By Rami G. Khouri
A look back at eventful 2005 in the Middle East shows three broad and significant developments in historical terms, related to the citizen, the state and the foreign powers that intervened in the region. Important changes are underway at all three of these levels of identity discernable today, though we need not predict where they will lead.
The most positive development has seen the citizen in many Arab countries start to rebel against the many indignities and inequities that he or she has endured in silence for decades - mostly variations of abuse of power by unelected, unaccountable elites from their own country or abroad. In Lebanon and Palestine, large-scale popular resistance and opposition were expressed, respectively, to Syrian domination and Israeli occupation.The citizenry's rebellion in other Arab lands primarily took the form of small vanguard groups of democratic activists who openly but peacefully challenged the state's monopoly on power (in Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, and Morocco), or mainstream Islamist parties that challenged the ruling elite through democratic elections to Parliament or to local councils (in Palestine, Egypt, or Lebanon).
Changes at the level of states were largely negative this year, the most troubling one being the continued fragmentation of 20th-century sovereign Arab states into much more brittle collections of ethnic, religious and tribal groups. The most common new trend I encountered throughout the 12 different Arab countries I visited this year - without exception - was the tendency to analyze each country in tribal rather than national terms. Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and most other Arab lands are now routinely seen through the prism of Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Alawites, Druze, Palestinians, Darfurians, Turkmen, and assorted Christian groups such as Maronites, Copts or Greek Orthodox.
The Arab state is in the midst of being fractured, retribalized and redefined into much smaller configurations. Three principal causes of this process would seem to be: the largely incompetent, often brutal rule practiced by the reining Sunni Arab-dominated power elites during the past half century, a clear Israeli penchant for weakening Arab states and promoting the emergence of smaller, weaker minorities with whom it can engage to its advantage (as it has done for years with Kurds in Iraq and some right-wing groups in Lebanon), and, the current American formalization of ethnic politics in Iraq as a possible model for the entire region.
This leads to the third important trend that has defined the Middle East this year, but without clear indications of whether the end results will be positive or negative for the people of the region. This is the stepped up international direct engagement in the internal affairs of countries, including Arab states, Iran and Turkey. (Sorry, a small but necessary aside: peculiarly, and running against the dominant trend, foreign intervention tends to vanish when it comes to intervening in the policies and conduct of the Israeli government, even when Israeli actions are explicitly and repeatedly condemned by the international community through respectable institutions such as the World Court and the United Nations Security Council. A thought for the cold months of early 2006: if freedom and democracy are universal values, and should be spread around the world by diplomatic muscle and occasional force, if necessary, does the same apply to the rule of law, and the state of Israel?).
The enduring exception of Israel aside, the international community's intervention inside the Middle East this year has been striking for its audacity, but imprecise in its legitimacy and consequences. I would identify four dominant patterns of such intervention.
The first was the essentially unilateral American brute use of force, with window-dressing hangers-on, as happened in Iraq. We will need more time to discover if this epic intervention proves to be valiant or catastrophic for the people of Iraq and the region. The second was the multilateral, diplomatic, patient, focused, consensus-driven UN Security Council-based approach used in Lebanon to pressure Syria after the murder of Rafik Hariri last February. A variation on this deliberate approach is also being used to engage Iran on its nuclear plans.
The third form of foreign intervention was the painstaking, step-by-step prodding of domestic institutional and legal reforms of Arab societies championed by the European Union since 1995, and more recently in a slightly more inept form by the U.S.-dominated G-8 group of industrial nations. Gains have been thin to date. The fourth, and most intriguing, intervention technique, also dominated by the U.S., was the pressure exerted on individual countries over specific issues, using a combination of public statements by American senior officials and private warnings and cajoling. The best examples of this were the quests to push forward electoral reform and expanded voting in Egypt and Kuwait. Activists in both countries say privately that Washington's pressure played an important role in pushing these two Arab systems to evolve somewhat.
The cumulative lesson from this year's three political trends, it seems, is that under certain conditions there is indeed a middle ground where Arabs and Westerners can meet and work together for common political goals. Indigenous Arab
activists and those behind external diplomatic efforts can fortify each other if they jointly define a common set of goals that respond to reasonable demands on both sides; and if they anchor the entire process of change in legal and political legitimacy, whether in the UN, in international law, or in negotiated accords.
My hunch is that the good trends of the past year, including citizen activism and small steps to democracy, tend to result from sensible cooperation between Arabs and Westerners; conversely, the bad news from Iraq, Palestine, Sudan and aspects of the Lebanese situation usually reflects the consequences of unilateralism, gangsterism, and militarism. Why Israel consistently gets a free ride from all this remains more than intriguing; it often also drives some of the resentment that translates into extremism and violence throughout this region. Some grad student in Belgium should look into this for us this year.
Happy New Year to all, especially to my fellow average Arab citizens, whose stoicism, heroism and impregnable humanity remain the defining characteristic of these troubled but valiant lands.
This aticle appeared in the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. It is reprinted with permission. Rami Khouri's work is distributed by Agence Global.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S MIXED MESSAGES
By William Fisher
Amidst undenied charges that the Pentagon is paying Iraqi journalists to write “good news” stories about the country’s progress, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has announced a new international exchange program for journalists named for famed broadcaster Edward R. Murrow and emphasizing “the democratic principles that guided Mr. Murrow's practice of his craft: integrity and ethics and courage and social responsibility”.
Rice added, “We all know that the bedrock pillar of a free society is a free press and that it is crucial for the foundation of any democracy.”
The new initiative -- The Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program -- is a partnership of the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the non-partisan Aspen Institute, and the journalism schools of six American universities. It will invite up to 100 international media professionals to visit leading journalism schools in the U.S., “honing their skills, sharing ideas, and gaining first-hand understanding of American society and democratic institutions,” the Institute said.
The goal, it said, “is not only to inform the journalists about the United States, but also to promote journalistic freedom and excellence around the world.”
Edward R. Murrow is best known for his radio reporting from London during World War Two, and later for exposing on television the demagoguery of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose communist-hunting in the 1950s led to his censure by the senate.
Unveiling the program, Secretary Rice said, “The Department of State is determined to forge partnerships with our private sector so that Americans of all stripes, all traditions, all ethnic groups and also all walks of life might be able to help to carry the story of democratic progress and the progress of liberty.”
Announcement of the new program was strangely juxtaposed with the furor surrounding recent disclosures that the Pentagon hired a contractor, a PR firm called The Lincoln Group, to pay Iraqi journalists to publish articles written by the U.S. military that put a positive spin on developments in Iraq. The published articles do not identify the U.S. military as the source.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post newspaper reported that U.S. Marines, frustrated by the coverage they were receiving from the mainstream news media, had invited a retired soldier who writes a weblog, or blog, about the military to travel to Iraq to cover the war from the front lines.
The blogger, Bill Roggio, a computer technician from New Jersey, raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor. A few weeks later, he was posting dispatches from a remote outpost in western Anbar province, a hotbed of Iraq's insurgency.
Roggio told the Washington Post in an email, "I was disenchanted with the
reporting on the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror and felt there
was much to the conflict that was missed." Roggio, who is currently stationed
with Marines along the Syrian border, said, “What is often seen as an attempt at balanced reporting results in underreporting of the military's success and strategy and an overemphasis on the strategically minor success of the jihadists
or insurgents."
After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American
Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in
Washington, offered him an affiliation. His weblog is called "The Fourth Rail" (http://www.billroggio.com).
At the same time, The Post disclosed that the U.S. military has paid to place favorable coverage on television stations in three Iraqi cities, according to an Army spokesman.
The military, he told the newspaper, has given one of the stations about $35,000 in equipment, is building a new facility for $300,000 and pays $600 a week for a weekly program that focuses positively on U.S. efforts in Iraq.
The Post said a local U.S. Army National Guard commander “acknowledged that his officers ‘suggest’ stories to the station and review the content of the program in a weekly meeting before it is aired. Though the commander, a lieutenant colonel whose name is being withheld because he is based in the same area, denied that payments were made to the station, the Iraqi television producer said his staff got $1,000 a month from the military. It does not disclose any financial
relationship to viewers.” There was no explanation of the discrepancy between
that amount and the figure of $600 per week, the Post added.
The State Department’s new international journalism program may have to confront the same issue. Geoffrey Cowan of the University of Southern California (USC) said, “Democracy cannot work without the free flow of information and ideas that is made possible through an independent and effective press.” He said, “All of our schools expect the international journalists to learn from our courses — and we all expect our students to learn from our visitors.”
In addition to USC, the journalism schools involved in the new program are the University of Kentucky, the University of Minnesota, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Texas at Austin.
As part of the Murrow program, the Institute is planning a major symposium in April featuring prominent working reporters, commentators, editors and columnists discussing practical and ethical issues inherent in the journalistic process. It will also include key government spokespeople, who will discuss the relationship between media and government. Among the themes of the symposium will be the importance of diversity of opinion, an informed public, and challenges facing journalists around the world.
But one observer sees the Iraq “payola” issue and the new Murrow program as “an example of the difference between democracy in theory and practice.” Prof. Beau Grosscup of the University of California at Chico, told IPS, “The same people who set up a program to promote 'independent journalism' are the same folks who defend funding public relations firms, conservative think tank connected jingoist individuals and embedded journalists as 'independent' media. It's all about public relations and media control. Joesph Goebbels would be proud.”
Numerous opinion polls in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have reported that people are skeptical of U.S. motives and tactics because of what they perceive is a discrepancy between what America says and what it does. The juxtaposition of Pentagon payola and journalism training in ethics and freedom of expression is likely only to muddy the water further.
Amidst undenied charges that the Pentagon is paying Iraqi journalists to write “good news” stories about the country’s progress, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has announced a new international exchange program for journalists named for famed broadcaster Edward R. Murrow and emphasizing “the democratic principles that guided Mr. Murrow's practice of his craft: integrity and ethics and courage and social responsibility”.
Rice added, “We all know that the bedrock pillar of a free society is a free press and that it is crucial for the foundation of any democracy.”
The new initiative -- The Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program -- is a partnership of the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the non-partisan Aspen Institute, and the journalism schools of six American universities. It will invite up to 100 international media professionals to visit leading journalism schools in the U.S., “honing their skills, sharing ideas, and gaining first-hand understanding of American society and democratic institutions,” the Institute said.
The goal, it said, “is not only to inform the journalists about the United States, but also to promote journalistic freedom and excellence around the world.”
Edward R. Murrow is best known for his radio reporting from London during World War Two, and later for exposing on television the demagoguery of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose communist-hunting in the 1950s led to his censure by the senate.
Unveiling the program, Secretary Rice said, “The Department of State is determined to forge partnerships with our private sector so that Americans of all stripes, all traditions, all ethnic groups and also all walks of life might be able to help to carry the story of democratic progress and the progress of liberty.”
Announcement of the new program was strangely juxtaposed with the furor surrounding recent disclosures that the Pentagon hired a contractor, a PR firm called The Lincoln Group, to pay Iraqi journalists to publish articles written by the U.S. military that put a positive spin on developments in Iraq. The published articles do not identify the U.S. military as the source.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post newspaper reported that U.S. Marines, frustrated by the coverage they were receiving from the mainstream news media, had invited a retired soldier who writes a weblog, or blog, about the military to travel to Iraq to cover the war from the front lines.
The blogger, Bill Roggio, a computer technician from New Jersey, raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor. A few weeks later, he was posting dispatches from a remote outpost in western Anbar province, a hotbed of Iraq's insurgency.
Roggio told the Washington Post in an email, "I was disenchanted with the
reporting on the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror and felt there
was much to the conflict that was missed." Roggio, who is currently stationed
with Marines along the Syrian border, said, “What is often seen as an attempt at balanced reporting results in underreporting of the military's success and strategy and an overemphasis on the strategically minor success of the jihadists
or insurgents."
After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American
Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in
Washington, offered him an affiliation. His weblog is called "The Fourth Rail" (http://www.billroggio.com).
At the same time, The Post disclosed that the U.S. military has paid to place favorable coverage on television stations in three Iraqi cities, according to an Army spokesman.
The military, he told the newspaper, has given one of the stations about $35,000 in equipment, is building a new facility for $300,000 and pays $600 a week for a weekly program that focuses positively on U.S. efforts in Iraq.
The Post said a local U.S. Army National Guard commander “acknowledged that his officers ‘suggest’ stories to the station and review the content of the program in a weekly meeting before it is aired. Though the commander, a lieutenant colonel whose name is being withheld because he is based in the same area, denied that payments were made to the station, the Iraqi television producer said his staff got $1,000 a month from the military. It does not disclose any financial
relationship to viewers.” There was no explanation of the discrepancy between
that amount and the figure of $600 per week, the Post added.
The State Department’s new international journalism program may have to confront the same issue. Geoffrey Cowan of the University of Southern California (USC) said, “Democracy cannot work without the free flow of information and ideas that is made possible through an independent and effective press.” He said, “All of our schools expect the international journalists to learn from our courses — and we all expect our students to learn from our visitors.”
In addition to USC, the journalism schools involved in the new program are the University of Kentucky, the University of Minnesota, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Texas at Austin.
As part of the Murrow program, the Institute is planning a major symposium in April featuring prominent working reporters, commentators, editors and columnists discussing practical and ethical issues inherent in the journalistic process. It will also include key government spokespeople, who will discuss the relationship between media and government. Among the themes of the symposium will be the importance of diversity of opinion, an informed public, and challenges facing journalists around the world.
But one observer sees the Iraq “payola” issue and the new Murrow program as “an example of the difference between democracy in theory and practice.” Prof. Beau Grosscup of the University of California at Chico, told IPS, “The same people who set up a program to promote 'independent journalism' are the same folks who defend funding public relations firms, conservative think tank connected jingoist individuals and embedded journalists as 'independent' media. It's all about public relations and media control. Joesph Goebbels would be proud.”
Numerous opinion polls in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have reported that people are skeptical of U.S. motives and tactics because of what they perceive is a discrepancy between what America says and what it does. The juxtaposition of Pentagon payola and journalism training in ethics and freedom of expression is likely only to muddy the water further.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
MR. NOUR AND POLITICAL REFORM IN EGYPT
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
