was unchallenged for 25 years, so business opposition to New Deal gains was largely muted. But once Europe and Japan recovered, they became formidable competitors, profit margins got squeezed, and a conservative counterassault gained momentum to roll back earlier social gains. Piven cites four ways:

— a “war of ideas” beginning in the early 1970s with the formation of a right wing “message machine” – corporate-funded think tanks like Cato, Hoover, Heritage and AEI; they preached cutting social programs, weakening unions, ending costly regulations, military spending, tough law enforcement, privatizing everything, and using the dominant media for propaganda;

— building up a business lobbying capacity; “K Street” became a household term, and so is the “revolving door” arrangement between business and government;

— the growth of right wing populism, “rooted in fundamentalist churches” as part of the powerful Christian Right; also pro-life, defense-of-marriage and gun groups, along with others opposed to progressive ideas, racial and sexual liberalism, and the notion that public welfare is a good thing and government ought to provide it; in their best of all possible worlds, markets work best so let them, and democracy is only for the priviliged; and

— the effective merging of Republicans and Democrats into one pro-business party with each pretty much vying to outdo or outfox the other; it took Democrat Bill Clinton to “end welfare as we know it,” continue shifting more of the tax burden from the rich to workers, enact tough law enforcement measures, offer big giveaways to business, cut social benefits as much as Republicans, and pretty much make the 1990s a new golden age for Wall Street and the privileged. James Petras calls the decade “the golden age of pillage.”

George Bush then took over and went Clinton whole new measures better – declaring open warfare on workers, waging real wars on the world, enacting repressive police state laws, surrendering unconditionally to business, smashing every social service in sight, desecrating the environment, pretty much acting as despotic and vicious as the worst third world dictators, and getting away with it.

Since the early 1970s, and especially since Ronald Reagan, most notable in Piven’s mind is “the striking rise in wealth and income inequality” that economist Paul Krugman calls “unprecedented.” Moreover, “as wealth concentration grows, so does the arrogance and power that it yields to the wealth-holders to continue to bend government policies to their own interests.”

With business so omnipotent, government as its handmaiden, the scale of corruption extreme, the electoral process so flawed, it makes the task of redressing social gains lost formidable but not impossible.

Epilogue

Given the state of things, Piven poses the essential question – is another “popular upheaval” possible? She calls this “the big question for our time.” Nothing is certain or simple, but historically “hardship propels people to collective defiance,” especially in times of extreme inequalities of wealth. The current American era is the most extreme ever, so how long will people tolerate the decline in their standard of living as the rich grow richer and multi-billions go wars without end.

How does the Bush administration respond – with a dominant media “message machine” touting an “ownership society,” scaring people to accept the outlandish and fraudulent “war on terror,” blaming victims for their own misfortune, letting (Christian) faith-based groups take over welfare, preaching God and markets solve everything, and calling a lack of patriotism the equivalent of treason.

Piven, nonetheless, is hopeful. Independent polls show Bush’s approval at record lows as well as a large majority opposing the Iraq war. In addition, she sees “an intimate connection between what people think is possible in politics and what they think is right.” Popular aspirations tend to rise for what people believe is “evident” and “reach(able).”

So she asks: “What, then, are the prospects for the emergence of new social movements that mobilize disruptive power?” Global justice demonstrations in Seattle and around the world aren’t enough. Much more is needed. Labor must become resurgent, but it’s no simple matter doing it and without committed leadership impossible.

Yet it happened in the 1930s at a time of great need, and Piven suggests that “Maybe workers need to see the possibility of worker power again.” Activists and organizers must concentrate on “developing and demonstrating power strategies” for a “new economy” that’s increasingly service-based, high-tech and global.

Millions still live here, their standard of living is declining, business pretty much has it all, and it’s high time that changed. People have power but only if they use it. New times need “new forms of political action, new ‘repertoires’ that extend across borders and tap the chokepoints of new systems of production (and governance)” where they’re most vulnerable to mass disruption.

Piven closes by saying that history shows that “collective defiance” and its subsequent “disruption” have “always been essential to the preservation of democracy.” It’s no different today than it’s ever been, and that’s an idea to build on.

Torture Policies Undermine 9/11 Case

gitmo-torture.jpgBy Jason Leopold | The Pentagon’s decision to drop war-crimes charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks, again underscores the consequences of the Bush administration’s descent into torture and other abusive treatment of “war on terror” detainees.

If al-Qahtani’s case had gone forward, the U.S. government would have been forced to reveal its own violations of the Geneva Convention, anti-torture statutes and the laws of war, according to lawyers representing al-Qahtani.

“All of the [incriminating] statements Mohammad al-Qahtani made or is alleged to have made were the result of torture or made under the threat of torture and that is in my view why the government decided to dismiss his case at this point,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York.

CCR has been representing Mohammed al-Qahtani since 2005 and has led the legal battle for the human rights of detainees incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the last six years.

The harsh treatment of al-Qahtani was catalogued in an 84-page log of his interrogation that was leaked in 2006. The so-called “torture log” shows that beginning in November 2002 and continuing well into January 2003, al-Qahtani was subjected to sleep deprivation, interrogated in 20-hour stretches, poked with IV’s, and left to urinate on himself.

On Dec. 11, 2002, interrogators began to apply what they called the “pride and ego down approach,” subjecting him to religious and sexual humiliation, making him bark like a dog, and calling him “a pig” as he was made to pick up piles of trash with his hands cuffed.

According to one entry for Dec. 13, 2002, the interrogators sought to “escalate the detainee’s emotions.”

“A mask was made from an MRE [meals ready to eat] box with a smiley face on it and placed on the detainee’s head for a few moments. A latex glove was inflated and labeled the ‘sissy slap’ glove. This glove was touched to the detainee’s face periodically after explaining the terminology to him.

“The mask was placed back on the detainee’s head. While wearing the mask, the team began dance instruction with the detainee. The detainee became agitated and began shouting. The mask was removed and detainee was allowed to sit. Detainee shouted and addressed lead [interrogator] as ‘the oldest Christian here’ and wanted to know why lead allowed the detainee to be treated this way.”

The log contains numerous entries describing al-Qahtani’s reaction to the interrogations, as he cried, shook, moaned, yelled, prayed, cried out for Allah, trembled uncontrollably and asserted his innocence.

Psychological Trauma

According to a report by CCR attorneys, “on one occasion described in the interrogation log, Mr. al-Qahtani was rushed to a military base hospital when his heart rate fell dangerously low during a period of extreme sleep deprivation, physical stress and psychological trauma.

“The military flew in a radiologist from the U.S. Naval Station in Puerto Rico to evaluate the computed tomography (‘CT’ or ‘CAT’) scan. After being permitted to sleep a full night, medical personnel cleared Mr. al-Qahtani for further interrogation the next day. During his transportation from the hospital, Mr. al-Qahtani was interrogated in the ambulance.”

Legal experts, who have followed the al-Qahtani case since his capture in December 2001, say a core problem for the Pentagon was that the evidence against al-Qahtani was derived substantially from admissions that he made while under harsh interrogation.

There was also circumstantial evidence related to al-Qahtani’s attempt to enter the United States before the 9/11 attacks. An immigration official turned him back and U.S. government officials claim that action forced the 9/11 hijackers to proceed with only 19 participants.

Last February, the Pentagon announced its intention to pursue the death penalty against al-Qahtani and five other men for their alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

But on May 9, the Pentagon dismissed the case against al-Qahtani without explanation — and without prejudice, meaning that the charges could be reinstated at a later date. Though the charges were dropped, he will remain detained indefinitely at Guantanamo.

Al-Qahtani is believed to be one of the first detainees subjected to harsh questioning after the Justice Department issued a legal opinion in August 2002 permitting U.S. government interrogators to sidestep the Geneva Convention and use cruel and humiliating techniques, from forced nudity to stress positions to waterboarding, to extract information.

The Geneva Convention bars abusive or demeaning treatment of captives. However, John Yoo, then a senior lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that the Geneva Convention did not apply to alleged members of al-Qaeda.

As reported previously, specific interrogation methods used against al-Qahtani were approved by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a December 2002 action memorandum.

Months of Torture

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with CCR and the lead attorney defending al-Qahtani, said in a sworn declaration that his client, imprisoned at Guantanamo, was subjected to months of torture based on verbal and written authorizations from Rumsfeld.

“Mr. al-Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the ‘First Special Interrogation Plan,’” Gutierrez said. “Those techniques were implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantánamo, Major General Geoffrey Miller.

“These methods included, but were not limited to, 48 days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation, and threats with military dogs.”

Gutierrez’s claims about the type of interrogation al-Qahtani endured have since been borne out by the release of hundreds of pages of internal Pentagon documents, which described interrogation methods at Guantanamo, as well as by the findings of two independent reports on prisoner abuse.

Rumsfeld’s action memo was criticized by Alberto Mora, the former general counsel of the Navy.

“The interrogation techniques approved by the Secretary [of Defense] should not have been authorized because some (but not all) of them, whether applied singly or in combination, could produce effects reaching the level of torture, a degree of mistreatment not otherwise proscribed by the memo because it did not articulate any bright-line standard for prohibited detainee treatment, a necessary element in any such document,” Mora wrote in a 14-page letter to the Navy’s inspector general.

Additionally, a Dec. 20, 2005, Army Inspector General Report relating to the capture and interrogation of al-Qahtani included a sworn statement by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, who said Secretary Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in the interrogation of al-Qahtani and spoke “weekly” with Maj. Gen. Miller about the status of the interrogations between late 2002 and early 2003.

Last February, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) confirmed that it had launched a formal investigation to determine, among other issues, whether department attorneys provided the White House with poor legal advice when it said interrogators could use harsh interrogation methods against detainees.

CCR’s Warren said a trial of al-Qahtani would have forced the government to disclose how it obtained information from the defendant about alleged terrorist plans and the inner workings of al-Qaeda.

“We were pursuing the case that the government got evidence through torture,” Warren said. “The government would have to talk about how the information was obtained. That would never be able to survive in court because the torture log is clear that Mr. al-Qahtani provided information because he was being tortured.”

Warren said he wants the Pentagon to release al-Qahtani and have him sent to Saudi Arabia “where they have a system in place to maintain custody of any former Guantanamo detainee who presents a danger, as well as a strong rehabilitation program supervising those that are released.”

“It’s unlikely he would face torture or abuse on the magnitude Mr. al-Qahtani faced at Gitmo,” Warren said.

Guantanamo official says he’s not resigning

0

not-resigning.jpgAP | A Pentagon official said Wednesday he will not resign as legal adviser to war-crimes tribunals at Guantanamo, despite his removal from the trial of Osama bin Laden’s driver because of a lack of impartiality.

But Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann left open the possibility that he could step aside if questions about his neutrality bog down other cases.

“I am the legal adviser today. We take it one day at a time,” Hartmann said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Last week, a military judge barred Hartmann from participating in the case against Salim Hamdan – the Guantanamo inmate expected to be the first to go to trial – because he aligned himself too closely with prosecutors. Hartmann said he will abide by the judge’s ruling and noted that he did not testify in the Hamdan case.

Defense lawyers have signaled they will allege improper influence in other cases as well, meaning there could be a spate of setbacks for the already delayed war crimes tribunals.

Nonetheless, Hartmann said he remains focused on making progress in moving the tribunals forward, pointing to formal charges announced this week against confessed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators. Their arraignment has been scheduled for June 5 at the U.S. naval base in southeast Cuba.

“The focus should not go away from the fact that these five cases are going ahead jointly,” he said.

Hartmann supervises the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo and has extensive powers over the tribunal system in his role as adviser.

At an April 28 hearing at Guantanamo, former chief prosecutor Air Force Col. Morris Davis testified that Hartmann meddled in his office and pushed for certain cases to be pursued over others based on political considerations. Davis resigned in October.

But Hartmann said in the interview that he operated within his mandate by ensuring that prosecutors were properly trained and motivated in an office “that was not functioning at its peak.”

The U.S. says it plans to prosecute about 80 of the roughly 270 men held at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to terrorism, al-Qaida or the Taliban.

China Says Quake Death Toll Could Top 50,000

0

china-quake.jpgVOA News | China says nearly 400 dams and reservoirs near the epicenter of Monday’s deadly earthquake were damaged, triggering new worries as Chinese officials warned Thursday that the death toll could top 50,000.The military is in a race against time to rescue tens of thousands believed buried beneath the rubble from Monday’s quake. Officials in southwestern Sichuan province say the known death toll has risen to more than 19,500.

The official Xinhua news agency says troops have been sent to repair cracks in the Zipingpu Dam in Sichuan. China’s water minister says there are major safety issues with dams, reservoirs, and hydropower stations in the earthquake zone.

More than three days have passed since the 7.9 earthquake struck and authorities admit that hope is beginning to fade for those still buried.  

Xinhua says 44 counties and districts in Sichuan were severely hit and the strains from tens of thousands left homeless are growing. Some homeless residents are now beginning to complain about the government’s response time and lack of emergency supplies.

The government has sent some 130,000 troops to Sichuan and deployed 101 more helicopters to airlift victims and drop emergency supplies to quake survivors. 

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies have issued an emergency appeal for medical help, food, water and tents. World Bank President Robert Zoellick said the institution was ready to help the Chinese government with recovery and reconstruction.

Landslides that once blocked access to the hard-hit areas of Wenchuan and Beichuan County have now been cleared, allowing hundreds of workers to finally reach the areas.

The Chinese government has made a rare public appeal for donations of equipment to help with the rescue effort, such as hammers and shovels. Some rescuers have been digging through mountains of rubble with nothing but their hands.

Thursday, a professional emergency relief team from Japan left for China’s earthquake-hit areas. The 30 member team will arrive in Sichuan’s provincial capital, Chengdu, Friday and appears to be the first foreign rescue team to be allowed to help out on the ground.

McCain: Most Troops Will Be Home by 2013

0

mccain.jpgSenator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops will be home from Iraq by 2013 and that Iraq will be a functioning democracy with only “spasmodic’’ episodes of violence, a striking departure from his refusal so far to set a date for U.S. withdrawal.In a speech in the heart of Ohio, a major battleground state in the fall election, Mr. McCain set forth a sweeping, extraordinarily positive vision of what the world will look like 2013, when he says he will have been in the White House for four years.

“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom,’’ Mr. McCain said at the Columbus Convention Center. “The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.’’

The United States, Mr. McCain added, “maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.’’

During his primary battle, Mr. McCain frequently accused Mitt Romney of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, a charge Mr. Romney denied.

In comments to reporters after his speech, Mr. McCain insisted that his speech should not be interpreted as setting a date for withdrawal, and that he was simply projecting victory in Iraq. He took issue with a reporter who characterized his speech as a “magic carpet ride,’’ saying: “I don’t think it has anything to do with fantasy, I think it has everything to do with setting goals and achieving.’’

In his speech, Mr. McCain also projected that “concerted action’’ by the world’s democracies will have persuaded Russia and China to cooperate in persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and North Korea to discontinue its own.

In Afghanistan, he said, an increase in actionable intelligence will have led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and “there is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven.’’ He added: “There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001.’’

On domestic policy, Mr. McCain projected that the United States will have experienced several years of “robust economic growth;’’ a reduction in the corporate tax rate; and the beginning of a phase out of the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. McCain also pledged to appoint Democrats to his administration, hold weekly press conferences and take questions in Congress, much as the prime minister of Great Britain does in Parliament.

In a clear criticism of President Bush, Mr. McCain also said that “when we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them.’’

The Democrats responded that Mr. McCain was living in a dream world.

“The reality behind Senator McCain’s new rhetoric is that his plans either ignore the problems he identifies or actually makes them worse,’’ Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement shortly before Mr. McCain began his speech.

Elisabeth Bumiller

Watchdog: European DNA Database a Potential Nightmare

2

eu-dna.jpg

By Mick Meaney – RINF | Speaking at a news conference, European Data Protection Supervisor, Peter Hustinx, raised concerns over the European DNA Database, criticising its lack of safeguards to protect tourists and the public travelling around the EU.

“In some cases it will be a nightmare not only for citizens but also law enforcement authorities. What might have been done responsibly has not been done well,” said Mr Hustinx.

“Tourists could find themselves suspects in a cross-border criminal investigation merely for having had a drink at a motorway service station,” he said.

He criticised Germany saying: “I’m afraid we can’t do much to repair the problem. I found it regrettable that the Germany Presidency used the dynamics of the presidency to get something adopted that should not have been adopted in this way. The safeguards are not clear, harmonised or even available.”

Germany held the rotating EU presidency at the time, which meant the rules were adopted in just four months, making the European Union rush through the procedure at the expense of safety.

The rules, as agreed by interior ministers in 2007, allow police to identify a suspect from hair, fingernails or sperm and will be able to check DNA data gathered in other EU member states.

Commenting on Mr Hustinx’s statement, a German official said: “The data protection safeguards were based on a model used by seven countries – Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, France and Spain – in a pilot of the DNA-sharing scheme, and they were regarded as adequate.”

According to Mr Hustinx the model “did not address differences in various EU national legislations was too complex to function efficiently.”

Top Activist’s Detention Blot on Democracy

1

binayaksen.jpgBy Praful Bidwai | Protests are mounting all over the world against the year-long detention of Dr. Binayak Sen, a distinguished Indian human rights and health activist, under draconian laws in the central state of Chhattisgarh.

Sen, national vice president and Chhattisgarh general secretary of the well-known People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), was arrested under allegations of helping left-wing extremists, known in this country as Naxalites.

The charges shocked human rights organisations and citizens’ groups, which on independent investigation, have found them totally fictitious. They believe that the Chhattisgarh government filed them to harass Sen and set a horribly negative example for all civil liberties activists and intimidate them.

Sen is probably India’s first human rights defender to have faced such prolonged detention.

Sen’s detention raises serious questions about the content and quality of democracy in India, and the state’s failure to respect liberties and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It also points to links between human rights violations and the government’s social and economic policies.

The protestors are demanding Sen’s unconditional release, repeal of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005, (PSA), and the disbanding of a state-sponsored right-wing militia called Salwa Judum, which has been rampaging through the state killing and maiming people in the guise of fighting Naxalites.

On Sunday, when Sen’s detention completed one full year, poets, artists, musicians, theatre personalities, social scientists and writers, including the award-winning novelist Arundhati Roy, joined hands with social activists in 15 Indian cities, including Raipur, Sen’s hometown and Chhattisgarh’s capital.

As many as 48 international organisations such as Amnesty International and citizens’ groups based in the West also organised demonstrations or vigils in nine cities in the United States, including New York, Washington, San Francisco and Boston, and in London, Paris and Stockholm

Meanwhile, 22 Nobel laureates from the world over have called for Sen’s release so that he can receive in person the prestigious Jonathan Mann award for health and human rights, an “international honour that will be bestowed for the first time on a citizen of India”.

The award is due to be presented in two weeks by the Global Health Council (GHC), an alliance of medical organisations and professionals, in Washington, DC.

In a letter to India’s President Pratibha Patil, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh, the Nobel Prize winners have expressed “grave concern that Dr Sen appears to be incarcerated solely for peacefully exercising his fundamental right, in contravention of Articles 19 (freedom of opinion and ex-pression) and 22 (freedom of association) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, which India has signed.

The letter also says that the two internal security laws under which Sen was charged, the PSA and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 2004, “do not comport with international human rights standards”.

The PSA criminalises even peaceful activity and protest, by declaring it “a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity”, because it might interfere with or “tends to interfere with the maintenance of public order… the administration of law or its… institutions”, and encourages or preaches “disobedience to established law and its institutions.”

Under these laws, Sen can be awarded the death penalty or life imprisonment. Among the charges he faces are being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation, knowingly holding the proceeds of terrorism, sedition, abetting unlawful activity, undermining public safety, and conspiracy to wage war against the state.

These charges hinge on one allegation by the police: namely, that Sen visited a detained and ailing Naxalite leader, Narayan Sanyal, in Raipur prison 33 times, and allegedly passed notes from him to his collaborators outside jail through a Kolkata-based businessman, Piyush Guha.

But Guha has denied that he received any letter from Sanyal, and said and that he signed a false confession under duress. During the trial, which began after long delays on April 30, key witnesses failed to corroborate the police version or turned hostile.

“As for the numerous visits to meet Sanyal, that cannot be a charge at all,” says Prashant Bhushan, a public interest lawyer based in Delhi. “It was entirely in Sen’s line of work both as a civil rights defender and a physician. Besides, the visits were not surreptitious or illegal. They took place with the permission of and under the supervision of the jail authorities”.

During a visit paid to Sen last September in the same prison IPS found it impossible — given the small size of the room and the eagle eyes of the officials — to smuggle out a piece of paper. All conversation is audible to the wardens.

Kavita Srivastava, Jaipur-based national general secretary of PUCL, holds that Sen was singled out by the Chhattisgarh government partly because he was trying to expose the brutality and outright criminality of the vigilante Salwa Judum group, armed and trained by the state.

Salwa Judum has perpetrated gruesome atrocities against ordinary citizens, besides Naxalites and their suspected sympathisers. It has burned down entire villages in Chhattisgarh’s dirt-poor southern districts, populated by acutely disadvantaged Adivasis or indigenous tribals.

The militia’s campaign of violence has turned nearly 100,000 people into refugees. But both the Chhattisgarh the central government continue to shield, support, finance and encourage it.

They recently told India’s Supreme Court that Salwa Judum is the only means available to them to counter Naxalite violence. The court has not yet pronounced judgement on a public interest petition filed by reputed academics demanding the disbanding of the militia.

Recently, Manmohan Singh described left-wing extremism as “the greatest internal security threat” facing India and promised to crush it. He said his government would not rest until the virus of Naxalism is eliminated.

His government pledged to spend over 750 million US dollars on fighting it. But its efforts have failed to contain the movement. Over the past two years, more people have been killed in Naxalite-related violence, including police counter-violence, than in Kashmir or India’s turbulent Northeast.

Chhattisgarh is the worst example of the failure of the state’s strategy of combating left-extremism exclusively by unleashing state repression against unarmed civilians.

Sen was trained as a paediatrician at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, and has devoted most of adult life to improving the health and living conditions of the very poor in the Adivasi districts of Chhattisgarh, besides defending the civil liberties of wretchedly poor and exploited people.

Sen’s organisation, ‘Rupantar’, has run a clinic for 10 years in Dhamtari district. He has done exemplary voluntary work in the Gandhian mould in providing primary and preventive healthcare to people long deprived of access to any health facilities, especially from the state.

There are no medical personnel in the area, often not even a chemist within a 30-kilometre distance. Even in emergencies, the public is forced to depend on quacks, and corrupt, apathetic, incompetent, and usually missing, government employees.

Rupantar’s clinic offers a range of services at nominal cost, including rapid testing for the deadly Falciparum strain of the malaria parasite, which has saved scores of lives. These services are provided through local “barefoot doctors”, who give the public invaluable advice on nutrition and preventive medicine.

Sen appears to have been victimised precisely because he formed a bridge between the human rights movement and other civil society organisations, and created a forum of empowerment for Chhattisgarh’s disadvantaged people.

The state government, whose very existence is premised upon the rapacious exploitation of the indigenous Adivasis and the staggering natural wealth of Chhattisgarh –and whose primary function is to subserve big business, forest contractors and traders — is loath to tolerate such individuals.

Chhattisgarh has an egregious recent history of repression. One of India’s most creative trade unionists, Shankar Guha Niyogi, who ignited a mass awakening on social, cultural and economic issues, was assassinated at the behest of the state’s powerful and politically well-connected industrialists in 1991. They still roam free.

Chhattisgarh has among India’s worst indices of wealth maldistribution and income inequality. Some of its rural regions present a dismal picture of malnutrition, starvation deaths, illiteracy, and severe scarcity of safe drinking water. Some have suffered a rise in infant mortality.

The literacy rate among tribals here is less than one-third the national average –just 30 percent for men and 13 percent for women. Of the 1,220 villages of one district (Dantewada), 214 have no primary school..

But the state’s cities are booming with ostentatious affluence, spanking new hotels and glittering shopping malls.

The difference in life-expectancy between an advanced state like Kerala and tribal Chhattisgarh is a shocking 18 years. The two regions could well belong to different continents like Europe and Africa.

Chhattisgarh is extraordinarily rich in forests and in mineral wealth, including high-quality iron ore, bauxite, dolomite, quartzite, granite, corundum, precious stones, gold, diamonds and tin ore, besides limestone and coal.

This wealth has been voraciously extracted. But it has produced virtually no gains for the local population.

“Naxalism has thrived in Chhattisgarh as a response, albeit an irrational and violent one, to this obnoxious system of exploitation, dispossession and outright loot,” says Rajiv Bharagava, a political scientist at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. “In Chhattisgarh, the state has collapsed as a provider of public services and a relatively impartial guardian of the law. The Naxalites flourish because the state has failed.”

“This is a terrible comment on India’s democracy,” adds Bhargava. ”Democracy isn’t only about elections. Unless it has accountable institutions and a system of rights, it loses much of its meaning.”

White House denied knowledge of military analyst program

0

white-house.jpgBy Eric Brewer | In the two weeks since I asked Dana Perino whether the White House knew about or approved of the Pentagon’s use of TV military analysts as propaganda tools, I’ve been back to the briefing room three times (May 6, 12, and 13) to try to ask a follow-up question. As is her wont, Dana has refused to call on me.I had been intending to essentially repeat my question, since I’ve been under the impression that she hadn’t answered it the first time. But on Tuesday, Glenn Greenwald pointed out that Perino did answer the question back on April 30. Although I didn’t realize this when I filed my last story, as seen in this video clip of the exchange, the White House press secretary did indeed provide a specific response.

I had repeated my question as she walked away from the podium, “Did the White House know about the program?” And on her way out of the room, Perino answered, “I just said: no.”

(I just rechecked my own tape recording of the briefing, and that is what she said. I apologize profusely for leaving this crucial detail out of my earlier article.)

Of course, in her earlier answer, she really hadn’t just said no–she’d said only, “I didn’t know.” But her denial of White House knowledge during that parting shot is very interesting, for reasons that Greenwald points out in the same post I linked to above: Glenn publishes emails from Pentagon officials dealing with the military analyst program that refer to weekly meetings with “karl,” to having the analysts briefed by Bush’s National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and even to getting the analysts “in with potus” himself (that’s POTUS, or the President of the United States). As Glenn sums up, rather understatedly I believe:

So in the process of discussing how to keep “their” TV military analysts “on message” regarding claims about the Iraq war, they talked about efforts to have both Stephen Hadley and Bush himself speak with the analysts — proposals that had been discussed with “karl” (which, clearly, in this case, means Rove). That means Perino’s denial was false and that the White House had at least some knowledge of and involvement in this propaganda program.

Uh oh. Dana has denied something that is clearly true. And it’s looking more and more as if the legal opinion that she expressed about the Pentagon’s propaganda program, “I don’t think that that should be against the law,” is just whistling in the dark.

The preceding article was a White House report from Eric Brewer, who will periodically attend White House press briefings for Raw Story. Brewer is also a contributor at BTC News. He was the first person to ask about the Downing Street memo at a White House briefing.

President Bush should be impeached for war crimes

1

bushpoll08.jpgBy Bill Wickersham | Bill Wickersham is an adjunct professor of Peace Studies at MU, a member of Veterans for Peace and a member of the national steering committee of Global Action to Prevent War.In June 2004, the Bush Administration issued a statement that detailed its rationale and legal stance for denying terror suspects the protection of international humanitarian law. The statement included hundreds of pages of White House communications intended to counter widespread criticism that George W. Bush had personally endorsed the plans used to justify the interrogation abuses of U.S. prisoners held in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and other worldwide locations. At that time Bush said, “I have never ordered torture.” Ordered or not, it is now clear from recent reports that Bush was well aware of, and approved plans for, the questioning of known and alleged al-Qaida prisoners being held by the CIA.

On April 9, 2008, ABC News reported that Bush’s National Security Council Principals Committee had dozens of top-secret talks and meetings at the White House to review interrogation procedures to be used by the CIA on al-Qaida suspects. Condoleezza Rice chaired the committee, which included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Collin Powell, George Tenet and John Aschroft. According to ABC, the principals discussed and approved specific details of “enhanced interrogation techniques” – “CIA-Speak” and “Pentagonese” for torture, including face slapping, pushing, sleep deprivation and the simulated drowning technique known as “waterboarding.”

According to a recent article by Dan Eggen of the Washington Post, Bush publicly defended the principals’ torture policies and decisions saying, “Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people. And, yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue, and I approved.” As previously noted, Condoleezza Rice chaired the Principals Committee and played a key role in development of policies that cleared the way for U.S. torture practices. In 2004, the CIA sought additional assurance by the administration for use of torture on “high value” CIA captured suspects. In addressing this episode, ABC News reported about Rice: “Despite growing policy concerns – shared by Powell – that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, … (she) did not back down, telling the CIA: ‘This is your baby; Go do it.’”

When stories regarding detainees at the Abu Grahib prison in Iraq became public, blame for the illegal crimes was placed on “a few rotten apples in the barrel,” low-ranking U.S. soldiers, some of whom are now serving jail sentences. It is now very clear that there were also “bad apples” in barrels at the White House, the Pentagon and in Langley, Va., at CIA headquarters. Much of the torture that has occured is the result of orders fully approved by the White House. Thus, the neo-conservative Bush administration, which purportedly invaded and occupied Iraq to free its people of Saddam’s heinous atrocities, is now guilty of its own, including the killing of innumerable Iraqi citizens via aerial bombardment and house-to-house invasions.

In addressing the torture policies of the National Security Council Principals Committee, University of Illinois Professor Francis A. Boyle, one of the world’s foremost authorities on international humanitarian law, said, “Clearly this was criminal activity at the time they committed it. At the very least, it violated the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, The War Crimes Act, and the federal anti-torture statutes. Clearly these are impeachable offenses.”

Given the “high crimes” committed by top administration officials in violation of the U.S. Constitution, what is to be done? >From the first revelations of the Bush/Cheney war crimes, many writers, including Professor Boyle and I, have strongly called for impeachment of the president. Thus far, Nancy Pelosi and other key members of Congress have failed to live up to their oath of office by failing to defend the Supreme Law of the Land. On June 10, 2008, Missourian writer David Rosman wrote a very informative piece citing many reasons to avoid the impeachment process. However, I continue to disagree with Rosman’s position that somehow health care, deficit spending, education, trade, the war and so on take precedence over concern for criminal violations of the basic provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including Article VI section 2 of that revered document. In terms of war, there would have been no war had Bush fulfilled his obligation to defend the Constitution. And the impeachment process, even without conviction of the president and vice-president, would offer a warning to future U.S. leaders that they must obey the laws of war.

Having said this, I certainly do agree with Rosman’s view that “when Bush and Cheney are once again civilians, then file criminal charges against the former holders of the executive office for treason and high crimes against the people. Jail time sounds so much better.” I favor impeachment and jail time for Bush and Cheney and the filing of criminal charges against all of the top officials involved in the planning and approval of prisoner interrogation crimes.

Bill Wickersham is an Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies at MU, a member of Veterans for Peace and a member of the national steering committee of Global Action to Prevent War.

Columbia Missourian, MO

Blair recalls despair at Bush’s victory

2

blair-recalls.jpgPress TV | Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s wife says they watched in distress as George Bush won the US presidential election in 2000. In an autobiography entitled “Speaking For Myself,” which was published Wednesday, Cherie Blair wrote “I think it’s fair to say that our hearts sank when the result was finally ratified.”

“George is actually a very funny, charming man with a quirky sense of humor,” said the autobiography which is being serialized in The Times of London newspaper.

“The reason he gets a bad press, he says, is ‘because I talk Texan’,” added Blair who described the US first lady, Laura, as ‘a very warm, genuine person’.

Tony Blair faced widespread criticism inside and outside of Britain because of his relationship with Bush, namely over his government’s support for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Following the decision, critics called the British prime minister ‘Bush’s poodle’ as he suffered a nosedive in his popularity ratings.

Domestic Spying Far Outpaces Terrorism Prosecutions

0

domestic-spying.jpgBy Richard B. Schmitt | The number of Americans being secretly wiretapped or having their financial and other records reviewed by the government has continued to increase as officials aggressively use powers approved after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the number of terrorism prosecutions ending up in court — one measure of the effectiveness of such sleuthing — has continued to decline, in some cases precipitously.

The trends, visible in new government data and a private analysis of Justice Department records, are worrisome to civil liberties groups and some legal scholars. They say it is further evidence that the government has compromised the privacy rights of ordinary citizens without much to show for it.

The emphasis on spy programs also is starting to give pause to some members of Congress who fear the government is investing too much in anti-terrorism programs at the expense of traditional crime-fighting. Other lawmakers are raising questions about how well the FBI is performing its counter-terrorism mission.

The Senate Intelligence Committee last week concluded that the bureau was far behind in making internal changes to keep the nation safe from terrorist threats. Lawmakers urged that the FBI set specific benchmarks to measure its progress and make more regular reports to Congress.

These concerns come as the Bush administration has been seeking to expand its ability to gather intelligence without prior court approval. It has asked Congress for amendments to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it clear that eavesdropping on foreign telecommunications signals routed through the U.S. does not require a warrant.

Law enforcement officials say the additional surveillance powers have been critically important in ways the public does not always see. Threats can be mitigated, they say, by deporting suspicious people or letting them know that authorities are watching them.

“The fact that the prosecutions are down doesn’t mean that the utility of these investigations is down. It suggests that these investigations may be leading to other forms of prevention and protection,” said Thomas Newcomb, a former Bush White House national security aide. He said there were half a dozen actions outside of the criminal courts that the government could take to snuff out potential threats, including using diplomatic or military channels.

Although legal experts say they would not necessarily expect the number of prosecutions to rise along with the stepped-up surveillance, there are few other good ways to measure how well the government is progressing in keeping the country safe.

“How does one measure the success? The short answer is we aren’t in a great position to know,” said Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor. With prosecutions declining, he said, the public is left with imperfect and possibly misleading ways to gauge progress in the Bush administration’s war on terrorism — such as the number of secret warrants the government issues or the number of agents it assigns to terrorism cases.

“These are the only tracks in the snow left by terrorism investigations, if there are no more counter-terrorism prosecutions,” Richman said. “This is why, more than ever, there is a pressing need for congressional oversight, for accountability at the top of the [Justice] department, and for public confidence in the department.”

Changing numbers

A recent study showed that the number of terrorism and national security cases initiated by the Justice Department in 2007 was more than 50% below 2002 levels. The nonprofit Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which obtained the data under the Freedom of Information Act, found that the number of cases brought declined 19% in the last year alone, dropping to 505 in 2007 from 624 in 2006.

By contrast, the Justice Department reported last month that the nation’s spy court had granted 2,370 warrant requests by the department to search or eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and spies in the U.S. last year — 9% more than in 2006. The number of such warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has more than doubled since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The department also reported a sharp rise in the use of national security letters by the FBI — from 9,254 in 2005 to 12,583 in 2006, the latest data available. The letters seek customer information from banks, Internet providers and phone companies. They have caused a stir because consumers do not have a right to know that their information is being disclosed and the letters are issued without court oversight.

The inspector general of the Justice Department has found numerous cases in which FBI agents failed to comply with rules and guidelines in issuing the letters, often gaining access to information they were not entitled to. The FBI has responded by taking a number of measures to tighten its internal procedures.

Civil liberties groups say the new data reveal a disturbing consequence of the government’s post-Sept. 11 expanded surveillance capabilities.

“The number of Americans being investigated dwarfs any legitimate number of actual terrorism prosecutions, and that is extremely troubling — for both the security and privacy of innocent Americans as well as for the squandering of resources on people who have not and never will be charged with any wrongdoing,” said Lisa Graves, deputy director of the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington-based civil liberties group.

A mixed record

But Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman, said statistics on court-approved FISA applications and statistics on criminal prosecution were “apples and oranges.”

“There are a variety of factors that may account for the increase in court-approved FISA applications since 9/11,” he said. Boyd said he could not comment on those factors, but said, “It is important to remember that surveillance under FISA is authorized by an independent court and used carefully and judiciously to protect the country from national security threats.”

Certainly, the government has pursued a number of high-profile terrorism cases of late. A U.S. sailor was convicted in March of providing support to terrorists by passing classified information regarding movements of a Navy battle group to operators of an Internet site suspected of terrorist leanings.

The record in court has been somewhat mixed, however. Federal prosecutors in Miami twice have failed to secure verdicts in the cases of six men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago’s Sears Tower and several FBI offices. After two mistrials, the “Liberty City Seven” case is due in court in January.

Even some former government officials concede many intelligence investigations fail to yield evidence of a serious threat to the U.S. “Most of these threats ultimately turn out to be wrong, or maybe just the investigating makes them go away,” said Washington lawyer Michael Woods, former head of the FBI national security law unit. “A lot more information is going to pass through government hands, and most of that is going to be about people who turn out to be innocent or irrelevant.”

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

Your Privacy for Sale: Internet Providers Cash In

9

sellingyourprivacy.jpg

UPDATE: Thanks to information obtained by RINF readers, it appears Virgin Media are trying to distance themselves from Phorm.

Virgin Media stated: “Virgin Media has signed a preliminary agreement with Phorm to understand in more detail how this technology works but we have not yet decided if it will be introduced. This information has been clarified to ensure our customers have the full picture.”

However, Phorm had this to say: “We announced exclusive agreements with three major UK ISPs — BT, Talk Talk and Virgin Media, which represent nearly 70 per cent of the UK internet market, to adopt our online advertising platform, the Open Internet Exchange (OIX), and a consumer internet feature, Webwise.

“Implementation is on track and consumer trials are expected to begin in the near term, followed by roll-out across these networks.”

—–

By Mick Meaney – RINF | A new system that monitors your Internet activity in detail, and is possibly illegal under UK data protection laws, could be in widespread use within months.

Phorm, the company which developed the software, aims to provide detailed targeted-ads by building up surfer profiles from scanning every data packet on TCP Port 80. It is estimated that over ten million customers will be affected.

BT have used this software which scans and intercepts all internet traffic on a customer’s broadband connection, feeding back data to Phorm’s advertising network, the Open Internet Exchange, about which “keywords” were used by the customer.

The revenue gained will be an estimated £85m by 2010 for BT alone as the software sits on the ISP’s servers, which prevents Internet users from switching off the program.

The comparison between traditional Internet advertising services and Phorm has been described as “Checking which phone numbers someone has called and actually listening in to every word of every conversation.”

BT also carried out secret trails without informing their customers. Government experts stated this was a breach of criminal law yet the British Government has refused to investigate the covert wiretapping of thousands during 2006 and 2007.

Pete John, who raised the issue with the authorities, stated: “BT and Phorm seem to be above the law. No one wants responsibility for enforcing complaints against ISPs. ICO say the Home Office. The Police say the Home Office. The Home Office say they have no investigative role.”

UK gets new James Bond-style data centre

0

datacenter.jpgBy Nicole Kobie | SAVVIS’ new data centre will use biometrics, weight-sensitive entrance floor panels, bullet-proof glass, ‘man traps’ and CCTV for security.

A newly-announced UK data centre set to open at the end of the year will feature top end physical security straight out of a spy film.

Set to open in the fourth quarter of this year, SAVVIS’ new data centre will be sited in Slough.

The data centre will include physical security features such as biometric entrance scanning, weight sensitive entrance floor panels, bullet-proof glass, always-on CCTV across the site, and a little something called ‘man traps’ – essentially a space between two doors where people are held if they aren’t authorised for access. Might not be enough to stop James Bond or Jason Bourne from sneaking through, but thankfully they’re fictional.

“Data centres are expensive to build and the data they hold is very important data,” Richard Warley, international managing director for SAVVIS, told IT PRO. “We do have a lot of customers in the financial sector and they look for physical and logical security.”

The facility will be connected to SAVVIS data centres near Reading and at London’s Docklands for disaster recovery and business continuity purposes. The first phase will cost £35 million pounds and cover 36,500 square feet on the first floor of the building, said Warley. The second phase will offer another 30,000 square feet on the ground floor.

SAVVIS offers technology-agnostic managed hosting and network services to companies in financial sector, media and entertainment and others. The firm offers the basic option of renting space as well as fully managed services and specialised utility-based services.

The firm said the financial services sector – including SAVVIS’ customers like the London Stock Exchange – are demanding more space and closer proximity to the grid.

The data centre is one of several the firm has built recently across Europe, Asia and North America as part of a two-year, $400 million (£205 million) investment.

MoD begins full UFO-files public release

4

mod.jpgBy Lewis Page | The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has begun releasing its voluminous files regarding unidentified flying objects, aerial phenomena, possible alien visitations etc. The documents will all become available to the public via the National Archives over the next three years.

UFOs of various kinds have been sighted and reported to the MoD and its predecessors for at least a hundred years. In general, the number and nature of sightings is much more affected by things such as movie releases or war scares than by any other apparent factor, all the way back to the “Phantom airships” widely reported in the UK before and during World War One – when panic about German zeppelins was at its height.

Many of the MoD’s UFO files – including, probably, most of the good stuff – have already been revealed under Freedom of Information Act requests. In particular, the splendid conspiracy fodder surrounding the Rendlesham Forest incident of 1980 (“Britain’s Roswell”) has long been available, full of mysterious lights, strange marks left in the ground and traces of radiation. Even better, the cameras recording the British air-defence radar picture were switched off at the time, indicating an almost certain government conspiracy.

Anyway, the previously unseen bumf is all coming out from the National Archives here. The files will be free for a month after each one is released, after which there will be a fee for access, so enthusiasts should keep checking back and downloading the stuff as it comes out. (Be warned though, the MoD says upfront that it has never found any solid evidence of aliens, secret American hypersonic stealth spyplanes or anything else good.)

After three years, if you keep it up, you’ll be the proud owner of a complete uk.gov UFO archive.

Or, depending on your viewpoint, <tinfoil>you’ll be the owner of the biggest and most comprehensive cover-up ever compiled</tinfoil>. ®

Ex-Guantanamo detainees to sue US

guantanamo-sue.jpgBy Akhtar Amin | Two former Guantanamo Bay prisoners from Sudan, who were picked up from Peshawar, are demanding an apology and planning to sue the United States after spending five years behind bars at the US detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“We were detained for five years in Guantanamo. So many innocent prisoners were discharged over the past two years without giving any explanation after keeping them for years behind bars. But, we will sue the US for an apology and compensation,” said the two Sudanese nationals, Salim Mahmud Adam and Adel Hasan Hamad. Both were picked up in Peshawar on suspicion of having links with Al Qaeda. They were released from Guantanamo Bay five years later.

“We are planning to sue the US with the help of human rights groups,” said Adam. The Sudanese teacher told Daily Times that on May 27, 2002, when he opened the door of his house in the early morning hours, officials of “Pakistani intelligence agencies” handcuffed him immediately.

“At 1am they surrounded my house from all sides. My wife was pregnant at the time, but they showed no mercy,” said Adam, who was the principal of an orphanage school and residing in Hayatabad at the time. “I was blindfolded and taken into custody,” he said. He said he was interrogated before being shifted to Bagram, another notorious US detention camp and airbase in Afghanistan.

“My torture ordeal began early in Bagram and interrogations would sometimes last for three to four hours,” he said, adding that two months later, along with other Al Qaeda suspects, he was shifted to Guantanamo, “an inhuman place”.

He recalled the harsh interrogations, beating and screams of fellow detainees, and the loud music played at prayer times. Some interrogators, he said, would tell him they knew he was innocent, but this was a political game. Like Adam, compatriot Adel Hasan Hamad, 50, will always remember the day he was arrested in Pakistan, on July 18, 2002. He was working in a private hospital in Peshawar as an administrator.

Leaving his family back in his homeland, Hamad came to Pakistan on July 16, 2002. “I only wanted to help refugees in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said. Two days after my arrival, I was arrested, he added. He said “Pakistani intelligence officers” accompanied by an American official woke him up, told him not to move and asked for his travel documents.

Hamad said he was taken to a Pakistani prison, where he was held for over six days and questioned by intelligence officials.

Along with three others, handcuffed and blindfolded, he was boarded onto an American military plane headed for Bagram, a stopover for most people headed to Guantanamo. “There they started beating us,” he said. US soldiers and officials subjected him to constant interrogation, often coupled with beatings, verbal abuse and threats. “They would not let us sleep,” he added. After two months of repeated interrogation and punishment, he was shipped to Guantanamo, he said.

In Guantanamo, Hamad was again subjected to daily interrogation. Sometimes, twice a day. “They accused me of helping the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” he said. “I asked how so? They said that they learnt it through secret information”. However, charges were not officially levelled against him, he added.

In 2004, Hamad and Adam said they appeared before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that cleared them of charges of being enemy combatants. However, it was not until September 2007 that a military court finally cleared them of charges of posing a threat to the United States.

They said the US had declared all Guantanamo detainees “unlawful enemy combatants” to deny them legal rights under the American legal system. Only three of about 750 people sent to Guantanamo since 2002 have faced formal charges.

Around 400 prisoners have been discharged over the past two years, but without any explanations offered for why they were detained, they said. Hamad was told that his daughter Fida passed away while he was languishing in Guantanamo. His family, which lost its source of income after Hamad was picked up, could not afford treatment for her after she became unwell. Adam is back in Peshawar again and says he is trying to move his Pakistani wife and three children to Sudan.

UK to hold inquiry into Iraqi killings, victims of torture

des-browne.jpgIRNA | Defense Secretary Des Browne announced Wednesday an independent inquiry into the death and torture of Iraqi civilians in the custody of British soldiers. The inquiry will be held into the 2003 death of Basra hotel worker Baha Mousa, the alleged torture and ill treatment of his nine hotel colleagues and how it came about that the five techniques banned in 1972 were reintroduced in Iraq, Browne said.Responding to the announcement, human rights lawyer for the Iraqi victims, Phil Shiner warned that it will ‘not be sufficient if the inquiry has a narrow remit and does not look at all the cases and issues’ concerning abuse by British troops in Iraq.

“The public, as well as parliament, must be given the opportunity of fully understanding what went wrong in our detention policy in Iraq and what are the lessons to be learned for the future,” Shiner said.

The inquiry comes after the Ministry of Defense in March admitted ‘substantive breaches’ of the European Convention on Human Rights over the death and torture of Iraqi civilians in the custody of British soldiers.

The admissions, after years of legal battles, included breaches of Article Two on the right of life and Article Three on the prohibition of torture over the killing of Mousa while being detained with eight other Iraqis by UK troops in September 2003.

Shiner said the inquiry would ‘need to get to the bottom of how it came about that the 5 techniques banned in 1972 — hooding, stressing, food and water deprivation, sleep deprivation and noise — were reintroduced as apparently Standard Operating Procedure’.

“Further it would need to establish what lessons are to be learned not just from the death of Baha Mousa, but the torture of his hotel colleagues, the sexual and religious humiliation in play in that incident,” he said.

It is claimed that Mousa had 93 identifiable injuries on his body and suffered asphyxiation. In March, Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth offered ‘sincere apologies and sympathy’ to his families and the other eight Iraqi detainees.

The lawyer said there were other cases to answer, including the most serious allegations that ’20 Iraqis were executed at Abu Naji facility in May 2004 another nine survivors tortured, and that bodies were mutilated’.

Italian PM witness in CIA rendition trial

0

silvio-berlusconi.jpgA Milan judge ruled Wednesday that Prime Minster Silvio Berlusconi and his predecessor Romano Prodi, can be called as witnesses in a trial on the alleged abduction of a terrorism suspect by agents of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Berlusconi who returned to office as premier last week was in power in 2003 when an Egyptian imam, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr – better known in Italy as Abu Omar – was allegedly snatched from a Milan street.

A total of 33 defendants – including 26 CIA agents as well as several top Italian intelligence officials – are accused of Omar’s kidnapping, with the complicity of Italy’s military intelligence agency SISMI.

The trial began in June 2007, but was suspended that same month to allow Italy’s constitutional court to rule on allegations by Prodi’s centre-left government that prosecutors had violated state secrets in gathering evidence.

In March presiding judge, Oscar Magi, ruled the trial should resume so as to avoid its expiry due to statute of limitations while the constitutional court considered the case.

The trial is seen as a landmark since it represents the first involving the CIA and Washington’s controversial ‘extraordinary rendition’ policy.

All the American suspects are abroad, and have declined to appear in court in Italy.

Berlusconi has denied knowledge of any kidnap operation and has defended SISMI against wrongdoing. He has also criticized the trial on the grounds it could hurt Italy’s ability to cooperate with Western intelligence agencies in combating terrorism.

Omar, was on his way to Milan’s main mosque when he disappeared on February 17, 2003.

At the time he was being investigated by Italian prosecutors on terrorism charges.

According to prosecutors, after he was abducted in Milan, Omar was flown to Germany and eventually ‘rendered’ by the United States to his native Egypt, where he claims to have been tortured while in prison in a cell near Cairo.

Data Mining Your Life

1

datamining.jpgBy Carlton Meyer | Few Americans pay attention to the Bush administration’s effort to better monitor terrorist communications. In short, federal authorities want to indirectly void the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires a warrant signed by a judge before they can search a person’s home and other personal information. This seems harmless to most law abiding citizens, so why is this opposed by many in the U.S. Congress? The answer is that most people have skeletons in their closet, as New York Governor Eliot Spitzer recently demonstrated. Congressmen know that the U.S. government wants to learn every detail about everyone’s private life through the growth of massive computer databases and new search technology that allows “data mining.”Active ImagePrior to the “war on terror,” the “war on drugs” was the excuse to gradually errode the U.S. Bill of Rights. Since drug lords do business in cash, a database called the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) was established to monitor cash transactions in the USA.[1] Banks must submit a report on persons who make a cash transaction of $10,000 or more. Drug lords learned of this, so they limited transactions to less than $10,000. As a result, laws were passed that require banks to also report “suspicious” or multiple cash transactions below $10,000. Since money was often laundered through casinos and money transfer companies like Western Union, they are required to submit reports to FinCEN too.

Structuring

This data provided federal agents with leads to possible criminal activity, but they were often unable to link cash transactions to a specific crime. As a result, a vague law prohibiting “structuring” was enacted, in which it became illegal to structure transactions to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement. This little understood law is a favorite tool of law enforcement because few Americans know that depositing or withdrawing a few thousand dollars in cash a few times a year may land them in prison. Once such activity is detected, federal agents demand an explanation, while threatening to imprison the suspects for “structuring.” As a result, thousands of uncooperative or unconvincing Americans have been imprisoned for nothing more than suspicious cash transactions.

Active ImageA good example occurred in 2003 when famous talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh was investigated. He had become addicted to pain killers and purchased them on the black market with the help of his maid. He withdrew cash 30 to 40 times from his bank account at amounts just under the $10,000 bank reporting requirement. FinCEN tipped off federal officials and an investigation was launched. “I was not laundering money. I was withdrawing money for crying out loud,” Limbaugh said in his three-hour broadcast, soon after he returned from five weeks of drug rehab.[2] Limbaugh is an influential multi-millionaire with close ties to President Bush, so criminal charges were never filed.

However, there are thousands of cases where law enforcers abused the intent of money laundering laws. Foreign exchange dealers, car dealers, or local wire transfer dealers may be offered a bonus by undercover agents if they promise not to file the required report. If they agree, they are arrested. People attempting to hide money from the IRS or their wife or debt collectors are often investigated. Large cash withdrawals by Eliot Spitzer for his expensive prostitution flings were detected by FinCEN, which led to his downfall.

Washing Money

Active Image

Money laundering is a federal crime with heavy penalties. It was sold to Congress as an essential tool to use against elusive drug dealers and organized crime bosses. Nowadays, it is part of almost every federal indictment that involves cash transactions as part of criminal activity. It is routinely abused by federal prosecutors to entice a guilty plea for minor crimes. Suspects, who insist on innocence and a trial, face the prospect of ten years in prison for money laundering, even though the penalty for their root crime is less than a year in prison. The most serious count facing Eliot Spitzer is money laundering.

Most federal agents and prosecutors are not zealots, but professionals doing their best. They want every tool Congress will allow, which is why most criminal laws in the USA are not written by congressmen responding to concerns of citizens, but by federal employees in the U.S. Justice Department. The 9-11 terror attack provided them with a unique opportunity to amass a wish list of new powers that became known as the “Patriot Act.” This further weakened the Bill of Rights, but did not eliminate the requirement for search warrants.

Data Mining

The 4th Amendment requirement for search warrants has become the key issue in a political battle between the Bush administration and Congress. Law enforcers desperately want authority to engage in widespread “data mining.” New computer search-engine technology now allows massive databases to be easily mined for information. Data mining is routinely used by private companies for marketing and credit reporting purposes. It is also used by government agencies to pursue tax evaders and criminals using their own databases, such as FinCEN. However, using government computers to browse private sector databases is illegal, since judges refuse to issue a blanket warrant allowing the random search of all information of all American citizens.

 Active Image

The media has produced hundreds of stories about “warrantless wiretapping” during terrorist investigations. However, the central issue is not terrorism, but the desire by federal agencies to engage in unlimited data mining. There are numerous examples where agencies already conduct private sector data mining without obtaining search warrants or complying with federal laws such as the Privacy Act. This was revealed in a 2005 report from the General Accounting Office, which reviewed the policies of five government departments in regards to data mining and found clear violations of federal law. The report did not delve into data mining details, but a graphic toward the end shows that the IRS already mines data from state driver’s license records and telephone databases.[3]

 Active Image

Credit Card Money Laundering

In recent years, the IRS became aware of the widespread use of credit cards to evade taxes and launder money. Credit card payments are not scrutinized like bank deposits, and records exist in computers separate from traditional banking records. Thousands of small businessmen discovered that they can mail a customer check as a payment to their personal credit card account, so that taxable income disappears from their business books. In addition, criminals can mail money orders purchased with cash to pay credit card bills.

This is small-time money laundering, yet the problem is massive and IRS and other federal agencies have no legal authority to sift through credit card records without a specific warrant, while banks have no obligation to report suspicious activities. The credit card payment process is completely automated, so payments are accepted even if the payee name does not match the cardholder.

Credit cards were a favorite method of obtaining money from secret overseas bank accounts until 2004. Customers used them to pay for anything and even take cash advances using a system outside traditional banking channels. This infuriated the IRS until they found a judge with no fondness for the Bill of Rights, probably one with serious tax problems. He brazenly waived the 4th Amendment and issued a blanket summons to secure all offshore transaction data from MasterCard International Inc. and Visa USA for 31 countries that are known tax havens.[4]

A blanket summons for all records is certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment and the Privacy Act. In these cases, the IRS does not pursue a lead against a specific taxpayer; it uses data mining to fish for information. Now that a legal precedent has been set, the IRS wants access to all domestic bank credit card computer systems for data mining. This would allow income claimed on returns to be matched with spending. In addition, airline travel, automobile fuel charges, and hotel stays could be matched against travel claims.

Active ImageThe IRS Loves Data Mining

The American people have no desire for the IRS to sift through their credit card records, so a “telecommunications” act to allow warrantless searches is the best route to legalize what the IRS already does to some extent. The IRS already data mines its own database and several others with software called “REVEAL” to spot anomalies in tax returns. If someone earned $50,000 in 2006 plus $45 in bank interest, yet in 2007 they earned $14,000 in interest, the IRS wants to know where that money came from. Or if they have a $30,000 mortgage interest deduction, the IRS wants to know how they afford such a huge house.

The IRS does not need proof of income tax evasion to assess taxes and penalties. It simply makes allegations that a taxpayer must disprove, which is why accountants tell taxpayers to keep all records for their entire life. “Lifestyle Audits” are extremely intrusive as they require taxpayers to refute anomalies detected by IRS computers.[5] While the IRS is restricted to audits going back just three years, it can demand proof of income for everything a persons owns, meaning one must keep a financial record of their entire life. If the taxpayer refuses or is unable to prove how his assets were obtained with declared income, an agent assesses a tax based on speculation.

The IRS refuses to disclose what other databases it mines, but does pay private sector data miners for information. Databases exist that detail every car, boat, airplane and property each taxpayer and their children own. Databases of insurance policies and claims offer additional clues. Even frequent flyer databases are of interest, because the IRS considers frequent flyer awards as income.

Snooping Technology Keeps Growing

Even more intrusive technology has appeared over the past couple of years. Several court cases revealed that companies like Yahoo and Google keep a record of every search term ever made from every computer address, and links it to an account if that person is logged on. Their databases keep copies of all e-mails as well, even after the user deletes them. Most people do not even realize copies of deleted e-mails remain in their account within their SENT or the TRASH section. Even if these are cleared, the data remains on their computer hard disk and can be retrieved by experts.

 Active Image

Active ImageExperts had long assumed that federal agencies could infect personal computers with “spyware” programs that automatically forward all activity for government review. This was confirmed last year in a court affidavit where:

“FBI agent Norman Sanders describes the software as a ‘computer and internet protocol address verifier,’ or CIPAV. Sanders wrote that the spyware program gathers a wide range of information, including the computer’s IP address; MAC address; open ports; a list of running programs; the operating system type, version and serial number; preferred internet browser and version; the computer’s registered owner and registered company name; the current logged-in user name and the last-visited URL. The CIPAV then settles into a silent ‘pen register’ mode, in which it lurks on the target computer and monitors its internet use, logging the IP address of every computer to which the machine connects for up to 60 days.“[6]  

Since this was used in common case of an e-mail bomb threat to a high school, citizens must assume it is used in all cases. Many techies fear that the newest version of the unwanted Yahoo toolbar is part of a government program because it collects user information. This toolbar has infected most personal computers and Yahoo’s instructions on methods to remove this data collection “spyware” do not work for the new version.

Databases of medical records are mined by insurance companies to verify applicant information so the sickly can be denied coverage. Mining medical databases may uncover embarrassing details, like: treatment for venereal diseases, treatment for drug or alcohol abuse, psychiatric counseling, cosmetic surgery, and what prescription drugs a person has used. Some fear databases that include DNA will soon exist so that insurers can deny coverage to healthy people who have a greater genetic chance of succumbing to deadly diseases.

Internet usage by employees is widely monitored by businesses to prevent hours of casual browsing and shopping on company time. In addition, e-mail sent from company computers is considered company property, and can be read by bosses. Data mining technology under development by the U.S. Air Force monitors e-mail traffic to uncover social networks among employees and outsiders. Unusual traffic or a change in traffic indicates a troubled or disgruntled employee, who warrants investigation. E-mails that express interest in a sensitive topic may indicate espionage or a whistleblower.[7]

A major problem is that these databases are filled with errors caused by data entry typos, identity theft, or similar names. One can see this problem by paying any of the dozens of on-line background check companies to provide a report on oneself. The data provided by these simple checks is frightening, as well as the large number of errors. The ease in which this personal data can be retrieved explains why identify theft has become rampant. As a result, each year millions are denied jobs, loans, or medical coverage, or are investigated and even arrested because of database errors. Mass illegal immigration to the USA has made this problem far worse as undocumented workers use documents from citizens to function in society.

Blackmail

Last year, an article in Sanders Research explained the growing danger of databases for blackmail.[8] This may explain why most Congressmen are afraid to confront abuses by the executive branch led by President Bush. Julian Sanchez recently provided an excellent overview of why Congress passed various laws in support of the 4th amendment over the years:

“…for decades, intelligence analysts — and the presidents they served — had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices — even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often ‘collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action.’”[9]

Active ImageFormer New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is a recent example of a prominent American whose career was destroyed by intrusive government surveillance. He had harmed no one, yet his desire to have sex with beautiful women is deemed criminal. Like most Americans, he had violated one of thousands of federal statutes that can be legally interpreted as a heinous offense. On the other hand, this particular case is ironic since Spitzer was known for abuse of statute intent during his years as a federal prosecutor.

While the Spitzer story received widespread media coverage, the intriguing inner story was ignored, even after it was mentioned in the Washington Post, which revealed: “The FBI placed a surveillance team on Spitzer at the Mayflower Hotel for the first time on Jan. 26, after concluding from a wiretapped conversation that he might try to meet with a prostitute when he traveled to Washington to attend a black-tie dinner, the source said Tuesday.”[10]

Americans have a federal government near bankruptcy, yet it dispatches several $100,000 a year FBI agents to spy on a senior political rival in hopes of ruining his career. This is the same government that continually informs citizens that a major terror attack is imminent, and claims that all available resources are focused on this threat. The American media did not critically pursue this story, perhaps because owners, editors, and reporters fear they may become “data mined” and placed under surveillance. This fear was confirmed when it was recently revealed that the FBI searches telephone records of reporters in hopes of finding their sources of information.[11] One must read news from Hong Kong where Asia Times writer, F. William Engdahl, clarified the issue with an article entitled “Why Spitzer was Bushwhacked,” where he wrote:

“Spitzer was likely the target of a White House and Wall Street dirty tricks operation to silence one of the most dangerous and vocal critics of their handling of the current financial market crisis. A useful rule of thumb in evaluating spectacular scandals around prominent public figures is to ask who might want to eliminate that person”

Spitzer was quoted as saying “The Bush administration let the housing bubble inflate and now that it’s deflating we’re dealing with the consequences. The real failure, the genesis, the germ that has spread, was the subprime scandal,”[12] Spitzer has made no bold comments in recent weeks, as he hopes to stay out of jail. Meanwhile, fear has assured that no other prominent American political figure or journalist suggests that the Bush administration is to blame for the current financial crisis.

[1] The existence of FinCEN is not secret; it has its own website http://www.fincen.gov that explains its crime-fighting purpose.

[2] “Limbaugh investigated for money laundering”; CNN.com; Nov. 20, 2003.

[3] “Data Mining”; GAO; Aug. 2005; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05866.pdf

[4] “IRS and Agriculture efforts strike pay dirt”; GCN; Sept. 27, 2004; http://www.gcn.com/print/23_29/27421-1.html

[5] “Audits; Can Your Life Pass Muster?”; Businessweek; Feb. 3, 1997; http://www.businessweek.com/1997/05/b3512138.htm

[6] “FBI’s Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats”; Wired; Jul.18, 2007.

[7] “Sniffing Out Insider Threats May Improve Public Safety, Prevent Terrorism”; Medical News Today; Feb. 23, 2008;

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/97961.php

[8] “Super Snoopers“: SRA, Apr. 17, 2007.

[9] “Wiretapping’s True Danger”; LA Times; Mar. 16, 2008; http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0160.html

[10] “FBI Watched Spitzer Before February Incident“; Washington Post; Mar. 12, 2008.

[11] “Leak Inquiry Said to Focus on Calls with Times”; New York Times; Apr. 12, 2008.

[12] “Why Spitzer was Bushwhacked”; Asia Times; Mar. 20, 2008.

VIDEO: The Corporation

thecorp.jpgThis is an extraordinary film about the creation of the American corporation, its legal organizational model, its global economic dominance and its psychopathic tendencies, and its incredible ambition to influence every aspect of culture in its unrelenting pursuit of profit.

After viewing this film, it becomes all too evident that these large corporations have too much power, whose mandate is not the common good of the people, and who will go to any lengths, legally and otherwise, in the pursuit of profit and the bottom line. Reviewer: C. Middleton (Australia)

Go here to watch or download this video 

Feds to Collect Millions of DNA Profiles Yearly

0

feds-dna.jpgBy Ryan Singel | The feds will soon be collecting about one million DNA samples a year under a new program that lets federal agents collect cheek swabs from citizens merely arrested for any federal crime or from any non-citizen detained by federal agents — including visitors to the country who have visas.

The intent is build a massive database of DNA samples (.pdf) that police can use to catch rapists and murderers, but even the innocent should fear being in the database, due to the vagaries of how cold case DNA searches can easily pinpoint an innocent person.

Thanks to an amendment in the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 that was sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), the feds now have the authority to immediately take DNA from any arrestee or ‘detained’ non-citizen and immediately upload it to the FBI’s CODIS database.  That database is currently fed by federal law enforcement agencies and all 50 states, a few of which collect and upload DNA samples from people arrested, but not convicted of a crime. 

DNA profiles are composed of 13 genetic markers that are meant not to reveal genetic makeup or disease. Like fingerprints, DNA are very powerful and scientifically sound evidence, when used to connect a known suspect to evidence found at the scene of the crime. Jurors are easily persuaded to accept the DNA link for someone who had already been suspected of a crime scene when told the odds against a false identification are 1 in millions or billions.

But DNA is far less certain when you compare one sample against all of the profiles in the database typically known as one-to-many. In that case the chances that a match between a DNA sample — especially an incomplete one — and a person in a DNA database could nab an innocent person has different math. Very different math.

So if you have a probability of 1 in 1.1 million chance of people having a certain sequence of DNA markers and you have a database of 550,000 people, you have a 50% chance of making a match. That’s great, if you know that the perpetrator is in that database. But what it also means is that as you start testing DNA profiles against more and more people, the chances that you will match an innocent person to a DNA profile from a crime scene gets higher.

A recent L.A. Times story about a cold case prosecution of a 1972 rape and murder in California, where 30 years later, police matched a DNA sample from the scene to that of a convicted rapist in its 338,000 profile strong DNA database. Given the number of markers that were used there was a one in three chance that some profile in the database would match. In this case, it matched John Puckett, who lived in the same city.

The jury however, wasn’t told about the probability that someone in the database would match against the profile (The L.A. Times story erroneously says that there was a 1/3 chance that someone innocent would be fingered in such a search. If one knew for a fact that every person in the database were innocent, then there was a 1 in 3 chance that an innocent person would get fingered, but in Puckett’s case, one simply knows that there was a one in three chance someone in the California criminal database would be fingered.)

And that’s a problem when the government starts collecting millions of DNA samples, sticking them in a massive database and finding ‘cold hits.’

Imagine the innocent man facing down a jury of his peers, hoping that they understand something about statistics.

The Justice Department is taking comments on the proposed DNA rules until Monday, May 19.

Extradition of Paramilitary Chiefs – a Blow to Truth

0

salvatoremancuso.jpgBy Constanza Vieira | Fourteen former paramilitary chiefs were quietly extradited from Colombia to the United States before dawn on Tuesday on drug trafficking charges, in a move that drew criticism from human rights experts.

The militia chiefs were safe from extradition as long as they respected the 2005 “justice and peace law” that governed the demobilisation of the far-right paramilitary groups, which are blamed by the United Nations for 80 percent of the human rights crimes committed in Colombia’s four-decade civil war.

President Álvaro Uribe said the 14 leaders were extradited because they continued committing crimes after demobilising, were not providing full confessions as required by the justice and peace law, and had failed to compensate their victims, “by hiding assets or delaying their handover.”

“Manipulated truth is no longer truth. Truth has to be told without calculations of timing, without delays,” said the president.

“The government has requested, and the United States has agreed, that the wealth that the extradited persons agree to hand over through accords with judges in that country be dedicated to reparations for victims in Colombia,” he said.

“There is nothing standing in the way of moral reparations being made from the United States,” added Uribe, to calm the worries of the victims of the paramilitaries, who include nearly four million people forcibly displaced from their homes.

Taken by surprise by the extradition, Rodrigo Tovar, alias “Jorge 40”, known for killing off Kankuamo Indians in the northern Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountains, cursed and shouted that they had been betrayed, which would seem to indicate that there was no negotiation with the paramilitary chiefs for their extradition.

According to Tovar’s lawyer, Hernando Bocanegra, the paramilitary leaders were confessing to their crimes “little by little” because that is how the justice and peace law was designed.

In the confession hearings, each survivor had the right to personally ask the paramilitary chiefs about their loved ones who had been killed. The defendants only responded when they personally knew about that particular murder, and had to consult with their subordinates when they didn’t, “which was the reason for the delay,” said the attorney.

“They were talking,” said Bocanegra, who added that there was a “timeframe that was being followed. In the stage of confession, they had gotten to the chapter of murders, massacres and genocidal crimes.”

Some had started to give details on joint actions carried out by paramilitary groups and military units, another point on the agenda. Others had already announced that they would implicate local businessmen in their testimony.

Among those who were extradited Tuesday were several top leaders, like Salvatore Mancuso, Diego Murillo, alias “Don Berna” — the heir to late druglord Pablo Escobar — and the commander of the paramilitary militias on the north coast of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Hernán Giraldo.

Iván Cepeda, spokesman for the Movement of Victims of Crimes of the State (MOVICE), complained to the press that the extraditions would “seriously affect” the rights of survivors, and said they were aimed at keeping the paramilitary leaders from continuing to provide the names of military, political and business accomplices and allies.

Eduardo Carreño, vice president of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, a human rights group, told IPS that “this move confirms what we have said from the start: that a Congress with a strong paramilitary presence legislated on its own behalf, and that the victims are the forgotten ones in this process.”

More than 60 lawmakers, nearly all of them pro-Uribe, are under investigation for their ties to the paramilitaries, as part of what has been dubbed the “parapolitics scandal.”

They include the rightwing president’s cousin and main political ally, former senator Mario Uribe.

Carreño said that “no one has ever talked to the victims, offered them guarantees, or made sure that there will be no repetition” of war crimes like torture, massacres, forced disappearances, targeted killings of community leaders, activists and trade unionists, and the forced displacement of rural families and communities to seize their land.

According to the paramilitaries and their defenders, the war crimes were committed against “subversives,” people who collaborated with the leftist insurgent groups that emerged in the 1960s.

“To think that reparations for the victims can be achieved from the United States is a total fallacy. And it is impossible for the victims to take out passports and apply for visas” to the United States, said Carreño, referring to the possibility of survivors and family members of victims attempting to seek justice in that country.

“This is a mockery,” Gustavo Gallón, director of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, another leading human rights organisation, told IPS.

“It was clearly spelled out: if they were really committing crimes after demobilising — as they were doing — they were to be referred to the ordinary courts, as established by the justice and peace law,” where they would face sentences of up to 40 years rather than the light sentences, of no more than eight years, provided for by the agreement with the government, he said.

The Uribe administration says it will send prosecutors and lawyers to the United States to collect the testimony of the former paramilitary chiefs, in order for the justice and peace law process to continue.

Santiago Rodríguez, the former lawyer of Colombian drug trafficker Hernando Gómez Bustamante, who was extradited to the United States in mid-2007 after being deported to Colombia from Cuba, pointed out that a person cannot be tried for the same crime in two different places.

Furthermore, said Rodríguez, everything that the extradited paramilitaries say from this moment on can be used against them.

“I would not allow a client of mine to talk” about crimes committed in Colombia other than drug trafficking offences, for which the 14 were extradited, the Cuban-American lawyer said in a telephone interview from the United States with the Bogotá station W Radio.

He said he would only allow his client to talk if there were a written agreement approved by the U.S. Justice Department guaranteeing protection from prosecution for other crimes.

He pointed out that according to the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, testimony on other crimes provided by defendants during a trial — like the kind of confessions required by the justice and peace law — can be used against them.

According to Rodríguez, that means the former paramilitary chiefs extradited to the United States should not have to cooperate with the Colombian justice system, which could complicate their legal situation in the United States. “Protections would have to be put in writing,” he reiterated.

Leftwing Senator Gustavo Petro said President Uribe “dealt several blows in one” with the extraditions.

“The first blow,” he told IPS, “is against truth.”

“If Uribe says there is a pact with the United States” for the prosecution of war crimes to continue in that country, which does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, “it is a secret pact, because no one knows about it. The only thing the U.S. is interested in is curbing drug trafficking,” he said.

“The second blow is against the victims and the possibility of compensation, which becomes even more remote if the truth is not revealed,” and “the third is against Colombian justice,” because with this decision, the president is “disregarding the Colombian justice system and recognising the U.S. system,” said the senator.

The National Commission for Reparations and Reconciliation (CNRR), created by the justice and peace law, called for “a cooperation agreement between the U.S. Justice Department and Colombia’s Attorney-General’s Office, so that the rights of the victims are placed in a central spot on the judicial agenda.”

Another agreement that should be reached, said the CNRR, would provide a guarantee that the victims “can move ahead with civil and criminal lawsuits against the extradited paramilitary chiefs and thus achieve respect for their rights.”

* With additional reporting from Helda Martínez.

Guantánamo Has Backfired Dreadfully

1

monbiot2.jpgBy George Monbiot | When we learned last week that Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi had blown himself up in Mosul in northern Iraq, the US government presented this as a vindication of its policies. Al-Ajmi was a former inmate of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay. The Pentagon says his attack on Iraqi soldiers shows both that it was right to have detained him and that it is dangerous ever to release the camp’s prisoners. On the contrary, it shows how dangerous it was to put them there in the first place.

Al-Ajmi, according to the Pentagon, was one of at least 30 former Guantánamo detainees who have “taken part in anti-coalition militant activities after leaving US detention”. Given that the majority of the inmates appear to have been innocent of such crimes before they were detained, that’s one hell of a recidivism rate. In reality, it turns out that “anti-coalition militant activities” include talking to the media about their captivity. The Pentagon lists the Tipton Three in its catalogue of recidivists, on the grounds that they collaborated with Michael Winterbottom’s film The Road to Guantánamo. But it also names seven former prisoners, aside from al-Ajmi, who have fought with the Taliban or Chechen rebels, kidnapped foreigners or planted bombs after their release. One of two conclusions can be drawn from this evidence, and neither reflects well on the US government.

The first is that, as the Pentagon claims, these men “successfully lied to US officials, sometimes for over three years”. The US government’s intelligence gathering and questioning were ineffective, and people who would otherwise have been identified as terrorists or resistance fighters were allowed to walk free, despite years of intense and often brutal interrogation. Should this be surprising? Without a presumption of innocence, without charges, representation, trials, or due process of any kind, there is no reliable means of determining whether or not a man is guilty. The abuses at Guantánamo not only deny justice to the inmates, they also deny justice to the world.

Al-Ajmi, the authorities say, initially confessed in the prison camp to deserting the Kuwaiti army to join the jihad in Afghanistan. He admitted that he fought with Taliban forces against the Northern Alliance. He later retracted this confession, which had been made “under pressure and threats”. When the Americans released him from Guantánamo, they handed him over to the Kuwaiti government for trial, but without the admissible evidence required to convict him. Among his defences was that neither he nor his interrogators had signed his supposed testimony. The Kuwaiti courts, without reliable evidence to the contrary, found him innocent.

All evidence obtained in Guantánamo, and in the CIA’s other detention centres and secret prisons, is by definition unreliable, because it is extracted with the help of coercion and torture. Torture is notorious for producing false confessions, as people will say anything to make it stop. Both official accounts and the testimonies of former detainees show that a wide range of coercive techniques – devised or approved at the highest levels in Washington – have been used to make inmates tell the questioners what they want to hear.

In his book Torture Team, Philippe Sands describes the treatment of Mohammed al-Qahtani, held in Guantánamo and described by the authorities (like half a dozen other suspects) as “the 20th hijacker”. By the time his interrogators started using “enhanced techniques” to extract information from him, al-Qahtani had been kept in isolation for three months in a cell permanently flooded with light. An official memo shows that he “was talking to nonexistent people, reporting hearing voices, [and] crouching in a corner of the cell covered with a sheet for hours on end”. He was abused, exposed to extreme cold and deprived of sleep for a further 54 days of torture and questioning. What useful testimony could be extracted from a man in this state?

The other possibility is that the men who became involved in armed conflict after their release had not in fact been involved in any prior fighting, but were radicalised by their detention. In the video he made before blowing himself up, al-Ajmi maintained that he was motivated by his ill-treatment in Guantánamo. “Twelve thousand kilometres away from Mecca, I realised the reality of the Americans and what those infidels want,” he said. He claimed he was beaten, drugged and “used for experiments” and that “the Americans delighted in insulting our prayer and Islam and they insulted the Qur’an and threw it in dirty places.” Al-Ajmi’s lawyer revealed that his arm had been broken by guards at the camp, who beat him up to stop him from praying.

The accounts of people released from Guantánamo describe treatment that would radicalise almost anyone. In his book Five Years of My Life, published a fortnight ago, Murat Kurnaz maintains that one of the guards greeted him on his arrival with these words. “Do you know what the Germans did to the Jews? That’s exactly what we’re going to do with you.” There were certain similarities. “I knew a man from Morocco,” Kurnaz writes, “who used to be a ship captain. He couldn’t move one of his little fingers because of frostbite. The rest of his fingers were all right. They told him they would amputate the little finger. They brought him to the doctor, and when he came back, he had no fingers left. They had amputated everything but his thumbs.” The young man – scarcely more than a boy – in the cage next to Kurnaz’s had just had his legs amputated by American doctors after getting frostbite in a coalition prison in Afghanistan. The stumps were still bleeding and covered in pus. He received no further treatment or new dressings. Every time he tried to hoist himself up to sit on his pot by clinging to the wire, a guard would come and hit his hands with a billy-club. Like every other prisoner, he was routinely beaten by the camp’s Immediate Reaction Force, and taken away to interrogation cells to be beaten up some more.

Fathers were clubbed in front of their sons, sons in front of their fathers. The prisoners were repeatedly forced into stress positions, deprived of sleep and threatened with execution. As a senior official at the US Defense Intelligence Agency says, “maybe the guy who goes into Guantánamo was a farmer who got swept along and did very little. He’s going to come out a fully fledged jihadist.”

In reading the histories of Guantánamo, and of the kidnappings, extrajudicial detention and torture the US government (helped by the United Kingdom) has pursued around the world, two things become clear. The first is that these practices do not supplement effective investigation and prosecution; they replace them. Instead of a process which generates evidence, assesses it and uses it to prosecute, the US has deployed a process that generates nonsense and is incapable of separating the guilty from the innocent. The second is that far from protecting innocent lives, this process is likely to deliver further atrocities. Even if you put the ethics of such treatment to one side, it is surely evident that it makes the world more dangerous.

Executions sought for 9/11 defendants

The head of the Pentagon’s war crimes tribunal approved death penalty charges Tuesday against five alleged Sept. 11 conspirators, including confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Prosecution of a sixth suspect, so-called 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani, was dropped.

The tribunal’s convening authority, Susan Crawford, referred to trial the cases against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and alleged Al Qaeda collaborators Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi. All are in jail at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the defendants must be arraigned within 30 days of the referral of charges, and trials must begin within four months.

The arraignments, at the Guantanamo war crimes court, will be the first public appearance of the defendants since their captures after the attacks. They are accused of plotting the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a crash site in Pennsylvania.

Crawford noted that the charges against Qahtani in February were dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning the Pentagon could reinstate them later.

Mohammed and the four others face trials for alleged conspiracy, murder in violation of the laws of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property, terrorism and material support for terrorism.

All but Hawsawi also are charged with hijacking aircraft for their alleged roles in preparing the attacks.

How Pot Became Demonized

4

cannaleaf.jpgThe following is an excerpt from “Dying to Get High” by Wendy Chapkis and Richard J. Webb (NYU Press, 2008). (c) 2008 NYU Press. Reproduced by permission of the publisher.

For many modern critics, the concept of “medical marijuana” is a contradiction in terms. Medicine is standardized, synthetic, and pure; marijuana involves the unrefined and promiscuous coupling of more than four hundred components rooted in the dirt. Medicine — in its most powerful and privileged forms — rests in the hands of men, while the most potent form of marijuana is found in the female flowering plant. Medicine engages in heroic battles against death. Marijuana claims only to enhance the quality of life.

Medicine presents itself as an objective science safeguarded by the ritual of the double-blind, randomized clinical trial. The therapeutic value of marijuana relies largely on the “soft science” of subjective experience and anecdotal evidence. From the perspective of its critics, then, cannabis is an effeminate interloper in the masculine world of real medicine, a dangerous drug pushed on a credulous public by illegitimate quacks.

But this story is too simple. The line separating regular doctors from snake oil salesmen, good drugs from bad, is as much the product of politics as it is of science. The dominance of politics in determining the value of marijuana as a medicine was first demonstrated in the 1930s when the federal government began to restrict the medical use of marijuana, against the recommendations of the American Medical Association (AMA).

The struggle between politics and science over the use of cannabis as a medicine continues. In the final decade of the twentieth century, the federal government threatened physicians with the loss of their license for recommending marijuana to patients, made criminals of patients who followed their doctor’s advice, and actively blocked scientific research into the therapeutic value of cannabis, while insisting that it was an established scientific fact that marijuana is not a medicine.

During the opening of a 2004 congressional hearing on medical marijuana, this ongoing battle over cannabis was described by committee chair Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) as a critical front in the War on Drugs and consistent with the modernization of medicine:

This hearing will address a controversial topic, the use of marijuana for so-called medicinal purposes. In recent years, a large and well-funded pro-drug movement has succeeded in convincing many Americans that marijuana is a true medicine to be used in treating a wide variety of illnesses …. Marijuana was once used as a folk remedy in many primitive cultures, and even in the 19th century was frequently used by some American doctors, much as alcohol, cocaine, and heroin were once used by doctors. By the 20th century, however, its use by legitimate medical practitioners has dwindled, while its illegitimate use as a recreational drug has risen.

Souder thus sets the stage for a morality tale populated by primitive practitioners and legitimate doctors, dangerous drug fiends and decent drug warriors.

Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly invoked a similar cast of characters in his 2004 discussion of medical marijuana with U.S. Deputy “Drug Czar” Dr. Andrea Barthwell. That year, voters in Oregon were to be presented with a ballot measure to amend their state’s already-existing medical marijuana law. The proposed amendment (which ultimately failed) was intended both to increase the amount of marijuana a patient could have over the course of a year and to redefine which health professionals could legally recommend marijuana for medical use.

O’Reilly scoffed at the idea that licensed health practitioners other than physicians might be authorized to recommend the use of cannabis to their patients: “Even a shaman could grant permission for you to toke in Oregon. I mean, this is, you know, any health practitioner. So you’re a shaman from the Amazon and you set up shop. Come on, I mean, everybody knows this is a ruse. Am I wrong?” Andrea Barthwell confirmed for viewers that O’Reilly’s concerns were quite legitimate: “No, you’re absolutely right, Bill. This is what we’ve been trying to make clear to people when they have these proposals presented to them. This is not about getting medicine to people who are sick and dying. This is about making marijuana legal.”

While both host and guest shared the belief that the Oregon proposal was no more than a thinly disguised attempt to legalize marijuana, O’Reilly asked whether cannabis itself might not be a legitimate medicine if prescribed by a legitimate physician to a patient with a legitimate need: “But there is a legitimate issue here, Doctor. We had Montel Williams [another popular TV talk show host] on a few weeks back. He has MS [multiple sclerosis]. And I believe Montel Williams when he says, ‘Look, medical marijuana helps me, helps me cope with this disease, cope with my suffering. There’s no reason why I should be denied it.’ And I agree with Montel Williams that if this is the case, if a doctor — a doctor — says that he needs it for his MS, he should have it. You don’t disagree with that, do you?” Barthwell’s response was uncompromising: “Well, I do, actually. There is nothing that tells us from the science now that smoked, crude botanical should be a medication. We have a process that has been in place for 100 years in this country that protects the sick and dying from snake oil salesmen. And just because something makes you feel better doesn’t make it medicine.”

In this short exchange, the terms of the debate for dismissing cannabis therapeutics are neatly laid out: medical marijuana is a ruse; cannabis is the modern day equivalent of “snake oil”; “crude botanicals” are not real medicine; licensed alternative health practitioners are not legitimate healers; marijuana is reduced to and synonymous with smoking as a delivery system; and “feeling better” isn’t always therapeutic. Taken together, these claims create a neat division between marijuana and “real medicine,” with medicine narrowly defined as that which is practiced by physicians prescribing pharmaceuticals to patients who will not necessarily feel better as a result.

The rise of “regular” medicine and the battle against botanicals

According to Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, an Israeli research chemist who performed much of the original work in the early 1960s isolating the active ingredients in marijuana: From ancient times to the early 20th Century, cannabis was used for a wide variety of medical purposes including the treatment of pain and swelling, depression, arthritis, impotence, kidney stones, hemorrhaging in childbirth, irregular bowel movements, cold sores, distending stomach, dropsy, headaches, diseases of the respiratory organs, hysteria, neuralgia, sciatica, tetanus, dysentery, fatigue, disorders of the female reproductive system, convulsions, cholera, delirium tremens, vomiting, spasmodic asthma, and a host of other ailments. Most of these therapeutic claims were either based on folklore or were anecdotal, but the use of cannabis as a therapeutic agent in the past provides an insight for future drug development. More recently, some of the historical therapeutic properties of cannabis have been verified with pure natural or synthetic cannabinoids; however, in several fields no modern scientific work exists.

In order to understand why marijuana, a promising medicinal botanical, should now be excluded not only from the modern pharmacopeia but also from much formal scientific study, it is necessary to ask why some drugs, but not all, get labeled “medicine”; why some healers, and not others, are “regular doctors”; why some effects, but only some, are understood as “therapeutic”; and why some risks are acceptable while others are prohibited under penalty of law. The answers cannot be found in a simple appeal to scientific standards. Instead, in order to understand what counts as “legitimate” medicine, it is useful to ask who, beyond the patient, might benefit from such distinctions. In our exploration of the role of organized medicine, state regulatory agencies, the courts, and the pharmaceutical industry in the demonization of marijuana, the intent is not to perform the reverse process, demonizing modern medicine. Over the past century, during which organized medicine consolidated its authority and cannabis was first marginalized and then removed from the pharmacopeia, astonishing medical advances have been made. Unquestionably, the public would be ill served by a return to a time of unregulated medicine practiced by poorly trained doctors with recourse to few effective drugs.

Nonetheless, it is also the case that the healing arts remain an impure science. The most striking difference between marijuana and “real medicine” is not the physical but the social effects the plant has on users and healers alike. Association with marijuana marks those it touches as illegitimate — a distinction with deep historical roots. Prior to the professionalization of medicine, lay healers — often women — made extensive use of medicinal plants. But as modern medicine moved into the ranks of the professions, and into hands of men, botanicals were discredited along with the women who had used them. In their pathbreaking study of the rise of the male medical expert, For Her Own Good, Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English note that, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, anxiety over women’s knowledge of medicinal botanicals contributed to the European witch hunts: charges against the accused often included the provision of herbs.

In Colonial America and the early republic, health and healing practices also rested largely in the hands of lay women practicing herbal medicine. Historian Carol Smith-Rosenberg observes that “women as midwives and as family nurses, women wise in the ancient herbal pharmacopoeia, had always cared for their own and neighboring families. A survey of cookbooks and women’s diaries for the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries shows that women collected and exchanged recipes for medicines as routinely as they did for pies and cookies.”

By the nineteenth century, however, as medicine entered the marketplace, male physicians with little formal training claimed for themselves the designation “Regular doctor” while moving all others to the margins of the healing arts. In North America, midwives, bonesetters, and “root and herb” doctors were thus gradually displaced by the self-proclaimed “Regulars,” not through the violence of witch burnings, as happened in Europe, but rather through professionalization. This challenge was, according to Ehrenreich and English, “at bottom, economic. Medicine in the 19th century … [became] a thing to be bought and sold.”

Professionalization required that the Regulars distinguish themselves from midwives and herbalists; they did so through “heroic medicine,” a practice involving dramatic (though not necessarily beneficial) techniques such as bloodletting, blistering, purging, and the use of toxic mercury-based medicines. These interventions were intended to produce “the strongest possible effect on the patient.” Though such therapies were not only dangerous and often ineffective, Ehrenreich and English observe that they gave “regular doctors something activist, masculine, and imminently more salable than the herbal teas and sympathy served up by rural female healers.” In fact, despite the very serious risks of heroic medicine, Smith-Rosenberg notes that the Regulars insisted that it was they who were protecting “the lives of innocent citizens from ill-trained, irresponsible ‘irregulars,’ and hysterical midwives.”

The Regulars prospered during the first two decades of the nineteenth century and succeeded in securing licensing laws in many states restricting the practice of medicine to those in their ranks and limiting membership to men. But growing dissatisfaction with the results of “heroic medicine,” and populist misgivings about monopolies and elites, led to the temporary repeal of such laws during the 1830s. The “Popular Health Movement” of the period challenged the position of Regulars by emphasizing “self-help” (through better hygiene and healthy living) and by embracing the therapeutic approaches of alternative medical sects, including those advocating botanical treatments.

As sociologist Carol Weisman notes, under the banner of science, Sectarians or Irregulars “were attacked by mainstream physicians as ‘quacks,’ although the therapeutics of the regular physicians were not generally more effective than those of the irregulars.” The Regulars reinforced their claim that they, and they alone, were legitimate physicians by founding a national professional organization in 1847 — the American Medical Association — explicitly excluding both women and sectarian practitioners.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, economic competition intensified as both Regulars and their rivals — now known as the “Eclectics” — opened medical schools to train practitioners. The Eclectics, who advocated the use of botanical therapies, also represented a more populist and egalitarian politics — for example, they admitted women to their medical schools. During this same period, in 1854, cannabis joined other herbal remedies in the national pharmacopeias and was freely prescribed for a large number of medical conditions ranging from insomnia to neuropathic pain. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, dozens of research papers were published on the various medicinal uses of marijuana.

This corresponds to a period in which Regulars began to consolidate the power of the newly organized medical profession, in part by absorbing Eclectics into their ranks. As Paul Starr observes in his landmark study, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, Eclectics “succumbed to quiet cooptation; they were only too glad to be welcomed into the fold.” By co-opting much of the opposition, physicians were able to secure new licensing laws restricting the practice of medicine. But Eclectics paid a significant price; with the consolidation of control by conventional medicine, botanical therapies were increasingly marginalized by mainstream medicine.

The allopathic approach of the Regulars was not only dominant but also institutionalized in the early twentieth century when organized medicine completed its process of professionalization by gaining control over medical education, access to hospitals, and the right to prescribe drugs. The dominance of this paradigm was reflected in the growing strength of the American Medical Association. In 1900 the AMA had no more than eight thousand members, but by 1910 membership reached seventy thousand, and by 1920 the majority of physicians in the United States had become members. In fact, by 1931 only about 5 percent of all cases of illness were handled by non-MD practitioners.

This exponential increase in the power and professional authority of regular doctors surprisingly did not rest primarily on the provision of more effective medicines; these were slow to be developed. Instead, doctors were forced to find other ways to assert their newly established social and cultural legitimacy. One strategy was to position themselves as experts in not only the physical but also the moral health of the nation. In the nineteenth century, condemnation of birth control and abortion, for instance, provided physicians with a clear moral platform that allowed them to denounce practices still largely in the hands of “irregulars.” According to Carol Smith-Rosenberg, these efforts to limit women’s reproductive choices became a key arena “in the war between the allopaths and the ‘irregulars’ for patients and for power …. The ‘irregular’ physician and the ‘irregular’ wife, the ‘regulars’ insisted, conspired together against public order and national well-being.” As Carol Weisman observes, this claim of medical and moral expertise “provided regular physicians with an element of social respectability and moral authority, which was enhanced by publicly criticizing the abortion practices of other practitioners and the crass commercialism of purveyors of contraceptives and abortifacients.”

At the end of the nineteenth century, flush with its legislative success against abortion, the AMA turned its attention to another arena that neatly linked morality and public health: the provision of drugs. Physicians enhanced their professional authority by speaking out against the dangers of addictive drugs frequently found in “patent medicines” and available directly to the public. Because the formulae of proprietary medicines were secret, it was impossible for patients to judge the safety of those drugs. The practitioners of organized medicine thus joined forces with muckraking journalists to bring to the public’s attention the possible risks of patent medicines. This important public service had a significant payoff for the profession as well, reinforcing a growing distinction in the public mind between good drugs (dispensed by doctors) and bad drugs (available directly to the public by unlicensed practitioners).

Bush warns of Iraq exit terror risk

1

bush5.jpgBy Elizabeth Stewart | The US president, George Bush, today claimed the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans for a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq could lead to another terrorist attack on America.

In an online interview for the Yahoo News and Politico websites, Bush said a “premature” withdrawal from Iraq would “embolden” extremists throughout the Middle East, which would “eventually lead to another attack on the United States”.

Not maintaining a “forward presence” in the region would send out “the wrong signals”, he said, adding: “It would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.”

Hillary Clinton – who originally voted in favour of invading Iraq – has spoken out during her campaign against the continued US presence in the country, urging an “orderly withdrawal”.

“The administration often talks about the cost of leaving Iraq, yet ignores the greater costs of continuing the same failed policy,” Clinton told a recent Senate armed services committee hearing.

She is also against the Bush administration’s plans to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama – who spoke out against the war in 2002, warning of an occupation of “undetermined length and consequences” – last year pledged the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq if he became president.

However, he left the door open for maintaining a US base in the country if al-Qaida sought to establish a presence in the region.

In a question and answer session with the websites’ users, Bush said he did not believe US intelligence agencies had intentionally misled him about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.

“Misled is a strong word,” he said. “It almost connotes some kind of intentional.” However, he admitted he was “disappointed” to discover how flawed US intelligence had been.

The president revealed he had given up playing golf because it “sent out the wrong signal” to the families of soldiers fighting overseas.

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them.”

He admitted it was “tough” hearing that people had lost loved ones as a result of his decision to go to war, but said his Christian faith had helped him through.

“If you’re a faithful person, you try to empathise with the suffering that that person is going through,” he added.

Human rights ‘loopholes’ condemned

0

loophole.jpgPA | A senior police officer has launched a scathing attack on the use of the Human Rights Act by murderers and rapists to protect themselves from UK law. Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Gregg said dangerous criminals were trying to use the legislation to complain about their own human rights being breached.

Mr Gregg was speaking out just days before he leaves his post as head of West Yorkshire Police’s Homicide and Major Enquiry Team (HMET) to take up a senior position with LGC Forensics, one of the biggest forensic science service providers in the country.

He said: “These criminals have committed such appalling crimes and it is the families of the victims and the bereaved who are left behind and have to suffer the indignity of hearing them claim their human rights have been breached. It is such an appalling situation.”

Mr Gregg said he was not calling for the legislation to be scrapped but it needed to be used in a “balanced” way.

“We have lost sight of the needs of the victims and the families here. It is deeply offensive when murderers and rapists use it (the Human Rights Act) and look for a loophole to only assist themselves,” he added.

Mr Gregg is described by the force’s chief constable Sir Norman Bettison as “one of the finest Detective Superintendents West Yorkshire has known.”

He added: “As a police officer one of the most frustrating things is when killers who have shown not one ounce of compassion for their fellow human beings start trying to have the shield of human rights drawn around them. It is callous, heartless and deeply offensive.”

He added: “For hardened criminals to try to use this legislation as protection causes terrible offence to the families of victims who have suffered appalling and cruel deaths at the hands of those who are quick to talk about human rights but were so swift to take away the human rights of others.”

Mr Gregg led the team that tracked down former US Marine David Bieber, who murdered traffic officer Ian Broadhurst. He is appealing against his whole-life sentence arguing it breaches his human rights.

Government admits ID cards have no business case

1

idcard2.jpgBy Ian Grant | The government has, for the first time, admitted publicly that it cannot quantify in financial terms the expected benefits from its controversial £5.4bn National Identity Scheme (NIS).James Hall, chief executive of the Identity & Passport Service, said, “Many of these benefits [of the NIS] may be hard to quantify and potentially harder to articulate in financial terms within the scheme’s business case.”

Hall’s statement comes in the same month the IPS is due to announce initial contracts for the scheme’s framework procurement programme. The IPS estimated the technology costs to be 16% of total costs, about £758m. It said business and programme management costs would be 18% of costs (£853m), while the bulk of costs, 40% or £1.9bn, will go to “product manufacture and secure delivery”.

Hall’s statement was in response to an annual report from the scheme’s external watchdog, the Independent Scheme Assurance Panel (ISAP), published this week.

Hall went on to say, “The objectives and approach set out in our strategy will continue to lead the scheme towards delivery of a broad-based robust set of benefits.” Among the first to benefit would be job-seekers and employers who would find pre-employment checks easier, and young people, because the NIS would make it easier to get started in independent life, he said.

An updated assessment of the costs of the scheme published this week by the IPS reported an expected drop in the 10-year costs of registering UK and Northern Ireland nationals from £5.43bn to £4.74bn. However, the cost of supplying foreign nationals with ID cards would rise to £311m, bringing total costs to more than £5bn.

But anti-ID card lobbyist Phil Booth said the drop is attributable to “creative accounting in order to match the announcement by (Home Secretary) Jacqui Smith on 6 March”.

The IPS said the savings will accrue from rolling out the bulk of ID cards later in the project life-cycle, from a cheaper redevelopment of the existing passport application system, and from getting the private sector to collect fingerprint and facial images of card holders for the IPS. But it also said that holding back the bulk roll-out to 2012 would raise costs overall.

Computer Weekly has maintained from the scheme’s inception that the government has not made a convincing business case. It called then for the government to publish its Gateway Reviews that assessed the scheme’s viability. The government fought in court to keep these details secret, even in the face of recommendations by the Information Tribunal to publish them.

Toby Stevens, chief executive of the Enterprise Privacy Group (EPG), said the country had waited five years to see if the NIS would contribute to meeting public and private sector ID management needs. “If the government were to shelve or abandon it now, a host of competing initiatives would rush in. [Government] therefore [has] little choice but to proceed with the programme in one form or another, although there’s plenty of scope to modify how they deliver it,” Stevens said.

An IPS spokesperson said, “The Identity and Passport Service has made a robust business case for the National Identity Scheme and we remain committed to its delivery as outlined by the home secretary in March.

“The business case for the scheme has been produced in accordance with HM Treasury guidelines and includes assessment all of the relevant costs and benefits of the scheme.

“This business case has been subject to thorough review within the Home Office and by HM Treasury. It includes financial quantification of many of the currently dentified benefits of the scheme.

“It is clear that in addition to the currently quantified benefits there are many benefits that have been identified but have not been quantified. This is, in part, because some benefits are not easily quantified. For example increased identity assurance making terrorist acts harder to perpetrate is a benefit of introducing the NIS however it is not easy to put a value on the benefit to the UK economy.”

Stevens at the EPG said, “The early justifications for the ID cards scheme were driven by state-level needs such as preventing terrorism, stopping illegal working and reducing fraud. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove a business case in financial terms, and to their credit IPS are admitting this rather than trying to push unproven figures on us.”

Stevens said HM Treasury has made it clear that the scheme must be revenue-neutral in its delivery. “James Crosby’s report provides hope for such a justification, so long as the government is open to incorporating commercial needs in the scheme: delivery of clear commercial benefits for authentication, verification and entitlement services will create a charging mechanism for IPS to recover its costs, and even to reduce the delivery costs in the first place,” he said.

Stevens said if the government were to shelve or abandon the scheme now, a host of competing initiatives would rush in to fill that space created by the past five years of waiting to see if the NIS would contribute to meeting public and private sector ID management needs.

Ex-officials: Bush admin ignored Iraq corruption

0

iraqcorruption.jpgAP | The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees.

Arthur Brennan, who briefly served in Baghdad as head of the department’s Office of Accountability and Transparency last year, and James Mattil, who worked as the chief of staff, told Senate Democrats on Monday that their office was understaffed and its warnings and recommendations ignored.

Brennan also alleges the State Department prevented a congressional aide visiting Baghdad from talking with staffers by insisting they were too busy. In reality, Brennan said, office members were watching movies at the embassy and on their computers. The staffers’ workload had been cut dramatically because of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s “evisceration” of Iraq’s top anti-corruption office, he said.

The State Department’s policies “not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government,” Brennan told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

The U.S. embassy “effort against corruption – including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency – was little more than ‘window dressing,'” he added.

Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration takes the issue of corruption seriously and pointed to its recent appointment of Lawrence Benedict as coordinator for anti-corruption initiatives at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Benedict’s appointment “is another demonstration that we are working at very senior levels to help the Iraqis deal with this issue,” Casey said. “Any assertion that we have not taken this issue seriously or given it the attention it deserves is simply untrue.”

The Office of Accountability and Transparency, or “OAT” team, was intended to provide assistance and training to Iraq’s anti-corruption agencies. It was dismantled last December, after it alleged in a draft report leaked to the media that al-Maliki’s office had derailed or prevented investigations into Shiite-controlled agencies.

The draft report sparked hearings in Congress and prompted a showdown between Democrats and senior State Department officials on whether the public has a right to know the extent to which al-Maliki was involved in corruption cases.

Brennan charges the State Department never responded to his team’s report, which was retroactively classified because agency officials said it could hurt bilateral relations with Iraq. Other recommendations by the group also were kept secret, including a negative assessment of Iraq’s Joint Anti-Corruption Committee, Brennan said.

In July 2007, the OAT team concluded that the committee’s only purpose was to provide a forum for complaints against Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, a top anti-corruption official in Baghdad whom many U.S. officials have hailed as the most effective in exposing fraud and abuse.

But information later released by the embassy ignored the team’s assessment and ultimately “failed to even mention what a disaster” the committee “really was,” Brennan said.

Brennan said he approved the embassy report against his better judgment but later regretted it.

Mattil, who worked with Brennan, made similar allegations. Specifically, he said the U.S. “remained silent in the face of an unrelenting campaign” by senior Iraqi officials to subvert Baghdad’s Commission on Public Integrity, which had been led by al-Radhi. Then, the U.S. turned its back on Iraqis who fled to the United States after being threatened for pursuing anti-corruption cases, he said.

“Since we have done so little (to undercut corruption), it’s easy to see why the government of Iraq has not done more,” said Mattil, who left the accountability office last October after having served for a year as its chief of staff. “We have demanded no better.”

Brennan was appointed as OAT director last summer and arrived in Baghdad in July. He left only a few weeks later after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. He stepped down from his position in August.

Iraqi government officials could not be reached for comment.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, head of the Democratic Policy Committee, said the testimony was critical in light of upcoming legislation that would appropriate more than $170 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate Appropriations Committee, of which Dorgan is a member, is expected to approve the legislation Thursday.

“It is a cruel irony if we are appropriating money next Thursday or did appropriate money last month or last year and that money ends up actually providing the resources for an insurgency in Iraq which ends up killing Americans,” said Dorgan, D-N.D.

Massive earthquake in China kills at least 10,000

0

quake.jpgBy John Chan | At least 10,000 people were killed when an earthquake of 7.8 magnitude on the Richter scale hit the south-western Chinese province of Sichuan at 2:28 p.m. on Monday. The death toll is climbing continuously as bodies are pulled from the rubble of buildings and rescue workers arrive at new scenes of devastation.

Tremors rocked other parts of China including in Beijing and Shanghai that are thousands of kilometres from Sichuan. At least 300 deaths have been reported in three neighbouring provinces. Even residents in Thailand and Vietnam were forced to evacuate as buildings shook.

The impact of the quake was particularly devastating because it was relatively close to the earth’s surface–just 10 kilometres deep. The last major earthquake in China was in 1976 when the entire city of Tangshan was levelled and 270,000 people died.

Dale Rutstein from the UNICEF China organisation told the Scotsman: “I would expect the death toll to rise, as Sichuan is one of the most populated provinces and one of the poorest. There are a lot of people living in marginal areas that are difficult to get to, and a lot of buildings in those areas are substandard and could collapse very quickly.”

The present death toll includes just 15 deaths in Wenchuan county, right near the epicentre of the earthquake. Its 110,000 residents have had minimal contact with the outside world as of early this morning. In Beichuan county, which is also near the epicentre, 80 percent of buildings have reportedly collapsed, killing more than 7,000 people out of a population of 161,000.

According to the Xinhua newsagency, the Wenchuan Communist Party secretary, Wang Bin, wept during a satellite phone call as he explained that most peasant homes in two rural townships had collapsed. Most houses have been damaged and 30,000 people in Wenchuan are living in the open. Roads and rail links as well as electricity and water supplies have been severed in the county. “We are in urgent need of tents, food, medicine and satellite communications equipment through air drop,” Wang declared.

Wenchuan is home to a large population of Qiang and Tibetan minorities. Although just 88 kilometres from the Sichuan provincial capital of Chengdu, parts of the county have been closed to foreign journalists since the eruption of anti-government protests in Tibet in March.

In the Juyuan township of Dujiangyan city, just south of the epicentre, a three-storey school building collapsed burying 900 students. As elsewhere in China, the middle school was very crowded with 18 classes and 50 students in each class. The number of survivors is still not clear.

The London-based Times described the rescue scene: “Photographs posted on the Internet showed arms and torso sticking out of the rubble of the school as dozens of people scrabbled to free them. They used small winches or their bare hands to move concrete slabs. Rescuers had pulled 50 bodies from the debris. Two girls said that they escaped because they had run faster than others.”

A hospital in Juyuan also collapsed, burying hundreds of people. Another 420 students were trapped in school in Dujiangyan, and workers have rescued less than 100. More than 80 percent of buildings in the city have been damaged or destroyed completely.

Chinese authorities have dispatched 50,000 troops and armed police to the area, both to carry out rescue operations and, as with other major disasters, to insure against any eruption of popular anger. Heavy rains, damaged roads and landslides have been hampering rescue efforts.

All electricity and communication within a radius of 80 kilometres from the epicentre appears to be down. According China Mobile, the quake knocked out more than 2,300 of its cell-phone towers. Fixed phone lines have been severely disrupted throughout Sichuan.

The provincial capital of Chengdu has a population of 12 million people. Although no significant damage has been reported in the city, at least 45 people died and 600 were injured. Many residents slept outside for fear of further aftershocks. In a text message to the Associated Press, an Israeli student Ronen Medzini described the chaos: “Traffic jams, no running water, power cuts, everyone sitting in the streets, patients evacuated from hospitals sitting outside and waiting.”

In another major city of Chongqing, four students were killed and more than 100 injured when two primary schools were damaged. To the northwest of the epicentre, two chemical plants in Shifang city collapsed, burying hundreds of people and causing more than 80 tonnes of corrosive ammonia to leak out. Some 6,000 people had to be evacuated. The latest reports indicate that thousands of workers were trapped after a steam turbine factory collapsed in Hanwang.

The Chinese government has intervened rapidly to prevent the disaster become another source of popular discontent and international criticism. Premier Wen Jiabao rushed to the scene almost immediately after the earthquake and the state media has provided extensive reporting.

Outside the Juyuan Middle School, Wen bowed three times to show respect as bodies were pulled out from the rubble and urged rescue workers to make the utmost effort to save the children. “Not one minute can be wasted. One minute, one second could mean a child’s life,” he said. Making a national appeal, he declared: “In a socialist country under the great leadership of our government, the people will unite and overcome all disasters.”

Beijing is already facing international protests over its suppression of demonstrators in Tibet. It is also under pressure, particularly from the US, to press the Burmese junta to accept international aid for victims of the recent cyclone. Especially in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government is determined to show that it can handle any major disaster.

At home, the catastrophe has the potential to become another source of unrest. Earlier this year, severe snowstorms disrupted power and transport and stranded millions of passengers leading to widespread anger over the government inept handling of the crisis.

Far being “socialist”, the Chinese Communist Party has transformed the country over the past three decades into a gigantic sweatshop for foreign capital. The operation of the free market has led to a deepening gulf between rich and poor, fuelling discontent and anger towards the government, which is notorious for its corruption and callous indifference to the plight of the majority of the population.

The lack of government control over many economic sectors has significantly weakened its ability to coordinate disaster relief. Furthermore, while infrastructure for foreign investors is world class, transport, communications and other services in more backward provinces such as Sichuan is poor.

Sichuan is located at the fringes of the Qinghai-Tibet plateau–a zone particularly prone to earthquakes. It is already clear from the extensive damage, particularly in rural areas, that most buildings were not constructed to withstand tremors. A design code to take earthquakes into account was only instituted after the Tangshan disaster in 1976, and many buildings in Sichuan simply did not meet even its minimal requirements. Building codes are openly flouted by developers determined to maximise profits.

The governments in the US, Europe and Japan have been quick to send pro forma condolences and offers of aid to China. But there was no doubt a collective sign of relief in financial markets around the world that the catastrophe hit relatively isolated areas of China far from the economic powerhouses of the eastern seaboard where hundreds of billions of dollars of investment are at stake.

Weapons Were Not Made In Iran After All

0

iran-weapons.jpgIn a sharp reversal of its longstanding accusations against Iran arming militants in Iraq , the US military has made an unprecedented albeit quiet confession: the weapons they had recently found in Iraq were not made in Iran at all.

According to a report by the LA Times correspondent Tina Susman in Baghdad: “A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was cancelled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin. When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.”

 

The US, which until two weeks ago had never provided any proof for its allegations, finally handed over its “evidence” of the Iranian origin of these weapons to the Iraqi government. Last week, an Iraqi delegation to Iran presented the US “evidence” to Iranian officials. According to Al-Abadi, a parliament member from the ruling United Iraqi Alliance who was on the delegation, the Iranian officials totally refuted “training, financing and arming” militant groups in Iraq . Consequently the Iraqi government announced that there is no hard evidence against Iran.

 

In another extraordinary event this week, the US spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, for the first time did not blame Iran for the violence in Iraq and in fact did not make any reference to Iran at all in his introductory remarks to the world media on Wednesday when he described the large arsenal of weapons found by Iraqi forces in Karbala.

 

In contrast, the Pentagon in August 2007 admitted that it had lost track of a third of the weapons distributed to the Iraqi security forces in 2004/2005. The 190,000 assault rifles and pistols roam free in Iraqi streets today.

 

In the past year, the US leaders have been relentless in propagating their charges of Iranian meddling and fomenting violence in Iraq and since the release of the key judgments of the US National Intelligence Estimate in December that Iran does not have a nuclear weaponisation programme, these accusations have sharply intensified.

 

The US charges of Iranian interference in Iraq too have now collapsed. Any threat of military strike against Iran is in violation of the UN charter and the IAEA’s continued supervision on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities means there is no justification for sanctions.

 

CASMII calls on the US to change course and enter into comprehensive and unconditional negotiations with Iran.

 

For more information or to contact CASMII please visit http://www.campaigniran.org

The Culture of Capitalism

0

culture-of.jpgBy Jonathan Rutherford | We are living through an age of transition. The new co-exists with the old. We can identify political, economic and cultural elements of this change, but we do not yet have a way of describing the kind of society we are living in. The great explanatory frameworks of political economy and sociology inherited from the industrial modernity of the nineteenth century leave too much unsaid. Theories of the moment tend to skip from one modern phenomenon to another. They are like stones skimming across the surface of water. We lack a story of these times.

In the last three decades Britain, the US and other anglo-saxon economies have been experiencing a new type of capitalism. Class and the social relations of production are being re-organised by new regimes of capital accumulation. These changes raise a number of questions. How are new technologies and the new modes of production and consumption transforming the cultures and social relations of class? In what ways are individuals as social beings changing in these new conditions? How is capitalism utilising labour as a force of production? Contradictions abound across the old and the new, the national and the global. We need an analysis of contemporary capitalism, its culture of unrest and its forms of capital accumulation. There are no clear signposts to follow. But, as Rebecca Solnit says, getting lost is like the beginning of finding your way. Britain’s old model of mass industrial production and capital accumulation began to fail in the 1970s. Growing pressure from labour for increased wages was undermining business profitability. Trade and overseas markets were limited by international competition and the decolonisation process across the third world.

The growth of industrial capital relied upon a high ratio of profits to wages.[1] The outcome was a collapse in the rate of profit and a systemic crisis. Inflation rose to double figures. Economic growth slowed and the balance of payments deficit increased. Out of this crisis arose a new and invigorated global capitalism which originated in Britain and the US. Three factors underpinned its extraordinary revival. The first was the development of new information and communication technologies (ICTs), which began to transform traditional manufacturing and distribution systems.

The utilisation of knowledge and culture as economic resources created new types of ‘post-fordist’ firms, products and markets. The second was the influence on economic policy of neo-liberal ideals, which claimed to maximise individual freedom through the deregulation of markets. Only competitive capitalism, free from the interference of the state, could guarantee the separation of economic power from political power and so ensure liberty. Third, there was the emergence during the 1960s of new values in the counter-cultures of the young middle classes. Under conditions of growing and sustained affluence in the West, the imperatives of economic security gave way to post-materialist values associated with identity, ethics and belonging. These created a powerful trend toward a ‘liberation ethic’ of individual self-expression, anti-establishment sentiment, emotional attunement to the world, and the personal pursuit of pleasure. These cultures, the ideological weapon of neo-liberalism, and the new technologies of information and communication (including the media), were key resources for creating the new regimes of capital accumulation.

The political response to the crisis of capitalism came with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. The Conservative government began with no coherent ideology, but neo-liberal ideas soon began to set the agenda for change. A hegemonic project — Thatcherism — took shape. Milton Friedman’s ‘shock therapy’ was applied to the British economy and working class. The welfare state began to be dismantled. Low profit, traditional, manufacturing industry was shut down and de-industrialisation was allowed to accelerate. Mass unemployment was used to drive down labour costs and destroy the influence of the trade unions. Capital controls were abolished. The aim was to eradicate collectivist cultures and optimise the conditions for capital accumulation. A possessive, petty bourgeois individualism spoke a civic language of self-reliance and authoritarian populism. In contrast a hedonistic culture of consumer choice created markets in aesthetics, personal leisure and fashion. Technology first revolutionised the retailing sector and then catalysed change across the economy. As the de-industrialising North disintegrated into poverty, the big cities and Southern England boomed with new service, financial and high tech industries.

The neo-liberal ideology of Thatcherism virulently attacked the progressive social influences of the civic counter-cultures of the 1960s, while at the same time marketising them in consumer culture and in the social relations of the new industries. It transformed the political and economic landscape. However its attempts to reduce public owned resources as a share of GDP foundered on a residual, popular social democracy. In 1997 New Labour achieved power by appealing to this social democratic sensibility while accommodating itself to the neo-liberal ascendancy. To manage this contradiction it abandoned traditional class-based politics for its own brand of aspirational individualism. The ideological driving force was the Department of Trade and Industry under its Minister, Peter Mandelson.

A key figure was Charles Leadbeater, who had developed his idea of a new individualism a decade earlier in the pages of Marxism Today. The failure of the left, he had argued, was its lack of a vision of an individually-based collectivism. However, by the 1990s his ‘socialist individualism’ had metamorphised into the figure of the entrepreneur: ‘confident, inspiring, charismatic … quick to absorb new ideas, restless to discover new opportunities’.[2] Two documents have come to define New Labour’s adoption of this politics of individualisation. The 1998 Competitiveness White Paper, Our Competitive Future — Building the Knowledge Driven Economy, set out a framework for Britain’s industrial policy in which the market and its values were central. National prosperity depended on the ability to create a knowledge driven economy.

Peter Mandelson delivered New Labour’s vision: ‘Knowledge and its profitable exploitation by business is the key to competitiveness’. This was followed by the 2001 White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and Innovation, which addressed the creation of a labour force for the knowledge economy. Individual and business success was dependent upon a culture of innovation and competitiveness. Education and training would create workers who were autonomous entrepreneurs rather than dependent employees.

A new economy developed rapidly, based in the South East, organised around the technological development of the commodity and trading in intangible intellectual assets. It was dominated by the global financial sector, whose share of GDP increased from 6.6 per cent in 1996 to 9.4 per cent in 2006. Its business model became the new paradigm of the capitalist revival and has been incorporated into traditional sectors of the economy. Profit seeking in the traditional way is no longer the sole driver of economic activity. What counts is increasing shareholder value. As Richard Sennett has argued, companies must constantly ‘re-engineer’- introduce new products, create new markets, restructure their organisations and re-brand — to signal to the capital markets their economic dynamism. Profit alone will not guarantee a rising share price. This demand for constant change creates organisational cultures characterised by a state of permanent revolution without a cause.

The pursuit of insecurity is the business model of the new economy. It is this business model that New Labour adopted in its policies on the knowledge economy and in its modernisation plans for the public sector. Public service reform turned the organisational cultures of education, healthcare and welfare into quasi- or proxy markets. Intangible outputs such as relationships of care, the processes of learning and the provision of social security were incentivised and measured by proxies such as cost indicators and league tables, in order to judge their ‘value for money’.

A capitalism of intimacy

The fastest growing economic sector during the 1990s was the cultural industries- advertising, architecture, TV and radio, music, publishing, film and video, design, designer fashion, and computer and video games. Their raw materials are information, sounds, words, symbols, images, ideas, produced in creative, emotional and intellectual labour. By 2001 the Government’s Creative Industries Mapping Document reported that the cultural industries were worth £112.5bn and employed 1.3m people. Now estimated to be worth 8 per cent of the economy, they are indicative of the rise in an experience-oriented consumerism whose ends are aesthetic pleasure and self-fulfilment.

The Future Foundation’s regular survey Changing Lives asked interviewees in 2004: ‘If you had just one wish, which one of these would you choose? To be more highly esteemed; to have less fear; to be able to afford something; to be able to fulfil yourself; to have more friendship.’ The proportion choosing personal fulfilment as their number one wish more than doubled between 1986 and 2004; for those in their 60s it increased from 18 per cent to 56 per cent; for those in their 40s the rise was from 19 per cent to 48 per cent. In another question the survey asked: ‘For each item I read out will you please tell me whether you feel the need for it strongly, moderately, slightly, or not at all. Firstly … To satisfy my need for new experiences.’ Eighty per cent of 16-24 year olds felt they must strongly or moderately satisfy their need for new experiences, up from 56 per cent in 1983. A similar proportional increase was registered in those aged 35 to 54, with the largest increase being amongst 45 to 54 year olds: up from 22 per cent to 42 per cent. This cultural revolution crosses classes. During this period social group AB registered a fairly small increase in those responding positively to this question, from 55 per cent to 60 per cent; but in other social groups the proportion increased by a much greater margin. In the C2 group it rose from 32 per cent to 51 per cent and in the DE group from 35 per cent to 49 per cent.[3]

Individuals increasingly view culture as something to be actively created, rather than passed down from on high and passively consumed. The 2006 Office of National Statistics survey shows that after housing and transport costs, the highest household spending category is recreation and culture. Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace have facilitated new kinds of community for tens of millions of individuals. The virtual world Second Life, established in 2003, has over 5,500,000 avatars and L$2.6bn (Linden dollars) in virtual circulation. Its real world exchange rate is L$250 to the US dollar.

After social networking and pornography, the internet’s largest collective activity is the creation of family histories. Individuals are redefining a sense of history through their personal genealogies. Technology is creating new kinds of commons and at the same time opening up new opportunities for capital to commodify these cultural practices. The new capitalism is extending commodification into the realms of subjective life. Its forms of production are not confined to output, but use individuals and their relationships in the co-inventing of cultural and symbolic meanings and new ideas. The market creates communities of interests and seeks the intimacy of the consumer in order to embed commercial transactions in personal and daily life.

Promotional culture creates desiring consumers whose personal histories can be mined for their interests, desires and purchases. The economic sphere expands as production conscripts the thinking, imagination and sensibilities of individuals. New kinds of property and property relations are being created by companies using patenting and intellectual property law. Just as early industrial capitalism enclosed the commons of land and labour, so today’s post-industrial capitalism is enclosing the cultural and intellectual commons (both real and virtual), the commons of the human mind and body, and the commons of biological life. Paulo Virno argues that the productive force of post-fordist economic activity is ‘the life of the mind’.[4] Not just cognition, but also intuition and the symbolic world of the unconscious, where communication is non-verbal. In order to utilise this potential, capital is creating communicative forms of labour. These forms do not make tangible products but function as transmitters of care, information, symbolic meaning and learning (in effect, they lubricate the means of production).

Education plays a central role in producing these new kinds of production. The organisational cultures of schools, colleges and universities have been subjected to continuous corporate reform as they are geared to the labour market and economy. Their function is to realise individual productive potential and to facilitate the restructuring of the class relations of production. Because communicative labour has no end product, what counts as a measure of productivity is performance. In school and at work, a culture of capitalism rewards individuals who comply with market shaped criteria to measure, judge and discipline themselves in pursuit of a self-reliant, entrepreneurial form of life.

This culture of capitalism is about producing the subjectivity of the individual as a form of economic potential. Failure, closely linked to class, brings with it the threat of exclusion from its promise of a good life. But success on its treadmill of competitive exams, performance demanding careers, and never-be-still life trajectories, can lead to a sense of inauthenticity and futility. The culture of capitalism is nihilistic. It invades what the psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott calls the space of creative living, which is ‘sacred to the individual’. Here, in the name of profit, or utility or function, it requisitions the tools of social life — intellect, learning, relational life, communication.

Class and consumption

The promises of economic success and the pleasures of consumption cast a veil over the inequalities generated by these new modes of capital accumulation. A majority of the UK population is peripheral to wealth creation and its productive forces. One in six leaves school unable to read, write or add up properly. Social mobility has diminished. The fastest growing occupations are not in creative and knowledge work, but in low paid communicative labour: data input, admin, face-to-face services in health, education and care. Half the population share just 6 per cent of UK wealth, owning assets of £600 or less. In stark contrast to this low wage, low skill workforce is the new, high net worth market of very rich individuals. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has identified the top 1 per cent of individuals — 470,000 people — who earn an average annual income of £220,000 and between them own approximately 25 per cent of marketable wealth. Within this group wealth is unevenly distributed, with the top 0.1 per cent earning an average of £780,000.[5]

The traditional working class in the UK, formed out of the industrial revolution, has lost its economic role as the engine of wealth creation. Manufacturing as a share of GDP fell to 13.2 per cent in 2006. With the introduction of new technologies, its workforce continues to decline. Goods are increasingly imported from a periphery of poor, low-wage economies where primitive forms of capital accumulation, backed up by WTO rules and bilateral trade agreements, are creating a global proletariat in conditions of violence and exploitation. The working class, forced to compete with this global proletariat in a flexible labour market, is being caught in a vortex of Victorian-era casualised labour. Migrant labour is used by unscrupulous employers to further deregulate the labour market and drive down wages. The institution of work, once a source of collective cultural identity, has become fragmented, making forms of class solidarity difficult to organise.

Class consciousness is displaced by the fear of redundancy, not simply from employment but from life’s purpose. This threat to the integrity of the self generates anxieties over individual status and loss of recognition as a social being. The culture of capitalism has depoliticised class while heightening the inequalities and social gulf between classes. In the society of consumers, class develops a new lexicon of cultural domination. Individualised status-seeking consumption enacts the old class conflicts and inequalities. Consumption offers the pleasurable pursuit of desire, but it is also a mass symbolic struggle for individual social recognition, which distributes shame and humiliation to those lower down the hierarchy. The pain of failure, of being a loser, of being invisible to those above, cuts a deep wound in the psyche. This kind of stress dramatically increases our vulnerability to disease and premature death. Violence is more common where there is more inequality because people are deprived of the markers of status and so are more vulnerable to the anxieties of being judged by others.

This is the culture of consumption that has driven growth in the UK economy. It has been primed by the hard selling of cheap credit, which makes accessible a never-ending value chain of positional goods. The resulting personal debt has created an indentured consumption that requires never-ending work in a precarious labour market. Total UK debt stands at £1.4 trillion, of which £223bn is unsecured debt. In terms of profitability what counts is not the selling of commodities, but the lending to buy them. The highly lucrative markets in debt have fuelled the City bonuses of the super-rich. In 2007 they totalled £14bn. In effect capital lays claim to future earnings as a means of accumulation.

The extension of the commodity form into non-market areas of life has privatised the public realm and opened up intimate, personal life to the market. It has eroded civility, and the boundary between social relations and economic utility. It threatens the social bonds of care, association and community. Isolation and alienation contribute to a social recession: a near epidemic of stress, eating disorders, alcoholism, mental illness, men’s violence against women. The culture of capitalism, with its boundless choices and omniscient dreams of celebrity fame, disassembles human wanting and need. What is claimed to be freedom veers toward a tyranny of objectless desire, an opaque and unbounded world that leads to all kinds of compulsive and addictive behaviours. Personal boundaries are more easily pierced by nameless fears. Young women, subjected to an unremitting commercial sexual gaze, are incited into anxious states of self-dislike and body-management. What is inside and what is outside is no longer clear. It has become commonplace to feel one lives, so to speak, as a stranger outside the community.

Cultural difference is the prism through which large sections of the white population experience and react to their insecurity. Migrants whose cheap labour is exploited to bring down wage levels are viewed as competition for housing and under-resourced public services. They become the portents of social disaster and cultural loss. Political antagonisms and culture wars around race, gender and religion attempt to construct boundaries of identity which will define a sense of belonging and entitlement. At stake in the transition from an investment in an imagined mono-culture to a capacity to live with multi-culture is the struggle for individual and cultural recognition. As Sue Gerhardt argues, ‘we are dependent on what others see, and how much of our “being” they recognise’. Class inequality creates a paucity of recognition, and cultural difference becomes a focus for people’s fear, paranoia and hatred.

The uncertainty, the constant change and the decline in a sense of belonging herald the spectre of the cultural destruction of the traditional working class. Life continues but the cultural symbols that gave it meaning have been destroyed. Those who flourished in the old class culture find themselves ill equipped to deal with the new. For them the future becomes difficult to imagine. The question of hope is bound to the question of how to live. To lose a way of life is to lose a sense of hopefulness.

A new politics

We live in a time not of capitalism without class, but of capitalism destroying and creating class cultures and social relations around its new modes of production. Technologies continue to transform industries. Large sections of the population live and work as if they are a reserve army of labour: economically inactive, or working in casualised and temporary jobs, or threatened with the loss of their job. Class inequalities in health and education are becoming entrenched. The process of individualisation, evident for much of modernity, has been accelerated by the market and the imposition of entrepreneurial ways of life. Employees, students, schoolchildren, welfare benefit recipients are made responsible for their own social capital investment decisions, risk management and life course.

With the decline in welfare provision, work, however insecure and poorly paid, is deified by the government as the panacea of all social and individual ills. The culture of capitalism demands competitive self-enhancement and performativity, and with these come the threats of a precarious life, personal failure and existential redundancy. This culture of nihilism erodes the trust and reciprocity which underpinned the interdependencies of individuals. Non-market modes of life are squeezed between the intensifying demands for target driven productivity and commercial value, and the fear of being excluded or made useless and invisible.

After three decades, there is no end in sight to this period of transition. Despite the vigour of capitalist growth, the structural problems of the 1970s associated with the falling rate of profit have not been resolved. Rising oil prices associated with peak oil and growing international competition from China and India threaten the longer term hegemony of Western capital. The collapse of the US sub-prime market has revealed the inherent dangers of under-regulated financialised capitalism. An argument can now be made that the era of possessive individualism is on the ebb.

Popular response amongst the middle classes to the experience of individualisation is changing. The benefits of economic growth and the pleasures of consumerism are increasingly marred by anxieties over debt and now the prospect of falling house prices. The growing levels of mental illness are not confined to people living in poverty. Middle-class children are at risk of self-harm, eating disorders, depression and burn-out. The fear of impoverishment in old age, and the burdens of caring for aged relatives, extend across the population. Compounding these is the threat of global warming. For the great majority of people, there are no individual, market solutions to these problems.

New forms of political activity have grown up outside the institutions and structures of the old order. They have created a multitude of skirmishes that defy the old political categories. An extraordinary array of social movements, single issue campaigns and community actions reflect a growing level of political activity that is often global in its dimension. These social and cultural politics are also manifest in individual and group pre-occupations with race, identity and belonging. There is a ‘bio-politics’ of the body, emotions, sexuality, nature. ‘Life’, argues Virno, ‘lies at the centre of politics when the prize to be won is immaterial labour power.’ Democratic personal relationships, an ethics of authenticity, and ecological concern inform alternative ways of living that seek to counter the invasive force of the market and commodification. These micro-politics are without common voice or organisation, but they articulate the contradictions and conflicts of the emerging social and class relations of contemporary capitalism.

The change from a society of producers to a society of consumers requires a new kind of politics. The old politics and language of collectivism has lost its applicability. Central to any new politics of the left will be the revival of forms of political struggle around class and inequality. It will need to develop an idea of the common — a livable balance between togetherness and individual autonomy. Individuals are not the discrete and closed personalities of capitalist markets. We bring into the world our own propensities, but our minds and individuality are properties of the cultures, values, conscious and unconscious communications we grow up within. They form the fabric of our social bonds and relations. The culture of capitalism does violence to this fabric because it destroys the relational nature of individuality. A new politics will be socialist because it will recognise the interdependence of individuals. Tend to the social and the individual will flourish.

Notes

1. Andrew Glyn and Bob Sutcliffe, British Capitalism: Workers and the Profits Squeeze, Penguin 1972, p15.

2. Charles Leadbeater, Living on Thin Air, Penguin 2000, p243.

3. See Will Hutton, Aine O’Keefe, Phillipe Schneider, Robert Andari, Staying ahead: the economic performance of the UK’s creative industries, The WorkFoundation 2007, chapter 3.

4. Paulo Virno, A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life, Semiotexte, p84 www.generation-online.org/c/fcmultitude3.htm.

5. Mike Brewer, Luke Sibieta, Liam Wren-Lewis, Racing Away? Income inequality and the evolution of high incomes, Institute of Fiscal Studies 2007.

US drops 9/11 ‘hijacker’ charges

al-qahtani.jpgThe Pentagon has dropped charges against a man alleged to have been the “20th hijacker” in the September 11 attacks, his US military defence lawyer has said.
Mohammed al-Qahtani, who is being held at a US military jail at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was one of six men facing murder and war crimes charges for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks.

Bryan Broyles, al-Qahtani’s military lawyer, said on Monday that Susan Crawford, the convening authority for military commissions, dismissed the charges against al-Qahtani on Friday.

The charges were dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning they could be filed again at some point in the future.

Crawford is proceeding with charges against five other people accused of having a role in the attacks, Broyles said.

Prosecutors are to seek the death penalty for the men if they are found to be guilty.
Military tribunal Authorities allege al-Qahtani was only prevented from taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the US by an immigration official.

The US military said that he had no return ticket and Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, was waiting for him.

Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subject to harsh interrogation authorised by Donald Rumsfeld, the former US defence secretary.

The five defendants who are still facing charges include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is alleged to have masterminded the attacks in 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The five charged men are set to be arraigned before a military tribunal at Guantanamo, where the US holds about 270 men on “suspicion of terrorism” or links to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Human rights organisations have criticised the rule that allows US judges to decide whether to allow evidence that may have been obtained under “coercion”.

US authorities have acknowledged that Mohammed was “waterboarded” – an interrogation method designed to simulate the sensation of drowning – by CIA interrogators.

Al-Qahtani last year retracted a confession he said he made after he was tortured at Guantanamo.

In a written statement he said was beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female military staff.

UK must pursue war crimes investigations

0

candle.jpgAmnesty International UK today expressed disappointment that despite six months of investigation, the United Kingdom authorities have not been able to amass sufficient evidence to determine whether it is possible to mount a successful prosecution of a Sri Lankan commander suspected of torture, hostage taking and war crimes. Vinavaamoorthi Muraliitharan, commonly known as Colonel Karuna, is suspected of abducting hundreds of teenagers to serve as child soldiers, and of having tortured, taken as hostage and killed hundreds of civilians in Sri Lanka.

Colonel Karuna was a prominent leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an armed opposition group fighting for an independent Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka. He left the LTTE to set up his own splinter group, the Tamileel Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, or People’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (TMVP), which also has a political wing. Since March 2004, the group appears to have been operating with the support of the Sri Lankan Army to challenge the LTTE in eastern Sri Lanka.

Colonel Karuna was residing in the United Kingdom when he was taken into custody by British authorities in November last year on charges of immigration offences.

According to reports, Colonel Karuna was released from prison and transferred to an immigration detention centre late last night pending possible deportation.

Under international law, the UK must conduct prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations of allegations of torture, hostage taking and war crimes, including child recruitment and the use of child soldiers.

However, Amnesty International understands that the fact that the UK does have jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity was not made clear to victims and prospective witnesses.

Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK, said:

‘The police and the Crown Prosecution Service must make every effort to encourage anyone with information about any such crimes to come forward with evidence, by providing them with effective guarantees of their security.

‘Without such assurances witnesses may be reluctant to relay information about alleged crimes that the UK authorities are obliged to investigate.’

Colonel Karuna, like anyone suspected of a criminal offence, is entitled to be presumed innocent, until and unless his guilt can be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial. However, the organisation is aware of numerous allegations against him that merit thorough investigation.

Amnesty International urges the authorities to investigate thoroughly, promptly, impartially and independently all allegations of crimes committed by Colonel Karuna and his forces including:
· Torture committed after March 2004 when Colonel Karuna is believed to have allied himself with the state armed forces
· Hostage taking committed after 1988, including when he was a member of the LTTE
· War crimes and crimes against humanity including child recruitment.

Bush Administration Sued for Allowing Use of Pesticides

0

pesticides.jpgBy Jo Hartley | Environmental and farm worker groups have now sued the Bush administration for allowing the continued use of four pesticides. They claim that the government brushed aside its own evidence that the chemicals are toxic to workers, children, and animals.

The suit challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2006 decision to reauthorize the four pesticides used on fruit and vegetable fields in California.

A 1996 federal law required the EPA to reassess the safety of all pesticides used on foods. Based on this reassessment, the EPA was to decide whether to approve their use. The EPA found that four substances posed substantial risks to human health but they concluded that the cost savings to growers outweighed the dangers to humans.

These four pesticides reportedly put thousands of farm workers and their families at risk of serious illness.

EPA spokesman Tim Lyons stated that the agency would review the lawsuit and respond in court. However, they did say: “Our mission is to protect the environment and human health.”

California officials have officially classified one of the pesticides (ethoprop) as a carcinogen. The state requires manufacturers to disclose this risk on any product label but cannot outright ban the pesticide because it has the EPA’s approval. The suit said the pesticide, which is mainly used on potatoes, sugarcane, and tobacco, has been linked to fish deaths and has also begun to drift from fields into nearby rural communities.

Another pesticide (methidathion) has been listed as an air contaminant by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation due to the potential health hazards associated with it. This chemical is used on artichokes, oranges, almonds, peaches and olives in California.

The other two pesticides are methamidophos (used mostly on potatoes and cotton) and oxydemeton-methyl (used on broccoli, lettuce, cauliflower, corn, cabbage and Brussels sprouts). The suit stated that both have been associated with bird deaths. Methamidophos has been banned or severely restricted in several countries in recent years. Oxydemeton-methyl is now linked to birth defects.

The basis for the lawsuit is the EPA’s own findings about the risks associated with these four pesticides.

Federal law allows the agency latitude to approve the continued use of risky pesticides such as these based on offsetting benefits. The main benefit preventing the EPA ban of these chemicals is, not surprisingly, cost savings. However, the EPA has failed to address the specific dangers each pesticide poses to children. It has also not taken into adequate account the potential adverse effects on farm workers or to wildlife.

The suit is seeking a court order requiring the agency to re-evaluate once again the use of these pesticides. Plaintiffs in the suit include the United Farm Workers, the Teamsters, Pesticide Action Network North America, Beyond Pesticides and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Heckler at the Back

0

arms.jpgSchNews | Campaigners in Nottingham have the world’s second largest seller of small-arms, Heckler and Koch, firmly in their sights. One would have thought that a city infamous for its gun crime would be a poor location for a warehouse full of guns. Not according to H&K, who do great business equipping war-mongers on any side.

Proud owners of H&K weaponry include the brutal militias of Darfur — the Janjaweed. Funnily enough, despite the outcry against the massacres in Darfur, they obviously weren’t quite bad enough to stop selling weapons to the perpetrators. Even a recent arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against a senior Sudanese politician accused of selling H&K weapons to the Janjaweed hasn’t seemed to stem the flow of H&K guns to a militia accused by everyone including the US of committing genocide. (H&K guns also fill the arsenals of the US Dept of Homeland Security, US Navy Seals & the FBI amongst others).

H&K have a ‘strategic partnership’ with the world’s largest mercenary company Blackwater (see SchNEWS 572). H&K supply the guns to the Iraqi and Afghan puppet governments, and Blackwater provide the training (perhaps they also supply child-sized targets for their students).

There was a plan for H&K to produce special edition ‘Blackwater’ weapons — complete with the Blackwater logo on them. However, after Blackwater made the headlines for killing 17 innocent Iraqis (not the first time that Blackwater have killed innocent Iraqis, but the first time that it made the news in a major way), the plan was shelved.

Nearly 100 people showed up this Tuesday (6th) to march against H&K at their Nottingham facility, accompanied by large numbers of police who, in the words of one protester were ‘their usual sinister selves’. The FIT Team (See www.fitwatch.blogspot.com) made their (always unwelcome presence) and did what they do best — blatantly intimidate people all day with video cameras; following some people home.

Interestingly, local media also came under pressure; Trent FM, who had shown some enthusiasm about reporting the demo, received a word in their ear from both H&K’s press office as well as the police, warning hacks that it would be ‘irresponsible’ to publish the fact that H&K has a warehouse full of weapons in Nottingham, as it may prompt criminals to try and steal them.

In response the campaigners pointed out to the radio station that H&K’s address was published at Company House, as well as in several business directories. About the radio station being leaned on, the campaigners said that “If the security policy of H&K and Notts police relies on no-one finding out the company’s location, then clearly it is they who are irresponsible, not our campaign and not the media. A large warehouse stocked with high-power assault rifles and submachine guns with inadequate security to prevent a robbery is clearly a significant danger to the public, and publicisng such a danger is very much in the public interest.”

The H&K warehouse, located at Easter Park, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, is next to the ‘Trent Vineyard’, an evangelist church that held the funeral of Danielle Beccan, a 14 year old girl who was killed in a drive-by shooting. At her funeral service the then mayor of Nottingham said, “Guns have no place at all in our community — not in Nottingham, not in my city nor any other city in Britain.”

One campaigner told us “The arms trade relies on secrecy. Most people abhor the idea of factories and warehouse making and selling weapons around the world, and arms companies know this. By lifting the lid on the business, anti-arms protesters can make a put the pressure on the government/corporate killing machine to stop killing for profit.”

* http://nottsantimilitarism.wordpress.com

Outrage in UK over staff blacklisting database

blacklisting.jpgBy Niall Byrne | Last week the announcement that several UK retailers were collaborating on compiling a database of employees dismissed over suspicion of theft or fraud caused furore amongst the public, trade unions and civil liberties groups. The database is the brainchild of Action Against Business Crime (AABC), the national organisation for Business Crime Reduction Partnerships in the UK, and is due to go live later this month.

Employees who are dismissed for dishonesty or who resign before they can be dismissed will be added to the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR), which can be searched by prospective employers when conducing a background check on a job candidate.

Acts that can get an ex-employee put on the register include theft or attempted theft of money, merchandise or property, falsification or forgery of documents, fraud, causing a loss to the company or causing damage to company property.

Controversially, people added to the register will not have had to have been convicted or even charged in court with the alleged acts — the suspicion of the former employer is enough to have somebody included. Critics have suggested a person’s career prospects could be devastated by unproven accusations as a result.

The contentious database appears to have state blessing as AABC is a partnership between the British Retail Consortium and the Home Office.

The UK privacy watchdog Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has no problem with the database, arguing that companies will not be allowed to use an entry on the register as the sole reason to deny a job applicant employment. It also said people must be informed when they are being added to the database and have a right to appeal.

The ICO said it has worked closely with business technology firm Hicom Business Solutions, which is managing the database.

Employers will be able to search for job candidates by name, address, date of birth, national insurance number and previous employer.

The British Trade Unions Congress (TUC) has criticised the database plan.

“While criminal activity in the workplace can never be condoned, the TUC is concerned that this register could lead to people being excluded from the job market by an employer who falsely accuses them of misconduct or sacks them because they bear them a grudge,” commented TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber.

“The Criminal Records Bureau was set up to assist employers to make safe appointments when recruiting staff to work with vulnerable groups and already provides appropriately targeted and effectively regulated protection for employers.”

Paul Kenny, general secretary of GMB, a major union for shop workers, commented: “The fact that the elite who run the companies that run the stores would even contemplate going down this road with the connivance of government shows how far public policy has drifted away from norms of fairness and due process. There will be an enormous kick back against this and as a major union for shop workers GMB will lead the charge.

“There is every scope for people to be stitched up and getting them on a register like this is tantamount to ensuring they’ll never work again,” he added. “Employers faced with employees stealing from them have the same recourse as everybody else to the courts. This lynch mob register should not be used by reputable employers.”

GMB threatened to take action against employers that used the NSDR.

The NSDR is supported by major UK retailers such as Harrods, HMV, Mothercare and Selfridges, as well as human resources company, Reed Managed Services.

AABC said the database is necessary to reduce the £497m sterling it estimates is lost to UK businesses each year due to employee theft and fraud.

Opinions voiced on British online publications and blogs last week overwhelmingly condemned the NSDR. Some commentators have suggested the database could end up with those companies that use it being sued for defamation.

Blackwater back to Iraq

blackwater.jpgOutrage over the killings prompted the Iraqi government to demand Blackwater’s ouster from the country. But after an intense public and private lobbying campaign, Blackwater appears to be back to business as usual.

The State Department has just renewed its contract to provide security for US diplomats in Iraq for at least another year.

Threats by the Iraqi government to strip Western contractors of their immunity from Iraqi law have gone nowhere.

The chief reason for the company’s survival?

State Department officials say they do not believe they have any alternative to Blackwater, which supplies about 800 guards to the department to guard diplomats in Baghdad.

Officials say only three companies in the world currently meet their requirements for protective services in Iraq, and the other two don’t have the capability to take on Blackwater’s role in Baghdad.

The State Department did not even open talks with the other two firms, DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, to see if they could take over from Blackwater after the shooting in September.

We cannot operate without private security firms in Iraq,” said Patrick Kennedy, under secretary of state for management. “If the contractors were removed, we would have to leave Iraq.”

Still, serious legal risks remain for Blackwater and at least some of its current and former personnel.

A federal grand jury continues to consider evidence in the Baghdad shooting.

Although the company is not likely to face any criminal charges, people involved in the case say that some Blackwater guards involved in the shooting are cooperating with the FBI as it pursues evidence against other guards.

Separately, a former Blackwater guard is under criminal investigation for the December 2006 shooting death of an Iraqi guard for the vice president of Iraq, and may soon face federal charges.

In a third case, two former Blackwater personnel have pleaded guilty to weapons-related charges, but earlier this year both received sentences that included no jail time in return for their cooperation with federal prosecutors in a broader investigation.

A committee of the House of Representatives has also asked the Internal Revenue Service to launch an inquiry into whether Blackwater has designated its guards as independent contractors rather than employees to in order to avoid paying and withholding federal taxes.

The State Department renewed the security contract for only one year – just long enough to take the company into the start of the next administration. And Blackwater’s political connections to the Bush administration may not serve it well if the Democrats take the White House in November.

Given the furor that surrounded Blackwater after the September shooting in Baghdad, critics say the decision to renew the company’s contract in Iraq is a sign of the Bush administration’s inability to curb its reliance on outside contractors in the war. –IRNA

First US aid plane lands in Burma

1

burma1.jpgBBC News | The first US aid flight to Burma following the devastating cyclone nine days ago has landed in Rangoon after a journey from an air base in Thailand. Permission for the aircraft to land in Rangoon was granted after a week of talks with Burma’s military rulers.

Experts have warned that aid entering the country is vastly inadequate for the scale of the disaster.

They say help has reached less than one third of those in need – and say many thousands of people are still missing.

On Sunday, Burmese TV said the death toll had risen to 28,458, while 33,416 were missing.

Aid agencies, however, estimate that 100,000 have died and warn that this figure could rise to 1.5 million without provision of clean water and sanitation.

Nine days after Cyclone Nargis struck Burma’s low-lying Irrawaddy Delta region, survivors are beginning to gather in makeshift camps around the edges of the disaster zone.

The UN, which has launched a $187m (£96m) appeal for aid, says people urgently need food, water, shelter and medical aid.

Many are said to be dehydrated or suffering from injuries that have not been treated.

Fresh video footage has emerged that shows the extent of the suffering, including the corpses of children lined up in a makeshift morgue.

But there are some signs that Burma’s military leaders may be relaxing their stance on accepting foreign aid.

Firstly, the US plane was given permission to land. It was carrying 12,700kg of supplies including mosquito nets, blankets and water.

And three aircraft from medical relief agency Medecins Sans Frontieres are due in the country later.

A number of other flights arrived over the weekend and some supplies were trucked across the border.

But many foreign experts are still waiting for visas to enter the country and on Sunday, the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) said that the amount of aid getting to victims was “nowhere near the scale required”.

The US military says about 11,000 servicemen and four ships are in the region for an annual military exercise and could be harnessed to help.

But the junta is sticking to its line – foreign aid is acceptable, foreign aid workers are not.

“Aid from any nations [is] accepted, and delivery of relief goods can be handled by local organisations,” said minister for economic development, Soe Tha.

But he admitted in the New Light of Myanmar newspaper that some areas were still cut off.

“Supplies were dropped in flooded areas where the helicopters could not land,” he said.

UK Foreign Minister David Miliband said the military government’s attitude was helping to create a “humanitarian catastrophe of genuinely epic proportions”.

Aid agencies warn of serious logistical hurdles getting supplies to affected areas.

Roads and bridges have been washed away, and heavy rain is forecast for the coming week, further complicating relief efforts.

On Sunday, a Red Cross boat carrying rice and drinking water for 1,000 people in Bogalay town hit a submerged tree and sank.

Michael Annear, the IFRC’s disaster manager in Rangoon, described the sinking as “a big blow”.

The European Union is to hold an emergency meeting on getting aid to Burma on Tuesday – while Asean (The Association of South-East Asian Nations) says it will discuss the issue next Monday.

Planets by the Dozen

1

sun.jpgBy Dr. Tony Phillips | You know the planets of our solar system, each a unique world with its own distinctive appearance, size, and chemistry. Mars, with its bitter-cold, rusty red sands; Venus, a fiery world shrouded in thick clouds of sulfuric acid; sideways Uranus and its strange vertical rings. The variety is breathtaking.

Now imagine the variety that must exist in hundreds of solar systems. There may be worlds out there that make Venus seem hospitable and Uranus positively upright. Only 20 years ago, astronomers were unsure whether any such worlds existed beyond our own solar system. Now, they’ve found more than 280 of them, each with its own planetary “personality,” each a fascinating example of what a world can be.

Yet the heyday of planetary discovery is only just beginning. This fall, astronomers will start a massive search for new planets by observing about 11,000 nearby stars over 6 years. This number dwarfs the roughly 3,000 stars that astronomers have searched to date for the presence of planets. Scientists estimate that the NASA-funded project, called MARVELS (Multi-object Apache Point Observatory Radial Velocity Exoplanet Large-area Survey), will find at least 150 new planets–perhaps many more.

“We’re looking in particular for giant planets like Jupiter,” says Jian Ge, principal investigator for MARVELS and an astronomer at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Ge likens big planets to “beacons of a lighthouse” signaling the presence of entire solar systems. “Once we find a big planet around a star, we know that smaller planets could be there, too.”

MARVELS will do much more than just catalogue a few hundred more planets. By surveying the Jupiter-like planets around such a large number of stars, MARVELS aims to give astronomers the data they need to test competing theories for how planetary systems form and evolve.

To look at so many stars, MARVELS will use a telescope that can separately image 60 stars at a time, and this number will eventually be increased to 120 stars. The telescope, which will be housed at the Apache Point Observatory in the Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico, has a 2.5 meter primary mirror and a wide field of view that covers 7 square degrees of the sky–an area that would appear 35 times larger than the Moon.

An array of 60 fiber-optic threads will carry light from the telescope’s focal plane to highly sensitive interferometers. These instruments can detect tiny changes in the frequency of a star’s light. How does this help find planets? Ge explains: When a star is tugged to and fro by the gravity of an orbiting planet, the star’s light is shifted to and fro in frequency–an effect called the Doppler shift. The powerful gravity of Jupiter-sized planets exerts a big tug on the parent star, making them relatively easy to find using the Doppler shift method.

If Ge and his colleagues see a star’s frequency slowly increasing and decreasing in a repeating cycle over days, weeks, or months, it’s a good bet that a planet is there.

Scientists are keen to learn what kinds of stars have orbiting gas giants. One theory for how these planets form predicts that stars rich in heavy elements such as silicon, oxygen, and nickel should be more likely to have Jupiter-like planets. Imagine a planet-forming disk surrounding such a star: The disk, like the star itself, would be rich in heavy elements. Those heavier elements would form rocky chunks in the disk, and these dense chunks would collide and merge to create a “planet seed” with strong enough gravity to gather gas around itself and grow into a behemoth.

So if MARVELS finds more gas giants around stars containing heavier elements, the survey would support this theory. But some gas giants might not need these heavy elements to form. Another theory suggests that Jupiter-like planets can arise simply because a disturbance in the planet-forming disk starts the gravitational collapse of a region of gas and dust–no seed required.

By examining a large number of stars with a variety of heavy element fractions, MARVELS may be able to distinguish between these two ideas.

Data from MARVELS will also shed light on other questions about planet formation, such as how often the orbits of gas giants migrate closer to their stars, and how planets sometimes end up with highly eccentric orbits instead of the nearly circular orbits predicted by theory. By surveying an unprecedented number of stars, MARVELS could deliver the data scientists need to find patterns about the conditions most favorable for planet creation, knowledge that can guide future, detailed observations of individual stars.

Follow-up observations might eventually use space telescopes powerful enough to make out the rough appearance of those many worlds. The planets we know may only hint at the marvels waiting … out there.

Spy Chief Presents New Peace Plan

0

palestinian.jpgBy Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani | Palestinian resistance factions signed on to an Egyptian ceasefire proposal last month aimed at bringing a measure of calm to the hapless Gaza Strip. In a bid to secure Tel Aviv’s endorsement of the plan, intelligence chief Omar Suleiman is expected to travel to Israel later this month.

“The head of intelligence will travel there after upcoming holiday celebrations in Israel,” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said last week, without providing a specific date. During this week and next, Israel will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its establishment.

Ever since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip last June, the territory has been subject to a series of devastating Israeli military operations, ostensibly launched in retaliation for Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli border towns. Despite having won a majority in 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Hamas is described by both Washington and Tel Aviv as a “terrorist organisation.”

In April, Egyptian mediators persuaded Palestinian resistance factions to accept a proposal for ‘tahdia’, or “calming” of hostilities, with Israel.

The initiative calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities by both sides. It further calls for the reopening of border crossings into and out of the Gaza Strip, which has been hermetically sealed by a year-long, Israel-enforced embargo.

According to official sources, this would include the contentious Rafah terminal, the sole transit point along Egypt’s 14 km border with the besieged territory.

Under the terms of the proposal, however, the ceasefire would initially apply only to the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip. If the truce holds, it would be extended to the West Bank — governed by the western-backed Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas — after a period of six months.

At a meeting with Suleiman in Cairo in mid-April, Hamas officials gave the initiative their cautious support. While in Cairo days later, Abbas similarly declared Fatah’s official support for the Egyptian proposal.

In the last days of April, a dozen smaller Palestinian resistance groups — after a round of separate meetings with Suleiman — also conditionally signed on to the ceasefire plan.

“The factions clearly see tahdia as within their interests,” Abdelaziz Shadi, professor of political science and coordinator of the Israeli studies programme at Cairo University told IPS. “Palestinian consensus on the issue has bolstered Egypt’s position as mediator.”

Suleiman, a long-time arbitrator in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, is now mandated with pitching the proposal to Tel Aviv. While in Israel, he is expected to hold talks with several top officials, including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

The initiative has so far met with little enthusiasm from Israeli officialdom. According to reports in the Hebrew press, security officials insist Egypt eradicate all alleged cross-border arms smuggling and guarantee the release of a kidnapped Israeli soldier before terms of the proposal are even considered.

According to Shadi, Israel believes that its intransigence on the issue “will improve its bargaining position in future final-status negotiations.”

Egyptian ceasefire efforts run alongside on-again off-again peace talks between Olmert and Abbas, launched following last November’s Annapolis summit in the U.S. Having made virtually no headway to date, these negotiations have severely damaged the credibility of both Abbas and the entire U.S.-backed “peace process.”

One Egyptian official recently quoted in the state press noted that Cairo’s mediation efforts “are almost meaningless if not coupled with a change in the situation on the ground in Gaza and some political progress.”

Nevertheless, observers note that Hamas’ stated support for a cessation of hostilities with Israel represents a “historic concession” by the Islamist group.

“Until now, Hamas has eschewed any form of negotiation — direct or indirect –with Israel, the establishment of which it does not recognise,” Hatem al-Buluk, independent journalist and an authority on Israel-Palestine issues, told IPS.

According to Abdel-Halim Kandil, political analyst and former editor-in-chief of independent daily al-Karama, the shift can be attributed to both military and political considerations.

“A ceasefire would allow Hamas to recoup its military strength,” Kandil told IPS. “It would also show the international community that the group is able to pursue negotiations — even if indirectly — with Israel.”

Nevertheless, Kandil is pessimistic as to Suleiman’s chances of success with his Israeli counterparts.

“It will be a tough sell,” he said. “And even if Tel Aviv signs on, the ceasefire won’t last. Israel rarely adheres to ceasefires for more than a week.”

In mid-March, the Israeli military assassinated four Islamic Jihad leaders in the West Bank, breaking a week-long, Egypt-brokered ceasefire. The following day, resistance factions resumed firing short-range rockets into southern Israel.

Successful or not, Kandil noted, Egypt’s ongoing attempts at mediation have underlined Hamas’ central role in the equation.

“All sides now realise that the group cannot simply be isolated and ignored,” explained Kandil. “Either directly or indirectly, they have no choice but to engage Hamas.”

Soldiers need loans to eat, report reveals

0

iran-iraq.jpgBy Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady | A highly sensitive internal report into the state of the British Army has revealed that many soldiers are living in poverty. Some are so poor that they are unable to eat and are forced to rely on emergency food voucher schemes set up by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Some of Britain’s most senior military figures reacted angrily yesterday to the revelations in the report, criticising the Government’s treatment of its fighting forces.

The disturbing findings outlined in the briefing team report written for Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, include an admission that many junior officers are being forced to leave the Army because they simply cannot afford to stay on.

Pressure from an undermanned army is “having a serious impact on retention in infantry battalions”, with nearly half of all soldiers unable to take all their annual leave as they try to cover the gaps.

The analysis, described by General Dannatt as “a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the views and concerns of the Army at large”, states: “More and more single-income soldiers in the UK are now close to the UK government definition of poverty.” It reveals that “a number of soldiers were not eating properly because they had run out of money by the end of the month”. Commanders are attempting to tackle the problem through “Hungry Soldier” schemes, under which destitute soldiers are given loans to enable them to eat.

The scheme symbolises a change from the tradition of soldiers getting three square meals a day for free. Now hard-up soldiers have to fill out a form which entitles them to a voucher. The cost is deducted from their future wages, adding to the problems of soldiers on low pay.

The controversial Pay as You Dine (PAYD) regime, which requires soldiers not on active duty to pay for their meals, has seen commanding officers inundated with complaints from soldiers unhappy at the quality of food that they get and the amount of paperwork involved.

Senior officers warn in the report that “there is a duty of care issue” and add that the “core meal” provided to soldiers on duty “is often not the healthy option”. The confusion of which soldiers even qualify for free meals while on duty is revealed in the admission that “in some areas the soldier has to pay and then claim back and in others the duty meal is included in the contract”.

General Dannatt has vowed to take action. He said, “I am determined that PAYD must be made to work to both the financial and physical well-being of those who are fed.”

Despite numerous assurances by the Government to look after wounded soldiers, the report warns of deep resentment over a cap on the amount of compensation that wounded soldiers receive. It outlines the “deep frustration” at the inadequate amount being spent on accommodation.

The level of accidental deaths also comes under fire. “Ten potentially avoidable accident fatalities in operational theatres in one year [2007] is not acceptable,” said General Dannatt.

He added: “I am concerned at the comments from the chain of command, some elements of which clearly believe that they will lose influence over their soldiers and that this will impact on unit cohesion.” He also described improvements to equipment as being of “little use” because there is not enough for soldiers to be trained in using it until they are deployed.

Army chiefs and politicians claimed the document proved the Government was failing to meet its responsibilities towards Britain’s servicemen and women, laid out in the Military Covenant. They say it is a damning indictment of an army that is losing its edge and close to breaking point as it struggles to keep pace with fighting a war on two fronts.

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former army colonel, said the report reinforced widespread anxieties over conditions for the troops and that many top-ranking officers are breaking ranks to express their fears. “I’ve been talking to some very senior officers recently, all of whom privately have said to me that the Army is running on empty; the money has run out,” Mr Mercer said. “The manpower situation is in crisis, and the so-called Military Covenant is abused at every turn. The thing that really worries them is the manpower situation and the fact that the MoD seems to be in denial about it.”

Colonel Bob Stewart, a former commander of British forces in Bosnia, said the Army was struggling with overstretch and undermanning. He added: “It’s inevitable that the British Army is actually woefully imbalanced … badly equipped, particularly for training, and quite honestly I’m afraid to say it is losing its edge as a top-rate army in the world because it cannot maintain it.”

Major General Julian Thompson, who led 3 Commando Brigade in the Falklands war, said: “There are certain ministers that may be very honest and care and want things done, but the problem is whether they are being given support from the very top, and I sense that they are not. We all know where the money comes from, the Treasury and the Prime Minister.”

Major General Patrick Cordingley, who led the Desert Rats into Iraq during the first Gulf War, said the report raised serious questions about the Army’s ability to meet its commitments. He said: “I would be very concerned about the strain on the armed forces remaining at this level of deployment in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It cannot be sustained for longer than perhaps another two years.”

An MoD spokesman yesterday tried to gloss over the report, which was based on months of interviews with thousands of soldiers and their families between July 2007 and January 2008. He attempted to play down the degree of poverty among soldiers, many of whom earn £16,000 a year, and added: “Briefing team reports contain the unedited views of individual soldiers, some of which reflect widespread opinion, while others are isolated views. The reports are published widely and the feedback given by lower ranks in the Army helps CGS to stay firmly in touch with life across the Army.”

But there is a growing dissent being expressed on military websites. Pay remains a major issue for both soldiers and officers. One describes the pay as “appalling, disgusting and pathetic”.

Douglas Young of the British Armed Forces Federation said: “People are leaving the armed forces for financial reasons. There’s no question about that.”

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said, “Junior ranks in the armed forces have terrible salaries when you compare them to people starting out in the police service or fire service. How on earth are you supposed to recruit and retain people unless you offer a decent salary?”

To read the full report, click here

The IoS Military Covenant campaign

Our aims

We want soldiers to have the right to expect any war to be lawful, to have adequate resources, the right to be properly cared for in the event of injury, and the right to know that, in the event of their death, their families will be properly looked after.

The Covenant

“Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices — including the ultimate sacrifice — in the service of the nation … In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals.

“The chain of command, from the Government downwards, is responsible for articulating and sustaining the morality and justice of the cause in question … Only on this basis of absolute confidence in the justice and morality of the cause can British soldiers be expected to be prepared to give their lives…”

What the big guns say…

Colonel Bob Stewart, former UN commander, Bosnia: “The British Army is imbalanced and is losing its edge as a top-rate army in the world”

Maj-Gen Patrick Cordingley, Commander, first Gulf War: “It saddens me how little the junior ranks are paid when you consider what they are asked to do”

Lord Bramall, former chief of defence staff: “Each year they strive to put a quart set of requirements into a pint pot of funding”

Colonel Clive Fairweather: Former SAS deputy commander: “I really do think the Army is heading for the rocks and I don’t say this lightly”

The Prosecution of George W. Bush

4

bushpoll08.jpgBy Vincent Bugliosi | There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public – lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.

Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.

The Manning Memo

On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.

Denying Blix’s Findings

Hans Blix, the United Nation’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in his March 7, 2003, address to the UN Security Council, said that as of that date, less than 3 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq, that Iraq had capitulated to all demands for professional, no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased aerial surveillance by the U.S. over the “no-fly” zones. Iraq had directed the UN inspectors to sites where illicit weapons had been destroyed and had begun to demolish its Al Samoud 2 missiles, as requested by the UN. Blix added that “no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found” by his inspectors and “no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.” He said that for his inspectors to absolutely confirm that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) “will not take years, nor weeks, but months.”

Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief UN nuclear inspector in Iraq and director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the UN Security Council that, “we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.”

The UN inspectors were making substantial progress and Hussein was giving them unlimited access. Why was Bush in such an incredible rush to go to war?

Hussein Disarms, so Bush … Goes to War

When it became clear that the whole purpose of Bush’s prewar campaign – to get Hussein to disarm – was being (or already had been) met, Bush and his people came up with a demand they had never once made before – that Hussein resign and leave Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush said in a speech to the nation that, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.” Military conflict – the lives of thousands of young Americans on the line – because Bush trumped up a new line in the sand?

The Niger Allegation

One of the most notorious instances of the Bush administration using thoroughly discredited information to frighten the American public was the 16 words in Bush’s January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Niger allegation was false, and the Bush administration knew it was false.

Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador to Iraq, was sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate a supposed memo that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake (a form of lightly processed ore) to Iraq by Niger in the late 1990s. Wilson reported back to the CIA that it was “highly doubtful” such a transaction had ever taken place.

On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN Security Council that “based on thorough analysis” his agency concluded that the “documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” Indeed, author Craig Unger uncovered at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union address in which analysts at the CIA, the State Department, or other government agencies that had examined the Niger documents “raised serious doubts about their legitimacy – only to be rebuffed by Bush administration officials who wanted to use them.”

On October 5 and 6, 2002, the CIA sent memos to the National Security Council, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and to the White House Situation Room stating that the Niger information was no good.

On January 24, 2003, four days before the president’s State of the Union address, the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, which oversees all federal agencies that deal with intelligence, sent a memo to the White House stating that “the Niger story is baseless and should be laid to rest.”

The 9/11 Lie

The Bush administration put undue pressure on U.S. intelligence agencies to provide it with conclusions that would help them in their quest for war. Bush’s former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, said that on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11, “The President in a very intimidating way left us – me and my staff – with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11.”

Bush said on October 7, 2002, “We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy – the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade,” and that “Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” Of Hussein, he said on November 1, 2002, “We know he’s got ties with Al Qaeda.”

Even after Bush admitted on September 17, 2003, that he had “no evidence” that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, he audaciously continued, in the months and years that followed, to clearly suggest, without stating it outright, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

On March 20, 2006, Bush said, “I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.”

Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder is available May 27.

The Lucrative Art of War

1

block.jpgNew York Times | Congress is finally moving to shut one of the more egregious forms of Iraq war profiteering: defense contractors using offshore shell companies to avoid paying their fair share of payroll taxes. The practice is widespread and Congressional investigators have been dispatched to one of the prime tax refuges, the Cayman Islands, to seek a firsthand estimate of how much the Treasury is being shorted.

No one will be surprised to hear that one of the suspected prime offenders is KBR, the Texas-based defense contractor, formerly a part of the Halliburton conglomerate allied with Vice President Dick Cheney. According to a report in The Boston Globe, KBR, which has landed billions in Iraq contracts, has used two Cayman shell companies to avoid paying hundreds of millions in payroll, Medicare and unemployment taxes.

Unfortunately right now there is nothing illegal about this. The House has approved legislation to plug the dodge by treating foreign subsidiaries of defense contractors as what they are – American employers required to pay taxes. The Senate must quickly follow suit and not buy the contractors’ line that listing American workers at offshore companies is a cost saving passed on patriotically to the war effort. No less insulting, the Cayman dodge has been blocking Americans from the protection of labor and anti-discrimination laws.

The House has taken on another shamefully common abuse: voting to deny future government contracts to any company that fails to pay its corporate taxes, including an estimated 25,000 defense contractors keeping billions due the Treasury. The Senate should approve that legislation as well.

Companies enriched by taxpayers in the war boom should not be able to compound their profits by not paying their fair share of taxes. Congress must do far more to bring them to a full accounting.

Officers routinely lied to obtain search warrants

0

 | A former Atlanta police officer testified Thursday that narcotics officers routinely lied under oath when seeking search warrants a practice that led to police killing a 92-year-old woman.

Former Detective Gregg Junnier told a Fulton County jury that detectives would tell judges that they had verified their informants had bought cocaine from dealers by searching them for drugs before the buy took place.

“I have never seen anyone searched before they go into the house I’ve never seen that done even though officers always swear to it,” Junnier said. “It’s done that way in 90 percent of the warrants that are written.”

But it wasn’t just lies to get the warrant to search Kathryn Johnston’s home that made Junnier uneasy, he said. He had an inkling something was wrong when he and Officer Jason R. Smith were leading the narcotics team to the front door. He said the northwest Atlanta house differed from the informant’s description.

“I said, ‘Man, this doesn’t look right,’ and he said, ‘I know,’ ” Junnier testified. ” ‘I said what do you want to do.’ He said, ‘Hit it.'”

A minute later, Johnston was lying on her floor, dying.

Junnier testified at the Superior Court trial of one of his former partners, Arthur Tesler, who was guarding the back of Johnston’s Neal Street home on that day, Nov. 21, 2006.

Junnier and Smith pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and face up to 10 and 12 years in prison, respectively, depending on their cooperation. Tesler faces 15 years on charges of lying in an official investigation, violating his oath as an officer and false imprisonment, a charge stemming from illegally surrounding Johnston’s house.

Junnier, whose confession unraveled the case, is to testify again today.

“I have already asked for forgiveness from God and everybody I can,” he said.

On the day of the raid, Junnier said he knew Smith had lied to a magistrate to get the no-knock warrant — which allows police to break in before identifying themselves — to seize the cocaine they had been told was in the house.

Junnier testified that Smith, who had sworn out the warrant, had lied about more than searching the informant for drugs. Smith swore that a reliable confidential informant had bought cocaine from the Johnston house, Junnier said. In actuality, he said, they relied on Fabian Sheats, a low-level dealer arrested earlier that day.

Junnier said they had confidence in Sheats’ descriptions, which detailed the drugs, location and a dealer named “Sam,” whom Sheats said worked from the house.

He said the chance to seize a kilo — 2.2 pounds — of cocaine also drove the officers, who normally made arrests for much smaller amounts.

In the raid, police fired 39 shots. Junnier was shot in the face, chest and leg. Two other officers were also wounded. Investigators determined Johnston had fired one round from a revolver; the officers were shot in their own crossfire.

Junnier described entering Johnston’s house: “She was still alive. She was gasping for air. I heard … the order to cuff her.”

Later that day, he said, the cover-up began.

Will the Mortgage Industry Pay for Its Crimes?

mortgage.jpgBy Danny Schechter | There is a time in the life of every writer when you find yourself fearing that you have become a robo call phone machine — repeating the same message over and over and with diminishing results.

That’s how I felt after 8 months of silence after labeling the credit crisis a “subcrime” scandal, lashing out at the fraudulent activity at its core and calling for the investigation and prosecution of wrongdoers. Almost no media outlets accepted this way of framing the problem, although as usual, the British press was ahead of its American cousins in putting the blame on the bankers, not the borrowers.

When the FBI announced a probe of 14 mortgage companies, I thought that finally some investigators were on the case. But then, word leaked that they were only going after small fish even as big banks reported losses in the billions.

Bank robberies have always been up the FBI’s alley, and after all, this is a bank heist case, perhaps one of the biggest in history. Only it was the banks that were doing the heisting.

The New York Times reported May 5th that a new criminal investigation was finally underway.

A G-Man explained anonymously: “The latest inquiry is broader and deeper. This is a look at the mortgage industry across the board, and it has gotten a lot more momentum in recent weeks because of the banks’ earnings shortfall.”

At last, institutional fraud may be on the agenda. At last, deeper questions are being asked. There have been some Congressional hearings but so far none have risen to a Watergate-type level prompting in-depth investigations fueled by subpoenas.

Slowly, oh so slowly, news outlets are recognizing this is a big crime story, one they missed for years, or at least since 2002 when subprime securities started being packaged for sale.

Reports the Washington Independent:

“As loans made to borrowers with decent credit begin to fail at a surprisingly rapid rate, it’s becoming clear that widespread fraud helped support the entire mortgage system — from borrowers who lied on their loans, to brokers who encouraged it, to lenders who misled some low-income borrowers, to the many lenders, investors and ratings agencies that conveniently and deliberately looked the other way as profits rolled in.

Despite its widespread role, fraud hasn’t yet been at the forefront of proposed rescue plans, which center on refinancing people out of loans now resetting to higher rates.”

Why would reputable bankers and respected investment houses engage in these dishonest activities? The short answer: money, and lots of it.

Sales from Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) jumped from $157 billion in 2004 to $559 billion in 2006 according to a study for the North Star Fund by Kevin Connor. Ten investment banks in all were underwriters for 70% of some $486 billion in securitizations in 2006.

The banks had a motto: “It’s all about capital.”

Subprime-related securities produced large multi-million dollar bonuses for traders and executives as well as high revenues for the firms. In the years when business was booming CEOs at big firms were making $10 to $50 million annually apiece. Collectively, in 2006, a year before their fall, the big banks earned a stunning $130 billion.

Even after these practices came to light, hefty bonuses continued. Wall Streeters walked away with $31 billion at the end of 2007, only one billion less than the year before. Executives who were fired still received multi-million dollar payoffs.

Most media outlets considered this business as usual, not shocking or illegal.

Not even when some of these loans were called “liars’ loans” in the industry as when loan orginators colluded with or advised borrowers on how to lie on their applications. It was all done with a wink and a nod, reported the Washington Independent. They interviewed many insiders and experts who contended that:

” … pervasive fraud was, indeed, a problem — on the lender’s side. At the peak of the housing boom, they say, the nation’s mortgage system was set up to promote and encourage outright fraud in order to close a loan — and everyone, from brokers to loan officers to Wall Street, looked the other way. Borrowers also were put into products like payment-option arms that were unsuitable — and lenders knew it. “They were pushed like Vioxx, with very little regard for their dangers,” said Kathleen Keest, senior policy counsel with the Center for Responsible Lending, a research group that investigates predatory lending.

Wall Street was not a passive player either because of all the money they made from “subcrime” transactions. In some cases they paid more for loans with predatory characteristics. Loan originators at the local level — as sleazy as many were — reported that it was the Wall Street firms that dictated the types of loans they wanted and their underwriting criteria. Thus the so-called “secondary market” was really in charge.

This is why I and others insist this was a Wall Street crime wave built around predatory practices. The people who had the most were deeply complicit in ripping off the people who had the least. What’s worse, they had no legal liability in these unscrupulous deals.

How did America’s leading business magazine respond after the credit crisis brought Wall Street to its knees? Fortune called the credit crisis “both totally shocking and utterly predictable.” For them it was shocking not because of the human devastation or the millions of families who were cheated and faced foreclosure or because of the rippling effects on our society, but because the “best minds in the business … managed to lose tens of billions.”

And “predictable?” Again, not due to the lack of regulation or the enabling of shoddy products by our government but “because whether it’s junk bonds or tech stocks or emerging-market debt, Wall Street always rides a wave until it crashes.” What a contrast to the usual celebratory coverage, but also what a cop-out to explain it all away.

Warren Buffet, perhaps America’s most successful investor, sounded disgusted:

“Wall Street is going to go where the money is and not worry about consequences; Wall Street is reaping what they’ve sown,” he shrugs. Said his vice chairman: “If this were an Alice in Wonderland fable, you’d say it’s too extreme. It wouldn’t work as satire. Adults are not going to behave this way.”

But adults did — and continue to. So far, they have been well rewarded as well. The question is: what are the rest of us, and our prosecutors, going to do about it?

Judge May Make CIA Torture Memo Public

0

torturevic1.jpgAP | The CIA must let a judge view a 2002 memo purportedly including waterboarding among interrogation methods to be used on prisoners in U.S. custody so he can decide whether it should be made public, the judge ruled Thursday.U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein issued the order after he had earlier said the 18-page memo did not have to be turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union because it was protected by attorney-client privilege. The ACLU said it believes the memo includes a section addressing the subject of waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

Hellerstein said he reconsidered his ruling after hearing from both sides again on the subject. The CIA must turn the item over for review on Monday.

Rebekah Carmichael, a spokeswoman for government lawyers representing the CIA, said the government had no immediate comment.

Hellerstein said he realized he did not give sufficient consideration to an earlier court ruling related to the legal issue and to ACLU evidence indicating all or parts of the memo may have been incorporated into or used to justify official practice and policy.

The ACLU praised the decision, saying the memo written by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel is critical to the public debate over treatment of detainees because it specified brutal interrogation techniques including waterboarding.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, said no Department of Defense memo made public so far has included a section addressing waterboarding.

“There are still significant gaps in the story of how U.S. interrogators came to use torture and this memo is a critical piece of this story,” Jaffer said.

“We think that the public has a right to see the documents that provided a basis for the CIA’s torture program,” he said. “We know that interrogators waterboarded prisoners and subjected prisoners to other forms of torture. There’s no legitimate reason why the basis for those interrogation practices should be withheld.”

The order came as a result of a lawsuit brought in October 2003 by the ACLU and other civil rights groups seeking to use the Freedom of Information Act to get records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. So far, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released as a result.

Roots of surveillance standoff go back decades

0

camera.jpgBy Shane Harris | In the old days, everyone was linked to a lug nut, and Jim Kallstrom liked it that way. It was 1985, a simpler time for a cop like Kallstrom, who was in charge of setting telephone wiretaps on suspected drug dealers and mobsters for the FBI’s New York City field office.

In New York, Kallstrom’s cases were often won on the basis of incriminating evidence surreptitiously snatched from the mouths of criminal defendants through their phone lines.

With a mere 203,000 Americans using mobile phones, people were still tied to the ground, and that gave Kallstrom’s world a certain comforting order.

On any given day, he could stand on a street corner in Manhattan, gaze up at an apartment building with its neat rows and columns of units stacked atop each other, and know that inside each one there was a telephone, tethered by thin copper wire to a single point, sometimes several miles away. In his mind’s eye, Kallstrom could have imagined shrinking himself to the size of an electron and traveling over the phone line, down to the bottom of the building, then shooting beneath the streets, until he ended up in the basement of the telephone company’s switching station. There, the wire emerged, pegged to a rack by a single copper lug nut. Acres of racks lined the walls, each holding rows and columns of lug nuts and their wires, neatly stacked atop each other — the city of New York in analog miniature.

With a warrant in hand, Kallstrom could tell the technicians at the phone office, with whom he had become friendly over the years, “Go up on RR326.” The tech would walk to the rack, find the wire, and clamp on a listening device. Instantly, Kallstrom became an invisible interloper.

FBI agents and federal prosecutors depended on these legal wiretaps to penetrate drug cartels, incriminate money launderers, and spy on mob families. And they needed to be absolutely certain that the line they were on belonged to the suspected dealer, or launderer, or capo named in the court-approved warrant. Not the guy in the apartment next door. Not someone down the block. This guy. This phone. RR326. Lest the agents violate a judge’s order, and perhaps land themselves in jail, this had to be the very same line that snaked back through the subterranean maze of Manhattan, through all those blocks of concrete caverns, back to that certain apartment building, up through the walls and out of the jack and into the phone that was in the hand and next to the mouth of Kallstrom’s target. It was, by design and necessity, a neat, specific system.

And then it all went sideways.

Kallstrom’s friends in the phone company put him on notice in 1985: Over the next few years, those racks and stacks of wires and lug nuts would be swept into the technological dustbin. The telephone network was going digital. Technicians would no longer stand at a rack; they would sit at a keyboard. In some parts of the country that had already made the change, phone calls were traveling as a stream of 1’s and 0’s. Thousands of lines commingled in a single computer. When New York went digital, the phone techs told Kallstrom, they would no longer be able to tap him directly into RR326. In fact, they couldn’t even tell him for sure where RR326 resided in this new engineering matrix.

At the same time that the phone companies were preparing for the transition to digital, the use of cellphones — which were inherently harder to tap because they used phone lines differently than analog devices — mushroomed. From 1985 to ’86, the number of registered mobile-phone subscribers in the United States doubled to 500,000. Within two years after that, the number climbed to 1.6 million. By the end of the decade, the cellphone universe had skyrocketed past 4 million.

Organized crime was an early adopter of the mobile phone. In a communications technique presaging that of Islamic terrorists today, members of the Colombian Cali drug cartel operating in New York would briefly use a phone, toss it, and get a new one. To tap a mobile device, technicians had to install listening equipment on the new version of a lug nut — an “electronic port.” But in most switching stations in New York, there were only half a dozen or so ports available at any one time. Federal prosecutors and agents had to stand in line at phone company offices and fight with each other over whose investigation should take priority. Some prosecutors threatened to haul company employees into court on contempt charges so they could explain to a judge why the phone company was unwilling to execute a wiretap order.

Electronic surveillance, once such a dependable, relatively easy craft, was becoming inordinately difficult, Kallstrom thought. The phone companies, whose annual revenues from mobile subscriptions were cresting over $2 billion in the late 1980s, showed little willingness to make the FBI’s life easier. As the 1990s approached, with the promise of more digitization and more mobility, Kallstrom called his bosses in Washington: “If we don’t do something, we’ll be out of the wiretapping business.”

A Battle Begins

Kallstrom may have been the first to alert the FBI and the Justice Department to this new reality. The digital revolution generated a constant tension that exists to this day, a push and pull between the federal government in one camp and technology corporations and civil-liberties activists in the other to control the development of the global communications system, and so the balance of power in the Information Age.

This struggle’s latest manifestation is the intensely politicized effort to rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. At issue is nothing less than the government’s authority to broadly monitor communications networks to spot terrorists and other national security threats. The Bush administration finds itself across the battle lines from many of the same groups that more than a decade ago argued that the government was already extending its reach too far into personal conversations in the name of pursuing criminals.

While FISA governs wiretapping for intelligence-gathering purposes, as distinct from law enforcement, surveillance in both worlds follows the same essential philosophy — the best evidence in a court of law or in an intelligence operation is one’s own words. Today’s dispute is not very different from the one that occurred during the dawn of digitization in the 1990s. Indeed, both are part and parcel of the same long-running debate.

No one should believe that real-time government surveillance of the communications network is an idea born of the 9/11 attacks or that it results solely from the Bush administration’s aggrandizing of executive power. The legal arguments that the government has asserted to support increased surveillance of digital space were first put forth in 1994, under a Democratic president, and they had little to do with the threat of Islamic extremism.

Nor should anyone mistake the roots of the vociferous opposition to today’s wiretapping from civil libertarians and privacy advocates. Many of these groups and their allies have been battling to restrict the government’s use of new, potentially invasive technologies for a generation. The Bush White House is only their latest adversary, albeit the most formidable. These activists and their allies in the business world have been motivated by different but mutually supportive goals: to extend constitutional safeguards to the digital realm, and to keep the government from suffocating technological development with burdensome surveillance laws. Some in those ranks would have liked, and indeed tried, to make the digital network a wiretap-free zone.

But despite the occasionally extreme positions and deeply held convictions of all of these players, the most important laws governing wiretapping, electronic surveillance, and privacy have been the product of negotiation, of people gathering in a room, sitting at a table, and talking — sometimes screaming — until they reached a settlement. The current debate, however, is missing that crucial spirit. Whereas before, adversaries trusted each other enough at a basic level to make deals, however temporary, today’s opposing sides seem unwilling to compromise to pass new surveillance laws that the nation can live with. It’s not entirely clear where or why minds turned so stubborn. But to understand today’s political calcification, it helps to recall a simpler time.

The Art of Compromise

Jerry Berman was a veteran of the privacy wars, seemingly born for the role of liberal, dogmatic activist. In the early 1950s, his father, a labor leader, was investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. A native of Hawaii, the younger Berman moved with his family to California, where he enrolled at the University of California (Berkeley). After earning his bachelor’s and master’s, and, in 1967, his law degree, Berman began lobbying for the American Civil Liberties Union. He became an authority on the intersection of national security and technology, schooled by the exposure of illegal FBI spying operations aimed at political organizations, war protesters, and leftist activists. In 1978, Berman helped to craft the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set new restrictions on the government’s domestic intelligence-gathering. He was present at the creation of several important pieces of surveillance legislation, and he helped secure individual privacy protections.

In playing his role, Berman didn’t adhere to a hard-and-fast position but instead embraced his own brand of “principled pragmatism.” By his logic, the interests of privacy and national security were not incompatible. If all sides — government, industry, civil-liberties activists — could find ways to “maximize the good and minimize the harm,” as he liked to say, they could strike a satisfactory balance and create workable laws. This idea guided his work on FISA and other legislation, sometimes to the consternation of more-ideological activists who employed him to lobby Congress on their behalf.

Perhaps that was because principled pragmatism recognized an unsavory reality: In Washington, those who show up to play the game make the rules. Negotiation requires sacrifice. Sacrifice requires flexibility. Some people would rather break than bend. But compromise is how things get done, and Berman accepted it. As a colleague summarized Berman’s general approach to lawmaking, “You can stand on your principle and get your ass handed to you, or you can engage in the process and get a better deal.”

In the summer of 1994, the FBI and the Justice Department made a bold play to force the telecom carriers to help them conduct legal wiretaps. They put forth a proposal that would require the companies to build their networks so that law enforcement agents serving a warrant could access them in real time. The legality of wiretapping was not in question. The government wanted legal assurance that it could tap, at any time, and that the industry had an obligation under law to comply with the government’s proper authority.

No more computer-related hassles, no more standing in line to plug into mobile-phone ports. Law enforcement agents, federal spymasters, and prosecutors wanted a comprehensive remedy to what they called the “digital telephony” problem. Their chief advocates were Kallstrom and Louis Freeh, the recently appointed FBI director, a former special agent and federal prosecutor who had used wiretaps to secure convictions in some of the most complicated organized-crime investigations in history. Freeh personally pushed for the new law, showing up unannounced in reluctant lawmakers’ offices to press them for support and even sitting in on committee markups — an unprecedented move for an FBI director — to stare members down.

Clipper Chip

The 1994 proposal was only the latest in a series of government efforts to strengthen its control of the telecommunications network. In the late 1980s, Justice officials had gotten as far as placing language in an anti-crime bill that would have allowed the attorney general to set standards for telecommunications equipment, effectively making that federal official the network’s architect-in-chief. (The bill did not pass.)

In 1993, Bill Clinton, in one of his first presidential directives, announced that engineers at the National Security Agency, the intelligence community’s electronic surveillance arm, had developed a cutting-edge microcircuit, called the “Clipper” chip, to scramble telephone conversations. The administration intended to promote the installation of the Clipper technology in U.S. telephones, and planned to hold “in escrow” the digital keys to decrypt any conversation. In other words, the federal government would build the lock and keep the key, an idea that inspired a reaction somewhere between outrage and apoplexy among technologists and privacy advocates, who ultimately killed the idea.

In that atmosphere of hostility and skepticism, Berman went to work. Beginning in August 1994, he convened a series of meetings with senior law enforcement officials under the auspices of a privacy and security coalition he had formed with more than four dozen activist groups and technology companies — including the biggest telecom provider of all, AT&T — plus the U.S. Telephone Association, IBM, and software makers such as Microsoft. The goal was to resolve differences over the government’s proposal to ensure federal access to telecommunications networks. Berman also brought in two powerful Democratic lawmakers and noted civil libertarians, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and then-Rep. Don Edwards, whose district included California’s Silicon Valley. Everyone in the negotiating room had some familiarity with technology issues, and professional experience in law enforcement or Justice Department oversight.

The meetings featured intense, nitty-gritty debates over the technical aspects of the law. The FBI wanted guarantees that the telecom system would never mature beyond the reach of its wiretaps. Some companies saw this as heavy-handed regulation, and a number of telecom officials shared the activists’ belief that the government was in fact after a permanent covert backdoor into the phone system. The negotiations helped to somewhat dampen the suspicions, however, and the talks went forward because no one in the room disagreed with the fundamental premise that the government had the right to wiretap.

But outside of the meetings, divisions festered among the interest groups. Berman represented the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which champions the public interest in the digital realm, but its board couldn’t decide whether compromise was prudent or perilous. Berman felt he had to persuade his colleagues, in another series of heated meetings, to work in the middle. To him, that meant that the legislative negotiations would follow an inviolate principle: We will only craft solutions to known problems. No writing of laws aimed at encompassing future problems. If the FBI has difficultly accessing the public telephone network, then the law will address only that public telephone network.

In addition to identifying a philosophical guideline, this approach served a more strategic goal — to keep the FBI’s hands off the Internet, which was so new in 1994 as to be practically notional. Internet service providers such as America Online and Prodigy had only a handful of subscribers, and the first Web browser had been released that year, in a beta test version. Still, Berman and others knew that the FBI would never willingly agree to stay off the information superhighway, because Internet-based information held tremendous potential value for law enforcement.

During one meeting, David Johnson, a lawyer who had helped to craft the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, held up a glass jar full of rocks and asked, “How many of you would say this jar is full?” Most people agreed that it was. Johnson took a fistful of pebbles and dropped them into the jar. They tinkled down through the rocks, finding resting places in the empty spaces. Then he poured sand into the jar. As it cascaded into the empty spaces, Johnson told the onlookers that the sand was like the unseen, seemingly insignificant “transactional data” that traveled on the Internet. Transactional data includes the routing information for a text-based message — where it comes from, where it goes, and what path it follows — and the series of digits that make up an Internet address. This information would someday be of enormous value to the government, he said, just as phone call records, as opposed to actual conversations, already were. The transactional data were small but meaningful — like the tiny grains of sand that kept filling the volume of the jar.

During one meeting, David Johnson, a lawyer who had helped to craft the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, held up a glass jar full of rocks and asked, “How many of you would say this jar is full?” Most people agreed that it was. Johnson took a fistful of pebbles and dropped them into the jar. They tinkled down through the rocks, finding resting places in the empty spaces. Then he poured sand into the jar. As it cascaded into the empty spaces, Johnson told the onlookers that the sand was like the unseen, seemingly insignificant “transactional data” that traveled on the Internet. Transactional data includes the routing information for a text-based message — where it comes from, where it goes, and what path it follows — and the series of digits that make up an Internet address. This information would someday be of enormous value to the government, he said, just as phone call records, as opposed to actual conversations, already were. The transactional data were small but meaningful — like the tiny grains of sand that kept filling the volume of the jar.

CALEA

Johnson’s vivid illustration convinced many of the participants that the new law mustn’t extend too far. Again, the issue wasn’t whether law enforcement had a right to information but how much power the government should have over the means to get it. Leahy and Edwards, who formally introduced the legislation shortly thereafter, declared that it would apply solely to the public telephone network. The law specifically exempted “information services,” which the parties agreed included Internet companies and electronic-messaging technologies.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act passed in the closing days of the 103rd Congress, two weeks before Republicans won control of both chambers in November 1994. CALEA would let the industry set its own standards to meet the Justice Department’s needs. The department could list its surveillance requirements, but the act let companies decide how to build their equipment. Justice won the right to petition the Federal Communications Commission if its officials felt that the companies weren’t fulfilling their obligations. But civil-liberties groups also secured the right to challenge the government’s requirements in court.

It was a true compromise, hard won but workable. For Berman, principled pragmatism had carried the day. For others, however, the compromise had given away too much.

The board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation had seen the proverbial legislative sausage being made and found it distasteful. Even though the directors had agreed to every aspect of the law, which Berman explained to them, within weeks after its passage he left the EFF and formed his own outfit, the Center for Democracy and Technology, to continue his brand of lobbying. The EFF pulled up stakes in Washington the following year and moved to San Francisco, where it continues to play a leading role in supporting lawsuits against telecommunications companies — most notably AT&T, its former ally — for their role in assisting the government with warrantless wiretapping after the 9/11 attacks.

At the time, Berman confided to Kallstrom, whom he thought had always acted in good faith for the FBI, “My work on CALEA got me fired.”

Kallstrom was apparently happy to see his more idealistic opponents leave town. “You didn’t get fired, Jerry,” he replied. “You got promoted.”

Making Demands

Had the FBI and the Justice Department stopped there, had the government settled for secure access to phone networks, the history of Internet privacy and civil liberties might have turned out differently. But just weeks after President Clinton signed CALEA in January 1995, conflict erupted between the government and the phone carriers over the kind of network access the law provided. The raft of compromise that had carried the deal sprung a leak.

FBI officials knew in 1994 that they were making a mistake by leaving cyberspace out of CALEA. They understood the Internet’s potential as a communications device and an intelligence tool — that is, after all, why CALEA’s authors exempted “information services.”

“Did we know that it was idiotic to carve that out?” Kallstrom asks now. “Yes, we did.” Criminals have always been among the first to embrace new technology. It was foolish to think that they wouldn’t turn to the Internet for any number of nefarious gambits. But, Kallstrom says, government officials opted “to fight another day” over Internet access. Privacy advocates were dragging their feet in the negotiations. Delay would invite more debate, probably more hearings, and possibly a less favorable outcome. The political decision was made: “Let’s take what we can get here.”

In early 1995, the Justice Department issued its list of requirements for wiretapping, known as the punch list. Not surprisingly, many telecom executives and their attorneys viewed the demands as unreasonable. Al Gidari, a lawyer representing the wireless industry, was among the first to see the FBI’s requirements, during the initial meeting to develop standards for CALEA, which was held that spring in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Justice Department’s wish list, he said, amounted to “the Cadillac of wiretaps.”

“Everything they could ever think of to gold plate and put on the Cadillac was in that document,” Gidari recalls. Meeting its expectations represented “an exponential increase in complexity, not a linear increase…. They were very dictatorial … technical requirements — the very thing that Congress said it wasn’t up to [the FBI] to figure out.”

The standards meeting was tense and awkward, and the sides were unevenly matched. Gidari recalls a dozen or more FBI agents, in neat blue suits, all buttoned down and looking ready to roll over anyone who stood in their way. Arrayed on the opposite side of the table was a group of laid-back and casually dressed network engineers from all the major telecom equipment manufacturers and carriers that was tasked with the unenviable job of telling the bureau that the industry planned to build a much less complex system. It wasn’t what the FBI agents wanted to hear.

Over the next few years, the Justice Department continued to seek increasingly sophisticated surveillance capabilities, including real-time geographical tracking of mobile phones; the ability to monitor all parties in a conference call regardless of whether they are on hold or participating; and “dialed digit extraction,” a record of any numbers that a subject under surveillance punched in during a call, such as a credit card or bank account number. The government got a lot of what it wanted, but not all.

To be sure, criminals’ use of new technologies helped drive the law enforcement demands. But telecom carriers worried that the cost of compliance was too high and that the FBI’s technical requirements were illegally broad. CALEA, they argued, had forbidden the government from requiring specific system designs or technologies.

The FCC’s Turn

Justice, frustrated by its inability to get all the demands on the punch list, finally asked the FCC to step in. In 1997, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, which then represented mobile carriers, and the Center for Democracy and Technology complained to the commission that the negotiations had deadlocked because of “unreasonable demands by law enforcement for more surveillance features than either CALEA or the wiretap laws allow.” The FCC, however, sided with the Justice Department on a host of requirements that privacy groups found overly broad. The tussle dragged on for two more years and ended up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which overruled the FCC. After the commission took up matters again, it granted some of the FBI’s requests, and the CALEA standards were amended.

When Justice Department officials reported to Congress on CALEA implementation in January 1998, no manufacturer of telecom equipment said that the FBI’s demands were impossible to meet, but they did say that complying would be difficult and very expensive. (Although Congress had set aside $500 million to reimburse companies for retrofitting their networks, the law required the carriers to bear the cost of compliance on any equipment put in place after CALEA was enacted. Several experts believe that the final cost for compliance on telephone networks has been two to eight times the amount originally allotted.)

The level of government surveillance was so low at that time that some questioned why the FBI wanted such multifaceted access at all. In 1994, federal and state authorities were running 1,154 wiretaps nationwide, mostly for drug investigations, at an average cost of $50,000. The government was asking carriers to “design a nuclear rocket ship” for a rarely used tool, Gidari thought. “In [the FBI’s] view, there was no limit to the expense the carrier should spare in order to save a life.”

CALEA continued to evolve, shaped by the ongoing arguments over the terms of its birth. Activists and carriers thought that the FBI was reneging on its bargain, asking for more than the law allowed. The FBI believed that carriers were stalling when they failed to meet compliance deadlines. As all sides dug in, the meetings on implementation turned bitter. FBI and Justice officials slammed their hands on tables and screamed at carrier representatives, Gidari recalls. “You’re unpatriotic! What do you want to do, help the criminals?”

The government asked those same questions after September 11, 2001. And this time, telecommunications carriers responded. Outside the normal FISA warrant process, which covers intelligence-gathering, carriers opened access to their networks, their customer call data, and their valuable transactional information — the kind that CALEA had intended to exclude. President Bush and his administration believed that the extraordinary nature of the terrorist attacks demanded emergency actions that FISA couldn’t accommodate, and the carriers answered the call from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But government officials also seized on the post-9/11 mentality to change other surveillance laws and procedures, which they believed — just as their predecessors did in 1994 — were out of step with technology and reality. About three years after 9/11, officials set their sights on rewriting CALEA.

Claiming the Internet

In August 2004, in response to a petition by the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FCC expanded CALEA to cover Internet communications, including voice calls and instant messages. The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued, along with industry, civil-liberties, and academic groups. In 2005, the Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to defer to the FCC’s reading of the law.

Many of those who had helped craft CALEA believed that the commission had misread the law and acted on a post-9/11 impulse to give the government more, not less, access to information. But to the FCC, new Internet technologies that operate a lot like telephones blurred the distinction between “information services” and the kinds of technology that CALEA was meant to cover.

After 9/11, law enforcement and intelligence agencies took a variety of measures, apart from wiretaps, to collect and mine potentially valuable information from the Internet. With the cooperation of telecom companies, government accumulated lots of transactional data — including e-mail header information and lists of websites visited by targeted individuals — to support counter-terrorism operations. Viewed solely as a reaction to the terrorist attacks of 2001, this kind of collection might seem extraordinary. But through the longer lens of history, the government’s steady march into cyberspace is not surprising.

Law enforcement agencies have never suffered for lack of access to the phone network. Kallstrom recalls only a few instances in which agents were unable to execute a wiretap order because of new technology. But as digital, mobile technology has proliferated, the copper lug nuts that Kallstrom remembers from the 1980s have disappeared. Today, state and federal agents spend most of their tap time on mobile devices. In 1994, most wiretaps, by far, targeted private residences. There were few taps on mobile devices. Ten years later, 88 percent of the 1,710 wiretaps were on mobile devices. Only 5 percent were on residential lines. Without CALEA, some experts believe that Kallstrom’s initial fears would have come true and the federal government would have been shut out of the wiretapping business.

Jerry Berman never wanted that to happen. Although he cannot accept that the law that was meant to minimize the government’s influence over the Internet is now being used to facilitate it, he is willing to negotiate on CALEA again, if that is what’s necessary to satisfy all parties.

That willingness to talk extends to FISA, as well, and Berman’s Center for Democracy and Technology has been actively involved in the current agitations over the law. But whenever he and his cohorts have extended the hand of compromise to Congress or the administration, he says, they have been disappointed. Any attempt to revamp FISA, or to clarify CALEA, “is impossible in the current climate,” Berman says. “There is no sense that you could get the kind of negotiation we got in 1994.”

FISA and CALEA

One has to wonder how strong that spirit of compromise really was in 1994, and whether it was already ebbing. If the FBI was willing to take what it could get on CALEA and go on to fight another day, did the government really “settle” at all? Literally weeks after CALEA was signed the Justice Department and the FBI came roaring back with new demands. What killed the penchant for negotiation? Was it the moderates’ loss of power in both political parties after the 1994 Republican revolution? Was it the entrenchment of civil-liberties activists? Was it the Bush White House’s extravagant interpretation of executive power? Was it 9/11?

Berman spends a lot of time pondering these questions and thinking about next moves. He divides his time between Washington, where he chairs his group’s board of directors, and a home he built on the Cacapon River near Berkeley Springs, W.Va. “We just have people in bunkers now,” Berman says ruefully.

The FISA debate is currently hung up on whether companies that assisted warrantless surveillance after 9/11 should have retroactive legal immunity for any laws they may have broken. CALEA has something to say about that, too. The law requires that carriers be able to deliver call identification information to the government remotely. According to Beryl Howell, Sen. Leahy’s lead CALEA staffer, that provision was meant to keep government agents from sitting in the phone companies’ offices to execute their wiretaps.

It is a basic tenet of wiretapping law, whether for intelligence or law enforcement, that the communications companies act as a buffer between their customers and the government, she says, and that telecom carriers must make their own determination whether official requests are, in fact, legal. That the companies would now assert, in defense of their cooperation, that the government determined that post-9/11 requests were legal, strikes Howell as outrageous.

If ever there was a time for the bare-knuckled negotiations of the past, it’s now. It’s not at all clear, though, who could play the role of Jerry Berman, the one to bring people into the room to scream and yell at each other and emerge feeling better for it — and possibly even coming to a compromise. As things stand, Congress appears more likely to punt the FISA debate to the new administration, and has shown little interest in revisiting CALEA.

The constant tension that once kept this system in balance has reached a breaking point. There is no push and pull. Maybe the stakes are too high for compromise. But until that spirit returns, Berman says, “there will be no peace.”

U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat

0

us-deploys.jpgBy Gregg Zoroya | More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show.

This reliance on troops found medically “non-deployable” is another sign of stress placed on a military that has sent 1.6 million servicemembers to the war zones, soldier advocacy groups say.

“It is a consequence of the consistent churning of our troops,” said Bobby Muller, president of Veterans For America. “They are repeatedly exposed to high-intensity combat with insufficient time at home to rest and heal before redeploying.”

The numbers of non-deployable soldiers are based on health assessment forms filled out by medical personnel at each military installation before a servicemember’s deployment.

According to those statistics, the number of troops that doctors found non-deployable, but who were still sent to Iraq or Afghanistan fluctuated from 10,854 in 2003, down to 5,397 in 2005, and back up to 9,140 in 2007.

The Pentagon records do not list what – or how serious – the health issues are, nor whether they were corrected before deployment, said Michael Kilpatrick, a deputy director for the Pentagon’s Force Health Protection and Readiness Programs.

A Pentagon staffer examined 10,000 individual health records last year to determine causes for the non-deployable ratings, Kilpatrick said. Some reasons included a need for eyeglasses, dental work or allergy medicine and a small number of mental health cases, he said.

This is the first war in which this health screening process has been used, the Pentagon said.

Most of the non-deployable servicemembers are in the Army, which is doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 5% and 7% of all active-duty, National Guard and Reserve soldiers slated for combat were found medically unfit due to health problems each year since 2003, according to statistics provided to USA TODAY.

Unit commanders make the final decision about whether a servicemember is sent into combat, although doctors can recommend against deployment because of a medical issue, Army spokeswoman Kim Waldron said.

“The commander consults with health care professionals to determine whether the treatment a soldier needs is available in theater,” said Army Col. Steven Braverman of the Army Medical Command.

At Fort Carson, Colo., Maj. Gen. Mark Graham ordered an investigation into deployment procedures for a brigade deployed to Iraq late last year. At least 36 soldiers were found medically unfit but were still deployed, Graham told USA TODAY.

For at least seven soldiers, treatment in the war zone was inadequate and the soldiers were sent home, he said, and at least two of them should never have been deployed.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, the panel’s chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Army leaders about an e-mail from the surgeon for the Fort Carson brigade that said medically “borderline” soldiers went to war because “we have been having issues reaching deployable strength.”

“That should not be happening,” Army Secretary Pete Geren told the committee. “I can’t tell you that it’s not, but it certainly should not be happening.”

Meanwhile, soldiers with medical problems have also deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Stewart and Fort Benning, both in Georgia, according to Brenda Farrell, who is leading an investigation into the practice for the Government Accountability Office.

A report from that investigation sought by members of the House Armed Services Committee is due in June.

UN suspends aid flights after Burma impounds food

1

burma-aid.jpgBy Rachel Stevenson, Julian Borger, Ian MacKinnon and agencies | The UN today suspended aid flights to Burma after emergency supplies for survivors of cyclone Nargis were impounded by the military government. A spokesman for the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) said its food aid and equipment had been confiscated and flights could not resume until the situation was resolved.

“We’re going to have to shut down our very small airlift operation until we get guarantees from the authorities,” Tony Banbury, a WFP regional director, said.

The impounded food aid, totalling 38 tonnes of high-energy biscuits, was enough to feed 95,000 people.

“It should be on trucks headed to the victims. You’ve seen the conditions they are in. That food is now sitting on tarmac, doing no good,” Banbury added.

The impounding of the food aid came after the announcement of a ban on foreign aid workers entering Burma.

Burmese foreign ministry officials said the country would accept supplies from overseas but would control their distribution.

“Myanmar [Burma] is giving priority to receiving relief aid and distributing them to the storm-hit regions with its own resources,” the government-run New Light of Myanmar newspaper said.

“Myanmar is not in a position to receive rescue and information teams from
foreign countries at the moment.”

Frustration is mounting over Burma’s response to one of the worst disasters in its history.

A UN spokesman said the restrictions on foreign workers were “unprecedented” in the history of humanitarian work.

The Thai prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, cancelled a trip to meet members of the ruling military junta as delays in giving visas to aid workers and landing rights for relief flights continued.

A plane loaded with UN aid was allowed to land yesterday, but it represented only a fraction of what Burma needs. Two other planes have languished in Rangoon for two days.

Sundaravej had offered to undertake his own humanitarian mission to break the impasse. He has been in contact with the Burmese prime minister, Thein Sein, to ask that UN staff be allowed to distribute relief supplies.

However, he today said the visit now appeared futile, adding: “After they said today they would not welcome foreign staff, there is no point of me going there.”

The authorities yesterday turned back a plane carrying specialist disaster rescuers and aid. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, is still seeking talks with the junta.

The Burmese embassy in Thailand is now closed until Tuesday, putting any hopes of a climbdown on visas on hold until next week.

Villages have been submerged in the worst-hit Irrawaddy delta, and the UN now believes that more than 100,000 people have been killed.

Bodies are floating in the floodwater, and aid agencies warned that outbreaks of disease could result in the death toll increasing further.

With roads blocked, hundreds of thousands of survivors are beyond the reach of clean water, food and shelter.

Aid agencies said their expertise and experience in tackling similar disasters, such as the Asian tsunami in 2004, would help get emergency relief to the afflicted areas quickly.

Despite the disaster, the junta said it was pressing ahead with a vote on a new constitution designed to maintain its grip on power. All but the worst affected regions will be balloted tomorrow.

In a television message, citizens were urged to do their patriotic duty and vote. The message did not mention the suffering caused by the cyclone.

BBC kept £106,000 of charity cash

1

bbc.jpgBy Leigh Holmwood | The BBC today apologised for keeping £106,000 made from premium-rate phone calls on about two dozen shows that should have been given to charity.

In the latest scandal to hit the television industry over phone-ins, the BBC also admitted that viewers of Making Your Mind Up, the BBC1 show that chose last year’s UK entry for the Eurovision song contest, Scooch, were misled into voting before phone lines had opened. In that case, the BBC made £6,000 from ineligible calls that has also gone to charity.

The BBC Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, today said that the money had now been repaid to charity, including interest totalling £123,000.

The trust has also ordered the BBC to make an onscreen apology – the first time the corporation’s governance and regulatory body has imposed such a sanction.

Lyons said the issue involved the BBC Worldwide subsidiary Audiocall, which provides premium-rate phone lines to many BBC shows.

He added that about two dozen shows had been affected between October 2005 and September 2007, although he refused to name them.

Lyons said new technology had since been introduced which meant the problem had been resolved.

The trust has asked the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, to look at disciplining a “handful” of staff.

Lyons made it clear that senior staff within BBC Worldwide and the corporation did not know about the problem and nor did staff who worked on the affected programmes.

He added that he did not know why staff at Audiocall did not report the issue.

Lyons said: “There is no legal impropriety but it is a failure in the behaviour of these staff and the BBC’s own systems.

“It was a matter of serious misjudgment by a small number of people and a serious failing in how the BBC controls its PRS [premium-rate phone services] and its relationship with viewers and voters.

“These problems can’t continue into the future and there are lessons to be learned and disciplinary action may take place amongst staff.”

He added: “There is no room for complacency here. This is an organisation intent on living by the highest standards in the industry.”

These latest TV deception revelations follow the record £5.675m fine imposed on ITV yesterday by Ofcom over the commercial broadcaster’s phone-in scandal.

In an email to staff, Thompson described the situation as a “serious oversight”.

But he said there was “no evidence” of any “impropriety or intention to defraud”, adding that the £106,000 represented only 1.3% of the approximately £8m raised for charity through BBC telephone votes during the relevant period.

“All the money has been paid to the charities involved, with interest,” Thompson added. “The oversight has been remedied. Clearly, this must never be allowed to happen again.”

He said that while the new incidents were “disappointing”, they were both “historical’.

“We’re confident that the measures we’ve put in place mean they won’t happen again,” Thompson added.

“The whole BBC has made enormous progress on the topic of trust over the past nine months, a fact backed up by all of our surveys of the public themselves.

“We need to go on doing everything possible to restore fully the public’s trust in us. But we’ve made real progress on that score, while delivering some spectacular creative successes and starting to make our vision of the BBC’s future a reality.”The BBC today apologised for keeping £106,000 made from premium-rate phone calls on about two dozen shows that should have been given to charity.

In the latest scandal to hit the television industry over phone-ins, the BBC also admitted that viewers of Making Your Mind Up, the BBC1 show that chose last year’s UK entry for the Eurovision song contest, Scooch, were misled into voting before phone lines had opened. In that case, the BBC made £6,000 from ineligible calls that has also gone to charity.

The BBC Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, today said that the money had now been repaid to charity, including interest totalling £123,000.

The trust has also ordered the BBC to make an onscreen apology – the first time the corporation’s governance and regulatory body has imposed such a sanction.

Lyons said the issue involved the BBC Worldwide subsidiary Audiocall, which provides premium-rate phone lines to many BBC shows.

He added that about two dozen shows had been affected between October 2005 and September 2007, although he refused to name them.

Lyons said new technology had since been introduced which meant the problem had been resolved.

The trust has asked the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, to look at disciplining a “handful” of staff.

Lyons made it clear that senior staff within BBC Worldwide and the corporation did not know about the problem and nor did staff who worked on the affected programmes.

He added that he did not know why staff at Audiocall did not report the issue.

Lyons said: “There is no legal impropriety but it is a failure in the behaviour of these staff and the BBC’s own systems.

“It was a matter of serious misjudgment by a small number of people and a serious failing in how the BBC controls its PRS [premium-rate phone services] and its relationship with viewers and voters.

“These problems can’t continue into the future and there are lessons to be learned and disciplinary action may take place amongst staff.”

He added: “There is no room for complacency here. This is an organisation intent on living by the highest standards in the industry.”

These latest TV deception revelations follow the record £5.675m fine imposed on ITV yesterday by Ofcom over the commercial broadcaster’s phone-in scandal.

In an email to staff, Thompson described the situation as a “serious oversight”.

But he said there was “no evidence” of any “impropriety or intention to defraud”, adding that the £106,000 represented only 1.3% of the approximately £8m raised for charity through BBC telephone votes during the relevant period.

“All the money has been paid to the charities involved, with interest,” Thompson added. “The oversight has been remedied. Clearly, this must never be allowed to happen again.”

He said that while the new incidents were “disappointing”, they were both “historical’.

“We’re confident that the measures we’ve put in place mean they won’t happen again,” Thompson added.

“The whole BBC has made enormous progress on the topic of trust over the past nine months, a fact backed up by all of our surveys of the public themselves.

“We need to go on doing everything possible to restore fully the public’s trust in us. But we’ve made real progress on that score, while delivering some spectacular creative successes and starting to make our vision of the BBC’s future a reality.”The BBC today apologised for keeping £106,000 made from premium-rate phone calls on about two dozen shows that should have been given to charity.

In the latest scandal to hit the television industry over phone-ins, the BBC also admitted that viewers of Making Your Mind Up, the BBC1 show that chose last year’s UK entry for the Eurovision song contest, Scooch, were misled into voting before phone lines had opened. In that case, the BBC made £6,000 from ineligible calls that has also gone to charity.

The BBC Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, today said that the money had now been repaid to charity, including interest totalling £123,000.

The trust has also ordered the BBC to make an onscreen apology – the first time the corporation’s governance and regulatory body has imposed such a sanction.

Lyons said the issue involved the BBC Worldwide subsidiary Audiocall, which provides premium-rate phone lines to many BBC shows.

He added that about two dozen shows had been affected between October 2005 and September 2007, although he refused to name them.

Lyons said new technology had since been introduced which meant the problem had been resolved.

The trust has asked the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, to look at disciplining a “handful” of staff.

Lyons made it clear that senior staff within BBC Worldwide and the corporation did not know about the problem and nor did staff who worked on the affected programmes.

He added that he did not know why staff at Audiocall did not report the issue.

Lyons said: “There is no legal impropriety but it is a failure in the behaviour of these staff and the BBC’s own systems.

“It was a matter of serious misjudgment by a small number of people and a serious failing in how the BBC controls its PRS [premium-rate phone services] and its relationship with viewers and voters.

“These problems can’t continue into the future and there are lessons to be learned and disciplinary action may take place amongst staff.”

He added: “There is no room for complacency here. This is an organisation intent on living by the highest standards in the industry.”

These latest TV deception revelations follow the record £5.675m fine imposed on ITV yesterday by Ofcom over the commercial broadcaster’s phone-in scandal.

In an email to staff, Thompson described the situation as a “serious oversight”.

But he said there was “no evidence” of any “impropriety or intention to defraud”, adding that the £106,000 represented only 1.3% of the approximately £8m raised for charity through BBC telephone votes during the relevant period.

“All the money has been paid to the charities involved, with interest,” Thompson added. “The oversight has been remedied. Clearly, this must never be allowed to happen again.”

He said that while the new incidents were “disappointing”, they were both “historical’.

“We’re confident that the measures we’ve put in place mean they won’t happen again,” Thompson added.

“The whole BBC has made enormous progress on the topic of trust over the past nine months, a fact backed up by all of our surveys of the public themselves.

“We need to go on doing everything possible to restore fully the public’s trust in us. But we’ve made real progress on that score, while delivering some spectacular creative successes and starting to make our vision of the BBC’s future a reality.”

Peak Food: Blaming the Victims

0

food-crisis.jpgBy Nafeez Ahmed | I’ve already written about this in previous posts under the ‘hidden holocaust’ theme, but am prompted to re-address this issue given the way it’s been dealt with by mainstream media and associated ‘experts’.

In today’s Independent we see an eye-opening article revealing that amidst what is described as a series of “global food shortages”, a new “government-backed report” shows that “the British public” annually throws away “4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals. And for the first time government researchers have established that most of the food waste is made up of completely untouched food products — whole chickens and chocolate gateaux that lie uneaten in cupboards and fridges before being discarded” — adding up to “a record £10b” every year.

And that’s just us Brits. Imagine what the totals are for the Western world combined: Scary and revealing stuff that makes the word “overconsumption” seem like a gross understatement.

But despite the shock value of such important revelations, I’m increasingly concerned at the way in which the food crisis is being portrayed. The Independent goes on to explain the causes of the food crisis as follows: “… millions of the world’s poor face food shortages caused by rising populations, droughts and increased demand for land for biofuels, which have sparked riots and protests from Haiti to Mauritania, and from Yemen to the Philippines.”

So the food crisis comes down to three things:

1) rising populations (presumably not us in the advanced West, but rather those Third World crazies breeding like rabbits despite being so poor)

2) droughts (which may be exacerbated by climate change but in any case often occur naturally and therefore we purportedly can’t do much about)

3) and the drive from energy corporations for investment in biofuels.

Indeed, according to the British government’s new chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington speaking at a government conference two months ago:

“price rises in staples such as rice, maize and wheat would continue because of increased demand caused by population growth and increasing wealth in developing nations. He also said that climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate. ‘The agriculture industry needs to
double its food production, using less water than today.’
”

So again, population and economic growth in the ‘developing nations’, plus climate change, are to blame, and can only be addressed by doubling food production using less water (technologically impossible for all intents and purposes, but we’ll come back to that). It’s Them again — too many of Them, wanting More.

As if to emphasise the point, we hear in the same piece that:

“Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, said at the conference that the world’s population was expected to grow from 6.2bn today to 9.5bn in less than 50 years’ time. ‘How are we going to feed everybody?’ he asked.”

Only a rhetorical question of course. Sorry to break it t’ya folks, but ‘feeding everybody’ has never really been one of the state’s major concerns. That’s why “Each tonne of wheat and sugar from the UK is sold on international markets at an average price of 40% and 60% below the cost of production respectively (ie, it is dumped)”, thus undercutting local farmers across the South, who thus lose any semblance of agricultural-independence they may have once had (i.e. the ability to feed their own people), thus becoming subject to the whims of the global food market, manipulated through speculation in the interests of Northern investors and consumers.

But the important point for now is that as far as Hilary Benn is concerned, it’s clear that the cause of the problem is “their” population growth.

Later in the article, Professor Beddington is cited pointing out that global grain stores are currently at the lowest levels ever, just 40 days from running out. He again emphasises the question of food production: “I am only nine weeks into the job, so don’t yet have all the answers, but it is clear that science and research to increase the efficiency of agricultural production per unit of land is critical.”

According to Beddington, food security is the “elephant in the room” that politicians must face up to quickly. In reality, the “elephant in the room” goes far deeper than the surface issues scratched at lamely by the government, and sits in the heart of global food production. Some of Beddington’s observations show that he is dimly aware of this problem. He understands that production needs to be increased drastically. But his solution is a technological one, “science and research” in order to maximise “efficiency” so we can produce faster and better to meet escalating global demand. This is unlikely to happen. Beddington knows it. Benn knows it. The supermarket chains know it.

From this conventional analysis of the food crisis, we are not left with many solutions. We may, however, pick among the following: 1) the proliferation and prolongation of droughts due to climate change means that we need to slow down our CO2 emissions by introducing ‘market incentives’ (i.e. big taxes) targeted largely at consumers, who are blamed for having no regard for the size of their individual carbon footprints. transfering to alternative renewable energies is, for some odd reason, irrelevant. 2) reducing population growth in developing countries to decrease demand for food (nothing at all to do with NSSM 200, of course). 3) go easy on the biofuels (but fail to propose investment in other viable alternative energy sources). 4) pray day and night that Science will somehow generate a technological miracle of agricultural production.

Obviously, none of these ‘solutions’ seems to really offer a way out for the food crisis — and that’s because the analysis is fundamentally flawed. It’s not completely wrong, it just misses out half the picture, and so comes up with a false diagnosis of what’s actually gone wrong. The result is that the institutions that require urgent re-structuring are being absolved. The government, the state, and the network of giant multinational corporations that govern global agribusiness, are excused of any culpability. The cause of the crisis, we keep hearing is, WE, THE PEOPLE! It’s the developing nations, who just won’t stop breeding, dammit. It’s us Western consumers, who won’t stop eating and throwing a third of our food away. It’s everyone except the state-corporate complex that controls the food industry.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that you and I are NOT culpable. Of course we are. We do throw away tonnes, literally, of food. We do, each of us, have large carbon footprints that we should try to reduce in our own ways. Populations are increasing. But the question is this: are these factors the fundamental causes of the current global food crisis? Or are they exacerbating factors that are accentuating and intensifying the impact of the food crisis? Following mainstream news coverage of food shortages, one would be forgiven for believing that rising food prices are all because of you and me, the public, the general consumer. We have been thoroughly pathologised. And the British government, with its eye-opening study of how much food the British consumer chucks away without thinking, is complicit in this pathologisation.

Why is that the government-backed report discussed in today’s Independent, says nothing about the institutions who are primarily responsible for food wastage, the supermarkets, the multinational food chains? If the government is genuinely concerned about food wastage in this country, why won’t they do something about the fact reported by the same newspaper in February, that:

“Retailers generate 1.6 million tonnes of food waste each year… An influential watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), will condemn targets set by the Government’s waste-reduction programme as ‘unambitious and lacking urgency’. It will also say multi-buy promotions are helping to fuel waste and obesity in Britain. Speaking to The Independent on Sunday ahead of the report’s publication on Saturday, Tim Lang, SDC commissioner, said it was ‘ludicrous’ that the Government had not pressured retailers into setting tougher targets to cut waste.

Three years ago, the government-funded Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap) left it up to supermarkets to find voluntary ‘solutions to food waste’ in an agreement dubbed the Courtauld Commitment. ‘The Government is frankly not using its leverage adequately. It really should toughen up on Courtauld, which must be enforced because this is ludicrous,’ said Mr Lang, who is also professor of food policy at City University, London.

The 18-month study, which found that ‘too many supermarket practices are still unhealthy, unjust and unsustainable’, said Wrap should adopt a ‘more aspirational approach to reducing waste in food retail by setting longer-term targets and [supporting] a culture of zero waste’…

A separate study by Imperial College for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, found that supermarkets preferred to throw away food that was approaching its sell-by date rather than mark it down in price.”

So three months after being hit over the head by the Sustainable Development Commission, the government’s waste reduction programme completely ignores the warnings that supermarket profit-maximisation policies are not only directly generating billions of pounds of waste by dumping good food, they are encouraging consumers through excessive advertising, multi-buy offers, and refusal to slash prices on older foods, to also buy excess food they don’t need, a third of which they dump in turn. Instead, the government simply blames consumers. Period.

Don’t penalise Profit, nor Power. Pathologise People.

The corporate-biased law doesn’t help either, because: “The scale of the wastage from supermarkets, food processors, wholesalers and restaurants is not known, because many companies refuse to make their data public, citing commercial confidentiality.” In other words, we don’t even know the real scale of corporate food wastage. Worse, the government regularly does the same thing — here’s an example: “In the past 10 months, the government’s food intervention board dumped almost 30,000 tonnes of fresh vegetables and fruit which had been withdrawn from the market to guarantee farm prices.”

So the problem is far more complex, rooted in a consumerist culture that is tied to a political economy being deliberately sustained by those institutions with the most to gain from this entrenched structure. The government has no interest in transforming that political economy. So the result is an insistence on inspecting only half the picture, ignoring the role of the global corporate food industry.

Driven by capitalist imperatives for short-term profit maximisation and long-term cost-minimisation, global agribusiness has established an international food production system that is, basically, dying.

Most of the Earth’s fertile land is already now being used for food production. Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2005 reported that “there is now little room for further agricultural expansion.” One of the scientists, Dr Navin Ramankutty, points out: “The real question is, how can we continue to produce food from the land while preventing negative environmental consequences such as deforestation, water pollution and soil erosion?” Or, more bluntly, how are we going to keep producing food if our production-system continues to destroy the very means to produce food?

It’s not that the Earth can’t produce the food. Its that corporate agribusiness can’t produce the food. In fact, as I’ve warned previously, it has been failing to produce the food since the 1990s, during which grain production has increasingly slowed. The frenzied application of fertilisers and other modern agricultural practices served to temporarily escalate production, but simultaneously have intensified soil erosion, destroying in years essential nutrients for crop-growth that take centuries to replace. The imminent peak of world oil production, oil being the chief underpinning for industrial agricultural methods, which is either just round the corner in 2010-ish (or worse, passed in 2005) means that the global corporate food production system is up against its own physical limits.

For us to keep eating, it’s true, we have to put an end to our insane overconsumption and wastefulness. But there are real limits to what the consumer can do within the existing global corporate food system. So we need to turn our attention to that system, and demand that it changes fundamentally, which means, of course, a wholesale transformation of our political economies in ways which rely on renewable energy resources and localised less-intensive but no less successful traditional agricultural practices. We need some kind of grassroots action, which makes our voices impossible to ignore. It will take time to develop, to become strong, to gather momentum. But it needs to be done, and now. Because at current rates of declining food production and rising prices, fuelled by unscrupulous market speculation, many, many people are likely to die, not just in the South, but here too. And while this death escalates, a few at the helm of the global corporate food industry will reap unprecedented windfall profits from their deaths. That’s why real solutions aren’t being put on the table. Death is regrettable, but when it comes wrapped in £££$$$, it’s not so bad…

The Challenge Of Modern Slavery

1

modern-slavery.jpgBy Loretta Napoleoni | Slavery is in our refrigerators. From fruit to beef, from sugar to coffee, slave labor brings food to our tables. “Miguel,” a Mexican slave freed by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a US human-rights organization, may have harvested the apples we eat at breakfast. Miguel picked fruit under guard in the United States. He had traveled to el norte to earn the money to pay for treatment for his six-year-old son who has cancer; instead, his employer enslaved him.

The cocoa we drink while reading the newspaper or watching the morning news shows may come from the Ivory Coast, which supplies half the world market. Children and adolescents from even poorer neighboring countries, such as Mali, trek all the way to the cocoa plantations to earn a subsistence salary. Often, they end up working as slaves in remote farms. “Nineteen-year-old Drissa was one such young man. When he was freed in 2000, he had just gone through a ‘breaking-in’ period as his master accustomed him to enslavement. His back was laced with scars and wounds from being whipped.”

Almost every product we consume has a hidden dark history, from slave labor to piracy, from counterfeit to fraud, from theft to money laundering. We know very little about these economic secrets because modern consumers live inside the market matrix.

The first thought that comes to mind when we discover that our hot chocolate comes directly from slave labor suggests that we boycott Ivory Coast cocoa. But this decision would not help free thousands of young slaves like Drissa. On the contrary, it could make their lives much worse and harm honest farmers as well. “Africa is like a body infested with parasites. One has to be careful not to kill the body to get rid of the parasites,” summarized Rico Carish. Millions of people depend for their sustenance on this parasitic rogue economy. The alternative could impoverish them further, if it does not put them at risk of death.

Often, western intervention, even when willing and well intentioned, achieves very little. In the case of many African commodities, Western companies have no direct contact with farmers. Trade occurs through local intermediaries, middlemen, and shippers. The profits of slavery are collected at the farm gate, a practice that effectively incorporates them in the price of the product. Often the intermediaries do not even know or care that slave labor is involved in the production of the goods they trade. This explains why halting imports from the Ivory Coast will not end slavery but force thousands of honest farmers and their families into poverty. To eradicate the problem, one must attack the root causes, a task that only local governments can accomplish. But good governance also proves a rare commodity on the African continent.

Even more shocking is the discovery that in the twenty-first century, slavery is booming on a global scale. According to the United Nations, slavery is growing at an unprecedented rate. Figures put global slavery at 27 million persons, a generation of modern slaves that, according to the International Labor Organization, produces yearly profits of around $31 billion. Population explosion and great migrations coupled with globalization have boosted the slave trade. “The increase in slavery is linked to globalization,” concurs Kevin Bales, author of Ending Slavery: How We Will Free Today’s Slaves. “But this is not about sweat-shop workers existing on misery wages. Slaves are under the complete, violent control of another person; they are economically exploited and get only enough food and shelter to stay alive. For millions of victims, their experience differs little in hardship from that of slaves hundreds of years ago.”

Slavery’s resurgence exerts a direct effect on its cost, which has now fallen for decades. Bates calculated that, while over the past 3,000 years the average price of a slave has ranged from $20,000 to $80,000 (adjusted to current dollar value) now people can be bought and sold for a tenth of these prices. After World War II, we witnessed a sudden surge in the supply of slave labor, pushing prices down. Ironically, this phenomenon began as a consequence of decolonization, which shifted slave ownership from colonizers to countrymen. Today’s slaves are predominantly enslaved by their national peers and not by foreign powers. Like other commodity markets, slavery operates by the law of supply and demand, and today supply proves plentiful among the millions living on a dollar to two dollars a day.

Consumers remain blissfully ignorant of these facts. The market matrix, a complex maze of smoke and mirrors, hides the exploitative nature of trade and commerce. The shelves of Western supermarkets are stacked with items produced by people in developing countries who earn a miniscule fraction of their value. Consumers, if they ever chose to think about it, might be shocked to learn who pockets most of the profits of their daily grocery shopping.

Loretta Napoleoni: An expert on financing of terrorism, Loretta advises several governments on counter-terrorism. She is senior partner of G Risk, a London based risk agency. – She is a Fulbright scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC. and a Rotary Scholar at the London School of Economics..

To review further articles and listen to podcasts by Loretta Napoleoni, you are invited to visit her website: http://www.lorettanapoleoni.org

Ex-MI5 chief warns over detention

0

dame-stella.jpgBBC News | MPs should work together to agree a detention limit for terror suspects and ensure the matter is not a political football, a former MI5 chief has said. Ministers want to be able to hold suspects without charge for 42 days, rather than the current 28-days.

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and many Labour MPs oppose the change.

Dame Stella Rimington called it “a huge pity” the debate had become a political issue, saying security “was too serious a thing to play party politics with”.

For this reason, she told BBC Radio Nottingham, she would not express an opinion on the present limit, or proposed extensions to 42 or even 60 days.

“But I do think they should try and achieve some kind of consensus,” she added.

Police ‘backing’

A Commons vote is expected in mid-June on the matter, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown favouring a 42-day period.

He has said the change was needed to accommodate questioning after any “substantial terrorist incident” on British soil.

He has argued that this extension was backed by Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London and the most senior policeman in the UK.

But Conservative leader David Cameron has accused Mr Brown of trying to push through the extension to appear “tough on terror”, rather than because he believes in it.

Last week Mr Cameron claimed he had been sent a report which detailed the concerns of some Labour MPs on the issue, and suggested there might be a backbench rebellion when the vote was held.

The Liberal Democrats also oppose extending the 28 day limit. Enough Labour MPs appear to oppose the extension to suggest the government could be defeated.

Abuse Claims Mount Against Pentagon, Contractors

1

aclu.jpgBy William Fisher | As human rights groups demanded the release of a report on a long-running investigation of the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the unlawful interrogations of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, new torture claims were leveled at two U.S. military contractors by a former Abu Ghraib “ghost” detainee who was wrongly imprisoned and later released without charge.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Act request this week with the Departments of Justice and Defense demanding release of a report by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which the group says has been completed for months but blocked by the Defense Department.

The OIG investigation was initiated in 2005 after the ACLU obtained documents in which FBI agents described interrogations that they had witnessed at Guantánamo Bay.

While the documents were most notable for their description of illegal interrogation methods used by military interrogators, they also raised serious questions about the FBI’s participation in abusive interrogations, the actions of FBI personnel who witnessed abusive interrogations, and the response of FBI officials to reports of abuse.

Testifying before a congressional committee last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller denied that the FBI participated in any of the interrogations. The Defense Department has said the OIG’s report must be reviewed and redacted to eliminate classified information before it can be made public.

The OIG report and all documents related to this investigation is part of a broader effort to uncover information about the George W. Bush administration’s torture policies. To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU’s lawsuit enforcing the request — including the Bush administration’s 2003 “torture memo” written by John Yoo when he was a deputy at the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.

This week, Yoo — under threat of subpoena — agreed to testify voluntarily before a congressional committee investigating the legal basis used to justify the Bush administration’s torture policies.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, told IPS, “The inspector general completed this report many months ago. The problem is with the Defense Department, which is using its classification review as a pretext for delaying the report’s release. In this case as in many others, the Defense Department is misusing its classification authority to suppress information about the abuse and torture of prisoners.”

“There’s no good reason why the report should be withheld from the public,” Jaffer said. “It’s being withheld not for legitimate security reasons, but in order to protect high-level government officials from embarrassment, criticism, and possibly even criminal prosecution.”

In related developments, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), an advocacy group, leveled new torture claims against two U.S. military contractors by a former Abu Ghraib “ghost” detainee, and labeled as “wholly inadequate” a single page unclassified summary of the OIG’s report released on the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian rendition victim “rendered” by U.S. authorities to be tortured in Syria for 10 months more than five years ago.

In a letter to the OIG, CCR lawyers contrasted the one-page summary with the Canadian public inquiry, which released two public reports after a two-year investigation. The Canadian Government issued a formal apology to Arar and paid him $10 million. It was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that provided U.S. authorities with information that Arar was a suspected terrorist.

Arar attempted to sue the U.S. government, but his case was dismissed after the government invoked the so-called “state secrets privilege,” which bars from the courts information that would compromise national security. The letter charges that the delay of the OIG report’s release has been reportedly “due to efforts by very senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to suppress it” because it would expose “serious misconduct.”

It added that “the continued delay in releasing report calls into serious question the independence of the DHS OIG.”

Arar said, “By suppressing the report and issuing one page of publicly available information, this U.S. administration adds insult to injury. This ‘summary’ raises more questions than answers about the government’s behavior, and does not answer the central question — why I was sent to Syria to be tortured.”

The suit against the contractors, filed last week in Los Angeles federal court on behalf of Emad al-Janabi, a 43-year-old Iraqi blacksmith, alleges that Janabi was wrongly imprisoned, beaten, and forced from his home by people in U.S. military uniforms and civilian clothing in September 2003. He was released from Abu Ghraib without charge in July 2004.

The defendants are contractors CACI International Inc. and CACI Premier Technology Inc., of Arlington, Va.; L-3 Communications Titan Corporation, of San Diego, Calif.; and former CACI contractor Steven Stefanowicz, a Los Angeles resident known at Abu Ghraib as “Big Steve.”

The suit charges that the contractors subjected Janabi to physical and mental torture in sessions where the defendants acted as interrogators and translators. It alleges the contractors transported him to a detainee site in a wooden box and covered with a hood; scarred his face when his eyes were clawed by an interrogator; exposed him to a mock execution of his brother and nephew; hung him upside down with his feet chained to the steel slats of a bunk bed until he lost consciousness; and repeatedly deprived him of food and sleep and threatened him with dogs.

In October 2003, during a surprise inspection of Abu Ghraib, the International Committee of the Red Cross discovered Janabi naked, chained, and bruised in a cell in the “hard site” of the prison. He was a so-called “ghost detainee” who was intentionally hidden from the Red Cross on subsequent inspections and held without appearing on the prisoner lists.

The lawsuit — which alleges multiple violations of U.S. law, including torture, war crimes, and civil conspiracy — notes that CACI provided interrogators used at Abu Ghraib and that L-3 employed all translators used there. Stefanowicz was linked to Abu Ghraib abuses in military court martial proceedings and was said to have directed low-level U.S. military personnel in detainee interrogations.

The lawsuit also alleges that a newly published book, Our Good Name, by CACI Chairman J.P. (Jack) London, reveals that CACI’s internal investigation failed to include any interviews of detainees or of a former employee whistleblower. According to the lawsuit, “CACI has repeatedly made, and continues to make, knowingly false statements to the effect that none of its employees was involved in torturing prisoners.”

In fact, co-conspirators have admitted that Big Steve and several other corporate employees “were involved in the torture,” and at least one publicly released Abu Ghraib photograph shows a former CACI employee interrogating a prisoner in a dangerous and harmful stress position not authorized by relevant military regulations governing interrogation.

In the U.S. Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted last week to limit Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogators to techniques approved by the military, which would effectively bar them from waterboarding prisoners, congressional officials said.

The vote on an amendment by Sen. Diane Feinstein, a Democrat from California, taken behind closed doors as the committee debated legislation to authorize money for intelligence operations in 2009, marks at least the second attempt by intelligence overseers in Congress to regulate CIA questioning of detainees.

President Bush vetoed the 2008 intelligence authorization bill in March because it included the same curbs on questioning techniques. This interrogation provision, if passed by the full Senate and House, would likely face the same fate.

Britain throws away £10bn of food every year

1

food.jpgBy Martin Hickman | Global food shortages, soaring prices and alarm over the environment. But every day, Britain throws away 220,000 loaves of bread, 1.6m bananas, 550,000 chickens, 5.1m potatoes, 660,000 eggs, 1.2m sausages and 1.3m yoghurts.

A new study has exposed the staggering amount of food thrown away every day by the British public, calculating that the annual total of wasted products adds up to a record £10bn.

Each day, according to the government-backed report, Britons throw away 4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals. And for the first time government researchers have established that most of the food waste is made up of completely untouched food products — whole chickens and chocolate gateaux that lie uneaten in cupboards and fridges before being discarded.

The roll call of daily waste costs an average home more than £420 a year but for a family with children the annual cost rises to £610.

The Government’s waste campaign Wrap (Waste & Resources Action Programme) revealed the extent of Britain’s throwaway food culture after sifting through the dustbins of 2,138 people who signed up to an audit of food detritus. Other items on the daily list included 1.2 million sausages, 710,000 packs of chocolate or sweets, 260,000 packs of cheese, 50,000 milkshake bottles and 25,000 cooking sauces.

The study is published as millions of the world’s poor face food shortages caused by rising populations, droughts and increased demand for land for biofuels, which have sparked riots and protests from Haiti to Mauritania, and from Yemen to the Philippines. Last month India halted the export of non-basmati rice to ensure its poor can eat, while Vietnam, the second-biggest rice exporter, is considering a similar measure after Cyclone Nargis ripped through Burma’s rice-producing Irrawaddy delta.

In Britain yesterday, it emerged that food prices had risen by 4.7 per cent in the past month. The soaring cost of wheat has increased food prices in the UK by up to 11 per cent in the past year, putting more pressure on domestic budgets already struggling to cope with higher mortgage costs and council tax and energy bills.

Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a “best before date”, which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.

The Environment minister, Joan Ruddock, said: “These findings are staggering in their own right, but at a time when global food shortages are in the headlines this kind of wastefulness becomes even more shocking. This is costing consumers three times over. Not only do they pay hard-earned money for food they don’t eat, there is also the cost of dealing with the waste this creates. And there are climate- change costs to all of us of growing, processing, packaging, transporting and refrigerating food that only ends up in the bin. Preventing waste in the first place has to remain a top priority.”

Eliminating the huge level of food waste would have significant environmental consequences. Local authorities spend £1bn a year disposing of food waste, which leads to the release of methane, a potent climate-change gas. Wrap calculated that stopping the waste of good food could reduce the annual emission of carbon dioxide by 18 million tonnes — the same effect as taking one in five cars off the roads.

Food experts said the study should serve as a wake-up call to British consumers. As well as an individual “Victorian moral” effort, Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, called for the Government to take action to improve the efficiency of the food system to face up to the challenges of climate change, rising oil costs and water shortages. Describing modern supermarkets as “cathedrals of waste”, he said: “The British food economy is one of the most wasteful it would be conceivable to design. We have to create a new set of criteria on what we want the food economy to address; it’s time for politicians to catch up.”

Previously, Wrap’s Love Food, Hate Waste campaign put the financial cost of the 6.7 million tonnes of food discarded annually in the UK at £8bn. After interviewing 2,715 households — and then analysing the contents of most of their bins — researchers found that people were throwing away a greater proportion of edible, unused products. Rather than half new food and half peelings and scrapings from plates, the proportion of entirely unused products was 60 per cent by weight and 70 per cent by value.

Overall, that meant the total level of waste was £2bn higher, at £10bn, with the untouched products discarded worth £6bn. Of those, products worth £1bn were still “in date”, Wrap found.

Launching The Food We Waste report, Wrap’s chief executive, Liz Goodwin, described its findings — which mean that one in three shopping bags is dumped straight in the bin — as “shocking”.

She said: “People aren’t really aware that we are wasting so much food; do we think it’s acceptable to throw so much away when people around the world are starving? But also with the economic situation here purse strings are getting tighter yet the average family with children is wasting more than £600 a year on food waste. It begs some questions which we all need to ask ourselves. As individuals we are all wasting food. By class or age, there isn’t much difference in how much we waste.”

‘I chuck out a lot because I live on my own’

Andrew Small, 46, from London

I waste a lot of stuff which goes way over its sell-by date. If you don’t shop that often like me there is a danger of things like milk and fruit and vegetables going off in the fridge.

Estimated waste per month: £30

Andreia Augusto, 35, from Portugal

I mostly waste salads and vegetables from the fridge; and things like HP sauce, plus beans and lentils tend to get chucked out. It can happen almost without you noticing.

Estimated waste per month: £50

Lisa Jennings, 26, from London

I throw away a lot because I live on my own and I like to cook each night instead of eating ready-made meals. I struggle with vegetables because I tend to buy them in big packets.

Estimated waste per month: £20

Alaria Alongi, 40, Italian, lives in London

I recycle everything and do my own compost. When I make a surplus I tend to eat leftovers. I look forward to a day when you use your own large containers for buying rice and pasta.

Estimated waste per month: £0

Alan Young, 58, from London

I try to avoid throwing any food away, despite eating mainly at home. I was brought up by parentswho came from a wargeneration in which waste was a sin.

Estimated waste per month: £5-10

Does Organic Really Mean Organic?

2

organic.jpgBy David Gutierrez | The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has renewed its approval for 46 non-organically produced substances to be used in foods and beverages that are labeled “organic.” At the same time, the agency withdrew its approval for a type of food coloring and a food additive.

Under the Organic Foods Production Act, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board is required to renew approval every five years for any non-organic ingredients that are allowed into organic foods.

The products renewed include five agricultural non-organic products and 41 non-agricultural, non-organic products. The agricultural produced products are corn starch, kelp, pectin, unbleached lecithin and water extracted gums. Some of these are not individual products, but categories; water-extracted gums, for example, include arabic, carob bean, guar and locust bean gums. Kelp may only be used as a thickener or a dietary supplement.

The 41 allowed non-agricultural products include common ingredients such as citric and lactic acid; calcium carbonate; calcium chloride; carnauba wax; bakers, brewers or nutritional yeast; dairy cultures; flavors; sodium carbonate; glycerin; mono- and diglycerides; and xanthan gum.

The USDA withdrew its approval, however, for colors derived from non-synthetic sources and for potassium tartrate derived from tartaric acid.

The organic industry is the fastest-growing agriculture sector in the United States, currently accounting for 3 percent of all food and beverage sales. Retail revenues have risen 20 to 24 percent each year since 1990, from $1 billion to nearly $17 billion in 2006. They are expected to reach nearly $24 billion by 2010.

At the same time, acreage of organic agriculture operations more than doubled from 2001 to 2005, to a current 4.05 million acres. The number of organic operations increased by more than 18 percent in the same period, to a 2005 value of 8.500 crop and livestock operations and 2,900 handling operations.

The New Whopper: Burger with a Side of Spies

burgerking.jpgPR Watch | Author Eric Schlosser editorializes about “the growing threat to civil liberties posed by corporate spying,” citing Burger King Corporation’s spying on the Student/Farmworker Alliance and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, through Cara Schaffer and her private security firm, Diplomatic Tactical Services.

“The Bill of Rights was adopted to protect Americans from the abusive power of their government. I’ve come to believe that we now need a similar set of restrictions to defend against irresponsible corporate power. Today companies like Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil have annual revenues larger than the entire budgets of some states, and they employ former agents from the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the Secret Service to do security work,” Schlosser writes. “John Chidsey, the chief executive of Burger King, knew about the use of Diplomatic Tactical Services. Mr. Chidsey should get a chance to raise his right hand and tell members of Congress why he thinks this sort of behavior is acceptable.”

US/IRAQ: Pressure to Cut Costs, Troops Strains “Surge”

0

surge.jpgBy Jim Lobe | Growing impatience in Congress over the enormous costs being racked up by the Iraq war, as well as the Pentagon’s belief that it needs more troops in Afghanistan to fight insurgents there, is putting the vaunted success of the George W. Bush administration’s “surge” strategy to the test.

Although the House of Representatives appears poised to approve an additional 163 billion dollars Thursday for military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the year, most observers believe that Congress will impose unprecedented conditions on Iraq-related spending. This could include requirements that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pay substantially more in reconstruction and related costs than it has to date.

The argument that Baghdad must bear more of the burden gained momentum last week when the Pentagon’s Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that Iraq’s oil revenue in 2008 should exceed 70 billion dollars, twice as much as had been forecast just a few months before.

That report, which comes amid growing concern here over the weak domestic economy, has fueled efforts by a bipartisan group of senators to halt virtually all U.S. funding for major reconstruction and infrastructure projects in Iraq.

Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted unanimously last week to approve a bill that would ban the Pentagon from funding any reconstruction or infrastructure project in Iraq that costs more than two million dollars. Similar legislation is expected to be taken up by the House.

“This is the first significant bipartisan change in our policy toward Iraq,” declared Republican Sen. Susan Collins, one of the sponsors of the legislation after last week’s vote, while the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin said Iraq’s failure to pay reconstruction costs was “unconscionable (and) inexcusable” given the windfall it has received from the stunning rise in world oil prices.

Another provision of the same bill would require Iraq’s government to pay the salaries and training costs of the predominantly Sunni militias, or so-called “sahwa” or “Awakening” councils, on which the U.S. has been spending roughly 27 million dollars a month.

Despite U.S. pressure, the al-Maliki government has strongly resisted integrating the vast majority of the estimated 90,000 members of these militias — most of which were previously part of the Sunni insurgency — into the army or police for fear that they will eventually turn their guns on the regime.

The result has been growing frustration on the part of the militias, frustration that reportedly was significantly enhanced last month after al-Maliki enlisted thousands of members of the Badr Organisation into the government’s security forces during fighting with Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad. The Badr Organisation is the armed wing of the Shi’a Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the strongest party in the coalition.

Both the intra-Shi’a conflict between the Sadrists and the government and the growing anger of the sahwa militias — most recently dramatised by a series of strikes and public protests and by an increasing number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces in al-Anbar province and other Sunni strongholds where the militias have kept the peace for most of the past year — have resulted in a sharp rise in both Iraqi and U.S. casualties over the past two months, threatening the security gains made by the surge.

The surge, which was initiated in February 2007, was aimed at pacifying both al-Anbar province and the capital by adding some 30,000 U.S. troops to the 140,000 already deployed to Iraq to stop and reverse the drift to sectarian civil war between Sunnis and the various Shi’a militias. Its strategic aim was to foster a climate of peace and stability that would encourage all factions to make the political compromises necessary for national reconciliation.

While the surge made substantial headway in achieving its tactical goals of improving security — with the critical help of the sahwa militias which had mostly broken with al Qaeda in Iraq and allied themselves with the U.S. even before the surge got underway — its strategic goal of political reconciliation has been far more elusive.

Moreover, the surge’s tactical success has failed to translate into additional popular or Congressional support for the war at home. As a result, the Bush administration, which promised months ago to withdraw the 30,000 surge troops by the end of July, is adhering to its pledge, leaving fewer troops to ensure that a new round of violence does not break out.

At the same time, the Pentagon leadership is pressing the White House to continue the drawdown from Iraq beyond July so that it can deploy the three brigades — between 10,000 and 12,000 troops — it says it needs to cope with the Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan. While Bush has announced that there will be at least a 45-day pause to assess the impact of the surge withdrawal after July, the pressure on him to resume the process — not only from the Pentagon, but from Republican candidates in the November elections — is expected to be intense.

Republican backing for the Armed Services Committee bill banning additional spending on major reconstruction projects and support for the sahwa militias is clearly seen by both the administration and the promoters of the surge as a worrisome portent, and not only for maintaining the relative — albeit fragile — peace that has prevailed for much of the past year.

One of the surge’s architects, Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said that legislation would “do catastrophic damage to our image in the world, particularly the Muslim world…The argument that Iraq should use its oil revenues to pay the United States sounds like the ultimate proof that we invaded Iraq for mercenary reasons.”

Ending U.S. funding for the sahwa militias, in particular, will pose a critical — and long overdue — test of the surge strategy, according to a number of observers, who see Maliki’s failure to integrate them as a critical stumbling block to national reconciliation.

“If the Awakenings are not integrated into the national security forces, then there is little hope for political accommodation or for lasting security and the U.S. is effectively trapped,” according to Marc Lynch, an expert at George Washington University whose blog, abuaardvark.com, is widely read here. “Since all other forms of persuasion seem to have failed, it’s time to give Maliki an ultimatum…If he gives in, then there may finally be some hope for political accommodation…”

“The downside is that if Maliki doesn’t go along…then things may well get ugly. But all signs suggests that they will get ugly anyway — and better that they get ugly while the U.S. is at the highest troop levels it will ever have,” Lynch wrote.

“If Maliki won’t do this now, when U.S. troop levels are high and security is relatively better, with the shadow of a new president who likely will not continue to offer an open-ended commitment, then he never will…and everyone should know this.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Under U.S. Law Torture is Always Illegal

0

torture3.jpgBy Marjorie Cohn | What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens is Latin for “higher law” or “compelling law.” This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition.

The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws executive statements and judicial decisions. We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture.”

Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s argument that Common Article 3 doesn’t cover the prisoners at Guantánamo. Justice Kennedy wrote that violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes.

We have federal laws that criminalize torture.

The War Crimes Act punishes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any violation of Common Article 3. That includes torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment.

The Torture Statute provides for life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies, for anyone who commits, attempts, or conspires to commit torture outside the United States.

The U.S. Army Field Manual’s provisions governing intelligence interrogations prohibit the “use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind.” Brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion, including the use of drugs, are also prohibited. Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by court-martial under provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These include conspiracy, cruelty and maltreatment, murder, manslaughter, maiming, sodomy, and assault.

In Filartiga v. Peña-Irala, the Second Circuit declared the prohibition against torture is universal, obligatory, specific and definable. Since then, every U.S. circuit court has reaffirmed that torture violates universal and customary international law. In the Paquete Habana, the Supreme Court held that customary international law is part of U.S. law.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make the laws and the President the duty to carry them out. Yet on February 7, 2002, President Bush, relying on memos by lawyers including John Yoo, announced that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to alleged Taliban and Al Qaeda members. Bush said, however,

“As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.”

But torture is never allowed under our laws.

Lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote memos at the request of high-ranking government officials in order to insulate them from future prosecution for subjecting detainees to torture. In memos dated August 1, 2002 and March 18, 2003, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo (Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, signed the 2002 memo), advised the Bush administration that the Department of Justice would not enforce the U.S. criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.

The federal maiming statute makes it a crime for someone “with the intent to torture, maim, or disfigure” to “cut, bite, or slit the nose, ear or lip, or cut out or disable the tongue, or put out or destroy an eye, or cut off or disable a limb or any member of another person.” It further prohibits individuals from “throwing or pouring upon another person any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance” with like intent.

Yoo said in an interview in Esquire that “just because the statute says — that doesn’t mean you have to do it.” In a debate with Notre Dame Professor Doug Cassell, Yoo said there is no treaty that prohibits the President from torturing someone by crushing the testicles of the person’s child. In Yoo’s view, it depends on the President’s motive, notwithstanding the absolute prohibition against torture in all circumstances.

The Torture Convention defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering. The U.S. attached an “understanding” to its ratification of the Torture Convention, which added the requirement that the torturer “specifically” intend to inflict the severe physical or mental pain or suffering. This is a distinction without a difference for three reasons.

First, under well-established principles of criminal law, a person specifically intends to cause a result when he either consciously desires that result or when he knows the result is practically certain to follow.

Second, unlike a “reservation” to a treaty provision, an “understanding” cannot change an international legal obligation.

Third, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an “understanding” that violates the object and purpose of a treaty is void. The claim that treatment of prisoners which would amount to torture under the Torture Convention does not constitute torture under the U.S. “understanding” violates the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to ensure that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The U.S. “understanding” that adds the specific intent requirement is embodied in the U.S. Torture Statute.

Nevertheless, Yoo twisted the law and redefined torture much more narrowly than the definitions in the Convention Against Torture and the Torture Statute. Under Yoo’s definition, the victim must experience intense pain or suffering equivalent to pain associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body functions will likely result.

Yoo wrote that self-defense or necessity could be used as a defense to war crimes prosecutions for torture, notwithstanding the Torture Convention’s absolute prohibition against torture in all circumstances. There can be no justification for torture.

After the exposure of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and the publication of the August 1, 2002 memo, the Department of Justice knew the memo could not be legally defended. That memo was withdrawn as of June 1, 2004. A new opinion, authored by Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel, is dated December 30, 2004. It specifically rejects Yoo’s definition of torture, and admits that a defendant’s motives to protect national security will not shield him from a torture prosecution. The rescission of the August 2002 memo constitutes an admission by the Justice Department that the legal reasoning in that memo was wrong. But for 22 months, it was in effect, which sanctioned and led to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.

John Yoo admitted the coercive interrogation “policies were part of a common, unifying approach to the war on terrorism.” Yoo and other Department of Justice lawyers, including Jay Bybee, David Addington, William Haynes and Alberto Gonzalez, were part of a common plan to violate U.S. and international laws outlawing torture. It was reasonably foreseeable that the advice they gave would result in great physical or mental harm or death to many detainees. Indeed, more than 100 have died, many from torture.

ABC News reported last month that the National Security Council Principals Committee consisting of Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft met in the White House and micromanaged the torture of terrorism suspects by approving specific torture techniques such as waterboarding. Bush admitted, “Yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

These top U.S. officials are liable for war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act and torture under the Torture Statute. They ordered the torture that was carried out by the interrogators. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, used at Nuremberg and enshrined in the Army Field Manual, commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, can be 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. The Bush officials ordered the torture after seeking legal cover from their lawyers.

But Yoo and the other Justice Department lawyers who wrote the enabling memos are also liable for the same offenses. They were an integral part of a criminal conspiracy to violate our criminal laws. Yoo admitted in an Esquire interview last month that he knew interrogators would take action based on what he advised.

The President can no more order the commission of torture than he can order the commission of genocide, or establish a system of slavery, or wage a war of aggression.

A Select Committee of Congress should launch an immediate and thorough investigation of the circumstances under which torture was authorized and rationalized. The high officials of our government and their lawyers who advised them should be investigated and prosecuted by a Special Prosecutor, independent of the Justice Department, for their crimes.

John Yoo, Jay Byee, and David Addington should be subjected to particular scrutiny because of the seriousness of their roles in misusing the rule of law and legal analysis to justify torture and other crimes in flagrant violation of domestic and international law.

This essay is adapted from Marjorie Cohn’s testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
of the House Judiciary Committee
.

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and author of Cowboy Republic.

Suicide bomber was in Guantánamo, says US

0

suicide.jpgBy Ewen MacAskill | The Pentagon confirmed yesterday that a Kuwaiti released from the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay three years ago carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq last month. The involvement of an ex-Guantánamo detainee will make it harder for civil rights lawyers in the US and Britain, who have been fighting for the release of the remaining prisoners at the camp complex in Cuba.

Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi and two other Kuwaitis are reported by their families to have taken part in an attack on Iraqi security forces in Mosul, a northern city that is the scene of intense fighting.

Although the families did not specify a date, seven people were killed in a suicide attack in Mosul on April 26.

Civil rights lawyers claim most of the detainees are innocent, while the US military claims they present a danger and would take up arms if released.

The US military opposed his release, saying there was a risk that he presented a continuing danger, but he was freed after being transferred to Kuwait.

A spokesman for the US central command, US navy commander Scott Rye, told the Associated Press he did not know the motives behind the suicide bombing.

Ajmi, aged 30, a former Kuwaiti soldier, was taken to Guantánamo as part of a general sweep in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

He was accused of fighting with the Taliban, a charge he repeatedly denied.

He was transferred from Guantánamo to Kuwait in 2005. Alleged evidence obtained at Guantánamo was not allowed in a Kuwaiti court, which acquitted him and four others on terrorist-related charges.

His cousin, Salem al-Ajmi, told al-Arabiya television last Thursday that a friend of Abdallah had informed the family that he had carried out an attack in Mosul.

“We were shocked by the painful news we received this afternoon … through a call from one of the friends of martyr Abdallah in Iraq,” Salem said.

Ajmi disappeared two weeks ago and his family learned he left Kuwait illegally for Syria, a regular transit point for jihadists travelling to Iraq.

He had sent messages to his wife from Iraq. He had a son after being released from Guantánamo.

Ajmi’s cousin said that he had given no indication that he was planning to leave Kuwait to join the insurgency in Iraq, though he had become more withdrawn recently.

The US military claimed he had deserted the Kuwaiti armed forces to fight with the Taliban for eight months in 2001 against the Northern Alliance, which after 9/11 was backed by the US.

As the Northern Alliance took Kabul with US help, Ajmi is alleged to have fled south to Tora Bora and was captured attempting to cross into Pakistan. He insisted he had gone to Pakistan to memorise the Koran, had never been in Afghanistan and had never heard of Tora Bora.

There are 275 detainees at Guantánamo, down from a high of 775. The US commander at the camp, Rear Admiral Mark Buzby, said in February that he expected about 80 to go on trial. Of the remainder, 80 have already been cleared for release but cannot find a country that will take them. The others are awaiting clearance.

The Democratic and Republican candidates to replace President George Bush in January next year have promised to close the camp.

The case against Ajmi in Kuwait collapsed after the court ruled that alleged testimony from Guantánamo was inadmissible because he had not signed it.

The presence of Kuwaiti foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq is rare. While 90% of suicide bombers have been foreigners, Kuwaitis have comprised less than 1% of foreign fighters in Iraq.

The first hearing at a new court complex at Guantánamo yesterday suffered a technical glitch. Journalists watching proceedings from behind a glass panel had no sound.

The case being heard was of a Yemeni, Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman al-Bahlul, who is accused of serving Osama bin Laden as a bodyguard and al-Qaida recruiter.

The US military spent US$12m (£6m) on the new court complex. After the sound was sorted, there was a power failure and the lights went out. When sound and light was restored, Bahlul declined to enter a plea. He held up a sign saying he was boycotting the court and refused to distance himself from bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Charges are pending against 14 prisoners in the special court set up to try captives the US considers to be unlawful enemy combatants who do not merit trial in civilian and military courts.

John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps

bolton.jpgBy Damien McElroy | Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.

“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”

Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bush’s inner circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.

A US military spokesman revealed last week that the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had drafted in personnel from Lebanon’s Hizbollah to train fighters from Iraq’s Shia militias.

Colonel Donald Bacon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said captured fighters had told interrogators that thousands of Iraqi fighters were undergoing training in the Islamic Republic.

The main camp is located near the town of Jalil Azad, near Tehran, according to coalition officials.

The capture of Qais Khazali, a major figure in the Shia insurgency alongside Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Lebanese Hizbollah guerilla, last year yielded a treasure trove of information on Hizbollah’s activities in Iraq.

“Ali Mussa Daqduq confirmed Lebanese Hizbollah were providing training to Iraqi Special Group members in Iran and that his role was to assess the quality of training and make recommendations on how the training could be improved,” said Col Bacon. “In this role, he travelled to Iraq on four occasions and was captured on his fourth trip.”

Five Britons kidnapped in Iraq are believed to have been put under the control of Quds Force agents after failed attempts to barter the men for Khazali and Daqduq’s freedom.

The importance of the Quds Force to stability in Iraq was demonstrated last week when a five-member Iraqi delegation was sent to Tehran to meet with its commander, General Ghassem Soleimani. The delegation was despatched by the Iraqi government to plead for an end to Iranian meddling in its enfeebled neighbour.

Pentagon’s Propaganda Documents Go Online

0

pentagonlogo.jpgBy John Stauber | Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon’s illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers — most of them with financial ties to war contractors — into the TV networks as “message surrogates” for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

News of the Pentagon’s online posting of the documents came from Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who notes that NSNS provided the New York Times “limited information about a military office early in the reporting process.”

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

More than two weeks after the New York Times reported on the Penatgon’s military analyst program to sell controversial policies such as the invasion of Iraq, the broadcast television news outlets implicated in the program are hoping to tough out the scandal by refusing to report it. Recently Media Matters of America (MMA) reported that, according to a search of the Nexis database, “the three major broadcast networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — have still not mentioned the report at all.”

The Pew Excellence in Journalism project has a chart showing that ” there was virtually no mainstream media follow up to The Times’ expose” with the only national TV coverage being the introduction segment and live debate featuring CMD’s John Stauber on the PBS NewsHour.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro and three dozen colleagues have sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General calling for an investigation of this “propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public.”


Roads blocked in Beirut anti-gov’t protests

0

block.jpgPress TV | Demonstrators have blocked roads in and around Beirut with burning tires, protesting against the govt’s economic and social policies. Witnesses said the main road leading to Beirut’s international airport was among routes blocked by the protesters, who support the Hezbollah-led opposition, Reuters reports.

On Tuesday, Hezbollah called on all workers and employees to demonstrate on May 7, blaming the government for the country’s political and economic crises.

Al-Manar TV channel reported that a group, belonging to the al-Mustaqbal Movement headed by Saad Hariri, threw a bomb at demonstrators, wounding five people including two army forces.

Soldiers and police were on full alert and managed to open some of the blocked roads, but the airport thoroughfare was still obstructed by burning tires.

An airport official said that although several flights flew in and out of the airport in the early morning, flights were cancelled between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (0600 and 1200 GMT).

Many schools and businesses were shut down.

In the southern coastal city of Tyre, hundreds gathered in the main square demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Similar protests were held in other major towns.

The Pentagon vs. America

pentagon-v-america.jpgBy Scott Ritter | I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college in northern Vermont. The e-mail included the following query: “I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social activism and making a difference. You told me that one of the most important things was to make myself reputable and give people a reason to listen to you. I think this is some of the best advice I’ve received. My issue however is that you mentioned joining the military as a way to do this and mentioned how that is how you fell into it. … We talked extensively about all of our criticisms of the military currently and our foreign policy. … What I don’t understand is, how can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the flawed system, to join that flawed system?”

The question is a valid one. Throughout my travels in the United States, where I interact with people from progressive anti-war groups, I am often confronted with the seeming contradiction of my position. I rail against the war in Iraq (and the potential of war with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically, the notion of military service. It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least on the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as well as support for those who seek to join the armed services.

The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at odds is a critical problem for our nation. That confrontation only exacerbates the problems of the soldier and the citizen, and must be properly understood if it is to be defeated. Let us start by constructing a framework in which my positions can be better assessed.

First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation of citizenship. I do view military service as an act of good citizenship, but it can under no circumstance be used as a litmus test for patriotism. There are many ways in which one can serve his or her nation; the military is but one. I am a big believer in the all-volunteer military. For one thing, the professional fighting force is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force could ever be. 

There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field, spreading the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing military force more evenly among the population. Those citizens whose lives would be impacted through war (namely those of draft age and their immediate relatives) would presumably be less inclined to support war. 

Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional force, the burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society which is engaged in the fighting, real or potential. Two points emerge: First, the majority of society not immediately impacted by the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from the reality of war. Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable to the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being absorbed by those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry.

I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been borne out in America’s response to the Iraq war tragedy. However, simply because something exists doesn’t make it right. The collective response to the Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a result of there not being a draft, but rather poor citizenship. An engaged citizenry would not only find sufficient qualified volunteers to fill the ranks of our military, but would also personally identify with all those who served so that the loss of one was felt by all. The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force not so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a “legion” of professionals removed from society, illustrates the yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us. 

Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply through legislation. Reinstating the draft is illusory in this regard. There is a more fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our society and those who take an oath in the military to uphold and defend the Constitution. Void of this bond, the inherent differences of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge between the two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer. 

Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon which the nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military service as an imposition, as opposed to an obligation. Simply put, one cannot willingly defend that which one does not know and understand. The fundamental ignorance that exists in America today about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide between citizen and soldier that permeates society today. America must take ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill, but by assuming a moral responsibility for every aspect of military service. The vehicle for doing this has been well established through the Constitution: the legislative branch of government, the Congress, which serves to represent the will of the people. 

Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never conceived of as separate and distinct from the people, but rather as one with the people, directly derived from their collective will via the electoral process. Unfortunately today, few Americans identify with Congress. An “us versus them” mentality pervades. This mentality creates the crack in the moral and social contract which exists regarding a citizenry and its military. Congress is responsible for maintaining the military. Congress is the branch of government mandated with the responsibility for declaring war. When the bond is strained between the people and Congress, the bond between citizen and soldier is broken. Congress, left to its own devices, will begin to view the military not as an extension of its constituents, but rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly politicized fashion. 

This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has existed for some time). The 2006 midterm elections highlight this reality, where a strong anti-war sentiment upon the part of the voters resulted in a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Having assumed the mantle of legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails of anti-war sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents. They did so by taking full advantage of the reality that the anti-war movement was in fact not a movement at all, but rather a concept pushed forward by a disparate mass without much political viability.

Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the progressive left and into the mainstream of American society, it was quickly quashed through the dishonest logic that if one truly supported the troops (as most red-blooded Americans swear they do), then one must by extension support the mission. This flawed connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping funding for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the general security of the American people.

And so U.S. service members continue to fight and die in Iraq, a conflict which grows more unpopular with the American people each passing day. The question thus emerges: What is the appropriate response on the part of the American citizenry? While we insulate ourselves from political duplicity, the soldiers ultimately pay the price for the cowardice of those whom we elect to represent us in higher office. This seems to be the path taken by most Americans, who have grown numbly indifferent to the incessant stream of disappointment over the continued failure of Congress to truly represent the will of the people. We have therefore built a wall which separates we the people from the one aspect of republican governance which is, by design, supposed to give us voice. 

In doing so, we likewise create a buffer between citizen and soldier, as those who are constitutionally mandated to fund the care, equipping and utilization of the military now operate in ambiguity created by the vacuum of citizen apathy. Thus liberated from the moral compass provided by the people, Congress has lost its ability to defend its own role in governance, and over time has demeaned its constitutional mandate by transferring powers inherent to the legislative branch to an executive branch which has assumed the role of caretaker of the military. By vesting absolute power in the hands of the executive, Congress has all but assured that America has become a nation no longer governed by the rule of law, but rather the rule of man. This sort of tyranny is what Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago. 

An executive that operates in accordance with a unitary theory of governance is one that views the capacity to defend the state as being in fact the capacity to defend the realm. As such, one sees a gravitation of emphasis: Rather than focusing on external threats to the collective, the realm becomes obsessed with internal threats to its ability to retain power. The Patriot Act is a clear-cut example of how a unitary executive has undermined and corrupted the legitimate law enforcement mechanisms of the land by vesting the executive with powers normally associated solely with the legislative branch. In this regard, we see the armed forces similarly abused, with the creation of military command structures (namely U.S. Northern Command) which exist not to protect the people, but rather protect the realm from the people. This is not a stated objective, but rather one inferred from the fact that, for the first time since the imposition of posse comitatus in 1876, the United States has positioned its armed forces so that they can participate in normal state law enforcement. In short, instead of serving as a force of protection for the American people from external threats, the military views the American people as the threat, “targets” which need to be investigated as potential threats to the military. 

An example of just how far off track the executive branch, facilitated by an all too complicit legislative branch, has strayed when it comes to the common defense is the Pentagon’s controversial Counterintelligence Field Activity, ostensibly created in a post-9/11 world to “… protect the [Defense] department by supporting the detection and neutralization of foreign espionage.” The CFA operates under the umbrella of U.S. Northern Command, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to ostensibly safeguard the American homeland. A major aspect of the CFA’s work is something known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, or JPEN. 

The JPEN network enables the Defense Department to share unverified information with civilian police departments, the FBI and other government agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA). Originally dubbed Project Protect America, the JPEN system came into being in July 2003 with the full support of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The heart and soul of the JPEN system is the “Threat and Local Observation Notice,” or TALON report, the brainchild of then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the conduct of its work, the CFA created and distributed thousands of TALON reports via the JPEN system on the activities of private U.S. citizens, with a particular focus of those engaged in anti-war protests.

The CFA is slated in the near future to be morphed into a larger Defense Intelligence Agency-run Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence activity. Far from limiting the scope and scale of the activities currently undertaken by the CFA, this new organization will simply increase the level of illegal and unconstitutional activities currently undertaken by the CFA against the American “target.” The fact that the U.S. military now views the American citizenry as its target, as opposed to the object of its defense, shows just how broken the circle of trust is between citizen and soldier. Additional TALON reports are being assembled on anyone deemed to be a potential threat to the U.S. military, including all who are involved in “counter-recruitment” activities designed to provide alternatives to military service for today’s youths. This myopic approach toward installation and facility security undertaken by the Pentagon is not only intellectually weak but constitutionally prohibited. The legislative branch, operating amid constituent apathy, continues to fail in its mission of upholding the rule of law. 

In similarly deplorable fashion, the Pentagon has allowed itself to be hijacked by the radical right wing of the Republican Party. The fact that Fox News has become the channel of choice for the U.S. military speaks volumes about the mind-set which has gripped those who lead it. The military has always been a conservative institution. Yet when wearing the uniform of the United States serves more as a front for defending a political ideology (a rabid one at that) rather than upholding and defending the Constitution, the military does itself a disservice. The disconnect between those who serve in the military and those whom they are sworn to protect can be fatal when one realizes the recruiting pool no longer identifies with the military as a legitimate expression of patriotism and citizenship.

The scope of this ideological hijacking is broad, yet barely recognized. One can glimpse just how deep and nefarious this ideological shift is when one considers the extent to which evangelical Christians have infiltrated the U.S. Air Force Academy, proselytizing their heavily politicized religion to the future officers and leaders of that service. The past comments of Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a decorated Army Special Operations veteran who described America’s post-9/11 “war on terror” as a conflict between “Christian” America and “radical Islam,” are widely embraced within the U.S. military. President Bush has echoed Boykin in his speeches and statements, and the military’s favorite presidential candidate, Republican Sen. John McCain, has become the embodiment of Boykin’s philosophy. The Constitution prohibits the notion that America be defined as a Christian nation. To allow the military, sworn as it is to uphold and defend that document, to posture itself as Christian, becoming in effect the “sword of God,” is unthinkable and unforgivable. 

The implications of such posturing are far-reaching, especially from the military recruitment standpoint. The all-volunteer military succeeds when it attracts to its ranks those who have a sincere desire to serve their nation. It succeeds greatly when those it attracts come from the broadest possible cross section of the American demographic. There has always been an economic aspect to the all-volunteer force; service is not slavery, and the military has always promised the security of a middle-class lifestyle to those who choose to enlist. But military service, properly motivated, has never been solely about the money. It is about defending a greater good, the people of the United States of America and their values and ideals as defined by the Constitution. 

It has become increasingly difficult to motivate enough of today’s youths to serve in the armed services based upon the call of duty alone. One of the primary reasons for this shortfall is the unfortunate perception, not improperly derived, that military service is not in keeping with the concept of “doing the right thing.” This perception, born of an unpopular war and the dishonest foreign policies of successive administrations, is further exaggerated by the reality that the military not only operates as a separate and distinct part of American society (this has always been the case) but, due in large part to post-9/11 hysteria, has been positioned to view the American people as a threat. The inherent problems of the military trying to recruit from a population base which is under attack from the military are self-evident. Genuine patriotism was once a viable recruitment pitch. Now, economic incentives, false promises and pseudo-patriotism are used as the bait to lure the youths of today into America’s legions. Like the legions of the past, these new warriors march not on behalf of the citizens they are sworn to protect, but rather the emperor who commands them. This may be viewed as an overly harsh statement, but there is no other way to describe the abuses of a unitary executive who positions himself above the Constitution and Congress in a time of war.

Having described the current state of the military and military service in this manner, why would I ever encourage a citizen of military age to consider service in the armed forces? First and foremost, one needs to understand that the entire military system has not been corrupted. There are still men and women of honor who serve with dedication and pride. They are, in fact, in the majority. It takes only a few bad apples to spoil the lot, however, and our military today, thanks to a nebulous mission and lower recruiting standards, is full of bad apples. Likewise, to quote a Russian general, “a fish stinks from its head,” and nothing smells worse today than the “head” of the United States. Our commander in chief has disgraced the office he was entrusted with, and in doing so has severely damaged the foundation of American civil society as well as the institutions sworn to uphold and defend it.

The solution, however, cannot be “cut and run.” Simply identifying the problem and pointing a finger at the perpetrators will do nothing to resolve these critical issues. Our military cannot change unless we the people re-establish the link between ourselves and the legislative branch of government and rebuild the bond of trust between citizen and soldier. This cannot happen in stages, but rather must occur simultaneously. While the vast majority of America struggles to regain its moral and ethical compass through the re-establishment of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, we need to continue to maintain a military which is capable of defending us. 

This requires good people to serve, even if the conditions of their service are not ideal. Do I want to have an intelligent, morally grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq, making the decisions about the use of force in the framework of an illegal and unjust occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to a former felon lacking even a high school diploma? Do I want the troops of today led by Bible-wielding zealots or Constitution-wielding patriots? While we struggle to re-establish the bond between citizen and soldier, we have an absolute requirement to ensure we continue to field a military composed of citizen soldiers. The only way to prevent our military from becoming the new Roman Legion is to staff it with citizens of principle who reject such an abominable label. We are a nation at war, not just abroad, but with ourselves. Now, more than ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Data fear haunts ID card scheme

0

idcard.jpgBy Mark Ballard | THE UK government has been warned that it should deal with the risk of data loss from its Identity Card Scheme before it proceeds any further.The latest data warning follows repeated requests from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the UK data guardian, that the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) conduct a proper assessment of the risks of data loss from the ID Scheme. That advice was ignored and now, in the wake of the HMRC data fiasco, the IPS has been told that it must improve its data standards across the whole of government to avoid data leaks from the ID scheme.

The 2007 report of the Independent Scheme Assurance Panel (pdf), which provides official oversight of the ID Scheme, said yesterday that the data risks were so serious that they needed ministerial direction and that its precautions ought to be transparent because public trust was vital to the scheme’s success.

“The Government’s top priority is the trust people can have in the security and safety of their personal data and central to this is identity data; therefore that is where to start,” said the report.

“There would be benefits to the programme in clearly setting out a rigorous analysis of these risks and the strategies and plans to address them,” it said.

This should be done “across government…in advance of procurement” because the risks of ID data loss would be heightened by the scheme’s integration with people and systems across all government departments.

The risks of ID data loss where therefore not merely a matter of improving the data security of the ID system, it required the government to address data security in all its guises across all levels of government to avoid mishaps like the HMRC’s loss of 25m child benefit records in the post.

This meant considering data risks from the outset, in process design, staff training, governance, monitoring and assurance standards, regulatory constraints and customer advocacy. These were all matters that the ICO became exasperated about last year after its repeated requests for a proper privacy impact assessment of the ID scheme were ignored. The ICO believed data privacy can only be addressed if it is built into the very foundations of a project.

The ISAP said it had been “encouraged” by some initiatives the IPS had started to tackle the data fear. But warned that the issue needed to be addressed more widely.

“Data governance standards and their management for the NIR and its users across Government should be addressed in advance of procurement (and this goes beyond simple data security),” it said.

“This will require change across Government which IPS can specify but which will only succeed with the active participation of each department and agency,” it added.

The IPS published the ISAP report yesterday, the same day it admitted the full rollout of the system would begin up to four years late. It did not say why the scheme had been delayed.

The ISAP had other fundamental reservations about the ID scheme.

The IPS needed to check it could manage the work, or verify that it had the means to handle the “complexity of integrating increasingly interdependent systems across Government”.

It also needed to be clear that there was cross-governmental agreement on how identities would be managed, that they were all using the same technical and procedural standards.

More fundamentally, the IPS still wasn’t clear what its priorities were for the ID system. This is not only recognised as necessary for the smooth implementation of large IT projects, but has been identified by the ICO as one of his concerns regarding the potential for data loss. The IPS also needed to do more to reassure people what it was doing to protect their identity data, including being up front about what its toleration level was for errors.

Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change after 9/11

0

9-11.jpgBy Gareth Porter | Three weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.

Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.

Feith’s book, “War and Decision”, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W. Bush on Sep. 30, 2001 calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states by “aiding local peoples to rid themselves of terrorists and to free themselves of regimes that support terrorism.”

In quoting from that document, Feith deletes the names of all of the states to be targeted except Afghanistan, inserting the phrase “some other states” in brackets. In a facsimile of a page from a related Pentagon “campaign plan” document, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes are listed as “state regimes” against which “plans and operations” might be mounted, but the names of four other states are blacked out “for security reasons”.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who commanded the NATO bombing campaign in the Kosovo War, recalls in his 2003 book “Winning Modern Wars” being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

Clark writes that the list also included Lebanon. Feith reveals that Rumsfeld’s paper called for getting “Syria out of Lebanon” as a major goal of U.S. policy.

When this writer asked Feith after a recent public appearance which countries’ names were deleted from the documents, he cited security reasons for the deletion. But when he was asked which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, “All of them.”

Rumsfeld’s paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a U.S. military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld’s proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely U.S. airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead the Rumsfeld paper argued that the U.S. should target states which had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It urged that the United States “[c]apitalize on our strong suit, which is not finding a few hundred terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, but in the vastness of our military and humanitarian resources, which can strengthen the opposition forces in terrorist-supporting states.”

Feith describes the policy outlined in the paper as consisting of “military action against some of the state sponsors and pressure — short of war — against others”.

The Rumsfeld plan represented a Pentagon consensus that included the uniformed military leadership, according to Feith’s account. He writes that the process of drafting the paper involved consultations with the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry Shelton and the incoming Chairman Gen. Richard Myers.

Myers helped revise the initial draft, Feith writes, and Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was then director of the Joint Staff, enthusiastically endorsed it in draft form. “This is an exceptionally important memo,” wrote Abizaid, “which gives clear strategic vision.” In a message quoted by Feith, Abizaid recommended to Myers that “you support this approach”.

After the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, Abizaid was promoted to become chief of CENTCOM, with military responsibility for the entire Middle East.

Neither Myers nor Abizaid, both of whom are now retired from the military, responded to e-mails asking for their comments on Feith’s account of their role in the process of producing the Rumsfeld strategy.

Rumsfeld’s aides had also drafted a second version of the paper, as instructions to all military commanders in the development of “campaign plans against terrorism”.

That instructions document was a joint effort by Feith’s office and by the Strategic Plans and Policy directorate of Abizaid’s Joint Staff. It followed the broad outlines of the paper for Bush, arguing that the enemy was a “network” that included states that support terrorism and that the Defence Department should seek to “convince or compel” those states to cut their ties to terrorism.

The Pentagon guidance document called for military commanders to assist other government agencies “as directed” to “encourage populations dominated by terrorist organizations or their supporters to overthrow that domination”.

That language was adopted because the campaign planning document was issued as “Strategic Guidance for the Defense Department” on Oct. 3, 2001 — just three days after the Rumsfeld strategy paper had gone to the president.

Bush had not approved the explicit aim of regime change in Iran, Syria and four other countries proposed by Rumsfeld. Thus Rumsfeld adopted the aggressive military plan targeting multiple regimes in the Middle East for regime change even though it was not White House policy.

The Defence Department guidance document made it clear that U.S. military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said that the Defence Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to “disrupt, damage or destroy” their military capacities — not necessarily limited to WMD.

The document included as a “strategic objective” a requirement to “prevent further attacks against the U.S. or U.S. interests”. That language, which extended the principle of preemption far beyond the issue of WMD, was so broad as to justify plans to use force against virtually any state that was not a client of the United States.

The military leadership’s strong preference for focusing on states as enemies rather than on the threat from al Qaeda after 9/11 continued a pattern of behaviour going back to the Bill Clinton administration (1993-2001).

After the bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa by al Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden’s sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior U.S. military leaders “refused to consider it”, according to a 2004 account by Richard H. Shultz, Jr., a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterised more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay for being a superpower”.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

Gov set to defy its own experts and upgrade cannabis

1

jacqui-smith.jpgBy Alan Travis | The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, will today stress the dangers of more potent strains of cannabis as she is expected to defy medical opinion by announcing that the drug will be upgraded from class C to class B.

Smith is expected to justify her decision by highlighting the strength of “skunk” strains of herbal cannabis now widely available. Gordon Brown last week warned of the “more lethal quality” of much of the cannabis now available, described it as a gateway drug, and said that reclassification was needed to “send a message to young people that it was unacceptable”.

The decision flies in the face of recommendations to be published today by the government’s scientific experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, that cannabis should remain class C.

The ACMD was asked last July by Smith to take their third look at cannabis classification in recent years. While acknowledging that cannabis use had fallen significantly since David Blunkett’s decision in 2004 to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C, she said there was real public concern about the potential mental health effects, particularly of stronger forms.

The ACMD held a special session in February and heard evidence that 80% of cannabis seized from users was of the herbal variety rather than resin. Experts said the potency of homegrown herbal cannabis tended to be two and a half times that of imported resin. But they said users now often moderated their intake.

They were also told that the incidence of new schizophrenia cases reported to GPs had gone down, not up, between 1998 and 2005, indicating a weak link between increased potency and use in the past two decades and mental health problems.

The Association of Chief Police Officers confirmed to the Guardian last week that they intend to retain their “confiscate and warn” policy for most who are found with a small amount of cannabis, although some chief constables want to see a fine imposed instead.

It is expected that reclassification will, however, lead to tougher enforcement in cases where there are aggravating factors such as public disorder or evidence of organised crime, for example involvement in large-scale cannabis growing. Since cannabis was downgraded in 2004 the proportion of young people using it has fallen each year from 25.3% in 2003-4 to 20.9% now. Among those aged 16 to 59, the proportion over the same period has fallen from 10.8% to 8.2%, according to the British Crime Survey.

Campaigners for drug law reform have questioned the relevance of the drug classification system, which dates back to 1971.

Roger Howard, chief executive of the UK Drug Policy Commission, and a former government drugs adviser, said last week that this case underlined the muddle at the heart of government over the purpose of a drug classification system which was unlikely ever to be able to “send a message to young people”. Since cannabis had moved from class B to class C, the number of schoolchildren who think it is fine to try cannabis had halved, he said.

Brown’s decision to overturn the advice of his own drug experts by pressing ahead with a tougher policy on cannabis could still face a high court challenge from campaigners. Any such challenge would have to demonstrate that ministers took the decision to upgrade cannabis without fully considering the ACMD’s report. The Guardian understands that at the ACMD meeting, the 23 medical and drug experts heard a presentation on the possible mental health impacts of stronger cannabis from psychologist Dr Martin Frisher of Keele University pharmacy school. The presentation used unpublished data from a confidential report he has drawn up for the Home Office.

He and his colleague, Professor Ilana Crome of Keele’s academic psychiatry unit, used data from 183 GP practices across Britain between 1996 and 2005 to work out whether schizophrenia is on the rise, and whether it can be linked to the increase in cannabis use since the 1970s.

Their paper found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychosis.

The authors say this data is “not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards”.

Nuns are turned away from Indiana polls

0

nuns.jpgBy Scott Martelle – Los Angeles Times | A dozen nuns and an unknown number of students were turned away from polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana’s stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nuns, all residents of a retirement home at Saint Mary’s Convent near Notre Dame University, were denied ballots by a fellow sister and poll worker because the women, in their 80s and 90s, did not have valid Indiana photo ID cards.

Though state officials reported no significant problems, advocates monitoring polling places said there was occasional confusion.

“We were at one polling place for a few hours and picked up three or four different stories of people being turned away,” said Gary Kalman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington. “I don’t have numbers about how widespread it is.”

“It’s the law, and it makes it hard,” said Sister Julie McGuire, who was working at the polling place and had to explain to the nuns that they could not vote. “Some don’t understand why.”

Indiana requires voters who come to the polls show a photo ID issued by the state or the federal government. The law was pressed by Republicans citing voter fraud and opposed by Democrats and the ACLU, who argued that it would disenfranchise voters.

The law does not recognize out-of-state driver’s licenses, a problem for college students who under Indiana law must intend to live in their college communities to vote, which involves obtaining an Indiana ID.

Angela Hiss, 19, of suburban Chicago, said she was allowed to register to vote several weeks ago but was turned away Tuesday from a polling site in South Bend, where she attends Notre Dame. Hiss said officials at a local motor vehicles office then would not accept her Illinois license as proof of identification for an Indiana license.

And Hiss didn’t have her birth certificate — she had sent it to the federal Passport Service offices recently along with her application for a passport.

Hiss declined to cast a provisional ballot because she’s leaving for Illinois after finals on Friday.

But she can add her story to family lore that includes her aunt’s going to a Chicago polling site years ago and being told that her mother had voted earlier that day.

“She said, ‘My mother’s dead,’ ” Hiss said.

FBI agents raid office protecting whistleblowers

0

fbi1.jpgAFP | FBI agents on Tuesday raided the Office of Special Counsel and closed down its e-mail system in what appears to be a probe into political misuse of the agency, the Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio reported.According to the Journal, the agents seized computers and documents belonging to the head of the agency, Scott Bloch, and his staff.

The Journal, quoting unnamed employees, said the searches seemed to focus on alleged obstruction of justice by Bloch during the course of a 2006 inquiry.

The Office of Special Counsel, created after the Watergate political scandal of the 1970s, is an independent agency is charged with protecting federal employees, and looking into whether whistleblower complaints deserve investigations.

It also enforces a law forbidding government workers from engaging in partisan politics.

According to NPR, some 20 FBI agents arrived at the office and seized several computers. Soon afterwards the office’s email system was shut down.

Neither the Federal Bureau of Investigations nor the Office of Special Counsel immediately responded to AFP requests for information aboutthe raid.

The Journal reported that officials are investigating claims that Bloch abused his authority to investigate cases, retaliated against employees, and dismissed whistleblower cases with little examination.

In December 2006, Bloch allegedly contacted a civilian computer service to erase hard drives on his computer and those of two former staff members, the Journal reported.

‘Torture memo’ author, former attorney general, to testify

0

general-john-ashcroft.jpgAP | A former Justice Department lawyer who wrote a now-repudiated memo allowing harsh interrogations of military prisoners has agreed to testify to Congress about those practices, say House Judiciary Committee officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the panel has not yet made the announcement.John Yoo, now a law professor at University of California-Berkeley, has agreed to testify to the House Judiciary Committee voluntarily about the Bush administration’s interrogation practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Yoo’s memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees overseas – so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captives.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and former Assistant Attorney General Dan Levin have also agreed to give testimony at a future hearing. Former CIA Director George Tenet is still in negotiations with the committee.

The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote Tuesday to compel David Addington, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, to testify.

The Surveillance Society Does Not Work

5

ss.jpg

By Mick Meaney — RINF | Costing in excess of billions of pounds each year, every single area of the British surveillance society has been proven ill effective when dealing with crime, fraud and terrorism — the very reasons government officials implement such measures.

Which begs the question: How can the Government justify such spending when it also imposes an increasing risk to our personal freedom and privacy? What is more, as current technology has failed to live up to the expectations of the British Government they still have widespread plans to advance citizen surveillance like we have never seen before.

Passport Interrogations

The latest statistics are cause for concern. A procedure introduced in 2007 made it compulsory for all passport applicants to attend face-to-face interviews.

We were told this was a necessary measure in fraud prevention but out of 90,000 interviewees not a single criminal had been caught. The cost of the network has run into the hundreds of millions.

DNA Database

More statistics show the DNA database, which contains the details of over one million innocent people, has almost zero effect in solving crimes. On average just 1 in every 800 crimes will be solved and the cost runs into the millions, turning the innocent into suspects. Each DNA sample added to the database cost £3,575 – last year the database held 660,000 samples.

Phil Booth of NO2ID said: “This utterly blows away the myth that the DNA database is the perfect detection tool. It is, in fact, creating-a nation of suspects.”

The British DNA database contains 4.5 million samples and is the largest in the world yet it does not hold the information of terrorist suspects or serious offenders currently in jail.

Police across the EU can access the database creating what civil liberty advocates call a ‘Big Brother Europe’.

CCTV

Just this week it was revealed that only 3% of London street robberies were solved using CCTV. Britain is the most monitored country in the world with an average of one CCTV per ever 14 people.

“Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It’s been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There’s no fear of CCTV. Why don’t people fear it? [They think] the cameras are not working,” said Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville.

Still the development of a national facial recognition CCTV database continues at the taxpayer’s expense.

RIPA

What is more worrying still is the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), a spy law that was introduced in 2000 which gives the police and security services the power to monitor people and their communications. In 2002 the act was extended to include local councils allowing them to commit extensive surveillance of its citizens.

The law was introduced to catch terrorists but is currently being used to stop benefit cheats, anti-social behaviour, graffiti and even poor parking.

The abuse of Government authority is abundantly clear as our privacy and freedoms are needlessly stripped way while the taxpayer is forced to pay for technology which fails to protect us from criminals or terrorists.

A surveillance society simply does not work.

Government can’t be trusted with our personal information

0

personaldata.jpgBy Margaret Smith | WE have seen only recently just how incompetent the Government is at keeping our personal information secure. Last year, HM Revenue and Customs lost computer discs containing the personal information of about 25 million people, including their bank account details and National Insurance numbers.

This is on top of the DVLA in Northern Ireland losing the personal details of 6000 people and the loss of details of three million theory test candidates.

It is estimated that the market value of these “identities” lost by HMRC was around £1.5 billion, making this a golden opportunity for fraudsters. It serves as a clear demonstration of the dangers of large databases, and the problems with securing personal details, even with “trusted” organisations.

The danger of databases increases with every increase in the amount of data they hold. A comprehensive national identity database, holding 50 pieces of personal information about every person in the UK, would be the most dangerous database of all. Yet the Government are still determined to press ahead with this scheme.

The Home Office expects the cost of introducing the ID card scheme to be £6bn over ten years, while the London School of Economics has estimated that the cards may cost us up to £19bn. I know which estimate I’m more likely to believe and, lest we forget, this is for a card people don’t even want.

The reality is that ID cards will make little or no difference in tackling crime. The police do not generally have a problem identifying the people they arrest — the problem is in catching the criminals in the first place. It is worth remembering that the terrorists who attacked New York and Madrid were all carrying valid ID documents.

And, far from combating identity theft, ID cards will become a target for identity fraudsters. Claims that the cards will be unforgeable are dubious in the light of past experiences.

In war-time 1939, ID cards were brought in for three purposes: conscription, national security and rationing. By 1950, it was found that this had expanded to nearly 40 different functions. So we have no way of knowing what we would be signing ourselves up to.

I believe the money would be much better spent on putting more police on our streets, and on equipping our police forces with new technology to cut the time they spend filling in forms.

My colleagues and I fought hard in the previous Scottish Executive to secure an agreement that ID cards would not be required for access to services controlled by the Scottish Government. I will be continuing to do all I can to oppose the UK Government’s ID card plans and I hope to have the support of the SNP to ensure that this agreement is protected and that ID cards are not imposed in Scotland.

ID-cards are ‘theft’ of our civil liberties

0

no2id.jpgBy Robert and Alison Bell | The indiscriminate invasion of our privacy and the related issue of six weeks’ detention without charge are so serious and far reaching that we should be hammering at the doors of our local MPs, particularly Labour MPs, to insist that these bills are overturned. Every one of us should be exercising what is still our democratic right to exert the maximum pressure on our MPs – by (to paraphrase the words of Henry Porter) bombarding them with letters and e-mails, by confronting them repeatedly at their surgeries, by contributing to blogs and phone-ins, by talking to friends and colleagues, by expressing in no uncertain terms our dismay at, and disapproval of, what is being done by Labour’s centralisers and controllers who manipulate our elected parliament, and by their data men who would invade every aspect of our lives.

If we want to find out our own MPs’ voting record on issues relating to ID cards we can do so by the simple expedient of googling “NO2ID”, following a few simple links, and typing in our post code. Mr Bevan is not alone in his just concerns. Our fear is that, because of recent reverses, Gordon Brown will be misguidedly tempted to make these bills his line in the sand as a test of public confidence in his leadership.

Iraqi alleges Abu Ghraib torture, sues US contractors

0

emad.jpgAP | An Iraqi man sued two U.S. military contractors, claiming he was repeatedly tortured while being held at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison for more than 10 months. Emad al-Janabi’s federal lawsuit, filed Monday in Los Angeles, claims that employees of CACI International Inc. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. punched him, slammed him into walls, hung him from a bed frame and kept him naked and handcuffed in his cell beginning in September 2003.Also named as a defendant is CACI interrogator Steven Stefanowicz, known as “Big Steve.” The suit claims he directed some of the torture tactics.

Phone messages left for Arlington, Va.-based CACI and New York City-based L-3 Communications, formerly Titan Corp., were not immediately returned Monday. There was no phone number listed for Stefanowicz at his Los Angeles address.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles because Stefanowicz lives there, seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The firms provided interrogators or interpreters to assist U.S. military guards at Abu Ghraib, which became notorious when photos made public in early 2004 showing U.S. soldiers abusing and humiliating detainees. Military investigators later concluded that much of the abuse happened in late 2003 – when CACI and Titan’s interrogators were at the prison.

CACI and L-3 were accused of abusing Abu Ghraib prisoners in earlier lawsuits. In November a federal judge in the District of Columbia dismissed the suit against L-3 but allowed the one against CACI to proceed.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Monday in Istanbul, Turkey, al-Janabi said he hopes the lawsuit sheds light on what happened to him and other detainees.

“God willing the righteousness will emerge and God willing the criminal will receive his punishment,” al-Janabi said.

Al-Janabi, 43, said he was detained by U.S. troops during a late-night raid in which he and his family were beaten by their captors. He said he was taken to a military base where he was stripped naked, a hood was placed on his head and his hands and legs were chained.

“They (U.S. troops) did not tell me what was the reason behind my arrest … during the interrogation, the American soldier told me I was a terrorist … and I was preparing for an attack against the U.S. forces,” said al-Janabi, who denied the accusation and claims he was forced to give confessions under “savage” intimidation.

The lawsuit also claims the contractors conspired in a cover-up by destroying documents and other information, hid prisoners during periodic checks by the International Red Cross and misled military and government officials about what was happening at Abu Ghraib.

Al-Janabi was released in July 2004 and wasn’t charged with any crime, according to the lawsuit. He also was forced to form a human pyramid in the nude with other prisoners, according to the lawsuit, but his Philadelphia-based attorney Susan Burke said it wasn’t known if he was in the infamous photo that became public.

“Most of this conduct was repeated on more than one occasion,” Burke said.

At one point after passing out, al-Janabi said, he was told by an L-3 translator “welcome to Guantanamo.” He said he even asked a cellmate whether he could see the ocean from a window.

“I lost the sense of time after the prolonged hours of abusive interrogation and thought that I was transported to Guantanamo,” al-Janabi told the AP.

The Abu Ghraib photos drew international criticism about the way detainees were treated and damaged the U.S. military’s image in Arab countries. Eleven U.S. soldiers were convicted of crimes at the prison, which was closed and transferred to Iraqi control.

Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them

8

irannuc.jpgAssociated Press | An Iranian envoy said Monday his government will not submit to extensive nuclear inspections while Israel stays outside the global treaty to curb the spread of atomic weapons.

“The existing double standard shall not be tolerated anymore by non-nuclear-weapon states,” Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told a meeting of the 190 countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Nuclear safeguards are far from universal, he said, adding that more than 30 countries are still without a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure full cooperation with that U.N. body.

“Israel, with huge nuclear weapons activities, has not concluded” such an agreement or submitted its facilities to the IAEA’s safeguards, Soltanieh said.

Israel, which does not discuss whether it has atomic weapons, did not sign the nonproliferation treaty, which requires all signatories except the major powers to refrain from obtaining nuclear arms. India and Pakistan, which have developed nuclear weapons, also are not signatories.

Iran did sign the treaty and is under U.N. Security Council sanctions meant to pressure the Tehran government into allowing inspections that will ensure it isn’t developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its atomic program is peaceful, with the sole goal of using reactors to generate electricity.

A U.S. envoy accused Iran of “provocative and destabilizing activities” and said its leaders were responsible for leading the country into the sanctions imposed by the Security Council.

“The path of defiance is also the path of isolation, of continuing and additional sanctions and of further stunted economic opportunities for a proud and sophisticated people already suffering from economic turmoil and mismanagement by its regime’s leaders,” said Christopher A. Ford, U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation.

Ford said Iran joined North Korea and Syria in weakening the nonproliferation treaty.

“This treaty regime faces today the most serious tests it has ever faced: the ongoing nuclear weapons proliferation challenges presented by Iran, by North Korea and now by Syria,” Ford said.

Ford cited U.S. intelligence that North Korea was helping Syria in “secretly constructing a nuclear reactor that we believe was not intended for peaceful purposes.” Syria denied last week that it was working on an undeclared reactor, which purportedly was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike last September.

Soltanieh said nuclear-armed powers like the United States, Britain and France are practicing “nuclear apartheid” by denying or restricting peaceful atomic technology to countries like Iran.

“Access of developing countries to peaceful nuclear materials and technologies has been continuously denied to the extent that they have had no choice than to acquire their requirements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including for medical and industrial applications, from open markets,” Soltanieh said.

This usually means the material is more expensive, poorer quality and less safe, he said.

US Navy Deploys Around Latin America

usnavy.jpgBy Lamia Oualalou | It’s now official: The Pentagon is going to resuscitate its Fourth Fleet, with the mission of patrolling Latin American and Caribbean waters. Created during the Second World War to protect traffic in the South Atlantic, the structure was dissolved in 1950. “By reestablishing the Fourth Fleet, we acknowledge the immense importance of maritime security in this region,” declared Adm. Gary Roughead, head of the Pentagon’s naval operations.    Based in Mayport, Florida, the fleet will operate under the double orders of the American Navy and the Army’s Southern Command, responsible for Latin America and the Caribbean. Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan will command the fleet, which should include a nuclear aircraft carrier.

    According to Alejandro Sanchez, an analyst at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a research center on Latin America based in Washington, “the reestablishment of the Fourth Fleet is more of a political than a military gesture, designed to confront the rise in power of left-leaning governments in the region.” The Pentagon does not trouble to camouflage its intentions: “the message is clear: whether local governments like it or not, the United States is back after the war in Iraq,” Sanchez explains.

    “New Threats”

    De facto,, Washington’s military influence in the region has diminished considerably since September 11, 2001, and the launch of the “war against terrorism.” Concentrated on the Middle Eastern arc of crisis, the Pentagon did not pay much attention to the political upsets in its own backyard. Leftist governments, now broadly in the majority in Latin America, reproach the United States with the support it gave the dictatorships that reigned over several decades and to the ultra-neo-liberal policies those dictatorships applied.

    While Washington assures that its sole interest in the region is combating “new threats” (terrorism, drug trafficking and the Maras gangs of Central America), Latin American people often see it as the pursuit of “imperialist” interests dictated by energy needs. The tensions between Washington and the radical presidents of the sub-continent’s main oil and gas producers (Venezuela, Equator and Bolivia) accentuate that perception.

    As a sign of defiance, almost all Latin American countries have refused to sign the American Serviceman Protection Act, a treaty that prevents legal pursuit of American soldiers for crimes committed abroad.

    The plan to install a military base in Paraguay, close to Bolivian gas fields, was denounced by Brazil and Argentina. Ecuador has made it known that the American military base installed in Manta until 2009 will not be allowed to renew its mandate. Worse still, Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has relaunched the idea of a South American Defense Council, explicitly excluding all United States intervention.

    Washington’s sidelining comes at a time when new sources of conflict are arising in the region, as, for example, the one that pits Colombia on one side and Ecuador and Venezuela on the other, or that between Bolivia and Chile over sea access. An arms race is underway in the region, where governments have taken advantage of the economic revival to reequip their armies, neglected since the 1970s.

    American arms manufacturers are no longer alone in this market: some European countries, but especially China, Russia and Iran, are trying to get a footing in a region that also attracts them for its natural resource and energy potential.

Report: U.S. Not as ‘Free’ as Touted

1

notfree.jpgBy Betsy Pisik | The U.S. political system is, at best, “a work in progress” according to an evaluation from the pro-democracy group Freedom House, which finds significant flaws in the U.S. criminal justice system, counterterrorism strategies and the treatment of minorities and immigrants.

In a 300-page report, titled “Today’s American: How Free?”, to be released tomorrow, the group subjects the United States to the scrutiny it more often applies to the Belaruses and Tajikistans of the world.

Despite concerns, today’s America is “quite free,” according to group, which constantly places the United States in the top tier with two dozen other nations based on civil liberties and political rights in its annual reports on freedoms around the world.

In the United States, “challenges to those freedoms by government officials or other actors encounter vigorous and often successful resistance from civil society and the press, the political opposition, and a judiciary that is mindful of its role as a restraint on executive and legislative excess,” the authors say.

“Indeed, the dynamic, self-correcting nature of American democracy – the resilience of its core institutions and habits even in a time of military conflict – is the most significant finding.”

The study, however, expresses “grave concern” about the Bush administration’s attempt to extend the White House’s power without congressional or judicial review.

“Generally speaking, the controversies over counterterrorism policies can be traced to the Bush administration’s assertion of a degree of executive authority that is extraordinary even in wartime,” says the report, which finds that broad electronic surveillance affects millions, and law enforcement has “overreached” in terrorism cases.

Deputy Executive Director Thomas Melia said this is the perfect time for Freedom House – founded by Eleanor Roosevelt – to turn its sights on the United States. Not only is it an election year, but also the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“The U.S. is the most important country in the world, and if we do reports on every country, we think from time to time it might be useful to look at our own country,” Mr. Melia told The Washington Times yesterday.

“In recent years the freedom agenda of the Bush administration has made the most conspicuous … effort to promote democracy across the world, and it’s prompted a lot of people around the world to look at us.”

In detailed examination, the authors evaluated 20 aspects of U.S. civil society, from America’s robust press and religious freedoms to the increasingly corrosive role of money in political spheres.

The United States gets mixed reviews, for example, when looking at the situation of African-Americans and minorities in general.

The report notes that over the decades the government has undertaken steps to expunge racism from the law, public institutions, economic life and popular culture. It has mandated affirmative action and adopted policies to encourage political and educational participation.

“These measures have changed America in fundamental ways. But they have not contributed significantly to an improvement in the state of the inner-city poor,” the report concludes.

Freedom House finds that U.S. incarceration rates are “jarring,” rising by more than 300 percent since 1980.

Mr. Melia said many of the authors originally focused on the post-Sept. 11 limitations on civil liberties in the country. However, it became clear in the editing process that the prison camp holding terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and monitoring of individuals under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, don’t impact as many Americans as the political process, the criminal justice system and religious freedoms.

“We famously know there are flaws in our ability to keep a voter role and count the votes properly,” he said. “But there have been historical improvements.”

CCTV boom has failed to slash crime, say police

0

bb.jpgBy Owen Bowcott | Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe.

The warning comes from the head of the Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office (Viido) at New Scotland Yard as the force launches a series of initiatives to try to boost conviction rates using CCTV evidence. They include:

· A new database of images which is expected to use technology developed by the sports advertising industry to track and identify offenders.

· Putting images of suspects in muggings, rape and robbery cases out on the internet from next month.

· Building a national CCTV database, incorporating pictures of convicted offenders as well as unidentified suspects. The plans for this have been drawn up, but are on hold while the technology required to carry out automated searches is refined.

Use of CCTV images for court evidence has so far been very poor, according to Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, the officer in charge of the Metropolitan police unit. “CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure,” Neville told the Security Document World Conference in London. “Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It’s been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There’s no fear of CCTV. Why don’t people fear it? [They think] the cameras are not working.”

More training was needed for officers, he said. Often they do not want to find CCTV images “because it’s hard work”. Sometimes the police did not bother inquiring beyond local councils to find out whether CCTV cameras monitored a particular street incident.

“CCTV operators need feedback. If you call them back, they feel valued and are more helpful. We want to develop a career path for CCTV [police] inquirers.”

The Viido unit is beginning to establish a London-wide database of images of suspects that are cross-referenced by written descriptions. Interest in the technology has been enhanced by recent police work, in which officers back-tracked through video tapes to pick out terrorist suspects. In districts where the Viido scheme is working, CCTV is now helping police in 15-20% of street robberies.

“We are [beginning] to collate images from across London,” Neville said. “This has got to be balanced against any Big Brother concerns, with safeguards. The images are from thefts, robberies and more serious crimes. Possibly the [database] could be national in future.”

The unit is now investigating whether it can use software – developed to track advertising during televised football games – to follow distinctive brand logos on the clothing of unidentified suspects. “Sometimes you are looking for a picture, for example, of someone with a red top and a green dragon on it,” he explained. “That technology could be used to track logos.” By back-tracking, officers have often found earlier pictures, for example, of suspects with their hoods down, in which they can be identified.

“We are also going to start putting out [pictures] on the internet, on the Met police website, asking ‘who is this guy?’. If criminals see that CCTV works they are less likely to commit crimes.”

Cheshire deputy chief constable Graham Gerrard, who chairs the CCTV working group of the Association of Chief Police Officers, told the Guardian, that it made no sense to have a national DNA and fingerprint database, but to have to approach 43 separate forces for images of suspects and offenders. A scheme called the Facial Identification National Database (Find), which began collecting offenders’ images from their prison pictures and elsewhere, has been put on hold.

He said that there were discussions with biometric companies “on a regular basis” about developing the technology to search digitised databases and match suspects’ images with known offenders. “Sometimes when they put their [equipment] in operational practice, it’s not as wonderful as they said it would be, ” he said. “I suspect [Find] has been put on hold until the technology matures. Before you can digitise every offender’s image you have to make sure the lighting is right and it’s a good picture. It’s a major project. We are still some way from a national database. There are still ethical and technical issues to consider.”

Asked about the development of a CCTV database, the office of the UK’s information commissioner, Richard Thomas, said: “CCTV can play an important role in helping to prevent and detect crime. However we would expect adequate safeguards to be put in place to ensure the images are only used for crime detection purposes, stored securely and that access to images is restricted to authorised individuals. We would have concerns if CCTV images of individuals going about their daily lives were retained as part of the initiative.”

The charity Victim’s Voice, which supports relatives of those who have been murdered, said it supported more effective use of CCTV systems. “Our view is that anything that helps get criminals off the street and prevents crime is good,” said Ed Usher, one of the organisation’s trustees. “If handled properly it can be a superb preventative tool.”

Brian Haw Arrested Again – SOCPA

2

brian-haw.jpgRikki – Indymedia | At around 1.30 this afternoon, a community support officer started hassling Aqil Shaerer who is a pro-Palestinian protestor associated with Brian Haw and often around Parliament Square. It is unclear what grounds they had for this. Brian became involved and explained to them that Aqil was part of his authorised demonstration. Two more CSO officers became involved, but then they all left. 

A short while later a police van arrived and they immediately homed in on Brian, claiming that he was harassing them. Before anyone realised what was happening, one of the youngest of the cops kicked Brian’s legs from under him, wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him behind his back.

In years of dealings with the police, Brian has never ever been violent towards them, although he has suffered at their hands on many occasions, including a very violent and pre-meditated attack by a TSG officer, U1019, on the 12th January this year.

Rear handcuffing is normally reserved for violent offenders, or is sometimes used where police have no knowledge of the person arrested and cannot guarantee their safety. of course, neither situation relates to Brian Haw.

Brian was manhandled into the police van, and the police waved jauntily at protestors as they drove him away to belgravia police station.

At first the custody officers told supporters brian was being held for ‘disorderly conduct’ but when his solicitor, Maggie Peters from Bindmans, became involved, they said he was being held for a section 5 public order offence. They allege that he had shouted at a passing vehicle “get a job you fat bastard”. This seems quite unlikely, and the only witness the police appear to be relying on is one of their own policemen. They admit the passer-by has not made any complaint.

Section 5 is not an imprisonable offence and can in fact be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice. Despite this, police have now held brian for more than four hours.

There seems to be a sinister pattern emerging. recently, the parliament square protestors have launched legal challenges against the police and courts, and these have taken the form of lodging judicial reviews at the high court, and adding “addendums” as new events occur. Each time something is lodged, within a matter of days, the police target one of the protestors at the square, violently arrest them and then hold them for a disproportionate time. It just this friday that Brian Haw and Barbara Tucker lodged a new addendum to their judicial review at the high court, detailing recent legal travesties for judicial consideration. Within two days this new outrage has been perpertrated.

There is much talk of the repeal of socpa, but in the meantime, the war against the Parliament Square peace camp is continuing. It is clear the authorities will stop at nothing to harass and intimidate the peaceful protest which was the original reason for the socpa law. Two and a half years after the introduction of socpa the protestors are still there, and I think this is the real reason socpa may be withdrawn. It has failed in its primary purpose, and the authorities are looking for any other ways to be rid of the ‘Brian problem’.

Iraq ‘Divide and Rule’ Strategy Called Shortsighted

1

divide.jpgInter Press Service | Five years since U.S. President George W. Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, critics say the administration has yet to show a credible way to actually “accomplish” the mission that could see a peaceful Iraq and a return home of U.S. troops.

Though the 2007 revamping of the counter-insurgency strategy, known as the “surge,” has markedly reduced violence, political turmoil and ethno-sectarian strife still plague Iraq.

The U.S. surge and its concurrent positive developments did create political space, but meaningful moves toward comprehensive political accords and reconciliation have yet to follow, said a pair of new Iraq reports from the International Crisis Group (ICG).

For example, the Sunni Awakening, or Sahwa movement, that helped to slow violence in much of Baghdad and Anbar province by bringing in former insurgents and incorporating them into U.S.-funded militias, for example, leaves a new Sunni political landscape.

But that landscape, with all of its advantages for bringing stability — and thereby aiding the U.S. occupation — has failed to transition into the politics of the Iraqi central government. Frustration with those failures creates a tense atmosphere that even U.S. officials acknowledge as being “fragile and reversible.”

“Tribal elements and former insurgents may become disillusioned with lack of political progress, inadequate steps toward economic and social inclusion, and what they perceive as continued dominance by Iran and its Shi’ite proxies,” said the first IGC report, “Iraq After the Surge I: The New Sunni Landscape.”

So while the larger insurgent-U.S. battles and wider Sunni-Shia fighting have abated, the new, smaller, more subdivided groups continue to bump heads. The U.S. policy of tending to choose between these groups with either economic or military support, said the report, does not constitute meaningful steps toward political reconciliation.

The IGC report notes that the U.S. “divide-and-rule tactics” reinforce the new fault lines in society, and by benefiting only one group, create resentment among the others.

“Ultimately, stability will require that such rivalries be mediated neither through violence nor buy-off, but by functional, legitimate state institutions,” said the report. That, in turn, requires the U.S. to support “a genuinely inclusive political system.”

Another incident of U.S. favoritism that could lead to sharp divides and potential large-scale violence is the intra-Shia power struggle for control of southern Iraq.

Backed by U.S. air power, an offensive by the two main power-sharing partners in the Iraqi central government, Da’wa and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, in the southern strongholds of militant anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was designed to cripple Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia ahead of provincial elections scheduled for this fall.

When the advance was thwarted by Sadrist fighters, the ruling Shia parties took up a piece of legislation that was aimed at scuttling Sadr’s bid in the elections by making it illegal for parties with militias to participate.

Council on Foreign Relations fellow Mohammad Bazzi wrote in the Washington Times that though Sadrists and the Mahdi Army were not named in the legislation, it is clearly a misguided attempt to isolate them — noting that other parties such as ISCI are not hampered though they, too, have militias.

“It’s virtually impossible to wipe out the Sadrist trend, which is a social, political, and military movement that enjoys wide support, particularly among young and poor Shi’ites,” wrote Bazzi.

“The consequences of trying to isolate Sheik al-Sadr and his political movement are profound,” said Bazzi, saying that the move would end a Sadr cease-fire and drastically increase violence aimed at both the U.S. and the central Iraqi government.

Noting the situation in the second report, “Iraq After the Surge II: The Need For a New Political Strategy,” ICG recommends that the Iraqi government hold provincial elections on the original schedule of Oct. 1, 2008, and “ensure that these are inclusive of all parties, groups and individuals that publicly accept nonviolence (rather than, at this stage, disband their militias).”

This runs contrary to the law before the Iraqi parliament, and would allow incorporation of Sadrists into above-board politics.

“If [the Sadrists are going to sweep the South], that needs to be allowed to happen — so long as it’s the result of a free and fair election and not at the barrel of a gun,” Jason Gluck of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) told IPS.

“If you want to talk about political progress, there are many justifications for confronting the armed militias, particularly the Mahdi Army,” said Gluck. “But that confrontation must be coupled with political opportunity and engagement. The Sadrists need to be ensured that if they comply, there are going to be free and fair elections.”

“My criticism would be that there has not been this olive branch — this welcoming into the political process — that’s simultaneous with the military engagement,” continued Gluck, who is a rule-of-law adviser with USIP. “It has not been made clear that while Sadr and the Mahdi Army must disarm, or at the very least disavow violence [as with the ICG proposal], if they do that they will be welcomed into the political process.”

Gluck acknowledged that the dealings of Sadrist members of parliament — in line with the general Sadrist Iraqi nationalism — already show that they are capable of meaningful political engagement, most importantly across sectarian lines.

“We can promote that by encouraging Sadr to rely on the political process and not on the barrel of a gun,” he said.

The IGC report on the new politics needed in Iraq reinforced the importance of the provincial elections as a stepping stone toward true reconciliation.

“If genuinely free and fair and carried out in a secure environment, these hold the potential of beginning to alter the political landscape by bringing a new generation and class of political leaders to the fore,” it said.

Nearly all observers agree that action needs to be taken soon in the relative calm provided by the U.S. surge strategy.

“There is reason to fear this is only a temporary salve and that underlying issues will again come to the fore,” said the IGC report. “Whatever political space the surge tore open is likely to narrow once again.”