By William Fisher
The U.S. Government, foreign policy experts, newspaper editorial writers and human rights advocates were virtually unanimous in condemning the sentencing last week of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s chief political opponent to a five-year prison term, but divided on what can be done about it.
The White House and the State Department issued statements saying they were “deeply troubled” by the conviction and sentencing of Ayman Nour, the runner-up in Egypt's 2005 presidential elections. They said it “calls into question Egypt's commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law” and called on the Egyptian government “to act under the laws of Egypt in the spirit of its professed desire for increased political openness and dialogue within Egyptian society, and out of humanitarian concern” (for Mr. Nour’s health) to release Mr. Nour from detention. Nour has been on a hunger strike for the past week and reports suggest his health is “seriously deteriorating”.
Nour's initial arrest on Jan. 29 and his 42-day detention without charge strained U.S.-Egyptian relations. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a visit to Egypt, apparently in disapproval of the government's treatment of Nour. Mr. Nour was then released on bail.
Nour had pleaded innocent to ordering the forging of signatures to register his Al-Ghad (Tomorrow) party last year. He finished a distant second to Mubarak in September's elections, Egypt's first contested presidential race, then lost his parliamentary seat in November's legislative polls. He is appealing the November result, alleging irregularities.
During his trial, one of his six co-defendants retracted his confession telling the court that security officials had coerced him to make a statement accusing Nour of forgery.
Last week’s verdict was read by the same judge who convicted the sociology professor and rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian-American, of tarnishing Egypt's image in 2002. The appeals court eventually overturned the verdict.
In an editorial, the influential Washington Post newspaper reminded President George W. Bush of his second inaugural address, in which he said, "When you stand for your liberty we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are -- the future leaders of your free country." It concluded: “If Mr. Bush's commitment to freedom fighters means anything at all, he cannot allow this blatant act of injustice to go unchallenged.” The newspaper urged President Bush to use U.S. aid to Egypt as a lever to procure Nour's freedom. “Standing with Ayman Nour means standing against military aid for Mr. Mubarak until this democratic reformer is free.”
Beyond outrage and rhetoric, however, experts have varying approaches to persuading Egypt to back down.
Moataz El Fegiery, program coordinator for the Cairo Institute For Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), told IPS, “The US should integrate its human rights and democracy agenda into the current negotiations with the Egyptian government concerning the free trade agreement and linking the economic motives with progress in political reform.” It also called on the European Union to raise the Nour issue “during its negotiation with the Egypt delegation on the action plan of the European neighborhood policy.” The organization added, “Condemning and criticizing is not enough and it will not deter our government. What we are asking for is linking speeches with actions!!”
Neil Hicks, Director of International Programs for Human Rights First, a major U.S.-based advocacy group, called on the U.S. to “take punitive measures by withholding elements of foreign assistance and denying Egyptian leaders privileged access to the White House in gradual, incremental steps over a sustained period of time.”
He told IPS that Nour’s sentencing “presents a challenge to the Bush administration, which has placed so much emphasis on democratization in the Arab world in recent years. There are many opportunities for the United States government to show its displeasure with the Egyptian government's repression of its political opponents. A powerful tool of influence is President Bush speaking out publicly and categorically to condemn the imprisonment of Nour, and to make clear that the U.S. administration understands and disapproves of the Mubarak government's tactics,” he said.
President Bush “should make clear that it is counterproductive and dangerous for the Egyptian government to continue to suppress the secular political opposition,” Hicks declared, adding, “Failure to make clear its strong opposition to Nour's sentencing would further undermine the already shaky credibility of the administration's calls for democracy and freedom in the Muslim world.”
Amnesty International said that the Nour issue and the “ongoing wave of arrests of alleged Muslim Brothers” appear to be “a means to intimidate members of the opposition and critics of the government and to obstruct their political activities.”
The organization called on the Egyptian government to “respect its obligations
under international human rights standards. In particular, all provisions
criminalizing freedom of expression and association must be removed and existing safeguards must be respected.”
In a recent report outlining detailed recommendations for dealing with Egypt, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace acknowledged that the U. S. “depends on Egypt for assistance with military operations in the Middle East and Africa, diplomatic support in Israeli -- Palestinian negotiations, counterterrorism cooperation, and Suez Canal transit.” It said the U.S. “possesses a great deal of influence but also faces increasing resentment related to its policies in the region.”
However, it added, “In recent years there has been a growing sense in Washington that the Egyptian leadership’s reluctance to liberalize the economy and polity has prevented the Egyptian people from attaining the prosperity needed to ensure long-term stability.”
The report concluded, “Considering the influence it possesses, the United States could in theory sacrifice all other interests and press hard for a rapid and probably chaotic transition to democracy in Egypt. (But) considering the risks associated with instability in Egypt, however, a more realistic choice would be to press for a significant opening of political competition, development of political and civil society organizations, and economic reform. This would create a much freer atmosphere in which the Egyptian people could—should they choose to do so—eventually press their government for full democracy.”
The report cautioned, “The U.S. cannot and should not try to force change in Egypt, and all decisions ultimately reside with Egyptians”. The U.S. can, however, “use its significant influence to help press for a freer, more liberal political environment in which Egyptians will make important choices about their country’s future.”
Carnegie recommended “a strategy that integrates policy engagement and assistance”. Specific initiatives, its report said, should include concentrating on issues that Egyptians have identified as critical: lifting emergency laws, revising laws on forming political parties and regulating NGOs, forming an independent electoral commission and monitoring bodies, and redistribution of power from the executive to legislative and judicial branches; making major assistance program commitments only in areas where the Egyptian government has demonstrated the will to reform, or in critical areas where the U.S. government is prepared to work hard on persuading the Egyptian government to open up; retaining enough flexibility in the assistance program to be able to respond to opportunities or challenges that arise; that is, avoid committing all the funds to large, multiyear projects; carving out funds that the U.S. government can disburse directly, with the Egyptian government agreeing only to general program guidelines; and seeking alternative destinations for funds should the U.S. and Egyptian governments be unable to agree on meaningful programs.”
Many other experts from universities and think-tanks have wrestled with the question of how to encourage democratic liberalization in Egypt. President Bush has arguably been more outspoken than previous U.S. administrations. But the bottom line may be that having Egypt as an ally in the “Global War on Terror” – and a supporter of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – will trump the democratization process. Middle East observers say that, despite the billions the U.S. dispenses in aid to Egypt, America may have less leverage than conventional wisdom perceives.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Sunday, December 25, 2005
May a Flock of Thrushes Disrupt Your Hologram This Yuletide Season
Jason Miller is a 39 year old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. When he is not spending time with his wife and three sons, researching, or writing, he is working as a loan counselor. He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.
By Jason Miller
It's Still a Wonderful Life, in Spite of Potter
"It's a Wonderful Life" is my favorite movie. I have watched it so many times I have lost count. Last night, in celebration of Christmas Eve, I watched it again. As I felt my "Christmas Spirit" reviving from the drain of the hustle and bustle of the holidays, it occurred to me how odd it is that I have not exhausted this precious resource of personal spiritual renewal. Frank Capra's idealistic portrayal of the triumph of the "common man" over the greed and avarice of America's plutocracy has yet to wear thin with me.
It's a Long Way Down, But It Doesn't Take Long to Get There
Despite its exaggerated nature, Capra's film captured some fundamental truths about humanity and the dynamics of America's social and political structure. When I was a naive, confused, and very depressed freshman in college at the University of Missouri in 1985, I discovered "It's a Wonderful Life" when a friend taking a film studies course took me to see it. For reasons which evaded my consciousness at the time, the movie buoyed my sinking soul. Despite having found that life preserver, the powerful undertow of my bipolar disorder eventually sucked me deep into a sea of self-destruction and despair. I completed three years of school before dropping out of the university and out of my relatively privileged lower middle class life. Through my spiritual and emotional crisis, I made choices leading me to financial bankruptcy, a serious industrial accident which left me with severe chemical and thermal burns, chemical dependency, abandonment of my family and responsibilities, temporary homelessness, six years of "servitude" in menial manufacturing jobs with poverty level wages and pathetic benefits, and an emotional pain so profound that I seriously contemplated suicide. The Valedictorian of his high school class and Eagle Scout had hit rock bottom. And what a blessing it proved to be!
Starting in the early 90's, under the tutelage of one of the finest humanity had to offer, I learned to manage my bipolar condition. Lynn Barnett, my counselor, gave me the tools I needed to reclaim my soul and my life. Guided by Lynn's compassionate tough love, cognitive behavioral techniques, and the principles of the Twelve Step programs, little by little I scaled the face of the cliff toward the plateau of spiritual and emotional stability. I repaid my child support arrearage, regained joint legal custody of my twin boys, quit drinking (1991) and smoking (1997), found decent employment, found a beautiful and decent human being with whom to begin marriage anew, completed a degree in liberal arts (by taking classes while I was working), read and studied voraciously, taught myself Spanish (the language of the poor and oppressed), adopted my new wife's son, and became an activist writer on behalf of social justice, human rights, and intellectual freedom (while continuing to work to help support our family). Plumbing the depths of despair and striving to return from the "underworld" gave me the gifts of humility, appreciation, independence, and determination to pursue my goals. It also endowed me with insight and empathy, which were sorely lacking in my character before my "fall".
Aside from my obvious personal challenges arising from the manifestations of my bipolar disorder, it has become quite apparent to me that my spiritual crisis (and subsequent epiphany) was also rooted in the collective cry of a metaphorical flock of thrushes which flew into my subconscious and decimated the hologram of the Simulacrum Republic (click on this link for a "must read" article by Joe Bageant which explains the metaphor of the thrushes and the hologram). As is often the case in the human psyche, my unconscious mind was several steps ahead of my conscious mind as my inner being vigorously rejected the American Nightmare of violence, militarism, instant gratification, over-consumption, bigotry, insularity from other cultures, short-sightedness, xenophobia, hubris, and avarice force fed to us as the highly palatable "American Dream" by our government, text-book manufacturers, corporate-controlled media, Madison Avenue, and corporate America. In short, I take responsibility for my choices and their consequences, but understand that I made them in the context of having a disorder with which I had few tools to cope effectively, and that my self-destructive, irresponsible acts were in part an unconscious rebellion against the perverse psychological and economic oppression of America's corporatocracy. I am not letting myself off the hook for what harm I caused, but I understand my motivations, have made amends, and have forgiven myself.
Once Again Inanity Dominates the Public Consciousness
During this holiday season, as Fundamentalist Christians clash with secular forces over the petty issue of the appropriate way to express one's Yuletide greetings, I pose the question,
In light of the myriad challenges facing humanity today, why are people wasting their time and energy on this absurd "War on Christmas?"
While people feud over the appropriate words to use at a time of year which means something different to almost everyone, the Mr. Potters of the world, embodied by amoral and immoral corporations which have attained the rights of personhood, continue in their steady march to squelch human rights and enslave humanity.
You Mean They Don't Really Have Our Best Interests in Mind?
Retailers like Wal-Mart give us "Always Low Prices". All they demand in return is that Americans look the other way while they continue to: compensate their "associates" with sub-standard wages and benefits, crush the economies of the towns and communities where they locate, run their competitors out of business, and import $15 billion worth of goods from China each year. Energy titans like Exxon keep us dependent on fossil fuels, spend millions "debunking the myth of global warming", plunder the resources of other nations, and keep the prices of gasoline artificially high by limiting refining capacity. Monsanto and their ilk poison our bodies and the environment as they work religiously to fatten their bottom line without regard for humanity or the Earth. Obscene entities like the Carlyle Group, which derive their profits from murder, beat the drums of war to lead both soldiers and innocent civilians on a lemming-like march to their deaths.
Campaign finance, lobbying, think tanks, advertising, propaganda blitzes, the rights of corporate personhood, and so-called "free trade agreements" coalesce to enable these and many other repugnant corporations to act with callous indifference toward human rights and environmental concerns. During the Christmas/Holiday season, the efforts of individuals to embody and advocate truly meaningful values (like those depicted by the character of George Bailey) are too often drowned out by the Potters of the world joining together in cacophonous calls for spending, consuming, and pursuing one's narcissistic desires. Projected to spend $435 billion during the holidays, US consumers will do their part to ensure the perpetuation of the fiscal empires of the embodiments of Lionel Barrymore's despicable character.
Thomas Jefferson gave us a prescient warning about the power of banks (recent deregulation has significantly blurred the line between banks and other types of financial corporations) and corporations:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
--from his Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
Robber Barons: of Yesteryear and Today
In his book Thomas Paine and the Promise of America, Harvey Kaye (the Rosenberg Professor of Social Change and Development at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay) discussed the extent to which the power of America's corporatocracy and plutocracy had grown by the time of the Gilded Age (about 100 years after Jefferson's admonition):
The concentration of wealth and power and the growth of large, hierarchical corporations fundamentally denied America's eighteenth-century republican ideal of small producers and independent citizens and the belief that political equality would engender economic equality. With its new extremes of rich and poor, it seemed the United States was coming to resemble Europe, the only difference being that whereas aristocrats ruled Europe, "plutocrats"--a far wealthier and more vigorous breed--ruled America.
Despite the valiant struggles of the muckrakers, the women's movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement of the Twentieth Century, Old Man Potter is alive and well. Today, America's plutocrats are more avaricious and powerful than the Rockefellers or the Carnegies. America's plutocrats' deeply incestuous ties with the government (and the media) coupled with their carefully honed images of corporate benevolence afford them the power to manipulate "We the People" to a degree that would even have shocked a man like John Pierpoint Morgan.
As I continue to work, to parent, to write, to maintain my blog (Thomas Paine's Corner), and to engage in my activism to advance social justice, economic justice, human rights, and intellectual freedom, I will celebrate the Yuletide season as a time to focus on peace, goodwill to fellow humans, giving and family. I give thanks to my concept of the Higher Power for the many blessings bestowed upon my family and me (in spite of the fact that my wife and I are amongst Potter's so-called "rabble" who does "most of the working and paying and living and dying"). My spiritual journey through the chaos and pain of bipolar disorder has been arduous, and is far from over as I work each day to manage my condition, but the character and spiritual freedom I have earned enable me to joyfully exist in the less appealing, but much more fulfilling reality which lies beneath the corporate-manufactured hologram of the Simulacrum Republic.
In 1947, the FBI mentioned "It's a Wonderful Life" in its investigation of Communist infiltration into America's film industry. In the United States, it was, and still is "Un-American" to portray the plutocracy in a negative light. Instead, our sick mainstream media glorifies hollow men like Donald Trump, while tantalizing the masses with the incredibly remote possibility that they could have what "the Donald" has by completing courses at "Trump University". Meanwhile, our information gods mock and demonize people like Ralph Nader, a man who has diligently fought for consumers, the common people, and the environment for years.
George Bailey could just as easily have been talking to Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's CEO, when he said:
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider.
Thanks to the efforts of "Communist" labor unions on behalf of working people, my grandfather (a man of strength and integrity who only had an eighth grade education) provided a decent living for his family by working at a General Motors assembly plant for 25 years. As I grew up listening to him decry the injustices in the world and watching him shun opportunities to better himself financially when they would have violated his principles or jeopardized his family's security, my powerful sense of justice and affinity for integrity were forged. I thought of my grandfather when Harry Bailey proclaimed:
A toast to my big brother George: The richest man in town.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah, and a Joyous Winter Solstice to you!
By Jason Miller
It's Still a Wonderful Life, in Spite of Potter
"It's a Wonderful Life" is my favorite movie. I have watched it so many times I have lost count. Last night, in celebration of Christmas Eve, I watched it again. As I felt my "Christmas Spirit" reviving from the drain of the hustle and bustle of the holidays, it occurred to me how odd it is that I have not exhausted this precious resource of personal spiritual renewal. Frank Capra's idealistic portrayal of the triumph of the "common man" over the greed and avarice of America's plutocracy has yet to wear thin with me.
It's a Long Way Down, But It Doesn't Take Long to Get There
Despite its exaggerated nature, Capra's film captured some fundamental truths about humanity and the dynamics of America's social and political structure. When I was a naive, confused, and very depressed freshman in college at the University of Missouri in 1985, I discovered "It's a Wonderful Life" when a friend taking a film studies course took me to see it. For reasons which evaded my consciousness at the time, the movie buoyed my sinking soul. Despite having found that life preserver, the powerful undertow of my bipolar disorder eventually sucked me deep into a sea of self-destruction and despair. I completed three years of school before dropping out of the university and out of my relatively privileged lower middle class life. Through my spiritual and emotional crisis, I made choices leading me to financial bankruptcy, a serious industrial accident which left me with severe chemical and thermal burns, chemical dependency, abandonment of my family and responsibilities, temporary homelessness, six years of "servitude" in menial manufacturing jobs with poverty level wages and pathetic benefits, and an emotional pain so profound that I seriously contemplated suicide. The Valedictorian of his high school class and Eagle Scout had hit rock bottom. And what a blessing it proved to be!
Starting in the early 90's, under the tutelage of one of the finest humanity had to offer, I learned to manage my bipolar condition. Lynn Barnett, my counselor, gave me the tools I needed to reclaim my soul and my life. Guided by Lynn's compassionate tough love, cognitive behavioral techniques, and the principles of the Twelve Step programs, little by little I scaled the face of the cliff toward the plateau of spiritual and emotional stability. I repaid my child support arrearage, regained joint legal custody of my twin boys, quit drinking (1991) and smoking (1997), found decent employment, found a beautiful and decent human being with whom to begin marriage anew, completed a degree in liberal arts (by taking classes while I was working), read and studied voraciously, taught myself Spanish (the language of the poor and oppressed), adopted my new wife's son, and became an activist writer on behalf of social justice, human rights, and intellectual freedom (while continuing to work to help support our family). Plumbing the depths of despair and striving to return from the "underworld" gave me the gifts of humility, appreciation, independence, and determination to pursue my goals. It also endowed me with insight and empathy, which were sorely lacking in my character before my "fall".
Aside from my obvious personal challenges arising from the manifestations of my bipolar disorder, it has become quite apparent to me that my spiritual crisis (and subsequent epiphany) was also rooted in the collective cry of a metaphorical flock of thrushes which flew into my subconscious and decimated the hologram of the Simulacrum Republic (click on this link for a "must read" article by Joe Bageant which explains the metaphor of the thrushes and the hologram). As is often the case in the human psyche, my unconscious mind was several steps ahead of my conscious mind as my inner being vigorously rejected the American Nightmare of violence, militarism, instant gratification, over-consumption, bigotry, insularity from other cultures, short-sightedness, xenophobia, hubris, and avarice force fed to us as the highly palatable "American Dream" by our government, text-book manufacturers, corporate-controlled media, Madison Avenue, and corporate America. In short, I take responsibility for my choices and their consequences, but understand that I made them in the context of having a disorder with which I had few tools to cope effectively, and that my self-destructive, irresponsible acts were in part an unconscious rebellion against the perverse psychological and economic oppression of America's corporatocracy. I am not letting myself off the hook for what harm I caused, but I understand my motivations, have made amends, and have forgiven myself.
Once Again Inanity Dominates the Public Consciousness
During this holiday season, as Fundamentalist Christians clash with secular forces over the petty issue of the appropriate way to express one's Yuletide greetings, I pose the question,
In light of the myriad challenges facing humanity today, why are people wasting their time and energy on this absurd "War on Christmas?"
While people feud over the appropriate words to use at a time of year which means something different to almost everyone, the Mr. Potters of the world, embodied by amoral and immoral corporations which have attained the rights of personhood, continue in their steady march to squelch human rights and enslave humanity.
You Mean They Don't Really Have Our Best Interests in Mind?
Retailers like Wal-Mart give us "Always Low Prices". All they demand in return is that Americans look the other way while they continue to: compensate their "associates" with sub-standard wages and benefits, crush the economies of the towns and communities where they locate, run their competitors out of business, and import $15 billion worth of goods from China each year. Energy titans like Exxon keep us dependent on fossil fuels, spend millions "debunking the myth of global warming", plunder the resources of other nations, and keep the prices of gasoline artificially high by limiting refining capacity. Monsanto and their ilk poison our bodies and the environment as they work religiously to fatten their bottom line without regard for humanity or the Earth. Obscene entities like the Carlyle Group, which derive their profits from murder, beat the drums of war to lead both soldiers and innocent civilians on a lemming-like march to their deaths.
Campaign finance, lobbying, think tanks, advertising, propaganda blitzes, the rights of corporate personhood, and so-called "free trade agreements" coalesce to enable these and many other repugnant corporations to act with callous indifference toward human rights and environmental concerns. During the Christmas/Holiday season, the efforts of individuals to embody and advocate truly meaningful values (like those depicted by the character of George Bailey) are too often drowned out by the Potters of the world joining together in cacophonous calls for spending, consuming, and pursuing one's narcissistic desires. Projected to spend $435 billion during the holidays, US consumers will do their part to ensure the perpetuation of the fiscal empires of the embodiments of Lionel Barrymore's despicable character.
Thomas Jefferson gave us a prescient warning about the power of banks (recent deregulation has significantly blurred the line between banks and other types of financial corporations) and corporations:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
--from his Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
Robber Barons: of Yesteryear and Today
In his book Thomas Paine and the Promise of America, Harvey Kaye (the Rosenberg Professor of Social Change and Development at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay) discussed the extent to which the power of America's corporatocracy and plutocracy had grown by the time of the Gilded Age (about 100 years after Jefferson's admonition):
The concentration of wealth and power and the growth of large, hierarchical corporations fundamentally denied America's eighteenth-century republican ideal of small producers and independent citizens and the belief that political equality would engender economic equality. With its new extremes of rich and poor, it seemed the United States was coming to resemble Europe, the only difference being that whereas aristocrats ruled Europe, "plutocrats"--a far wealthier and more vigorous breed--ruled America.
Despite the valiant struggles of the muckrakers, the women's movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement of the Twentieth Century, Old Man Potter is alive and well. Today, America's plutocrats are more avaricious and powerful than the Rockefellers or the Carnegies. America's plutocrats' deeply incestuous ties with the government (and the media) coupled with their carefully honed images of corporate benevolence afford them the power to manipulate "We the People" to a degree that would even have shocked a man like John Pierpoint Morgan.
As I continue to work, to parent, to write, to maintain my blog (Thomas Paine's Corner), and to engage in my activism to advance social justice, economic justice, human rights, and intellectual freedom, I will celebrate the Yuletide season as a time to focus on peace, goodwill to fellow humans, giving and family. I give thanks to my concept of the Higher Power for the many blessings bestowed upon my family and me (in spite of the fact that my wife and I are amongst Potter's so-called "rabble" who does "most of the working and paying and living and dying"). My spiritual journey through the chaos and pain of bipolar disorder has been arduous, and is far from over as I work each day to manage my condition, but the character and spiritual freedom I have earned enable me to joyfully exist in the less appealing, but much more fulfilling reality which lies beneath the corporate-manufactured hologram of the Simulacrum Republic.
In 1947, the FBI mentioned "It's a Wonderful Life" in its investigation of Communist infiltration into America's film industry. In the United States, it was, and still is "Un-American" to portray the plutocracy in a negative light. Instead, our sick mainstream media glorifies hollow men like Donald Trump, while tantalizing the masses with the incredibly remote possibility that they could have what "the Donald" has by completing courses at "Trump University". Meanwhile, our information gods mock and demonize people like Ralph Nader, a man who has diligently fought for consumers, the common people, and the environment for years.
George Bailey could just as easily have been talking to Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's CEO, when he said:
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider.
Thanks to the efforts of "Communist" labor unions on behalf of working people, my grandfather (a man of strength and integrity who only had an eighth grade education) provided a decent living for his family by working at a General Motors assembly plant for 25 years. As I grew up listening to him decry the injustices in the world and watching him shun opportunities to better himself financially when they would have violated his principles or jeopardized his family's security, my powerful sense of justice and affinity for integrity were forged. I thought of my grandfather when Harry Bailey proclaimed:
A toast to my big brother George: The richest man in town.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah, and a Joyous Winter Solstice to you!
Friday, December 23, 2005
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION:STATE IN, PENTAGON OUT
By William Fisher
After a thousand days of widely acknowledged failure in the job of rebuilding Iraq, the Department of Defense has quietly been relieved of that responsibility, with the State Department taking over as America’s lead reconstruction agency and coordinating the work of all other government departments.
While supporters of the policies of President George W. Bush dismiss the change as an administrative adjustment, others suggest it is symbolic of a decades-old turf battle between the two departments, and the administration’s increasing frustration with the reconstruction performance of the DOD and its contractors.
They also point to the switch as an example of how the president goes about making policy changes in Iraq: exhorting the public to “stay the course” while changing it without fanfare.
Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told IPS, "It's a belated recognition that existing policy on reconstruction and stabilization has been woefully inadequate."
The switch was made through a little-noticed December 7 Presidential National Security Directive. Its objective is “to promote the security of the United States through improved coordination, planning, and implementation for reconstruction and stabilization assistance for foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife.”
The Directive says, “The Secretary of State shall coordinate and lead integrated United States Government efforts”, coordinating these efforts with the Secretary of Defense to ensure harmonization with any planned or ongoing U.S. military operations across the spectrum of conflict.”
It explains that to maximize the effectiveness of U.S. rebuilding efforts, “a focal point is needed (i) to coordinate and strengthen efforts of the United States Government to prepare, plan for, and conduct reconstruction and stabilization assistance and related activities in a range of situations that require the response capabilities of multiple United States Government entities and (ii) to harmonize such efforts with U.S. military plans and operations.”
To achieve the objectives of the Directive, the Secretary of State will appoint a Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization with wide-ranging responsibilities.
These include “developing and approving strategies…for reconstruction and stabilization activities directed towards foreign states at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife: develop guiding precepts and implementation procedures for reconstruction and stabilization which, where appropriate, may be integrated with military contingency plans and doctrine; and coordinate reconstruction and stabilization activities and preventative strategies with foreign countries, international and regional organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector entities…(and) identify lessons learned and integrate them into operations.”
While reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been made far more difficult by security concerns, they have also been plagued by massive corruption, overcharging by many American contractors, lack of transparency and accountability in the contracting process, and confusion about lines of responsibility among U.S. Government agencies, and between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
The State Department has now been tasked to “resolve relevant policy, program, and funding disputes among United States Government Departments and Agencies with respect to U.S. foreign assistance and foreign economic cooperation, related to reconstruction and stabilization….”
The Bush Directive, which is global in scope and not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan, also established a Policy Coordination Committee (PCC) for Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations. The PCC will be chaired by the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and a member of the National Security Council (NSC) staff.
The State Department will lead U.S. Government efforts to prevent countries at risk “from being used as a base of operations or safe haven for extremists, terrorists, organized crime groups, or others who pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy, security, or economic interests.”
Problems with contractors and with financial management in general have dogged the DOD for many years. The agency’s contracting procedures have been widely condemned and, in one much-publicized case, the department’s most senior contracting official received a prison term for conflicts of interest and other offenses involving the Boeing Corporation, one of the largest military contractors. Other DOD contractors have also proved problematic; in particular, the Halliburton Company has been accused of substantial over-charges on many of its no-bid contracts and has become the poster child for a broken system.
Government accountants have never been able complete a satisfactory audit of DOD expenditures.
Most recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that DOD contractors have received $8 billion over five years in bonuses on weapons programs that were often plagued by significant cost overruns, performance problems and delays.
The GAO, an independent auditor for Congress, reviewed 93 of 597 military contracts in force between 1999 and 2004 that included the possibility of a bonus. Contractors on average were awarded about 90 percent of the bonus money available, the agency said.
For example, Lockheed Martin and Boeing received $1.7 billion, or about 91 percent of $1.847 billion available on four major programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter, even as these programs "experienced significant cost increases, technical problems and development delays," the GAO said.
The GAO report also cited the Boeing-United Technologies RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, canceled in April 2004, and two other Lockheed programs: the F/A-22 fighter and a satellite system to detect enemy missile launches.
Bonuses paid on these troubled programs ranged from 74 percent to 100 percent of the potential award, the agency said. "These practices undermine the effectiveness of fees as a motivational tool and marginalize their use in holding contractors accountable," the audit agency said. "They also serve to waste taxpayer funds."
After a thousand days of widely acknowledged failure in the job of rebuilding Iraq, the Department of Defense has quietly been relieved of that responsibility, with the State Department taking over as America’s lead reconstruction agency and coordinating the work of all other government departments.
While supporters of the policies of President George W. Bush dismiss the change as an administrative adjustment, others suggest it is symbolic of a decades-old turf battle between the two departments, and the administration’s increasing frustration with the reconstruction performance of the DOD and its contractors.
They also point to the switch as an example of how the president goes about making policy changes in Iraq: exhorting the public to “stay the course” while changing it without fanfare.
Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told IPS, "It's a belated recognition that existing policy on reconstruction and stabilization has been woefully inadequate."
The switch was made through a little-noticed December 7 Presidential National Security Directive. Its objective is “to promote the security of the United States through improved coordination, planning, and implementation for reconstruction and stabilization assistance for foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife.”
The Directive says, “The Secretary of State shall coordinate and lead integrated United States Government efforts”, coordinating these efforts with the Secretary of Defense to ensure harmonization with any planned or ongoing U.S. military operations across the spectrum of conflict.”
It explains that to maximize the effectiveness of U.S. rebuilding efforts, “a focal point is needed (i) to coordinate and strengthen efforts of the United States Government to prepare, plan for, and conduct reconstruction and stabilization assistance and related activities in a range of situations that require the response capabilities of multiple United States Government entities and (ii) to harmonize such efforts with U.S. military plans and operations.”
To achieve the objectives of the Directive, the Secretary of State will appoint a Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization with wide-ranging responsibilities.
These include “developing and approving strategies…for reconstruction and stabilization activities directed towards foreign states at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife: develop guiding precepts and implementation procedures for reconstruction and stabilization which, where appropriate, may be integrated with military contingency plans and doctrine; and coordinate reconstruction and stabilization activities and preventative strategies with foreign countries, international and regional organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector entities…(and) identify lessons learned and integrate them into operations.”
While reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been made far more difficult by security concerns, they have also been plagued by massive corruption, overcharging by many American contractors, lack of transparency and accountability in the contracting process, and confusion about lines of responsibility among U.S. Government agencies, and between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
The State Department has now been tasked to “resolve relevant policy, program, and funding disputes among United States Government Departments and Agencies with respect to U.S. foreign assistance and foreign economic cooperation, related to reconstruction and stabilization….”
The Bush Directive, which is global in scope and not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan, also established a Policy Coordination Committee (PCC) for Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations. The PCC will be chaired by the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and a member of the National Security Council (NSC) staff.
The State Department will lead U.S. Government efforts to prevent countries at risk “from being used as a base of operations or safe haven for extremists, terrorists, organized crime groups, or others who pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy, security, or economic interests.”
Problems with contractors and with financial management in general have dogged the DOD for many years. The agency’s contracting procedures have been widely condemned and, in one much-publicized case, the department’s most senior contracting official received a prison term for conflicts of interest and other offenses involving the Boeing Corporation, one of the largest military contractors. Other DOD contractors have also proved problematic; in particular, the Halliburton Company has been accused of substantial over-charges on many of its no-bid contracts and has become the poster child for a broken system.
Government accountants have never been able complete a satisfactory audit of DOD expenditures.
Most recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that DOD contractors have received $8 billion over five years in bonuses on weapons programs that were often plagued by significant cost overruns, performance problems and delays.
The GAO, an independent auditor for Congress, reviewed 93 of 597 military contracts in force between 1999 and 2004 that included the possibility of a bonus. Contractors on average were awarded about 90 percent of the bonus money available, the agency said.
For example, Lockheed Martin and Boeing received $1.7 billion, or about 91 percent of $1.847 billion available on four major programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter, even as these programs "experienced significant cost increases, technical problems and development delays," the GAO said.
The GAO report also cited the Boeing-United Technologies RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, canceled in April 2004, and two other Lockheed programs: the F/A-22 fighter and a satellite system to detect enemy missile launches.
Bonuses paid on these troubled programs ranged from 74 percent to 100 percent of the potential award, the agency said. "These practices undermine the effectiveness of fees as a motivational tool and marginalize their use in holding contractors accountable," the audit agency said. "They also serve to waste taxpayer funds."
Monday, December 19, 2005
THE FOG OF G.W.O.T.
By William Fisher
Recent polling on the views of the American people about the ‘Global War on Terror’ continues to suggest increasing ambivalence, confusion and lack of reliable information. And other events over the past few days, topped by the revelation that President George W. Bush ordered secret warrantless wiretaps of phone calls and emails of American citizens, are unlikely to reverse this trend.
American troops should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Or they should ‘stay the course’. Some civil liberties must be sacrificed in order to make the American people secure from terror threats. Or civil liberties and security can both exist side by side. Torture of prisoners in U.S. custody is never permissible. Or it is permissible under certain conditions. Former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was linked to Osama Bin Laden and the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Or there was no connection.
The people’s inability to get credible answers has led to their growing disapproval of both Congress and the President. In recent polling, disapproval of Congress hovers between 50 and 65 percent, while the president’s overall approval rating is now at 42 percent, a rise of 4 percentage points since he began a series of speeches in November to rally support for the war in Iraq, but well within the margin of error.
As the American people struggle to understand the answers pivotal questions related to the Global War on Terror– a task made far more difficult by the ‘spin’ routinely articulated by politicians – the Bush Administration, the Congress and the Courts find themselves wrestling to resolve many of the same problems.
The president’s wiretapping admission – and defense – came only a day after he refused to discuss the issue at all in an interview with Jim Lehrer of public television’s Newshour. The following afternoon, he used his entire live weekly radio address to say the wiretaps were necessary, legal and within his powers as Commander-in-Chief in wartime.
He also said he had advised Congressional leaders, but those who have spoken publicly thus far disagree with this assertion. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ leader in the House of Representatives, said she raised objections. Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, said he was never told about the program during his time on the committee. He admitted attending a meeting in early 2002 in the Vice President's White House office about the NSA, but claims it focused on other operations, such as monitoring overseas e-mail traffic that flowed through Internet service providers based in the U.S.
But other leaders, including Republican Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, pointed out that Congress established a law and a procedure back in the 1970s for law enforcement authorities to ask a special court to issue warrants. The court, reincarnated in the Patriot Act, is known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), and is the court now used by the Justice Department to obtain authority to conduct surveillance on American citizens.
It is still unclear why the President did not go through the FISA process. But a number of senators, including Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin and Republican Lindsay of South Carolina, said on Sunday they think the president may have broken the law by failing to do so.
Adding to people’s confusion is the ongoing debate about re-authorizing the USA Patriot Act, which was hurriedly passed six weeks after the 9/11 attacks and which is due to expire on Dec. 31 unless renewed. The House of Representatives and the Senate have been unable to reach unanimity on which body’s version of the new act will become law. As a result, a group of Senate Republicans and Democrats continue to debate the measure and have asked for a three-month extension of the current law to give them more time to work out their differences. The president has said he would veto such a request.
Two other terror-related issues added to the public’s confusion last week.
Government lawyers told the Supreme Court it would be "wholly imprudent" for it to hear Jose Padilla's challenge to his military detention as an enemy combatant. They urged the justices to dismiss Padilla's case as moot now that the government plans to try him on terrorism charges in a civilian court. Since Padilla's indictment last month by a federal grand jury has given him the "very relief" he sought when he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, any Supreme Court decision now on his petition "will have no practical effect" on Padilla, they said.
But Padilla's lawyers filed a brief with the appeals court, asking it to retain jurisdiction over Padilla's case long enough for the Supreme Court to act on it. They want to establish whether the president has the authority to declare a U.S. citizen an ‘enemy combatant’ and hold him indefinitely without charge, access to legal counsel, and the right to ask a civilian court to determine his status.
Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, designated an enemy combatant, and held in a Navy brig until last month, most of the time without access to legal counsel or to the evidence against him.
Last month, the Justice Department, unwilling to risk a negative court decision on Padilla’s three-year incarceration without charges, filed a case against him in a civilian appeals court.
At the time of his arrest, the Justice Department charged Padilla was going to detonate a ‘dirty bomb’ within the U.S. But when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced criminal charges against him in a civilian court, the ‘dirty bomb’ accusation was absent. Instead, he was charged with being part of a North American terrorist support network that sent money and fighters abroad.
A third issue likely to increase public confusion about ‘the rules’ governing the Global War on Terror is the so-called Graham Amendment, now pending in congress as part of a massive spending bill to fund veterans’ benefits and the operations of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham, along with Republican John Kyl of Arizona and Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, the measure won solid Senate approval for its provisions requiring interrogation techniques used by the military to be guided only by the Army Field Manual.
But there are two little-discussed provisions in the measure. One relies on a secret annex to the manual to spell out the specific techniques the military can and cannot use. Ordinary Americans – and most of the Congress – will probably never know what these techniques are. But in a December 15 appearance on CNN's ‘The Situation Room’ program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to define waterboarding as "torture". Waterboarding, considered one of the most egregious interrogation practices, is a technique in which a person is led to believe he is drowning.
The second potentially controversial provision in the Graham amendment is the suspension of habeas corpus – the right to go to court to contest the reason for their detention as well as their treatment -- for prisoners in U.S. custody, including some 500 held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Habeas Corpus is considered the gold standard for Anglo-American justice.
About the habeas proposal, Brian J. Foley, a professor at the Florida Atlantic School of Law, told us, “"The ability to file a habeas corpus petition is perhaps the preeminent civil right. Most politicians would deem it untouchable. Taking it away from Guantanamo prisoners, where we know some have been imprisoned by mistake and where we know some have been tortured, means that our government's way of 'protecting civil liberties' is to make sure no court ever hears about any violations in the first place."
Recent polling on the views of the American people about the ‘Global War on Terror’ continues to suggest increasing ambivalence, confusion and lack of reliable information. And other events over the past few days, topped by the revelation that President George W. Bush ordered secret warrantless wiretaps of phone calls and emails of American citizens, are unlikely to reverse this trend.
American troops should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Or they should ‘stay the course’. Some civil liberties must be sacrificed in order to make the American people secure from terror threats. Or civil liberties and security can both exist side by side. Torture of prisoners in U.S. custody is never permissible. Or it is permissible under certain conditions. Former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was linked to Osama Bin Laden and the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Or there was no connection.
The people’s inability to get credible answers has led to their growing disapproval of both Congress and the President. In recent polling, disapproval of Congress hovers between 50 and 65 percent, while the president’s overall approval rating is now at 42 percent, a rise of 4 percentage points since he began a series of speeches in November to rally support for the war in Iraq, but well within the margin of error.
As the American people struggle to understand the answers pivotal questions related to the Global War on Terror– a task made far more difficult by the ‘spin’ routinely articulated by politicians – the Bush Administration, the Congress and the Courts find themselves wrestling to resolve many of the same problems.
The president’s wiretapping admission – and defense – came only a day after he refused to discuss the issue at all in an interview with Jim Lehrer of public television’s Newshour. The following afternoon, he used his entire live weekly radio address to say the wiretaps were necessary, legal and within his powers as Commander-in-Chief in wartime.
He also said he had advised Congressional leaders, but those who have spoken publicly thus far disagree with this assertion. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ leader in the House of Representatives, said she raised objections. Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, said he was never told about the program during his time on the committee. He admitted attending a meeting in early 2002 in the Vice President's White House office about the NSA, but claims it focused on other operations, such as monitoring overseas e-mail traffic that flowed through Internet service providers based in the U.S.
But other leaders, including Republican Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, pointed out that Congress established a law and a procedure back in the 1970s for law enforcement authorities to ask a special court to issue warrants. The court, reincarnated in the Patriot Act, is known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), and is the court now used by the Justice Department to obtain authority to conduct surveillance on American citizens.
It is still unclear why the President did not go through the FISA process. But a number of senators, including Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin and Republican Lindsay of South Carolina, said on Sunday they think the president may have broken the law by failing to do so.
Adding to people’s confusion is the ongoing debate about re-authorizing the USA Patriot Act, which was hurriedly passed six weeks after the 9/11 attacks and which is due to expire on Dec. 31 unless renewed. The House of Representatives and the Senate have been unable to reach unanimity on which body’s version of the new act will become law. As a result, a group of Senate Republicans and Democrats continue to debate the measure and have asked for a three-month extension of the current law to give them more time to work out their differences. The president has said he would veto such a request.
Two other terror-related issues added to the public’s confusion last week.
Government lawyers told the Supreme Court it would be "wholly imprudent" for it to hear Jose Padilla's challenge to his military detention as an enemy combatant. They urged the justices to dismiss Padilla's case as moot now that the government plans to try him on terrorism charges in a civilian court. Since Padilla's indictment last month by a federal grand jury has given him the "very relief" he sought when he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, any Supreme Court decision now on his petition "will have no practical effect" on Padilla, they said.
But Padilla's lawyers filed a brief with the appeals court, asking it to retain jurisdiction over Padilla's case long enough for the Supreme Court to act on it. They want to establish whether the president has the authority to declare a U.S. citizen an ‘enemy combatant’ and hold him indefinitely without charge, access to legal counsel, and the right to ask a civilian court to determine his status.
Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, designated an enemy combatant, and held in a Navy brig until last month, most of the time without access to legal counsel or to the evidence against him.
Last month, the Justice Department, unwilling to risk a negative court decision on Padilla’s three-year incarceration without charges, filed a case against him in a civilian appeals court.
At the time of his arrest, the Justice Department charged Padilla was going to detonate a ‘dirty bomb’ within the U.S. But when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced criminal charges against him in a civilian court, the ‘dirty bomb’ accusation was absent. Instead, he was charged with being part of a North American terrorist support network that sent money and fighters abroad.
A third issue likely to increase public confusion about ‘the rules’ governing the Global War on Terror is the so-called Graham Amendment, now pending in congress as part of a massive spending bill to fund veterans’ benefits and the operations of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham, along with Republican John Kyl of Arizona and Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, the measure won solid Senate approval for its provisions requiring interrogation techniques used by the military to be guided only by the Army Field Manual.
But there are two little-discussed provisions in the measure. One relies on a secret annex to the manual to spell out the specific techniques the military can and cannot use. Ordinary Americans – and most of the Congress – will probably never know what these techniques are. But in a December 15 appearance on CNN's ‘The Situation Room’ program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to define waterboarding as "torture". Waterboarding, considered one of the most egregious interrogation practices, is a technique in which a person is led to believe he is drowning.
The second potentially controversial provision in the Graham amendment is the suspension of habeas corpus – the right to go to court to contest the reason for their detention as well as their treatment -- for prisoners in U.S. custody, including some 500 held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Habeas Corpus is considered the gold standard for Anglo-American justice.
About the habeas proposal, Brian J. Foley, a professor at the Florida Atlantic School of Law, told us, “"The ability to file a habeas corpus petition is perhaps the preeminent civil right. Most politicians would deem it untouchable. Taking it away from Guantanamo prisoners, where we know some have been imprisoned by mistake and where we know some have been tortured, means that our government's way of 'protecting civil liberties' is to make sure no court ever hears about any violations in the first place."
BACK TO THE FUTURE
By William Fisher
President Bush’s do-it-yourself eavesdropping notwithstanding, the Pentagon could soon have legal authority to “covertly” gather intelligence on American citizens in the United States – a power taken from them because of excesses during the Vietnam War.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, meeting in closed session, last month quietly approved a request from the Department of Defense (DOD) to allow it to conduct surveillance operations within American Muslim communities. The DOD said the cooperation of these communities could help fight insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We believe there are people in the United States who have information of value to us," said Jim Schmidli, deputy general counsel for operations at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. "That information is within different ethnic communities in this country -- recent additions to our population from distressed areas of the world, primarily the Middle East."
But civil liberties groups and leaders of the Muslim community say the Pentagon is using the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to resume the domestic spying powers that Congress banned after those powers were used to spy on Americans during the Vietnam era.
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told us, “We are seeing the increasing militarization of our American streets. Shame on the Senate for permitting the military to prowl our streets, spy on us, entrap unknowing people and terrify America. Are we living in Franco’s Spain? The military is not trained in constitutional rights; they belong on the battlefield and not in our homes.”
And Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists, told us, “At a time when domestic intelligence collection by the military is surging, the nation desperately needs an independent oversight body to exercise checks and balances. Unfortunately, it looks like the congressional intelligence committees are or unwilling or unable to provide that service.”
The intelligence committee supports inclusion of the request in the 2006 intelligence spending authorization bill. The full Senate will take up the bill later this month. The Pentagon's request was not included in the House version of the bill, which passed in June. The bill now goes to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
An identical provision was included in last year’s version of the same bill, but was removed after its details were disclosed by Newsweek magazine and critics charged it could lead to “spying” on US citizens.
But late last month, with no public hearings or debate, a similar amendment was inserted into the same annual authorization bill at the request of the Pentagon.
The intelligence committee also included two other amendments. One would allow intelligence agencies greater access to databases on U.S. citizens. Another would grant the Defense Intelligence Agency the right not to disclose "operational files" under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Pentagon defended its request for the new powers, saying it needs more flexibility as it expands its role in counterterrorism.
"This is not about spying on Americans," DIA general counsel George Peirce said in an interview with the Washington Post. He defended the legislative language approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“We are not asking for the moon," Peirce said. "We only want to assess their suitability as a source, person to person" and at the same time "protect the ID and safety of our officers."
The CIA and the FBI already have such authority, he added, and the [Defense Intelligence Agency] needs it "to develop critical leads" because "there is more than enough work for all of us to do."
However, the idea has not been well received in the US Muslim community, or by other critics of the new power.
"This has a back-alley, dead-of-night feel to it that I don't think would be received well by the Muslim community," said Ibrahim Cooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
Lisa Graves of the American Civil Liberties Union disagreed with a defense official's statement that the proposed change would not allow for carte blanche Pentagon spying inside the United States.
"That's some spin," Graves said. "The change would allow them to gather information on Americans surreptitiously. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
Some Republican legislators see the Pentagon request as an effort to do an end-run around the authority of the new director of national intelligence, Ambassador John D. Negroponte.
They are concerned that the Pentagon "may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress” by creating “parallel functions to what is going on in intelligence, but is calling it something else,” according to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoekstra said he believed the proposed activities were designed to "obscure" the Pentagon's intelligence activities in order to keep them out of Mr. Negroponte's jurisdiction.
In the 1970s, Army intelligence agents were caught snooping on antiwar
protesters. Since then, military intelligence agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States.
But this week, U.S. network television news displayed a DOD dossier purportedly showing that the military was already carrying out surveillance and risk assessments of peaceful antiwar protests in the U.S. The documents listed the license plate numbers of people attending antiwar rallies, and categorized the rallies as a “threat”.
The new provision would exempt the DOD from complying with the Privacy Act that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and why they want the information.
A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intelligence agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. "Current counterterrorism operations," the report claims, require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States."
DIA officials say they need the provision in order to question American businesspersons and college students who travel abroad.
But the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States, according to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
Watchdog groups see the DOD’s proposals as "mission creep”. According to
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, "This...
is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," adding, "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night." The Center is frequently critical of the war on terror
President Bush’s do-it-yourself eavesdropping notwithstanding, the Pentagon could soon have legal authority to “covertly” gather intelligence on American citizens in the United States – a power taken from them because of excesses during the Vietnam War.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, meeting in closed session, last month quietly approved a request from the Department of Defense (DOD) to allow it to conduct surveillance operations within American Muslim communities. The DOD said the cooperation of these communities could help fight insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We believe there are people in the United States who have information of value to us," said Jim Schmidli, deputy general counsel for operations at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. "That information is within different ethnic communities in this country -- recent additions to our population from distressed areas of the world, primarily the Middle East."
But civil liberties groups and leaders of the Muslim community say the Pentagon is using the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to resume the domestic spying powers that Congress banned after those powers were used to spy on Americans during the Vietnam era.
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told us, “We are seeing the increasing militarization of our American streets. Shame on the Senate for permitting the military to prowl our streets, spy on us, entrap unknowing people and terrify America. Are we living in Franco’s Spain? The military is not trained in constitutional rights; they belong on the battlefield and not in our homes.”
And Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists, told us, “At a time when domestic intelligence collection by the military is surging, the nation desperately needs an independent oversight body to exercise checks and balances. Unfortunately, it looks like the congressional intelligence committees are or unwilling or unable to provide that service.”
The intelligence committee supports inclusion of the request in the 2006 intelligence spending authorization bill. The full Senate will take up the bill later this month. The Pentagon's request was not included in the House version of the bill, which passed in June. The bill now goes to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
An identical provision was included in last year’s version of the same bill, but was removed after its details were disclosed by Newsweek magazine and critics charged it could lead to “spying” on US citizens.
But late last month, with no public hearings or debate, a similar amendment was inserted into the same annual authorization bill at the request of the Pentagon.
The intelligence committee also included two other amendments. One would allow intelligence agencies greater access to databases on U.S. citizens. Another would grant the Defense Intelligence Agency the right not to disclose "operational files" under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Pentagon defended its request for the new powers, saying it needs more flexibility as it expands its role in counterterrorism.
"This is not about spying on Americans," DIA general counsel George Peirce said in an interview with the Washington Post. He defended the legislative language approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“We are not asking for the moon," Peirce said. "We only want to assess their suitability as a source, person to person" and at the same time "protect the ID and safety of our officers."
The CIA and the FBI already have such authority, he added, and the [Defense Intelligence Agency] needs it "to develop critical leads" because "there is more than enough work for all of us to do."
However, the idea has not been well received in the US Muslim community, or by other critics of the new power.
"This has a back-alley, dead-of-night feel to it that I don't think would be received well by the Muslim community," said Ibrahim Cooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
Lisa Graves of the American Civil Liberties Union disagreed with a defense official's statement that the proposed change would not allow for carte blanche Pentagon spying inside the United States.
"That's some spin," Graves said. "The change would allow them to gather information on Americans surreptitiously. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
Some Republican legislators see the Pentagon request as an effort to do an end-run around the authority of the new director of national intelligence, Ambassador John D. Negroponte.
They are concerned that the Pentagon "may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress” by creating “parallel functions to what is going on in intelligence, but is calling it something else,” according to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoekstra said he believed the proposed activities were designed to "obscure" the Pentagon's intelligence activities in order to keep them out of Mr. Negroponte's jurisdiction.
In the 1970s, Army intelligence agents were caught snooping on antiwar
protesters. Since then, military intelligence agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States.
But this week, U.S. network television news displayed a DOD dossier purportedly showing that the military was already carrying out surveillance and risk assessments of peaceful antiwar protests in the U.S. The documents listed the license plate numbers of people attending antiwar rallies, and categorized the rallies as a “threat”.
The new provision would exempt the DOD from complying with the Privacy Act that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and why they want the information.
A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intelligence agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. "Current counterterrorism operations," the report claims, require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States."
DIA officials say they need the provision in order to question American businesspersons and college students who travel abroad.
But the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States, according to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
Watchdog groups see the DOD’s proposals as "mission creep”. According to
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, "This...
is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," adding, "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night." The Center is frequently critical of the war on terror
BUSH, MCCAIN, TORTURE AND BEYOND
By William Fisher
President George W. Bush suffered a stinging defeat when overwhelming congressional support forced him to abandon his opposition to anti-torture legislation and reach an agreement with its sponsor, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican.
The president’s reversal came after months of White House attempts – led by Vice President Disk Cheney and National Security Advisor Steven Hadley -- to weaken the measure, which would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of any detainee in U.S. custody anywhere in the world.
The Administration had been negotiating with McCain to either drop the measure or to modify it so that interrogators, especially those working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), would have significant exemptions.
Bush had previously threatened to veto the bill and Vice President Cheney lobbied hard to change the McCain proposal to give interrogators more flexibility to use a range of extreme tactics on terrorism suspects.
Mc Cain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, made it clear that he would not change a single word in his proposal. The House of Representatives voted 308 to 122 to endorse the measure, which is an amendment to the massive defense spending bill that funds military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supportive vote in the Senate was 90 to 9.
But in the deal worked out with the President, McCain was willing to add two paragraphs to give civilian interrogators legal protections that are already afforded to military interrogators. This means that civilians would be able to defend their use of interrogation tactics by arguing in court that a "person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful."
However, experts say that if CIA or civilian personnel believe they were being directed to use an interrogation technique that was illegal, they would be obligated to disobey the order.
The president’s support came in an appearance with McCain in the Oval
Office. The president said, "We've been happy to work with (Sen. McCain) to achieve a common objective, and that is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention [on] torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the
terrorists," McCain said at his joint appearance with Bush.
He added, "We are a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world."
But the deal did not garner unanimous support. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who is chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, threatened yesterday to block the legislation unless the White House provides him with a written assurance that the legislation would not interfere with the ability of intelligence officials to carry out their missions.
The Bush-McCain deal won applause from human rights groups.
"We've come a long way as a country since 9/11, and this development is a sign
of that," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human
Rights Watch. "We've gone from a sense of 'anything goes' to a recognition that torture hurts America even more than it hurts the enemy."
But human rights advocates were already looking beyond McCain’s victory to a separate proposed amendment by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a former military judge, that would eliminate certain rights of detainees held at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Graham amendment would prevent detainees from using the U.S. courts to invoke the right of habeas corpus to contest their treatment, including claims that they have been tortured. It would also effectively allow the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people at Guantanamo based on evidence obtained through "coercion."
Tom Wilner, a lawyer who represents a group of Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay, told the Washington Post that the Graham amendment would make McCain’s prohibition against torture essentially unenforceable, by giving U.S. troops an incentive to engage in coercive interrogations of detainees, without fear of being held liable.
The significance of the suspension of habeas corpus is likely to be a major congressional concern as debate continues. According to Brian J. Foley, a professor at the Florida Atlantic School of Law in Jacksonville Florida, “Restricting habeas corpus for anybody in our custody is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Our lawmakers are deluded, and are deluding us into believing, that excluding the courts from addressing prisoners' claims about their treatment, which includes claims that they have been tortured, will somehow help us in the so-called War on Terror. It won't, and it can't. Instead, allegations about torture will be both unprovable and, importantly, un-disprovable, which will give propaganda fodder to our enemies.”
He told us, “Dangerously, the Executive Branch will be un-checkable, which will prevent us from knowing whether the President is actually fighting terrorists or merely beating confessions out of hapless, innocent men who were rounded up near a battlefield or sold to U.S. forces for a bounty -- quite possibly by the real terrorists -- and simply telling us we're 'winning the war.'
“Without courts applying hard-nosed reasoning and logic, we can't know anything more than what the President tells us. That's what courts are for -- and they're especially important when Congress drops the ball vis a vis its oversight of the President, as it has been doing shamelessly since 9-11. We're all in the dark and unable to participate -- which puts us in the position of having merely to trust the President. That's always scary, but here it is especially scary, with the level of incompetence we've seen,” he said.
It is generally acknowledged that mistaken identity has been a problem at Guantanamo Bay. More than 800 prisoners were initially taken there for detention. That number is now down to slightly more than 500. The Defense Department will not comment in detail on the disposition of those who are no longer there, but it has been widely reported that some have been sent back to law enforcement authorities in their home countries for further detention but that others have simply been released, presumably because the government had no evidence that they were terrorists.
Some continue to be held through what appears to be administrative incompetence. For example, U.S. forces freed Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani from a Taliban prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in late 2001. He told reporters that he had been wrongly imprisoned for allegedly plotting to kill Osama bin Laden.
He professed hatred for al Qaeda and the Taliban -- groups he said tortured him in prison -- and offered to help the United States. Though cleared by U.S. officials, Turkistani was first taken to a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, and then sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Unlike many others prisoners at Guantanamo, he was not captured on the battlefield, nor was he a suspected terrorist. He was arrested in the ‘fog of war’ that marked the early days of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Though he was a potential ally, he found himself unable to challenge his detention.
But nearly four years later, Turkistani remains imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, despite being cleared for release early this year after a government review concluded he is "no longer an enemy combatant."
Turkistani’s lawyers and some U.S. officials speculate that he has been held by mistake. They say he remains incarcerated because the United States simply does not know what to do with him.
President George W. Bush suffered a stinging defeat when overwhelming congressional support forced him to abandon his opposition to anti-torture legislation and reach an agreement with its sponsor, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican.
The president’s reversal came after months of White House attempts – led by Vice President Disk Cheney and National Security Advisor Steven Hadley -- to weaken the measure, which would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of any detainee in U.S. custody anywhere in the world.
The Administration had been negotiating with McCain to either drop the measure or to modify it so that interrogators, especially those working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), would have significant exemptions.
Bush had previously threatened to veto the bill and Vice President Cheney lobbied hard to change the McCain proposal to give interrogators more flexibility to use a range of extreme tactics on terrorism suspects.
Mc Cain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, made it clear that he would not change a single word in his proposal. The House of Representatives voted 308 to 122 to endorse the measure, which is an amendment to the massive defense spending bill that funds military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supportive vote in the Senate was 90 to 9.
But in the deal worked out with the President, McCain was willing to add two paragraphs to give civilian interrogators legal protections that are already afforded to military interrogators. This means that civilians would be able to defend their use of interrogation tactics by arguing in court that a "person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful."
However, experts say that if CIA or civilian personnel believe they were being directed to use an interrogation technique that was illegal, they would be obligated to disobey the order.
The president’s support came in an appearance with McCain in the Oval
Office. The president said, "We've been happy to work with (Sen. McCain) to achieve a common objective, and that is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention [on] torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the
terrorists," McCain said at his joint appearance with Bush.
He added, "We are a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world."
But the deal did not garner unanimous support. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who is chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, threatened yesterday to block the legislation unless the White House provides him with a written assurance that the legislation would not interfere with the ability of intelligence officials to carry out their missions.
The Bush-McCain deal won applause from human rights groups.
"We've come a long way as a country since 9/11, and this development is a sign
of that," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human
Rights Watch. "We've gone from a sense of 'anything goes' to a recognition that torture hurts America even more than it hurts the enemy."
But human rights advocates were already looking beyond McCain’s victory to a separate proposed amendment by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a former military judge, that would eliminate certain rights of detainees held at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Graham amendment would prevent detainees from using the U.S. courts to invoke the right of habeas corpus to contest their treatment, including claims that they have been tortured. It would also effectively allow the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people at Guantanamo based on evidence obtained through "coercion."
Tom Wilner, a lawyer who represents a group of Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay, told the Washington Post that the Graham amendment would make McCain’s prohibition against torture essentially unenforceable, by giving U.S. troops an incentive to engage in coercive interrogations of detainees, without fear of being held liable.
The significance of the suspension of habeas corpus is likely to be a major congressional concern as debate continues. According to Brian J. Foley, a professor at the Florida Atlantic School of Law in Jacksonville Florida, “Restricting habeas corpus for anybody in our custody is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Our lawmakers are deluded, and are deluding us into believing, that excluding the courts from addressing prisoners' claims about their treatment, which includes claims that they have been tortured, will somehow help us in the so-called War on Terror. It won't, and it can't. Instead, allegations about torture will be both unprovable and, importantly, un-disprovable, which will give propaganda fodder to our enemies.”
He told us, “Dangerously, the Executive Branch will be un-checkable, which will prevent us from knowing whether the President is actually fighting terrorists or merely beating confessions out of hapless, innocent men who were rounded up near a battlefield or sold to U.S. forces for a bounty -- quite possibly by the real terrorists -- and simply telling us we're 'winning the war.'
“Without courts applying hard-nosed reasoning and logic, we can't know anything more than what the President tells us. That's what courts are for -- and they're especially important when Congress drops the ball vis a vis its oversight of the President, as it has been doing shamelessly since 9-11. We're all in the dark and unable to participate -- which puts us in the position of having merely to trust the President. That's always scary, but here it is especially scary, with the level of incompetence we've seen,” he said.
It is generally acknowledged that mistaken identity has been a problem at Guantanamo Bay. More than 800 prisoners were initially taken there for detention. That number is now down to slightly more than 500. The Defense Department will not comment in detail on the disposition of those who are no longer there, but it has been widely reported that some have been sent back to law enforcement authorities in their home countries for further detention but that others have simply been released, presumably because the government had no evidence that they were terrorists.
Some continue to be held through what appears to be administrative incompetence. For example, U.S. forces freed Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani from a Taliban prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in late 2001. He told reporters that he had been wrongly imprisoned for allegedly plotting to kill Osama bin Laden.
He professed hatred for al Qaeda and the Taliban -- groups he said tortured him in prison -- and offered to help the United States. Though cleared by U.S. officials, Turkistani was first taken to a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, and then sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Unlike many others prisoners at Guantanamo, he was not captured on the battlefield, nor was he a suspected terrorist. He was arrested in the ‘fog of war’ that marked the early days of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Though he was a potential ally, he found himself unable to challenge his detention.
But nearly four years later, Turkistani remains imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, despite being cleared for release early this year after a government review concluded he is "no longer an enemy combatant."
Turkistani’s lawyers and some U.S. officials speculate that he has been held by mistake. They say he remains incarcerated because the United States simply does not know what to do with him.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
BACK TO THE FUTURE
By William Fisher
By the end of the current session of congress later this month, the Pentagon could have legal authority to “covertly” gather intelligence on American citizens in the United States – a power taken from them because of excesses during the Vietnam War.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, meeting in closed session, last month quietly approved a request from the Department of Defense (DOD) to allow it to conduct surveillance operations within American Muslim communities. The DOD said the cooperation of these communities could help fight insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We believe there are people in the United States who have information of value to us," said Jim Schmidli, deputy general counsel for operations at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. "That information is within different ethnic communities in this country -- recent additions to our population from distressed areas of the world, primarily the Middle East."
But civil liberties groups and leaders of the Muslim community say the Pentagon is using the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to resume the domestic spying powers that Congress banned after those powers were used to spy on Americans during the Vietnam era.
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “We are seeing the increasing militarization of our American streets. Shame on the Senate for permitting the military to prowl our streets, spy on us, entrap unknowing people and terrify America. Are we living in Franco’s Spain? The military is not trained in constitutional rights; they belong on the battlefield and not in our homes.”
And Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists, told IPS, “At a time when domestic intelligence collection by the military is surging, the nation desperately needs an independent oversight body to exercise checks and balances. Unfortunately, it looks like the congressional intelligence committees are or unwilling or unable to provide that service.”
The intelligence committee supports inclusion of the request in the 2006 intelligence spending authorization bill. The full Senate will take up the bill later this month. The Pentagon's request was not included in the House version of the bill, which passed in June. The bill now goes to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
An identical provision was included in last year’s version of the same bill, but was removed after its details were disclosed by Newsweek magazine and critics charged it could lead to “spying” on US citizens.
But late last month, with no public hearings or debate, a similar amendment was inserted into the same annual authorization bill at the request of the Pentagon.
The intelligence committee also included two other amendments. One would allow intelligence agencies greater access to databases on U.S. citizens. Another would grant the Defense Intelligence Agency the right not to disclose "operational files" under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Pentagon defended its request for the new powers, saying it needs more flexibility as it expands its role in counterterrorism.
"This is not about spying on Americans," DIA general counsel George Peirce said in an interview with the Washington Post. He defended the legislative language approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“We are not asking for the moon," Peirce said. "We only want to assess their suitability as a source, person to person" and at the same time "protect the ID and safety of our officers."
The CIA and the FBI already have such authority, he added, and the [Defense Intelligence Agency] needs it "to develop critical leads" because "there is more than enough work for all of us to do."
However, the idea has not been well received in the US Muslim community, or by other critics of the new power.
"This has a back-alley, dead-of-night feel to it that I don't think would be received well by the Muslim community," said Ibrahim Cooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
Lisa Graves of the American Civil Liberties Union disagreed with a defense official's statement that the proposed change would not allow for carte blanche Pentagon spying inside the United States.
"That's some spin," Graves said. "The change would allow them to gather information on Americans surreptitiously. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
Some Republican legislators see the Pentagon request as an effort to do an end-run around the authority of the new director of national intelligence, Ambassador John D. Negroponte.
They are concerned that the Pentagon "may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress” by creating “parallel functions to what is going on in intelligence, but is calling it something else,” according to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoekstra said he believed the proposed activities were designed to "obscure" the Pentagon's intelligence activities in order to keep them out of Mr. Negroponte's jurisdiction.
In the 1970s, Army intelligence agents were caught snooping on antiwar
protesters. Since then, military intelligence agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States.
But this week, U.S. network television news displayed a DOD dossier purportedly showing that the military was already carrying out surveillance and risk assessments of peaceful antiwar protests in the U.S. The documents listed the license plate numbers of people attending antiwar rallies, and categorized the rallies as a “threat”.
The new provision would exempt the DOD from complying with the Privacy Act that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and why they want the information.
A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intelligence agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. "Current counterterrorism operations," the report claims, require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States."
DIA officials say they need the provision in order to question American businesspersons and college students who travel abroad.
But the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States, according to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
Watchdog groups see the DOD’s proposals as "mission creep”. According to Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, "This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," adding, "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night." The Center is frequently critical of the war on terror
By the end of the current session of congress later this month, the Pentagon could have legal authority to “covertly” gather intelligence on American citizens in the United States – a power taken from them because of excesses during the Vietnam War.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, meeting in closed session, last month quietly approved a request from the Department of Defense (DOD) to allow it to conduct surveillance operations within American Muslim communities. The DOD said the cooperation of these communities could help fight insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We believe there are people in the United States who have information of value to us," said Jim Schmidli, deputy general counsel for operations at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. "That information is within different ethnic communities in this country -- recent additions to our population from distressed areas of the world, primarily the Middle East."
But civil liberties groups and leaders of the Muslim community say the Pentagon is using the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to resume the domestic spying powers that Congress banned after those powers were used to spy on Americans during the Vietnam era.
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “We are seeing the increasing militarization of our American streets. Shame on the Senate for permitting the military to prowl our streets, spy on us, entrap unknowing people and terrify America. Are we living in Franco’s Spain? The military is not trained in constitutional rights; they belong on the battlefield and not in our homes.”
And Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists, told IPS, “At a time when domestic intelligence collection by the military is surging, the nation desperately needs an independent oversight body to exercise checks and balances. Unfortunately, it looks like the congressional intelligence committees are or unwilling or unable to provide that service.”
The intelligence committee supports inclusion of the request in the 2006 intelligence spending authorization bill. The full Senate will take up the bill later this month. The Pentagon's request was not included in the House version of the bill, which passed in June. The bill now goes to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
An identical provision was included in last year’s version of the same bill, but was removed after its details were disclosed by Newsweek magazine and critics charged it could lead to “spying” on US citizens.
But late last month, with no public hearings or debate, a similar amendment was inserted into the same annual authorization bill at the request of the Pentagon.
The intelligence committee also included two other amendments. One would allow intelligence agencies greater access to databases on U.S. citizens. Another would grant the Defense Intelligence Agency the right not to disclose "operational files" under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Pentagon defended its request for the new powers, saying it needs more flexibility as it expands its role in counterterrorism.
"This is not about spying on Americans," DIA general counsel George Peirce said in an interview with the Washington Post. He defended the legislative language approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“We are not asking for the moon," Peirce said. "We only want to assess their suitability as a source, person to person" and at the same time "protect the ID and safety of our officers."
The CIA and the FBI already have such authority, he added, and the [Defense Intelligence Agency] needs it "to develop critical leads" because "there is more than enough work for all of us to do."
However, the idea has not been well received in the US Muslim community, or by other critics of the new power.
"This has a back-alley, dead-of-night feel to it that I don't think would be received well by the Muslim community," said Ibrahim Cooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
Lisa Graves of the American Civil Liberties Union disagreed with a defense official's statement that the proposed change would not allow for carte blanche Pentagon spying inside the United States.
"That's some spin," Graves said. "The change would allow them to gather information on Americans surreptitiously. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
Some Republican legislators see the Pentagon request as an effort to do an end-run around the authority of the new director of national intelligence, Ambassador John D. Negroponte.
They are concerned that the Pentagon "may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress” by creating “parallel functions to what is going on in intelligence, but is calling it something else,” according to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoekstra said he believed the proposed activities were designed to "obscure" the Pentagon's intelligence activities in order to keep them out of Mr. Negroponte's jurisdiction.
In the 1970s, Army intelligence agents were caught snooping on antiwar
protesters. Since then, military intelligence agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States.
But this week, U.S. network television news displayed a DOD dossier purportedly showing that the military was already carrying out surveillance and risk assessments of peaceful antiwar protests in the U.S. The documents listed the license plate numbers of people attending antiwar rallies, and categorized the rallies as a “threat”.
The new provision would exempt the DOD from complying with the Privacy Act that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and why they want the information.
A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intelligence agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. "Current counterterrorism operations," the report claims, require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States."
DIA officials say they need the provision in order to question American businesspersons and college students who travel abroad.
But the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States, according to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
Watchdog groups see the DOD’s proposals as "mission creep”. According to Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, "This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," adding, "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night." The Center is frequently critical of the war on terror
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
HOW DO AMERICANS FEEL ABOUT TORTURE?
By William Fisher
As the battle between the White House and a leading Republic Senator over U.S. policies for treating terrorist suspects appears to be headed toward a showdown, recent polling data suggests that the American people are ambivalent on the issue of torture.
Results of some recent surveys of American adults nationwide show that a sizable majority thinks torture of alleged terrorist prisoners is often or sometimes justified, while other polls find that people think the practice is rarely or never justified.
In one poll, however, respondents added a caveat to their vote – 58% would be willing to permit torture if it yielded information that thwarted a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
The issue of prisoner treatment hit front pages worldwide with release of the photographs of American military personnel mistreating detainees at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Since then, there have been numerous allegations of similar or worse prisoner treatment in other U.S.-run prisons, including the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As a result, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and Vietnam-era prisoner of war, has introduced legislation that would ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners by the U.S. military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and private contractors.
McCain has been locked in a struggle over the measure with the Bush Administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who has demanded an exemption for the CIA.
But the Senate vote approving the measure was passed 90-9 on a bipartisan basis, despite the administration’s threat to veto it. However, a veto would be difficult for the President, since the McCain measure is attached to a “must-pass” defense department spending bill that provides funding for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill is likely to come to a Senate vote before legislators depart for their Christmas break.
One of the polls, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found in a survey of 2,006 people in the general public, 46 percent believe that torturing terror suspects to gain important information is sometimes (31 percent) or often (15 percent) justified while 17 percent thought it is rarely justified and 32 percent were opposed.
But two others produced different results. A CNN / USA Today poll reported that 56% of respondents would be unwilling to permit torture of prisoners, with 38% willing. And Newsweek Magazine’s poll found that 66% of respondents said torture should be used never (33%) or rarely (33%).
The Pew survey also found a pronounced divide between attitudes of the general public and those of more influential Americans. Of the 520 opinion leaders -- academics, news media leaders, military and foreign-affairs experts, religious leaders and scientists – polled on the same issue, no more than one in four believes that torture of terrorist suspects can be sometimes or often justified.
Pew reported that strong opposition to torture is particularly pronounced among security experts, religious leaders and academics, majorities of whom say the use of torture to gain important information is never justified. Nearly half (48%) of scientists and engineers also take this position, as do military leaders (49%), the Pew survey found.
But while opinion leaders largely agree in opposing the use of torture, their views widely differ as to who should be held responsible for prisoner abuse in Iraq and alleged prisoner abuse in the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
By more than three-to-one (75%-21%) scientists and engineers say that these abuses were mostly the result of official policies. A majority of security (57%) and foreign affairs experts (58%) agree, along with about half of academics (53%) and news media leaders (53%). But most military (60%) and religious (67%) leaders believe cases of prisoner mistreatment were mostly the result of misconduct on the part of soldiers and contractors.
Pew added, “The American public is far more open than opinion leaders to the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information. Nearly half of the public (46%) says this can be ‘often’ (15%) or ‘sometimes’ (31%) be justified. This is consistent with results of Pew surveys since July 2004.”
The Pew poll found that "The general public is divided over this question - 48 percent believe soldiers and contractors are to blame, while 36 percent blame official policies," the report said.
But another poll, conducted by Harris Interactive among American adults nationwide, found that among the 66 percent of adults who believe that prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan were tortured, a 41 percent plurality feels that those in command are most responsible followed by the soldiers (30%), the Administration (13%) and the Pentagon (10%).
In the Newsweek poll, while a majority of respondents (66%) rejected torture, 58% said they would change their vote if torture could prevent a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
In the same poll, 73% of respondents said the torture issue had damaged America’s image abroad ‘a lot’ (39%) or ‘somewhat’ (34%).
Some of the polling was done contemporaneously with disclosure by the Washington Post newspaper that the U.S. had kidnapped prisoners and taken them to secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
On her recent visit to Europe, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would neither confirm nor deny the existence of such prisons, but insisted that torture was against both U.S. law and policy.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 55% of respondents felt the U.S. had ‘taken the right course’ in holding detainees in such prisons, as opposed to 30%, who felt the government had ‘gone too far’.
Adding fuel to the prisoner treatment issue are allegations that torture and inhuman treatment persist. Most recently, five members of an elite U.S. Army Ranger unit in Iraq were charged with kicking and punching detainees while awaiting movement to a detention facility.
At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel. There have been 21 homicides.
The torture issue has drawn strong criticism from human rights groups. Typical is John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. Sifton told IPS, "The Bush administration continues to believe that by invoking the word 'terror' it can detain anyone in any corner of the world without any oversight," he said. "Yet all these cases do is suggest that the United States has no commitment to legal principles. Turning your back on the law is not the way to stop terrorism."
The Harris poll was conducted in April 2005, the Pew poll in September and October, and others in mid-November
As the battle between the White House and a leading Republic Senator over U.S. policies for treating terrorist suspects appears to be headed toward a showdown, recent polling data suggests that the American people are ambivalent on the issue of torture.
Results of some recent surveys of American adults nationwide show that a sizable majority thinks torture of alleged terrorist prisoners is often or sometimes justified, while other polls find that people think the practice is rarely or never justified.
In one poll, however, respondents added a caveat to their vote – 58% would be willing to permit torture if it yielded information that thwarted a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
The issue of prisoner treatment hit front pages worldwide with release of the photographs of American military personnel mistreating detainees at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Since then, there have been numerous allegations of similar or worse prisoner treatment in other U.S.-run prisons, including the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As a result, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and Vietnam-era prisoner of war, has introduced legislation that would ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners by the U.S. military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and private contractors.
McCain has been locked in a struggle over the measure with the Bush Administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who has demanded an exemption for the CIA.
But the Senate vote approving the measure was passed 90-9 on a bipartisan basis, despite the administration’s threat to veto it. However, a veto would be difficult for the President, since the McCain measure is attached to a “must-pass” defense department spending bill that provides funding for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill is likely to come to a Senate vote before legislators depart for their Christmas break.
One of the polls, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found in a survey of 2,006 people in the general public, 46 percent believe that torturing terror suspects to gain important information is sometimes (31 percent) or often (15 percent) justified while 17 percent thought it is rarely justified and 32 percent were opposed.
But two others produced different results. A CNN / USA Today poll reported that 56% of respondents would be unwilling to permit torture of prisoners, with 38% willing. And Newsweek Magazine’s poll found that 66% of respondents said torture should be used never (33%) or rarely (33%).
The Pew survey also found a pronounced divide between attitudes of the general public and those of more influential Americans. Of the 520 opinion leaders -- academics, news media leaders, military and foreign-affairs experts, religious leaders and scientists – polled on the same issue, no more than one in four believes that torture of terrorist suspects can be sometimes or often justified.
Pew reported that strong opposition to torture is particularly pronounced among security experts, religious leaders and academics, majorities of whom say the use of torture to gain important information is never justified. Nearly half (48%) of scientists and engineers also take this position, as do military leaders (49%), the Pew survey found.
But while opinion leaders largely agree in opposing the use of torture, their views widely differ as to who should be held responsible for prisoner abuse in Iraq and alleged prisoner abuse in the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
By more than three-to-one (75%-21%) scientists and engineers say that these abuses were mostly the result of official policies. A majority of security (57%) and foreign affairs experts (58%) agree, along with about half of academics (53%) and news media leaders (53%). But most military (60%) and religious (67%) leaders believe cases of prisoner mistreatment were mostly the result of misconduct on the part of soldiers and contractors.
Pew added, “The American public is far more open than opinion leaders to the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information. Nearly half of the public (46%) says this can be ‘often’ (15%) or ‘sometimes’ (31%) be justified. This is consistent with results of Pew surveys since July 2004.”
The Pew poll found that "The general public is divided over this question - 48 percent believe soldiers and contractors are to blame, while 36 percent blame official policies," the report said.
But another poll, conducted by Harris Interactive among American adults nationwide, found that among the 66 percent of adults who believe that prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan were tortured, a 41 percent plurality feels that those in command are most responsible followed by the soldiers (30%), the Administration (13%) and the Pentagon (10%).
In the Newsweek poll, while a majority of respondents (66%) rejected torture, 58% said they would change their vote if torture could prevent a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
In the same poll, 73% of respondents said the torture issue had damaged America’s image abroad ‘a lot’ (39%) or ‘somewhat’ (34%).
Some of the polling was done contemporaneously with disclosure by the Washington Post newspaper that the U.S. had kidnapped prisoners and taken them to secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
On her recent visit to Europe, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would neither confirm nor deny the existence of such prisons, but insisted that torture was against both U.S. law and policy.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 55% of respondents felt the U.S. had ‘taken the right course’ in holding detainees in such prisons, as opposed to 30%, who felt the government had ‘gone too far’.
Adding fuel to the prisoner treatment issue are allegations that torture and inhuman treatment persist. Most recently, five members of an elite U.S. Army Ranger unit in Iraq were charged with kicking and punching detainees while awaiting movement to a detention facility.
At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel. There have been 21 homicides.
The torture issue has drawn strong criticism from human rights groups. Typical is John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. Sifton told IPS, "The Bush administration continues to believe that by invoking the word 'terror' it can detain anyone in any corner of the world without any oversight," he said. "Yet all these cases do is suggest that the United States has no commitment to legal principles. Turning your back on the law is not the way to stop terrorism."
The Harris poll was conducted in April 2005, the Pew poll in September and October, and others in mid-November
WINK, WINK, NOD, NOD
By William Fisher
Washington’s characterization of Egypt’s recent parliamentary election as another important step on the road to democracy is trumped only by President Hosni Mubarak’s cynical demand for a review of the election’s widespread violence and voter disenfranchisement.
Like the aging ruler had no knowledge of why at least ten people were killed and scores more injured during the monthlong election or why police cordoned off many polling stations to prevent people from voting.
Just to remind you, the violence flared after Egypt's banned Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, won 88 seats compared to the 15 it held in the outgoing 454-member parliament. This happened despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is banned from participating in elections, and its candidates are obliged to run as ‘independents’.
Egyptian authorities say the security measures were taken to enable Egyptians to vote in an orderly manner. Right! The police brutality had nothing to do with trying to prevent the Brotherhood from making even larger gains.
“The elections, with their negative and positive aspects, will be a matter of intensive study by all parties to derive lessons to develop future party and democratic actions,'' Mubarak's spokesman, Suleiman Awwad, quoted the president as telling the lawmakers.
“Negative aspects should be answered strongly so that they will not be repeated.''
Study by whom? Mubarak’s National Democratic Party? The state-controlled media? Not likely. The United States? The United Nations? When pigs fly!
As always, the de-construction of this election will fall to local and international NGOs who monitor bad governance and abuses of human rights. And, if past is prologue, their reports will attract little press attention anywhere.
Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for a quarter of a century, took his first ‘significant’ step toward democracy by introducing an amendment to the country’s constitution. That measure purported to allow multiple candidates to run against him for the presidency for the first time.
Then came the fine print. The amendment placed severe restrictions on, for example, political parties that would be recognized as ‘legal’ by the government.
That eliminated a lot of the opposition.
Then the government proceeded with what almost everyone agrees were trumped-up charges against Ayman Nour, head of a leading opposition party. Mr. Nour is now on trial for forging signatures on his party’s registration documents, even though his principal accuser has recanted this claim, which he now says was obtained under police duress.
President Bush and his fans may acknowledge that the amendment and the presidential and parliamentary elections were flawed, but that the mere fact that they took place at all represents progress on the road to democratic rule.
They will also imply that none of this good news would have happened without George W. Bush’s call for the democratization of the greater Middle East.
We don’t really know how much impact the Bush doctrine had on the electoral process in Egypt or anywhere else.
What we do know is that, given the enormous largesse the U.S. has doled out to Egypt over the past quarter-century – currently some $2 billion a year – America had more than enough leverage to do much more diplomatically to ensure that Egypt’s first baby steps toward representative government were something better than the political theater of the absurd.
But the Bush Administration values Egypt far more as an ally in its Global War on Terror than as a partner in its Global War for Democracy.
And that excuses even the absurd.
Washington’s characterization of Egypt’s recent parliamentary election as another important step on the road to democracy is trumped only by President Hosni Mubarak’s cynical demand for a review of the election’s widespread violence and voter disenfranchisement.
Like the aging ruler had no knowledge of why at least ten people were killed and scores more injured during the monthlong election or why police cordoned off many polling stations to prevent people from voting.
Just to remind you, the violence flared after Egypt's banned Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, won 88 seats compared to the 15 it held in the outgoing 454-member parliament. This happened despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is banned from participating in elections, and its candidates are obliged to run as ‘independents’.
Egyptian authorities say the security measures were taken to enable Egyptians to vote in an orderly manner. Right! The police brutality had nothing to do with trying to prevent the Brotherhood from making even larger gains.
“The elections, with their negative and positive aspects, will be a matter of intensive study by all parties to derive lessons to develop future party and democratic actions,'' Mubarak's spokesman, Suleiman Awwad, quoted the president as telling the lawmakers.
“Negative aspects should be answered strongly so that they will not be repeated.''
Study by whom? Mubarak’s National Democratic Party? The state-controlled media? Not likely. The United States? The United Nations? When pigs fly!
As always, the de-construction of this election will fall to local and international NGOs who monitor bad governance and abuses of human rights. And, if past is prologue, their reports will attract little press attention anywhere.
Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for a quarter of a century, took his first ‘significant’ step toward democracy by introducing an amendment to the country’s constitution. That measure purported to allow multiple candidates to run against him for the presidency for the first time.
Then came the fine print. The amendment placed severe restrictions on, for example, political parties that would be recognized as ‘legal’ by the government.
That eliminated a lot of the opposition.
Then the government proceeded with what almost everyone agrees were trumped-up charges against Ayman Nour, head of a leading opposition party. Mr. Nour is now on trial for forging signatures on his party’s registration documents, even though his principal accuser has recanted this claim, which he now says was obtained under police duress.
President Bush and his fans may acknowledge that the amendment and the presidential and parliamentary elections were flawed, but that the mere fact that they took place at all represents progress on the road to democratic rule.
They will also imply that none of this good news would have happened without George W. Bush’s call for the democratization of the greater Middle East.
We don’t really know how much impact the Bush doctrine had on the electoral process in Egypt or anywhere else.
What we do know is that, given the enormous largesse the U.S. has doled out to Egypt over the past quarter-century – currently some $2 billion a year – America had more than enough leverage to do much more diplomatically to ensure that Egypt’s first baby steps toward representative government were something better than the political theater of the absurd.
But the Bush Administration values Egypt far more as an ally in its Global War on Terror than as a partner in its Global War for Democracy.
And that excuses even the absurd.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
DID YOU HEAR IT?
By William Fisher
Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, was big on explosions.
And the Committee that bears his name loves them as well.
It set one off in Oslo on Saturday by awarding its Peace Prize to Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei and his International Atomic Energy Agency – and burying the Bush Administration in the fallout.
Through the Bushies’ lens, this was never supposed to happen. ElBaradei should have been out of the IAEA at the end of last year, when his second term expired. Instead, he was unanimously elected to a third term as the organization’s Director General.
The Egyptian-born diplomat and lawyer survived a relentless assault by the Bush Administration, led by our now-Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, and bolstered by the “mushroom cloud” rhetoric of Dick Cheney and Condi Rice.
Maybe ElBaradei’s victory should have served as a portent of Bolton’s effectiveness.
Why did the U.S. have it in for ElBaradei?
Because he told everyone who would listen that there weren’t going to be any mushroom clouds emanating from Baghdad any time soon.
You may remember that in George W. Bush's first State of the Union message, he claimed Iraq was one of three nations that had clandestine nuclear programs. The other two were North Korea and Iran.
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. ... I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons," the president said.
But what the Bushies forgot was the IAEA had been granted extraordinary authority by a U.N. Security Council Resolution that gave it authority to identify Iraqi facilities capable of enriching or extracting fissile materials, assess Iraqi industrial capabilities for constructing such plants, identify Iraqi plants capable of producing non-nuclear components of nuclear devices, and search for evidence – including analysis of ongoing research and development activities – of an Iraqi nuke program.
Had the IAEA inspectors had found any of the above, they could have asked the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions, including the use of military force.
The IAEA found nothing, and so announced to the world in 2002.
It exposed the forged documents that purported to show that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium ore from Niger – which eventually brought us Plamegate. In a report to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, ElBaradei declared that there was “no indication of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites”.
He also questioned the U.S. rationale for the war in Iraq since the 2003 Iraq disarmament crisis, when he, along with Hans Blix, led a team of U.N. inspectors in Iraq, seeking evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
ElBaradei’s reports refuted the litany of charges presented by Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 to justify military invasion. The IAEA’s evidence was a key factor in the Security Council’s refusal to bless the U.S. attack.
But the Bush Administration wasn’t listening. Why let a few pesky facts get in the way of a grandiose project to democratize the Middle East?
ElBaradei had to go. The White House made no secret of its desire to replace him when his second term expired this year. As early as September 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell called for ElBaradei to step down, justifying his demand on the pretext that there was an informal “rule” that senior U.N. positions should be limited to two terms. Meanwhile, as revealed by The Washington Post, the White House spin machine was busy spreading malicious rumors and U.S. intelligence agencies were intercepting dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls in an effort to dig up embarrassing details that could be used to oust him.
The Bush administration started sounding out possible replacements for ElBaradei, including two South Korean officials, a Brazilian disarmament expert, two Japanese diplomats and, most promising to the White House, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer – a man with no experience with nuclear issues whose principal qualification appeared to be his ability to memorize Bush talking points.
But when Downer declined to be nominated, the U.S. found itself without a candidate, and with an IAEA Board eager to appoint ElBaredei to a third term.
In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, ElBaradei said that six decades later and 15 years after the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear nightmare remains strong.
“The world community is deeply concerned about possible atomic weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and terrorists' increasingly sophisticated efforts to obtain nuclear weapons”, he said.
Globalization, he declared, has “swept away the barriers to the movement of goods, ideas and people but is has also removed barriers that confined and localized security threats."
"There are three main features to this changing landscape: first, the emergence of an extensive black market in nuclear material and equipment; second, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and sensitive nuclear technology; and third, the stagnation in nuclear disarmament."
But, Nobel notwithstanding, the Bush Administration is probably not finished trying to undermine ElBaradei. They think he’s too soft on Iran – and often refer to his Iranian-born wife as the reason.
I don’t know how ElBaradei plans to deal with Iran. But could his plan be worse than the Bush Administration’s non-policy of using the Europeans to do what it should be doing itself?
Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, was big on explosions.
And the Committee that bears his name loves them as well.
It set one off in Oslo on Saturday by awarding its Peace Prize to Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei and his International Atomic Energy Agency – and burying the Bush Administration in the fallout.
Through the Bushies’ lens, this was never supposed to happen. ElBaradei should have been out of the IAEA at the end of last year, when his second term expired. Instead, he was unanimously elected to a third term as the organization’s Director General.
The Egyptian-born diplomat and lawyer survived a relentless assault by the Bush Administration, led by our now-Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, and bolstered by the “mushroom cloud” rhetoric of Dick Cheney and Condi Rice.
Maybe ElBaradei’s victory should have served as a portent of Bolton’s effectiveness.
Why did the U.S. have it in for ElBaradei?
Because he told everyone who would listen that there weren’t going to be any mushroom clouds emanating from Baghdad any time soon.
You may remember that in George W. Bush's first State of the Union message, he claimed Iraq was one of three nations that had clandestine nuclear programs. The other two were North Korea and Iran.
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. ... I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons," the president said.
But what the Bushies forgot was the IAEA had been granted extraordinary authority by a U.N. Security Council Resolution that gave it authority to identify Iraqi facilities capable of enriching or extracting fissile materials, assess Iraqi industrial capabilities for constructing such plants, identify Iraqi plants capable of producing non-nuclear components of nuclear devices, and search for evidence – including analysis of ongoing research and development activities – of an Iraqi nuke program.
Had the IAEA inspectors had found any of the above, they could have asked the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions, including the use of military force.
The IAEA found nothing, and so announced to the world in 2002.
It exposed the forged documents that purported to show that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium ore from Niger – which eventually brought us Plamegate. In a report to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, ElBaradei declared that there was “no indication of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites”.
He also questioned the U.S. rationale for the war in Iraq since the 2003 Iraq disarmament crisis, when he, along with Hans Blix, led a team of U.N. inspectors in Iraq, seeking evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
ElBaradei’s reports refuted the litany of charges presented by Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 to justify military invasion. The IAEA’s evidence was a key factor in the Security Council’s refusal to bless the U.S. attack.
But the Bush Administration wasn’t listening. Why let a few pesky facts get in the way of a grandiose project to democratize the Middle East?
ElBaradei had to go. The White House made no secret of its desire to replace him when his second term expired this year. As early as September 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell called for ElBaradei to step down, justifying his demand on the pretext that there was an informal “rule” that senior U.N. positions should be limited to two terms. Meanwhile, as revealed by The Washington Post, the White House spin machine was busy spreading malicious rumors and U.S. intelligence agencies were intercepting dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls in an effort to dig up embarrassing details that could be used to oust him.
The Bush administration started sounding out possible replacements for ElBaradei, including two South Korean officials, a Brazilian disarmament expert, two Japanese diplomats and, most promising to the White House, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer – a man with no experience with nuclear issues whose principal qualification appeared to be his ability to memorize Bush talking points.
But when Downer declined to be nominated, the U.S. found itself without a candidate, and with an IAEA Board eager to appoint ElBaredei to a third term.
In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, ElBaradei said that six decades later and 15 years after the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear nightmare remains strong.
“The world community is deeply concerned about possible atomic weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and terrorists' increasingly sophisticated efforts to obtain nuclear weapons”, he said.
Globalization, he declared, has “swept away the barriers to the movement of goods, ideas and people but is has also removed barriers that confined and localized security threats."
"There are three main features to this changing landscape: first, the emergence of an extensive black market in nuclear material and equipment; second, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and sensitive nuclear technology; and third, the stagnation in nuclear disarmament."
But, Nobel notwithstanding, the Bush Administration is probably not finished trying to undermine ElBaradei. They think he’s too soft on Iran – and often refer to his Iranian-born wife as the reason.
I don’t know how ElBaradei plans to deal with Iran. But could his plan be worse than the Bush Administration’s non-policy of using the Europeans to do what it should be doing itself?
Thursday, December 08, 2005
THE ISSUE THAT WON’T GO AWAY
By William Fisher
As Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stilettos her way across Europe facing tough questions about who, where and how the U.S. treats prisoners in the “global war on terror”, 2005 may be remembered as the year “torture” and “rendition” became parts of the everyday American vocabulary.
The latest iteration of these issues arose from the Washington Post’s recent disclosure that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using its fleet of secret aircraft to render high value terror suspects to secret prisons it is reportedly operating in former Soviet bloc states in Eastern Europe.
To avoid compromising national security, The Post did not name the countries, but they have been widely reported to be Poland and Rumania. At former Soviet gulags there, “ghost prisoners” simply fall off the radar – unnamed, unregistered, without access to lawyers, family members, or the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The Post reported that prisoners were routinely tortured, using such techniques as “waterboarding” – submerging a prisoner in restraints in water to convince him he was drowning -- mock execution, prolonged shackling, being threatened with dogs, and "cold cell," in which prisoners are held naked in low temperatures and doused with cold water.
The Rice trip was intended to rebuild America’s damaged bridges with its European allies. The new German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was particularly eager to end German-American bickering over the Iraq war. Instead, before boarding her flight, Rice felt compelled to deliver a statement asserting that as a “matter of policy” America “does not torture”, while sidestepping the issue of the alleged secret prisons.
But in Europe, torture and rendition refused to go away. They were a central theme in virtually all of the press appearances Rice made following her meetings with European leaders.
The issues were particularly contentious in Germany, where a German citizen, Khaled al-Masri, announced he is suing the former CIA director George Tenet for forcibly taking him from Macedonia and to Afghanistan, where he was imprisoned incommunicado for five months. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is pursuing the case on the German’s behalf.
Rendition is known to have been a CIA practice for some years. But its frequency increased exponentially after 9/11, with reportedly dozens of prisoners being kidnapped from Italy, Sweden and other European countries, as well as from the U.S., and sent to other countries with well-known histories of torturing prisoners. Italy is currently suing the U.S. for kidnapping an Italian citizen on Italian soil.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a major advocacy group, filed the first court challenge to rendition this year. The case is pending.
Fuelling the prisoner fire, Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, said yesterday that the U.S.-led fight against terrorism is eroding the time-honored international prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners. She said that holding suspects incommunicado in itself amounts to torture.
But America’s European problems are only the latest in a long litany of rendition and torture issues that began to come to light with release of the photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
That disclosure created a firestorm of protests and questions that eventually implicated other military prisons in Iraq, the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and other detention centers around the world.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has carried out 15 separate investigations of prisoner abuse and rendition issues. A number of enlisted soldiers were court martialled and sent to jail, and a few higher-ranking officers were reprimanded or demoted. But no accountability was demanded of the CIA, private contractors, or the Bush Administration, which critics say failed to train interrogators and created an environment of legal abuse by using presidential power to designate people as “enemy combatants” and thus deny them the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
The most recent of these investigations recommended that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller be reprimanded for his mistreatment of Guantanamo prisoners and for then “migrating” his “aggressive” interrogation techniques to Iraq. But a higher military authority rejected the recommendation.
Meanwhile, Guantanamo Bay has become a legal nightmare for the U.S. American authorities sent more than 800 alleged terrorists to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, largely from Afghanistan, but from other countries as well. Guantanamo was chosen because it was thought to be beyond the reach of U.S. law, but courts ruled that the base, which is leased from the Government of Cuba, was effectively under American control.
The ACLU and other organizations sued the Government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and obtained a massive trove of documents in which agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that military interrogators were abusing prisoners.
U.S. soldiers have also been charged with the murder of a detainee in Afghanistan.
Equally problematic, the Defense Department’s system for reviewing the status each prisoner denies the accused the most basic legal rights, including access to lawyers, the opportunity to see the evidence against them – which is often classified -- or to call witnesses to prove they were being held in error. Several U.S. civilian courts ruled the system unconstitutional and no trials have been conducted.
Meanwhile, a federal appeals court panel ruled unanimously that President Bush has the authority to indefinitely detain an American citizen, Jose Padilla, arrested in the U.S., as an enemy combatant.
But another appeals court questioned the Bush administration's operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO), where almost all detainees have been categorized by military tribunals as enemy combatants.
Padilla was charged in civilian court with lesser offenses two weeks ago in order to keep the Supreme Court from hearing his appeal.
In an earlier case involving a non-American, Yaser Esam Hamdi, the Supreme Court ruled that an American citizen could be detained by President Bush as an enemy combatant because he was purportedly captured while fighting in Afghanistan. But, even under that circumstance, the court added to the ambiguity by ruling that Hamdi was entitled under the Constitution to contest the allegations made against him by "a neutral decision-maker."
Hamdi was hurriedly sent back to his home country, Saudi Arabia, before his case could be resolved.
After last year's Supreme Court ruling, the Pentagon set up a new system of tribunals of U.S. military officers to review the detainees' status. The tribunals have been criticized by many senior military lawyers, who have called them kangaroo courts.
The Pentagon is currently holding more than 500 prisoners at GITMO. More than 200 of them are currently staging a hunger strike to protest their treatment.
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal Law School, told IPS regarding the Padilla case, “For a court to say that any person imprisoned by the government, especially an American citizen, can be held without access to a judge for an evidentiary hearing and without any right to habeas corpus is frightening, and contrary to hundreds of years of our legal tradition.”
Torture has – critics say belatedly – recently become a headline-grabbing issue in Congress. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a conservative Republican from South Carolina and a former military judge, introduced a measure that would make the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the absolute rulebook for how prisoners should be treated. The UCMJ forbids cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees. The measure was approved 91 to 9. The measure rejected a detainee’s right to file for habeas corpus, but provided for a Federal appeals court to review cases involving sentences of more than 10 years
At the same time, the senate overwhelmingly passed a measure by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners by anyone representing the U.S. – including the CIA. The Bush administration, led by Vice President Richard Cheney, has been lobbying to exempt the CIA, threatening a presidential veto if it were passed. It now appears that the administration’s objections have failed, and Cheney is now seeking language that would protect CIA operatives from punishment in certain circumstances.
The Senate also passed an amendment mandating that the Defense Secretary inform Congress about U.S.-run secret prison facilities in foreign countries.
But at the same time, the Republican-led Senate rejected a Democratic effort to establish an independent commission to investigate U.S. military interrogation practices. The 55 to 43 vote was split largely along party lines. Democrats were trying to set up a panel along the lines of the 9/11 Commission to investigate U.S. detainee treatment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo.
The McCain proposal will be a top item on the Senate’s agenda when it returns from its Thanksgiving recess next week. With the 2006 Congressional elections less than a year away, and President Bush’s poll numbers falling, many Republicans as well as almost all Democrats are struggling to distance themselves from his positions.
That is likely to ensure that torture and rendition are not disappearing from the national dialogue any time soon.
As Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stilettos her way across Europe facing tough questions about who, where and how the U.S. treats prisoners in the “global war on terror”, 2005 may be remembered as the year “torture” and “rendition” became parts of the everyday American vocabulary.
The latest iteration of these issues arose from the Washington Post’s recent disclosure that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using its fleet of secret aircraft to render high value terror suspects to secret prisons it is reportedly operating in former Soviet bloc states in Eastern Europe.
To avoid compromising national security, The Post did not name the countries, but they have been widely reported to be Poland and Rumania. At former Soviet gulags there, “ghost prisoners” simply fall off the radar – unnamed, unregistered, without access to lawyers, family members, or the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The Post reported that prisoners were routinely tortured, using such techniques as “waterboarding” – submerging a prisoner in restraints in water to convince him he was drowning -- mock execution, prolonged shackling, being threatened with dogs, and "cold cell," in which prisoners are held naked in low temperatures and doused with cold water.
The Rice trip was intended to rebuild America’s damaged bridges with its European allies. The new German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was particularly eager to end German-American bickering over the Iraq war. Instead, before boarding her flight, Rice felt compelled to deliver a statement asserting that as a “matter of policy” America “does not torture”, while sidestepping the issue of the alleged secret prisons.
But in Europe, torture and rendition refused to go away. They were a central theme in virtually all of the press appearances Rice made following her meetings with European leaders.
The issues were particularly contentious in Germany, where a German citizen, Khaled al-Masri, announced he is suing the former CIA director George Tenet for forcibly taking him from Macedonia and to Afghanistan, where he was imprisoned incommunicado for five months. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is pursuing the case on the German’s behalf.
Rendition is known to have been a CIA practice for some years. But its frequency increased exponentially after 9/11, with reportedly dozens of prisoners being kidnapped from Italy, Sweden and other European countries, as well as from the U.S., and sent to other countries with well-known histories of torturing prisoners. Italy is currently suing the U.S. for kidnapping an Italian citizen on Italian soil.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a major advocacy group, filed the first court challenge to rendition this year. The case is pending.
Fuelling the prisoner fire, Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, said yesterday that the U.S.-led fight against terrorism is eroding the time-honored international prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners. She said that holding suspects incommunicado in itself amounts to torture.
But America’s European problems are only the latest in a long litany of rendition and torture issues that began to come to light with release of the photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
That disclosure created a firestorm of protests and questions that eventually implicated other military prisons in Iraq, the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and other detention centers around the world.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has carried out 15 separate investigations of prisoner abuse and rendition issues. A number of enlisted soldiers were court martialled and sent to jail, and a few higher-ranking officers were reprimanded or demoted. But no accountability was demanded of the CIA, private contractors, or the Bush Administration, which critics say failed to train interrogators and created an environment of legal abuse by using presidential power to designate people as “enemy combatants” and thus deny them the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
The most recent of these investigations recommended that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller be reprimanded for his mistreatment of Guantanamo prisoners and for then “migrating” his “aggressive” interrogation techniques to Iraq. But a higher military authority rejected the recommendation.
Meanwhile, Guantanamo Bay has become a legal nightmare for the U.S. American authorities sent more than 800 alleged terrorists to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, largely from Afghanistan, but from other countries as well. Guantanamo was chosen because it was thought to be beyond the reach of U.S. law, but courts ruled that the base, which is leased from the Government of Cuba, was effectively under American control.
The ACLU and other organizations sued the Government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and obtained a massive trove of documents in which agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that military interrogators were abusing prisoners.
U.S. soldiers have also been charged with the murder of a detainee in Afghanistan.
Equally problematic, the Defense Department’s system for reviewing the status each prisoner denies the accused the most basic legal rights, including access to lawyers, the opportunity to see the evidence against them – which is often classified -- or to call witnesses to prove they were being held in error. Several U.S. civilian courts ruled the system unconstitutional and no trials have been conducted.
Meanwhile, a federal appeals court panel ruled unanimously that President Bush has the authority to indefinitely detain an American citizen, Jose Padilla, arrested in the U.S., as an enemy combatant.
But another appeals court questioned the Bush administration's operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO), where almost all detainees have been categorized by military tribunals as enemy combatants.
Padilla was charged in civilian court with lesser offenses two weeks ago in order to keep the Supreme Court from hearing his appeal.
In an earlier case involving a non-American, Yaser Esam Hamdi, the Supreme Court ruled that an American citizen could be detained by President Bush as an enemy combatant because he was purportedly captured while fighting in Afghanistan. But, even under that circumstance, the court added to the ambiguity by ruling that Hamdi was entitled under the Constitution to contest the allegations made against him by "a neutral decision-maker."
Hamdi was hurriedly sent back to his home country, Saudi Arabia, before his case could be resolved.
After last year's Supreme Court ruling, the Pentagon set up a new system of tribunals of U.S. military officers to review the detainees' status. The tribunals have been criticized by many senior military lawyers, who have called them kangaroo courts.
The Pentagon is currently holding more than 500 prisoners at GITMO. More than 200 of them are currently staging a hunger strike to protest their treatment.
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal Law School, told IPS regarding the Padilla case, “For a court to say that any person imprisoned by the government, especially an American citizen, can be held without access to a judge for an evidentiary hearing and without any right to habeas corpus is frightening, and contrary to hundreds of years of our legal tradition.”
Torture has – critics say belatedly – recently become a headline-grabbing issue in Congress. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a conservative Republican from South Carolina and a former military judge, introduced a measure that would make the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the absolute rulebook for how prisoners should be treated. The UCMJ forbids cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees. The measure was approved 91 to 9. The measure rejected a detainee’s right to file for habeas corpus, but provided for a Federal appeals court to review cases involving sentences of more than 10 years
At the same time, the senate overwhelmingly passed a measure by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners by anyone representing the U.S. – including the CIA. The Bush administration, led by Vice President Richard Cheney, has been lobbying to exempt the CIA, threatening a presidential veto if it were passed. It now appears that the administration’s objections have failed, and Cheney is now seeking language that would protect CIA operatives from punishment in certain circumstances.
The Senate also passed an amendment mandating that the Defense Secretary inform Congress about U.S.-run secret prison facilities in foreign countries.
But at the same time, the Republican-led Senate rejected a Democratic effort to establish an independent commission to investigate U.S. military interrogation practices. The 55 to 43 vote was split largely along party lines. Democrats were trying to set up a panel along the lines of the 9/11 Commission to investigate U.S. detainee treatment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo.
The McCain proposal will be a top item on the Senate’s agenda when it returns from its Thanksgiving recess next week. With the 2006 Congressional elections less than a year away, and President Bush’s poll numbers falling, many Republicans as well as almost all Democrats are struggling to distance themselves from his positions.
That is likely to ensure that torture and rendition are not disappearing from the national dialogue any time soon.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Accountability Not a Part of Iraq Strategy
Former Republican congressman from Georgia and U.S. attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta.
By Bob Barr
Last week, former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) pleaded guilty to bribery and resigned his seat in the Congress. Witnessing a friend, who served America with great distinction in Vietnam and in the House of Representatives, fall so hard was heart-wrenching.
However, I did admire the fact that Cunningham confronted his crimes, entered a plea without first blaming someone else and seeking a bargain, and voluntarily stepped down from his elected office to await a certain prison term.
He accepted responsibility. The corruption-tainted buck stopped with him, and he was man enough to admit it. Too bad there aren't more public servants willing to admit error, take responsibility and do something about it. In Iraq, for example.
The news coming out of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities with names becoming all too familiar to us has been especially bad recently; and not just the fact that our high-tech-equipped troops keep falling prey to low-tech improvised roadside bombs.
We now know that our government, which misses no opportunity to tout the great strides the Iraqi people are making toward building a free society, has been secretly paying Iraqi journalists to disseminate self-serving stories about how great things are over there. Apparently, we expect the Iraqis (and the rest of the world that is watching with great interest how we comport ourselves in Iraq) to watch what we say — "a free press is essential to a free society" — not what we do — control the Iraqi media to serve our needs.
When he addressed this problem this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a graduate of the Bush School of the Never-Admitted Error, refused to take responsibility and instead blamed the contractors who placed the stories in the Iraqi press, for not placing them properly (after all, the U.S. company responsible for placing the self-serving articles has only a $6 million contract for its work; hardly enough to do an adequate job). If Cunningham had been secretary of Defense, and he was caught with his hand in the Iraqi inkwell, at least he'd admit a mistake was made, and heads would roll, perhaps even his own.
The lack of leadership and responsibility is evident also in the news seeping out of Iraq and Washington that corruption – perhaps on a scale that would make New Orleans politicos green with envy – in the funding of the "reconstruction effort" may be much more widespread than previously admitted. While a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves recently became the first American officer charged with graft in the awarding of contracts in Iraq, such a step appears decidedly timid when one considers the scope of the potential loss of taxpayer dollars as a result of the lack of accountability that seems to permeate the funding of the entire Iraq operation.
Of the nearly $360 billion set aside for U.S. military operations since Sept. 11, more than $250 billion has been shoveled into Iraq. The low priority the federal government places on trying to account for that huge sum of taxpayer money, however, is evident in the fact that the Department of Defense inspector general's office reportedly maintains not a single auditor in Iraq.
Also telling is the fact that only a small percentage of the funds appropriated for the Iraq effort have been audited. The Pentagon's apparent disinterest in accounting for the massive amount of money under its control is evident in an investigation conducted recently by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which found that at least $7 billion supposed to be used for the war on terrorism was unaccounted for. Reportedly, all government audits of the anti-terror funds have pinpointed more than $20 billion that seems to have been lost.
Here again, eschewing the Duke Cunningham principle that if you screw up, you admit it and take your punishment like a man, the Congress and the White House are responding to the accounts of massive mismanagement of monies by — you guessed it — preparing yet another supplemental spending package of some $45 billion to be tacked onto the nearly $50 billion already set aside for next year.
Unfortunately, the same perspective that has given us such massive potential lost tax dollars in Iraq enabled Cunningham to reap a few million dollars in bribes from some relatively minor defense contractors. The Defense Department team of auditors, the men and women who just might catch some of this mismanagement and corruption, has shrunk dramatically in the past few years (by some 2,000, according to press accounts). Who's in charge here?
By Bob Barr
Last week, former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) pleaded guilty to bribery and resigned his seat in the Congress. Witnessing a friend, who served America with great distinction in Vietnam and in the House of Representatives, fall so hard was heart-wrenching.
However, I did admire the fact that Cunningham confronted his crimes, entered a plea without first blaming someone else and seeking a bargain, and voluntarily stepped down from his elected office to await a certain prison term.
He accepted responsibility. The corruption-tainted buck stopped with him, and he was man enough to admit it. Too bad there aren't more public servants willing to admit error, take responsibility and do something about it. In Iraq, for example.
The news coming out of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities with names becoming all too familiar to us has been especially bad recently; and not just the fact that our high-tech-equipped troops keep falling prey to low-tech improvised roadside bombs.
We now know that our government, which misses no opportunity to tout the great strides the Iraqi people are making toward building a free society, has been secretly paying Iraqi journalists to disseminate self-serving stories about how great things are over there. Apparently, we expect the Iraqis (and the rest of the world that is watching with great interest how we comport ourselves in Iraq) to watch what we say — "a free press is essential to a free society" — not what we do — control the Iraqi media to serve our needs.
When he addressed this problem this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a graduate of the Bush School of the Never-Admitted Error, refused to take responsibility and instead blamed the contractors who placed the stories in the Iraqi press, for not placing them properly (after all, the U.S. company responsible for placing the self-serving articles has only a $6 million contract for its work; hardly enough to do an adequate job). If Cunningham had been secretary of Defense, and he was caught with his hand in the Iraqi inkwell, at least he'd admit a mistake was made, and heads would roll, perhaps even his own.
The lack of leadership and responsibility is evident also in the news seeping out of Iraq and Washington that corruption – perhaps on a scale that would make New Orleans politicos green with envy – in the funding of the "reconstruction effort" may be much more widespread than previously admitted. While a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves recently became the first American officer charged with graft in the awarding of contracts in Iraq, such a step appears decidedly timid when one considers the scope of the potential loss of taxpayer dollars as a result of the lack of accountability that seems to permeate the funding of the entire Iraq operation.
Of the nearly $360 billion set aside for U.S. military operations since Sept. 11, more than $250 billion has been shoveled into Iraq. The low priority the federal government places on trying to account for that huge sum of taxpayer money, however, is evident in the fact that the Department of Defense inspector general's office reportedly maintains not a single auditor in Iraq.
Also telling is the fact that only a small percentage of the funds appropriated for the Iraq effort have been audited. The Pentagon's apparent disinterest in accounting for the massive amount of money under its control is evident in an investigation conducted recently by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which found that at least $7 billion supposed to be used for the war on terrorism was unaccounted for. Reportedly, all government audits of the anti-terror funds have pinpointed more than $20 billion that seems to have been lost.
Here again, eschewing the Duke Cunningham principle that if you screw up, you admit it and take your punishment like a man, the Congress and the White House are responding to the accounts of massive mismanagement of monies by — you guessed it — preparing yet another supplemental spending package of some $45 billion to be tacked onto the nearly $50 billion already set aside for next year.
Unfortunately, the same perspective that has given us such massive potential lost tax dollars in Iraq enabled Cunningham to reap a few million dollars in bribes from some relatively minor defense contractors. The Defense Department team of auditors, the men and women who just might catch some of this mismanagement and corruption, has shrunk dramatically in the past few years (by some 2,000, according to press accounts). Who's in charge here?
TERRORISM PROSECUTIONS, 2005: HOW MUCH PROGRESS?
By William Fisher
Amidst charges that President Bush and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are inflating the number of criminal prosecutions for terrorism, five cases shed light on the administration’s mixed record of convictions during 2005.
In a Florida case, officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) falsified documents in an effort to cover repeated missteps and then retaliated against an agent who first complained about the problems.
After being held for more than three years in U.S. military custody, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago and labeled an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, was charged conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals and providing “material support” to terrorists – but not with the charges he had been originally accused of: plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States and to blow up apartment buildings using natural gas lines.
The case against the so-called "Detroit sleeper cell" – once hailed as a significant Justice Department triumph in the “Global War on Terror”-- was dismissed after a jury convicted two men of supporting terrorism. Now a federal grand jury in Detroit is investigating whether the lead prosecutor, Richard Convertino, should be indicted for hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense, including altering dates on three FBI forms using correction fluid to conceal an apparent violation of federal wiretap law.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 24, a U.S. citizen held in a Saudi Arabian jail for 20 months allegedly at the behest of the U.S., was convicted in Virginia of conspiracy to assassinate the president, conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy and contributing services to al-Qaida. He faces up to life in prison. Abu Ali claimed that he was tortured into a false confession by Saudi authorities, but the jury rejected that charge.
A former Florida professor, Sami Al-Arian, 47, accused of helping to lead a terrorist group that has carried out suicide bombings against Israel, was acquitted on nearly half the charges against him and the jury deadlocked on the rest including charges he aided terrorists. The case was seen as one of the biggest courtroom tests yet of the Patriot Act's expanded search-and-surveillance powers.
These cases provide context for assertions by President Bush, his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, and many other senior administration officials, that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."
But, according to an analysis of the DOJ’s own records by the Washington Post, the numbers are misleading. The paper claimed that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied – have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security”.
“Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism”, the analysis shows. “For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.”
Said The Post, “Taken as a whole, the data indicate that the government's effort to identify terrorists in the United States has been less successful than authorities have often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the contention that
authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists here. Except for a small number of well-known cases -- such as truck driver Lyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge -- few of those arrested appear to have been involved in active plots inside the United States.”
It added, “Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them”.
Bush Administration officials have not denied the accuracy of The Post’s analysis.
The DOJ’s campaign to round up and detain alleged terrorists began under then Attorney General John Ashcroft almost immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. During that period, large numbers of people -- primarily Arabs and other Muslims as well as South Asians – were arrested by the DOJ and held without charges or lawyers in jails run by immigration agencies.
No one caught up in this dragnet was ever accused of any terror-related crime. Some were released, often after being held incommunicado for months. Some claimed to have been beaten or otherwise mistreated. Most were deported for immigration violations – not a criminal offense under U.S. law.
David Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and author of "Enemy Aliens," asserts that the "centerpiece of the domestic war on terrorism has been preventive detention."
"In the first seven weeks after Sept. 11, the DOJ admitted to detaining nearly 1,200 men as suspected terrorists, nearly all foreign nationals," he said.
"It subsequently adopted two anti-terrorism immigration initiatives that were aimed at men from Arab and Muslim countries on the theory that they were more likely to be terrorists. Those programs led to the detention of nearly 4,000 more people. Yet of these, not one stands convicted of any terrorist offense. The administration's record is zero for 5,000."
In a number of cases since then, the DOJ has conducted numerous high-profile press conferences accusing people of terror-related offenses, only to be prevented from bringing these charges in court because torture had been used to extract confessions from the targets. Evidence obtained through torture is not admissible as evidence in a U.S. court. The Padilla case is an example.
The DOJ has also used the “material witness” charge to keep people in custody. For example, Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, was held for two weeks on suspicion of being a participant in the Madrid train bombing. He was released after the FBI acknowledged it was wrong when it identified a fingerprint on a backpack found in near the crime scene as Mayfield’s. He is suing the Justice Department.
Whistleblowers and people who claim to be have been victims of “extreme rendition” – being forcibly taken by U.S. authorities to be detained by countries known to inflict torture on prisoners – have been prevented from bringing their cases to U.S. courts through a variety of legal maneuvers by the DOJ.
For example, the Bush Administration has successfully invoked the “State Secrets” defense to head off suits against the government, claiming that U.S. national security would be compromised if plaintiffs’ evidence were to be made public in court.
The best known of these cases involved Sibel Edmonds, an FBI contract linguist, who was fired after she accused the Bureau of criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, and prevented from suing through invocation of the “State Secrets” defense by the Government.
The Government’s prosecution of suspected terrorists has also yielded some quirky results. Perhaps the quirkiest is the case of Dr. Steve Kurtz, an art professor at the University of Buffalo in New York State. After finding laboratory equipment and a vial of bacteria in his home, government officials including New York Governor George Pataki denounced Kurtz as a bio-terrorist. As the case folded, it was revealed that Kurtz was using the equipment for an art installation. He was charged not with a terror-related crime but with mail fraud for ordering the bacteria from a fellow professor, who was also charged. Public health authorities in Buffalo determined that the bacteria were harmless. The case is still pending.
Amidst charges that President Bush and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are inflating the number of criminal prosecutions for terrorism, five cases shed light on the administration’s mixed record of convictions during 2005.
In a Florida case, officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) falsified documents in an effort to cover repeated missteps and then retaliated against an agent who first complained about the problems.
After being held for more than three years in U.S. military custody, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago and labeled an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, was charged conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals and providing “material support” to terrorists – but not with the charges he had been originally accused of: plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States and to blow up apartment buildings using natural gas lines.
The case against the so-called "Detroit sleeper cell" – once hailed as a significant Justice Department triumph in the “Global War on Terror”-- was dismissed after a jury convicted two men of supporting terrorism. Now a federal grand jury in Detroit is investigating whether the lead prosecutor, Richard Convertino, should be indicted for hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense, including altering dates on three FBI forms using correction fluid to conceal an apparent violation of federal wiretap law.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 24, a U.S. citizen held in a Saudi Arabian jail for 20 months allegedly at the behest of the U.S., was convicted in Virginia of conspiracy to assassinate the president, conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy and contributing services to al-Qaida. He faces up to life in prison. Abu Ali claimed that he was tortured into a false confession by Saudi authorities, but the jury rejected that charge.
A former Florida professor, Sami Al-Arian, 47, accused of helping to lead a terrorist group that has carried out suicide bombings against Israel, was acquitted on nearly half the charges against him and the jury deadlocked on the rest including charges he aided terrorists. The case was seen as one of the biggest courtroom tests yet of the Patriot Act's expanded search-and-surveillance powers.
These cases provide context for assertions by President Bush, his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, and many other senior administration officials, that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."
But, according to an analysis of the DOJ’s own records by the Washington Post, the numbers are misleading. The paper claimed that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied – have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security”.
“Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism”, the analysis shows. “For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.”
Said The Post, “Taken as a whole, the data indicate that the government's effort to identify terrorists in the United States has been less successful than authorities have often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the contention that
authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists here. Except for a small number of well-known cases -- such as truck driver Lyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge -- few of those arrested appear to have been involved in active plots inside the United States.”
It added, “Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them”.
Bush Administration officials have not denied the accuracy of The Post’s analysis.
The DOJ’s campaign to round up and detain alleged terrorists began under then Attorney General John Ashcroft almost immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. During that period, large numbers of people -- primarily Arabs and other Muslims as well as South Asians – were arrested by the DOJ and held without charges or lawyers in jails run by immigration agencies.
No one caught up in this dragnet was ever accused of any terror-related crime. Some were released, often after being held incommunicado for months. Some claimed to have been beaten or otherwise mistreated. Most were deported for immigration violations – not a criminal offense under U.S. law.
David Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and author of "Enemy Aliens," asserts that the "centerpiece of the domestic war on terrorism has been preventive detention."
"In the first seven weeks after Sept. 11, the DOJ admitted to detaining nearly 1,200 men as suspected terrorists, nearly all foreign nationals," he said.
"It subsequently adopted two anti-terrorism immigration initiatives that were aimed at men from Arab and Muslim countries on the theory that they were more likely to be terrorists. Those programs led to the detention of nearly 4,000 more people. Yet of these, not one stands convicted of any terrorist offense. The administration's record is zero for 5,000."
In a number of cases since then, the DOJ has conducted numerous high-profile press conferences accusing people of terror-related offenses, only to be prevented from bringing these charges in court because torture had been used to extract confessions from the targets. Evidence obtained through torture is not admissible as evidence in a U.S. court. The Padilla case is an example.
The DOJ has also used the “material witness” charge to keep people in custody. For example, Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, was held for two weeks on suspicion of being a participant in the Madrid train bombing. He was released after the FBI acknowledged it was wrong when it identified a fingerprint on a backpack found in near the crime scene as Mayfield’s. He is suing the Justice Department.
Whistleblowers and people who claim to be have been victims of “extreme rendition” – being forcibly taken by U.S. authorities to be detained by countries known to inflict torture on prisoners – have been prevented from bringing their cases to U.S. courts through a variety of legal maneuvers by the DOJ.
For example, the Bush Administration has successfully invoked the “State Secrets” defense to head off suits against the government, claiming that U.S. national security would be compromised if plaintiffs’ evidence were to be made public in court.
The best known of these cases involved Sibel Edmonds, an FBI contract linguist, who was fired after she accused the Bureau of criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, and prevented from suing through invocation of the “State Secrets” defense by the Government.
The Government’s prosecution of suspected terrorists has also yielded some quirky results. Perhaps the quirkiest is the case of Dr. Steve Kurtz, an art professor at the University of Buffalo in New York State. After finding laboratory equipment and a vial of bacteria in his home, government officials including New York Governor George Pataki denounced Kurtz as a bio-terrorist. As the case folded, it was revealed that Kurtz was using the equipment for an art installation. He was charged not with a terror-related crime but with mail fraud for ordering the bacteria from a fellow professor, who was also charged. Public health authorities in Buffalo determined that the bacteria were harmless. The case is still pending.
Monday, December 05, 2005
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF FAKE NEWS
By William Fisher
Congressional leaders who have often touted Iraq’s new ‘free press’ as a sign of progress in that troubled country were angered by the Pentagon’s admission last week that it has been planting and paying for Iraqi newspapers to publish ‘good news stories’ written by the military and ‘placed’ in Iraqi media by a Washington-based public relations firm.
In a briefing for the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia, the military acknowledged that news articles written by American troops had been placed as paid advertisements in the Iraqi news media and not always properly identified.
Warner told reporters after receiving a briefing from officials at the Pentagon that senior commanders in Iraq were trying to get to the bottom of a program that apparently also paid monthly stipends to friendly Iraqi journalists.
Mr. Warner said there had been no indications yet that the paid propaganda
had been false. But he said that disclosures that an American company, under
contract to the Pentagon, was making secret payments to plant articles with
positive messages about the United States military mission could undermine
the Bush administration's goals in Iraq and jeopardize Iraq's developing
democratic institutions. "I remain gravely concerned about the situation,"
he said.
He said he had been told that the articles or advertisements were intended to
counter disinformation in the Iraqi news media that was hurting the American
military's efforts to stabilize the country.
The story of the Pentagon’s latest PR efforts was revealed last week by the Los Angeles Times. It said that many of the articles were presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
The Times reported that while the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year, the newspaper wrote.
The articles are received from the military and translated into Arabic and then placed with Iraqi media, both print and broadcast, by the Lincoln Group, a Washington D.C.-based public relations firm which is under contract to the Pentagon. Lincoln’s website boasts of its extensive network of relationships with Iraqi journalists.
The Lincoln Group defended its practices, saying it had been trying to counter insurgent propaganda with accounts of heroism by allied forces. "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq," Laurie Adler, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Administration and Congressional officials have often emphasized the importance the U.S. places on development of a Western-style free media. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein.
The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.
The administration isn't alone in pointing to the "free" media as evidence of things going well in Iraq. In a November 10 speech, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona touted Iraq's "truly free press".
But Congressional Democrats said the Lincoln Group’s activities were the latest
example of questionable public relations practices by the administration. In an
earlier case, payments were made to columnists, among them conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who secretly received $240,000 for promoting “No Child Left Behind”, the administration's education initiative.
"From Armstrong Williams to fake TV news, we know this White House has tried
multiple times to buy the news at home," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the
Democratic leader, said. "Now, we need to find out if they've exported this practice to the Middle East."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called on the acting Pentagon inspector general to investigate the Lincoln Group's activities to see if they amounted to an illegal covert operation.
“The Pentagon's devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap," Kennedy said. "If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) recently returned from a trip to Iraq and wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal in which he pointed to Iraq's "independent television stations and newspapers" as evidence of the "remarkable changes" there.
“I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.”
In coordination with President Bush’s speech last week at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, the administration published a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". Among its claims: "A professional and informative Iraqi news media has taken root…More than 100 newspapers freely discuss political events every day in Iraq.”
A military spokesman in Iraq said contractors like the Lincoln Group had been used to market the articles to reduce the risk to Iraqi publishers, who might be attacked if they were seen as being closely linked to the military.
Larry Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said General Vines and his staff in
Iraq insisted that their activities with Lincoln had been "in accordance with all policies and guidelines."
But Martin Kaplan, Associate Dean at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and director if its Norman Lear Center, told me, “Anyone who recalls the good-news propaganda than ran in the state-run communist press even as the Soviet Union was collapsing will find what the Bush Administration is doing in Iraq creepy. It sends a deeply troubling message about what they think democracy is. But given their demonization of dissent in the United States, it sadly comes as no surprise.”
And National Security Advisor Steven Hadley said on Sunday that if the payola allegations are found to be true, it was bad policy and should be discontinued.
Iraqi journalists and their representative organizations have also objected to the practice.
This is not the first time the Pentagon’s PR efforts have come under scrutiny.
In 2004, the agency found itself engaged in bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad.
The issue was whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official program that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. One of the problems with such programs is that in a world wired by satellite television and the Internet, American news outlets could easily repeat misleading information.
Earlier, Secretary Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.
Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon.
.
Congressional leaders who have often touted Iraq’s new ‘free press’ as a sign of progress in that troubled country were angered by the Pentagon’s admission last week that it has been planting and paying for Iraqi newspapers to publish ‘good news stories’ written by the military and ‘placed’ in Iraqi media by a Washington-based public relations firm.
In a briefing for the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia, the military acknowledged that news articles written by American troops had been placed as paid advertisements in the Iraqi news media and not always properly identified.
Warner told reporters after receiving a briefing from officials at the Pentagon that senior commanders in Iraq were trying to get to the bottom of a program that apparently also paid monthly stipends to friendly Iraqi journalists.
Mr. Warner said there had been no indications yet that the paid propaganda
had been false. But he said that disclosures that an American company, under
contract to the Pentagon, was making secret payments to plant articles with
positive messages about the United States military mission could undermine
the Bush administration's goals in Iraq and jeopardize Iraq's developing
democratic institutions. "I remain gravely concerned about the situation,"
he said.
He said he had been told that the articles or advertisements were intended to
counter disinformation in the Iraqi news media that was hurting the American
military's efforts to stabilize the country.
The story of the Pentagon’s latest PR efforts was revealed last week by the Los Angeles Times. It said that many of the articles were presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
The Times reported that while the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year, the newspaper wrote.
The articles are received from the military and translated into Arabic and then placed with Iraqi media, both print and broadcast, by the Lincoln Group, a Washington D.C.-based public relations firm which is under contract to the Pentagon. Lincoln’s website boasts of its extensive network of relationships with Iraqi journalists.
The Lincoln Group defended its practices, saying it had been trying to counter insurgent propaganda with accounts of heroism by allied forces. "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq," Laurie Adler, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Administration and Congressional officials have often emphasized the importance the U.S. places on development of a Western-style free media. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein.
The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.
The administration isn't alone in pointing to the "free" media as evidence of things going well in Iraq. In a November 10 speech, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona touted Iraq's "truly free press".
But Congressional Democrats said the Lincoln Group’s activities were the latest
example of questionable public relations practices by the administration. In an
earlier case, payments were made to columnists, among them conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who secretly received $240,000 for promoting “No Child Left Behind”, the administration's education initiative.
"From Armstrong Williams to fake TV news, we know this White House has tried
multiple times to buy the news at home," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the
Democratic leader, said. "Now, we need to find out if they've exported this practice to the Middle East."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called on the acting Pentagon inspector general to investigate the Lincoln Group's activities to see if they amounted to an illegal covert operation.
“The Pentagon's devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap," Kennedy said. "If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) recently returned from a trip to Iraq and wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal in which he pointed to Iraq's "independent television stations and newspapers" as evidence of the "remarkable changes" there.
“I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.”
In coordination with President Bush’s speech last week at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, the administration published a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". Among its claims: "A professional and informative Iraqi news media has taken root…More than 100 newspapers freely discuss political events every day in Iraq.”
A military spokesman in Iraq said contractors like the Lincoln Group had been used to market the articles to reduce the risk to Iraqi publishers, who might be attacked if they were seen as being closely linked to the military.
Larry Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said General Vines and his staff in
Iraq insisted that their activities with Lincoln had been "in accordance with all policies and guidelines."
But Martin Kaplan, Associate Dean at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and director if its Norman Lear Center, told me, “Anyone who recalls the good-news propaganda than ran in the state-run communist press even as the Soviet Union was collapsing will find what the Bush Administration is doing in Iraq creepy. It sends a deeply troubling message about what they think democracy is. But given their demonization of dissent in the United States, it sadly comes as no surprise.”
And National Security Advisor Steven Hadley said on Sunday that if the payola allegations are found to be true, it was bad policy and should be discontinued.
Iraqi journalists and their representative organizations have also objected to the practice.
This is not the first time the Pentagon’s PR efforts have come under scrutiny.
In 2004, the agency found itself engaged in bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad.
The issue was whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official program that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. One of the problems with such programs is that in a world wired by satellite television and the Internet, American news outlets could easily repeat misleading information.
Earlier, Secretary Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.
Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
