By William Fisher
Hooray, a win for science!
At last, there is something nice I can say about John H. Marburger III, President Bush's science advisor.
It’s about time. I have usually found myself being critical of Dr. Marburger for either being complicit or remaining silent as the Bush White House adopts anti-science policies or spins science to pander to the President’s base of right wing religious fanatics.
I have disagreed with him on issues ranging from sex education (sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy) to condom use (changing the posting on the website of the Centers for Disease Control to replace a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one emphasizing condom failure rates) to environmental protection (adding so many hedges to the climate change section of the EPA's report card on the environment that former administrator Christie Whitman deleted the section rather than publish one that was so scientifically inaccurate) to breast cancer (suggesting that women should be “counselled” about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, while there is scientific consensus that no such link exists).
But after the commander in chief put his foot in his mouth last week by telling reporters that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution, Dr. Marburger was busily doing damage control.
He told the New York Times that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."
But being a good team player, Dr. Marburger went on to say that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.
Social context? What is social context doing in a science class? Maybe in sociology, or comparative religion or anthropology, but in science classes?
I must confess to a certain sympathy for Dr. Marburger, however. I can’t think of a worse job for a scientist than trying to bring science to George W. Bush.
The reason has been clear for a long time. Science is about facts, and our President doesn’t care about facts. Ideology trumps every time – whether the subject is reproductive rights, HIV-AIDS, missile defense, prisoner abuse, social security, stem cells, or going to war.
I could almost be more forgiving if what we hear from George W. Bush was merely government spin. We’re used to that. We sort of expect it from our politicians, and we can deal with it.
What I find far more troubling is that the mythologies and half-truths coming out of the White House are what the media now politely refers to as ‘deeply held beliefs’. Like basing foreign policy on looking into President Putin’s soul!
Transparency notwithstanding, I almost think I’d prefer secrecy.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Stain on the White House
The article below appeared in The Village Voice on August 1, 2005.
By Nat Hentoff
The use of torture by our own government is a huge setback for human rights advocates and for the rule of the law around the world....Truth does not come from breaking people.
-- Douglas A. Johnson, executive director of Center for Victims of Torture, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 26, 2005.
You have a very hard job, because it is your job to put the soul back in the body.
-A client of the Center for Victims of Torture.
June 26 was the 20th anniversary of the Center for Victims of Torture, which provides technical assistance and training to more than 30 torture treatment centers in the U.S. and 15 others on five continents. The center also works for worldwide abolition of torture.
When the center was founded in 1985 in Minneapolis, there were-as its director, Douglas A. Johnson, noted on June 26-"only two other treatment centers in the world and little research to guide us. . . . What CVT has learned about [victims of government-sponsored] torture is from the survivors, who have taken the risk to trust us and tell us their stories. . . . [But] today our clients' belief in the safety and sanctity of their new home has been damaged. We are faced with our country's attempt to rewrite the rules of human rights and try to redefine torture."
On June 26, the center released letters to George W. Bush and to the Minnesota congressional delegation to further its mission to heal the wounds of torture and stop torture worldwide.
Bear in mind, before I quote from the letter, that as NYU law school's Center for Human Rights and Global Justice notes in its essential June 28 report, "Beyond Guantánamo: Transfers to Torture One Year After [the Supreme Court decision in] Rasul v. Bush," (on March 6 The New York Times reported):
"[E]xtraordinary renditions [by the CIA] have been carried out pursuant to a classified directive signed by President Bush a few days after September 11, 2001, that purports to grant the C.I.A. an 'unusually expansive authority' [to send terrorism suspects to countries known for torturing their prisoners]."
Thus, the ultimate responsibility for this country's continuous practice of torture stops at the White House. The June 26 letter to the president-drafted by the CVT for signatures-begins by directly reminding Bush, "One year ago, you marked United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture by declaring, 'America stands against and will not tolerate torture.' "
Speaking for myself, not for the CVT, George W. Bush-having authorized torture in that directive he refuses to declassify-is a whited sepulchre.
The letter urges Bush to issue an executive order to stop the CIA's "extraordinary renditions" and the repeated abuses of our prisoners in its and other interrogation centers. But since the president repeatedly, piously, insists that "we do not torture," this letter will not move him to obey American and international law on torture.
Nor will he respond to the letter's urging him "to support the creation of an independent commission with the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas to investigate all acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." (Emphasis added.)
How can George W. Bush insist on the formation of such a commission when, if it were to do its job, ultimate accountability for these crimes would ineluctably lead to the very top of the chain of command-the commander in chief?
The same demand for an independent commission is in the companion letter to Minnesota's U.S. senators and representatives. Human rights organizations have loudly and futilely called for an independent investigative commission in their messages to Congress as a whole.
So did the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (among other human rights and bar associations), on August 9, 2004. Like the Center for Victims of Torture's calls for an end to torture by American forces, the bar associations' vigorous attempt to shed sunlight on our shame-for the president's acts, however covert, are done in our name-has been almost entirely ignored by this nation's media watchdogs of our liberties.
The press itself has also been shamed more fundamentally. As the American Bar Association report emphasizes, "The American public still has not been adequately informed of the extent to which prisoners have been abused, tortured, or rendered to foreign governments which are known to abuse and torture prisoners. [We] urge the U.S. government to stop the torture and abuse of detainees, investigate violations of the law and prosecute those who committed, authorized or condoned these violations. (Emphasis added.)
But until U.S. torture is stopped and there are unadulterated prosecutions, not only will tortures continue but the other torturing nations and terrorists will snicker when they hear our president "denounce" torture while this country allows it.
Only an aroused American people-or enough of them-can force this Republican-dominated Congress to stop this shame of these United States. And for that to happen, the opposition party must use its organizing and communication resources to raise the consciousness, beyond party lines, of the citizenry.
However, although there are some deeply concerned members of Congress, the public leadership of the Democratic Party is somnolent on this issue, as it is on the administration's rewriting the rules of the Constitution.
What have you heard about torture from Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Harry Reid? The latter has even declared Alberto Gonzales qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court-the very same Gonzales who, as counsel to the president, orchestrated the "torture memos" that led to the acceleration and expansion of the American ways of torture.
How many Americans care enough to shame Congress and the one person who could stop torture right away? The man in the Oval Office.
By Nat Hentoff
The use of torture by our own government is a huge setback for human rights advocates and for the rule of the law around the world....Truth does not come from breaking people.
-- Douglas A. Johnson, executive director of Center for Victims of Torture, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 26, 2005.
You have a very hard job, because it is your job to put the soul back in the body.
-A client of the Center for Victims of Torture.
June 26 was the 20th anniversary of the Center for Victims of Torture, which provides technical assistance and training to more than 30 torture treatment centers in the U.S. and 15 others on five continents. The center also works for worldwide abolition of torture.
When the center was founded in 1985 in Minneapolis, there were-as its director, Douglas A. Johnson, noted on June 26-"only two other treatment centers in the world and little research to guide us. . . . What CVT has learned about [victims of government-sponsored] torture is from the survivors, who have taken the risk to trust us and tell us their stories. . . . [But] today our clients' belief in the safety and sanctity of their new home has been damaged. We are faced with our country's attempt to rewrite the rules of human rights and try to redefine torture."
On June 26, the center released letters to George W. Bush and to the Minnesota congressional delegation to further its mission to heal the wounds of torture and stop torture worldwide.
Bear in mind, before I quote from the letter, that as NYU law school's Center for Human Rights and Global Justice notes in its essential June 28 report, "Beyond Guantánamo: Transfers to Torture One Year After [the Supreme Court decision in] Rasul v. Bush," (on March 6 The New York Times reported):
"[E]xtraordinary renditions [by the CIA] have been carried out pursuant to a classified directive signed by President Bush a few days after September 11, 2001, that purports to grant the C.I.A. an 'unusually expansive authority' [to send terrorism suspects to countries known for torturing their prisoners]."
Thus, the ultimate responsibility for this country's continuous practice of torture stops at the White House. The June 26 letter to the president-drafted by the CVT for signatures-begins by directly reminding Bush, "One year ago, you marked United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture by declaring, 'America stands against and will not tolerate torture.' "
Speaking for myself, not for the CVT, George W. Bush-having authorized torture in that directive he refuses to declassify-is a whited sepulchre.
The letter urges Bush to issue an executive order to stop the CIA's "extraordinary renditions" and the repeated abuses of our prisoners in its and other interrogation centers. But since the president repeatedly, piously, insists that "we do not torture," this letter will not move him to obey American and international law on torture.
Nor will he respond to the letter's urging him "to support the creation of an independent commission with the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas to investigate all acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." (Emphasis added.)
How can George W. Bush insist on the formation of such a commission when, if it were to do its job, ultimate accountability for these crimes would ineluctably lead to the very top of the chain of command-the commander in chief?
The same demand for an independent commission is in the companion letter to Minnesota's U.S. senators and representatives. Human rights organizations have loudly and futilely called for an independent investigative commission in their messages to Congress as a whole.
So did the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (among other human rights and bar associations), on August 9, 2004. Like the Center for Victims of Torture's calls for an end to torture by American forces, the bar associations' vigorous attempt to shed sunlight on our shame-for the president's acts, however covert, are done in our name-has been almost entirely ignored by this nation's media watchdogs of our liberties.
The press itself has also been shamed more fundamentally. As the American Bar Association report emphasizes, "The American public still has not been adequately informed of the extent to which prisoners have been abused, tortured, or rendered to foreign governments which are known to abuse and torture prisoners. [We] urge the U.S. government to stop the torture and abuse of detainees, investigate violations of the law and prosecute those who committed, authorized or condoned these violations. (Emphasis added.)
But until U.S. torture is stopped and there are unadulterated prosecutions, not only will tortures continue but the other torturing nations and terrorists will snicker when they hear our president "denounce" torture while this country allows it.
Only an aroused American people-or enough of them-can force this Republican-dominated Congress to stop this shame of these United States. And for that to happen, the opposition party must use its organizing and communication resources to raise the consciousness, beyond party lines, of the citizenry.
However, although there are some deeply concerned members of Congress, the public leadership of the Democratic Party is somnolent on this issue, as it is on the administration's rewriting the rules of the Constitution.
What have you heard about torture from Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Harry Reid? The latter has even declared Alberto Gonzales qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court-the very same Gonzales who, as counsel to the president, orchestrated the "torture memos" that led to the acceleration and expansion of the American ways of torture.
How many Americans care enough to shame Congress and the one person who could stop torture right away? The man in the Oval Office.
The True Meaning of Zionism
Gershon Baskin is the Israeli CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information. This article was originally published in he Jerusalem Post on July 25.
By Gershon Baskin
JERUSALEM -- I made aliyah 27 years ago from New York after being very active for 10 years in the Zionist youth movement's Young Judea. I grew up with a pluralistic attitude toward Jewish life in Israel. While I am not religious, I was taught and I taught others to have respect for religious beliefs and for religious people.
During the past years a gulf has opened up between Orthodox and nonreligious people in this state. Until recently I thought we could find an accommodation of peaceful coexistence. I am not so sure about that today.
I always believed that the true fulfillment of the Zionist dream required Israel to find the way to live with its neighbors. The Zionist dream was to create a safe haven for Jews from all over. This, by definition, means that Israel must provide shelter and security for Jews.
Political Zionism always found a way to advance the cause by being practical. But Zionism got sidetracked by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Zionism was not about conflict with our neighbors. It was about creating a just, progressive and humane society based on "Jewish values" for Jews to live and prosper, both in spirit and in substance. Real Zionism accepted the reality that non-Jews would always live within our midst. This was expressed with both eloquence and finesse in Israel's Declaration of Independence. That Declaration has always served, for me, as a kind of statement of intent and of the values upon which this state and this society rests, or should rest.
Zionism is not about occupying the West Bank and Gaza. The continuation of the settlement enterprise is an act of suicide for the Zionist dream. It is not only about demographics. It is perhaps even more so about values, morality and lessons that we, as Jews, should understand better than anyone else.
The disengagement from Gaza is a Zionist act. Ending our occupation and domination over Gaza and its people is an action aimed at saving Zionism from those who have tainted the noble aspects of its cause since 1967. The Zionist dream is still in danger and the Zionist enterprise is at risk as long as we continue our occupation and domination over the West Bank and its people. The march out of the
occupied territories must continue. We must return to ourselves and build Israel from within.
The future appears ominous. Over the past months I have watched the streets of Israel and, in particular Jerusalem, turn orange. As the streets, the trees and the fashion has adopted this new symbol I have found myself confronted with the very strong visual image of a people I do not recognize.
How could these people - with their messianic vision and value system that justifies treating the "other" as less equal than Jews - and I be part of the same nation? We have the same roots, we share a common heritage, we come from the same places, yet there has been a split; for some time they and their kind have been very different from me and my kind.
I received a bumper sticker in my e-mail this week. It was two Israeli flags, one in orange and white and the other in blue and white. It said beneath the flags: "Israel -two states for two peoples."
That is a pretty good expression of my feelings toward the settlers and their supporters. We do not share values. We do not share a common view on the nature of this country or what it has to do to save itself.
Their ideology says, "Jews don't expel Jews", implying that Jews may expel non-Jews. They believe that they can subjugate the Palestinians and that the Palestinians will thank them for providing them with bread and water. Their sense of superiority disgusts me and raises questions about how we can live together.
I recognize that they are not all the same; that even within the orange world there are many shades. But the worldview, conduct and ethics of the settlers are different from mine. We both claim that our behavior is based on Jewish values, but our interpretation of what these values are, are as different as night and day.
The disengagement from Gaza is a victory for me and my kind. It is not yet a done deal, though. There may be those in the orange camp willing to use violence or provoke acts that could freeze the disengagement. Blowing up the mosques on the Temple Mount or a terrorist attack against Palestinians could provoke a new wave of
Islamic terror that could lead to halting the withdrawal from Gaza.
As their desperation grows the chances of a cataclysmic type of event-taking place increases. There are those whose motivations are so irrational that taking human lives for their cause is as easy as killing a mosquito. The toxic mixture of messianic lunatics aligned with political fanatics is explosive. If they represent Zionism and Zionist values then I am not a Zionist and my dream is not the Zionist dream.
But what I believe and want for Israel and the Jewish people is the fulfillment of the vision of the Declaration of Independence.
I want to be a free people in my nation living in peace with my neighbors both within and along our borders. I cherish diversity and appreciate the wealth of cultural pluralism that we can experience in this land and in this region. I don't want to rule over another nation and don't want their land. If important parts of my heritage and history are on the other side beyond our borders, I might want to visit them. But I don't have to be in possession of those places or rule over others in order to control them.
Many of those holy places are also holy for others who live in this land and who have other beliefs. Judaism teaches us to sanctify life, not places. The Zionist dream is a political expression of the sanctification of life. If we are worthy of living in this land we must respect all its peoples. We must recognize that our own security and prosperity is dependent on the security and prosperity of both peoples of this land. If we want dignity and respect for ourselves and our dreams, we must give dignity and respect to the others.
One day, I hope, the Israeli-Arab conflict will end. The struggle to reach that end will heighten and deepen the feeling of alienation between the two Jewish peoples of this state. We will then have to confront how we live together in peace and mutual respect.
Right now it seems like an impossible dream; right now it feels like a nightmare.
By Gershon Baskin
JERUSALEM -- I made aliyah 27 years ago from New York after being very active for 10 years in the Zionist youth movement's Young Judea. I grew up with a pluralistic attitude toward Jewish life in Israel. While I am not religious, I was taught and I taught others to have respect for religious beliefs and for religious people.
During the past years a gulf has opened up between Orthodox and nonreligious people in this state. Until recently I thought we could find an accommodation of peaceful coexistence. I am not so sure about that today.
I always believed that the true fulfillment of the Zionist dream required Israel to find the way to live with its neighbors. The Zionist dream was to create a safe haven for Jews from all over. This, by definition, means that Israel must provide shelter and security for Jews.
Political Zionism always found a way to advance the cause by being practical. But Zionism got sidetracked by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Zionism was not about conflict with our neighbors. It was about creating a just, progressive and humane society based on "Jewish values" for Jews to live and prosper, both in spirit and in substance. Real Zionism accepted the reality that non-Jews would always live within our midst. This was expressed with both eloquence and finesse in Israel's Declaration of Independence. That Declaration has always served, for me, as a kind of statement of intent and of the values upon which this state and this society rests, or should rest.
Zionism is not about occupying the West Bank and Gaza. The continuation of the settlement enterprise is an act of suicide for the Zionist dream. It is not only about demographics. It is perhaps even more so about values, morality and lessons that we, as Jews, should understand better than anyone else.
The disengagement from Gaza is a Zionist act. Ending our occupation and domination over Gaza and its people is an action aimed at saving Zionism from those who have tainted the noble aspects of its cause since 1967. The Zionist dream is still in danger and the Zionist enterprise is at risk as long as we continue our occupation and domination over the West Bank and its people. The march out of the
occupied territories must continue. We must return to ourselves and build Israel from within.
The future appears ominous. Over the past months I have watched the streets of Israel and, in particular Jerusalem, turn orange. As the streets, the trees and the fashion has adopted this new symbol I have found myself confronted with the very strong visual image of a people I do not recognize.
How could these people - with their messianic vision and value system that justifies treating the "other" as less equal than Jews - and I be part of the same nation? We have the same roots, we share a common heritage, we come from the same places, yet there has been a split; for some time they and their kind have been very different from me and my kind.
I received a bumper sticker in my e-mail this week. It was two Israeli flags, one in orange and white and the other in blue and white. It said beneath the flags: "Israel -two states for two peoples."
That is a pretty good expression of my feelings toward the settlers and their supporters. We do not share values. We do not share a common view on the nature of this country or what it has to do to save itself.
Their ideology says, "Jews don't expel Jews", implying that Jews may expel non-Jews. They believe that they can subjugate the Palestinians and that the Palestinians will thank them for providing them with bread and water. Their sense of superiority disgusts me and raises questions about how we can live together.
I recognize that they are not all the same; that even within the orange world there are many shades. But the worldview, conduct and ethics of the settlers are different from mine. We both claim that our behavior is based on Jewish values, but our interpretation of what these values are, are as different as night and day.
The disengagement from Gaza is a victory for me and my kind. It is not yet a done deal, though. There may be those in the orange camp willing to use violence or provoke acts that could freeze the disengagement. Blowing up the mosques on the Temple Mount or a terrorist attack against Palestinians could provoke a new wave of
Islamic terror that could lead to halting the withdrawal from Gaza.
As their desperation grows the chances of a cataclysmic type of event-taking place increases. There are those whose motivations are so irrational that taking human lives for their cause is as easy as killing a mosquito. The toxic mixture of messianic lunatics aligned with political fanatics is explosive. If they represent Zionism and Zionist values then I am not a Zionist and my dream is not the Zionist dream.
But what I believe and want for Israel and the Jewish people is the fulfillment of the vision of the Declaration of Independence.
I want to be a free people in my nation living in peace with my neighbors both within and along our borders. I cherish diversity and appreciate the wealth of cultural pluralism that we can experience in this land and in this region. I don't want to rule over another nation and don't want their land. If important parts of my heritage and history are on the other side beyond our borders, I might want to visit them. But I don't have to be in possession of those places or rule over others in order to control them.
Many of those holy places are also holy for others who live in this land and who have other beliefs. Judaism teaches us to sanctify life, not places. The Zionist dream is a political expression of the sanctification of life. If we are worthy of living in this land we must respect all its peoples. We must recognize that our own security and prosperity is dependent on the security and prosperity of both peoples of this land. If we want dignity and respect for ourselves and our dreams, we must give dignity and respect to the others.
One day, I hope, the Israeli-Arab conflict will end. The struggle to reach that end will heighten and deepen the feeling of alienation between the two Jewish peoples of this state. We will then have to confront how we live together in peace and mutual respect.
Right now it seems like an impossible dream; right now it feels like a nightmare.
George Bush Knows Why They Hate Us
By Jason Miller
Why do they hate us? President George Bush posed this question to the American public shortly after 9/11. It is a strong affirmation of the power of propaganda that some Americans still pose this as a serious question, and are legitimately dumb-founded that such antipathy exists toward the United States. Our government, media and schools start burnishing the false notion of American moral superiority into our brains at a very young age. However, beneath the thin veneer of their white-washed accounts of history and current events, abundant sources of information reveal the true malevolence of the moneyed elite who rule America. There is a great body of evidence which obliterates the inane notion that the United States is a benevolent world leader. Despite the ready availability of contrary evidence, many Americans remain blind to the truth about our despised nation, and choose to believe the fairy tale version of “truth, justice and the American Way”. The sad reality is that America is an imperialistic, avaricious war machine ruled by the wealthy. Yes, much of the world despises this nation. Our leaders have virtually assured abhorrence of America, and what’s more, they do not care!
Hubris, avarice, over-consumption….what's not to love?
America’s Corporatacracy is leading the human race down a path of global extinction. Representing only 5% of the world population, the United States consumes 25% of the world's energy and possesses approximately 27% of its wealth. Through lobbying efforts and major campaign donations, the major oil companies ensure the implementation of government policies that ensure continued dependence on fossil fuels, a non-renewable resource (for more on this, study the theory of Hubbert Peak theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). Despite being a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect, the US Plutocracy has spent millions of dollars to create junk science (look to efforts by the Cato Institute) to "debunk" the notion of global warming, and has refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty. The United States innovated, tested (on hundreds of thousands of human beings), and possesses devastating nuclear weapons. Yet with blatant hubris and hypocrisy, our ruling Oligarchs attempt to dictate which nations can and cannot develop nuclear capabilities. America’s allies, like Pakistan, India, and Israel have developed nuclear weaponry with America's blessing, while countries like Iran are forbidden to even acquire the technology to generate nuclear power. The ruling Aristocracy of the United States has long exhibited a flagrant disregard for international law, world opinion, and most recently, for the United Nations (consider the appointment of John Bolton as America’s UN "ambassador").
While the rest of the world has many reasons to hate the United States, perhaps their most compelling motivation is the mayhem, abject poverty, and murder resulting from the imperialistic endeavors of the US military industrial complex, which includes the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy; the intelligence community; and the myriad private corporations which have incestuous relationships with the government (i.e. Halliburton). Spending $500 billion per year on the perpetuation of the world's largest and mightiest war machine, the US (with a mere 5% of the world's population) accounts for half of the world's military spending. Regardless of which half of the Democratic/Republican Duopoly has been in power, the ruling elite has perpetuated domination of the rest of the world through direct military intervention (think Iraq), economic warfare (i.e. the persistent yet failed policies toward Cuba), and overt or covert support of ruthless totalitarian regimes which advance the interests of US corporations (i.e. the Shah of Iran).
Not as free as we are taught we are, but still freer than most….in spite of them
Despite the ruthless devotion of our aristocratic leaders to unrestrained capitalism, the perpetuation of a majority of the wealth remaining in the hands of the few (the wealthiest 20% of Americans possess 83% of our nation's vast wealth), and the reduction of the civil liberties of "commoners", the brilliant Constitution drafted by our forefathers has maintained a semblance of a liberal democracy in the United States. The fact that I am writing this essay for publication is a testament to that fact. However, before celebrating too hard, remember that throughout American history there has been an ebb and flow of social justice, and the tide is clearly ebbing. Need evidence? Consider the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the declaration of a perpetual state of war on terror (increasing the authority of the federal government), higher regressive taxes, lower progressive taxes, a growing concentration of political power in the hands of legalistic Christians (the Religious Right), legislated discrimination against gays, an erosion of affirmative action, and a significant decline in funding for social safety net programs (i.e. Medicaid) coupled with increases in defense spending. As Americans, we still enjoy many of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but we enjoy them in spite of the true nature and intent of our leaders. We are taught and programmed to believe that we enjoy these freedoms because of the imperialistic endeavors of our elite leaders (like the "War to End All Wars"), which "keep the world safe for democracy". The reality is that Americans remain free because of the ongoing vigilance of many amongst us, and to some extent because allowing a degree of freedom amongst their own subjects enables the American ruling class to engage in aggression against other nations under the pretext of "spreading freedom and democracy".
Like Capra’s Potter, these “warped frustrated old men” view people as cattle….
The American ruling elite's ultimate goal of global domination precedes the well-being of its subjects. In fact, to the US aristocracy, the poor, working class, and diminishing middle class are disposable cogs in their monolithic money-making machine. They understand that they are endangering the American people by continuing to foster hatred and inspire terrorism, but it is of little consequence to them.
Concerning America’s current leadership, Noam Chomsky wrote:
For the political leadership, mostly recycled from more reactionary sectors of the Reagan–Bush I administrations, “the global wave of hatred” is not a particular problem. They want to be feared, not loved. They understand as well as their establishment critics that their actions increase the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terror. But that too is not a major problem. Higher on the scale of priorities are the goals of establishing global hegemony and implementing their domestic agenda: dismantling the progressive achievements that have been won by popular struggle over the past century and institutionalizing these radical changes so that recovering them will be no easy task.
While both parties of the bloated, corrupt Duopoly ruling the United States are guilty of blatant violations of international law and crimes against humanity throughout history, the current administration has operated more brazenly and with more impunity. Kennedy had Cuba. Johnson and Nixon shared the culpability for the deaths of over 3 million in Vietnam. Reagan bloodied his hands in Nicaragua. Clinton's bombing campaign killed thousands of innocents in Kosovo. Yet somehow, these presidents managed to maintain the United States' image of an aloof and perhaps even benevolent super-power. America's current administration has not maintained this facade nearly as well, and has led the United States down a path entailing a much more blatant disregard and disrespect for international law and the rights of other nations. There are numerous historical examples of the immoral, illegal, and repulsive US imperial dominance of other nations achieved through a variety of means, perhaps the most inclusive, perpetual, instructive, and relevant example is that of Iraq. Recognizing a nation rife with political instabilities and virtually incalculable riches through its oil reserves, the US Plutocracy has been targeting Iraq for years. Bush II finally bagged it, but got more than he bargained for in the process.
Today, staunch ally….tomorrow, sworn enemy
One of the most disturbing aspects of US involvement in Iraq has been our government’s schizophrenic relationship with Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld, an influential member of the Reagan, Bush I and now Bush II administrations made the following statements that demonstrate the gross inconsistency of the US Oligarchy’s position on Saddam and Iraq (explained by their shifting loyalties based on their shifting needs for more money and power rather than a commitment to their self-proclaimed Higher Purpose of spreading freedom):
"As with all sovereign nations, we respect Iraq's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity."
- Donald Rumsfeld, 1983
"This is a regime that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people."
-- Donald Rumsfeld March 21, 2003
In 1979, the year of the Iranian hostage crisis, Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq as a member of the ruling Ba'ath party, which the CIA had propelled to power in 1963. The following year, Iraq invaded Iran and the eight year Iran-Iraq war ensued. The cost was one million lives. Before Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency in 1981, the Carter administration had listed Iraq as a nation which sponsored terrorism. Despite this, and despite the knowledge within the US intelligence community that Iraq had been building an arsenal of chemical weapons (WMDs) since the mid 1970's, Reagan began supporting Iraq and Hussein in the war against Iran. Under Reagan, Iraq was no longer an "official" sponsor of terrorism and quickly became a clandestine strategic ally of the United States, with full eligibility for American economic and military aid waiting in the wings. The US started funneling weaponry to support Hussein’s' war effort through third parties like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and by 1983 was selling conventional arms directly to Iraq.
In 1983, US envoy Donald Rumsfeld paid a personal visit to Hussein and restored diplomatic relations, which had been cut during the 1967 Arab-Israel War. America’s rulers resumed relations with Iraq despite their knowledge that Hussein had used chemical weapons against Iran only a few months before. They also knew that Hussein was building manufacturing facilities to produce more WMDs. Rumsfeld, one of the strongest advocates of the removal of Hussein from power under Bush II, was a strong proponent of the relationship with Hussein under Reagan. By 1984, both the US State Department and European doctors had confirmed that Iraq was using nerve gas against Iranians. After digesting this information, the US Aristocracy decided to initiate a program which forgave $5 billion worth of agricultural loans to Iraq between 1983 and 1990, freeing up more cash for Hussein to fund his war machine.
Hussein's relationship with the United States came into full bloom in 1985. Protecting the flow of US weapons and money to Saddam, the Reagan administration pressured a member of Congress to drop a proposed resolution that would have reclassified Iraq as a supporter of terrorism. The US Commerce Department began a five year pattern of approving sales of US computers to Iraq for use in weapons labs. 1985 marked the advent of the Reagan administration supplying Hussein with biological weapon precursors like botulism and anthrax. By 1988, the US had made 70 shipments of these precursors to fuel Saddam’s WMD program.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the hypocrisy of the US Oligarchs in Iraq occurred in 1988. In March, Hussein launched a poisonous gas attack and killed 5,000 Kurds in the Iraqi town of Halabja. In July, one of the Corporatacracy's own, Bechtel (Secretary of State George Shultz’s' company), won a contract to build a petrochemical plant, which Hussein could use to manufacture more WMDs. Besides continuing to support Iraq and to enable its corporate darlings (like Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, and DuPont) to profiteer from the war, the Reagan administration crushed a Congressional attempt to sanction Hussein for committing genocide against Iraqi Kurds.
Fall from grace
Saddam Hussein committed political suicide in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. With the Iran-Iraq conflict over, our ruling elite no longer needed Hussein. Having the chutzpah to violate international law, which America's leaders hold to be sacrosanct when it suits their purposes, Hussein gave the US a justification for starting a war with him. The Gulf War served several purposes for the US Aristocracy. It enabled them to flex their military might as the Soviet Union, the world's other super-power, was collapsing. The victory over Saddam erased the American public’s memory of the embarrassing defeat in Vietnam. Most importantly, it enabled the Plutocracy to reap the bountiful harvest of corporate profits fueled by a war. America’s ruling elite class knows the true bounties of war, particularly if the opponent is relatively weak and hapless.
Estimates vary widely, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died during the Gulf War and the period of harsh economic sanctions which followed. On August 6, 1990 (shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait), the United Nations Security Council, led by the United States, imposed "comprehensive" economic sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions remained in place after the US-led coalition forces drove Hussein from Kuwait a year later. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most highly developed countries in the Middle East, offering a majority of its people electricity, potable water, free education, sewage treatment, and according to the World Health Organization, access to health care. Since the UN originated the use of economic sanctions in 1945, Iraq was the first (and only) nation to suffer under comprehensive sanctions, in which the UN controls virtually all of the exports and imports of a nation. The US, as the most powerful member of the UN Security Council, was instrumental in delaying or choking off imports of food, medicine, and other necessities. Again, estimates vary, but anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the economic sanctions. The mortality rate for children under five tripled between 1989 and 1997. From 1990 to 1995, the infant mortality rate doubled. Safe drinking water availability was down 50% from pre-Gulf War levels. Malaria and other diseases became epidemics. School enrollment for Iraqis from ages 6-23 dropped by 53%. While some of the statistics and numbers are subject to debate, what is indisputable is that the severe economic sanctions (spear-headed by the United States) resulted in suffering, misery and death for many innocent civilians, while Saddam Hussein, the target of America's wrath, continued to prosper.
It is worthwhile to note that while Iraqis were suffering under brutal economic sanctions driven by the US, Dick Cheney (a poster child for America's ruling Plutocracy) was the CEO of Halliburton Corporation (from 1995 to 2000), and was prospering nicely. When he left to become Vice President, they bestowed him with a parting gift of $34 million. The Washington Post reported that during Cheney's tenure as CEO, Halliburton sold $73 million worth of services and equipment to Iraq to rebuild its oil infrastructure. Cheney, a true capitalist, was not about to let Hussein’s enemy status stand in his way of making a profit.
The business of America WAS business….now it is war
When Bush II assumed office in 2000, US leadership took its obsession with Hussein and Iraq to a new level. Surrounding himself with men like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, three Neocons who were veterans of the reign of Bush I, Bush crafted the "Bush Doctrine". Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States proclaimed its indisputable right to engage in pre-emptive war against those they deemed to be terrorists or rogue states, and asserted the US right to act unilaterally (without regard for international law or the UN). Two other aspects of this hubristic, bellicose, machismo-driven set of principles included the US intent to keep its "military strengths beyond challenge" and the US objective that it would actively seek to promote "democracy and freedom in all regions of the world". The members of America’s military industrial complex were elated. America was (and still is) the largest war machine in the history of humanity. To ice their cake, the profit hungry Capitalists now had publicly-stated policy that its government partners were going to “unleash the beast” on the world. After seeing the "democracy and freedom" the US Oligarchy helped perpetuate in Iraq when Hussein was our ally (not to mention numerous similar examples in Latin America), do Americans really need to ask why many in the world hate us?
Lies and consequences…..
The weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had created with materials supplied by the US under the Reagan administration had been destroyed or rendered harmless under UN supervision by 1996. However, for over a year prior to the March, 2003 invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq, the Aristocracy governing America bombarded the “commoners” with a stream of propaganda designed to prey on fears fostered by 9/11. With little to support their pathetically flimsy arguments that Saddam Hussein (their own creation and former ally) had somehow amassed a cache of WMDs after his disarmament in 1996, and that Hussein (a secular leader) had formed close ties with Osama bin Laden (a radical Muslim), they utilized the power of the herd mentality to gain popular support for the war they craved. Growing bodies of evidence, including the absence of WMDs in US-occupied Iraq, the findings of the 9/11 Commission, and the Downing Street Memos, indicate that the US Oligarchs lied to Congress and to the American people to garner support to launch their war (in defiance of the UN).
As of 8/4/05, 1,827 US soldiers had died in combat and 13,559 had been wounded. Estimates of civilian casualties caused by the US invasion vary from 25,000 to the 100,000 reported in the reputable British medical journal, The Lancet. Discrepancies aside, an obscene number of innocents have been slaughtered. Human Rights Watch notes that a significant number of the civilian casualties resulted from the decision of the US military to use cluster munitions in highly populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian laws of war. These laws oblige armed forces to "refrain from attacks that are indiscriminate or where expected civilian harm exceeds the military gain." America entered the war in defiance of the UN and riding on Congressional and public support based on the lies of the Bush Administration. Thousands and thousands of people have died. They have wasted billions of dollars. American leaders have defied international law by using cluster munitions and torturing prisoners of war. What was that question again? Why do they hate us?
Get on the gravy train……
Now that the military industrial complex has torn Iraqi infrastructure down, someone will need to rebuild it. Who could possibly be up to such a task? With an estimated price tag of over $100 billion to rebuild post-war Iraq, the Corporatacracy is lining up for the contracts. Bechtel was at the head of the line as they received a $680 million contract in April of 2003. As Dick Cheney continues to receive deferred compensation from Halliburton at the rate of $1 million per year, Halliburton's subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root secured a 10 year contract (with an open-ended budget) to provide support services to the US military starting in 2001, and is heavily exercising that contract in Iraq. The US government paid KBR $3.6 billion in 2003 and $5.4 billion in 2004 for Iraq-related work. As the number two US contractor in Iraq, Bechtel's war-related revenue was over $4 billion in 2004. Halliburton is under investigation for charges of over-billing to the tune of $1 billion, while Bechtel has been plagued by problems related to shoddy work. While flag waving propaganda may fool some Americans into believing the war in Iraq is "making the world safe for democracy", many in the rest of the world see the profit motive that has led to so much human suffering. I cannot imagine what could possibly motivate detestation of the Red, White, Blue, and Green(backs).
Terrorist acts and acts of military aggression are morally repugnant. Those committing these crimes deserve to face justice. Regrettably, as evidenced by the poignant example of Iraq, the leaders of the United States have been committing war crimes and acts of terrorism for years without consequence. While the US has rendered justice upon its attackers throughout its tenure as the world’s superpower (and has rendered a grossly misplaced justice on the “terrorists” by invading Iraq), the rest of the world has had little choice but to turn the other cheek when it comes to the profiteering, imperialism, and state-sponsored terrorism perpetrated by America’s Oligarchy. Acting with impunity and arrogance, America’s leaders have an unprecedented military might at their disposal, possess a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to destroy the world thousands of times over, ignore international law but impose it on others, use the UN to inflict damage on other nations but openly defy its rules, hoard the world’s riches and resources, defile the Earth which sustains us, support ruthless dictators, and employ terrorism through the CIA. George Bush knows why they hate us, and he likes it……
Why do they hate us? President George Bush posed this question to the American public shortly after 9/11. It is a strong affirmation of the power of propaganda that some Americans still pose this as a serious question, and are legitimately dumb-founded that such antipathy exists toward the United States. Our government, media and schools start burnishing the false notion of American moral superiority into our brains at a very young age. However, beneath the thin veneer of their white-washed accounts of history and current events, abundant sources of information reveal the true malevolence of the moneyed elite who rule America. There is a great body of evidence which obliterates the inane notion that the United States is a benevolent world leader. Despite the ready availability of contrary evidence, many Americans remain blind to the truth about our despised nation, and choose to believe the fairy tale version of “truth, justice and the American Way”. The sad reality is that America is an imperialistic, avaricious war machine ruled by the wealthy. Yes, much of the world despises this nation. Our leaders have virtually assured abhorrence of America, and what’s more, they do not care!
Hubris, avarice, over-consumption….what's not to love?
America’s Corporatacracy is leading the human race down a path of global extinction. Representing only 5% of the world population, the United States consumes 25% of the world's energy and possesses approximately 27% of its wealth. Through lobbying efforts and major campaign donations, the major oil companies ensure the implementation of government policies that ensure continued dependence on fossil fuels, a non-renewable resource (for more on this, study the theory of Hubbert Peak theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). Despite being a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect, the US Plutocracy has spent millions of dollars to create junk science (look to efforts by the Cato Institute) to "debunk" the notion of global warming, and has refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty. The United States innovated, tested (on hundreds of thousands of human beings), and possesses devastating nuclear weapons. Yet with blatant hubris and hypocrisy, our ruling Oligarchs attempt to dictate which nations can and cannot develop nuclear capabilities. America’s allies, like Pakistan, India, and Israel have developed nuclear weaponry with America's blessing, while countries like Iran are forbidden to even acquire the technology to generate nuclear power. The ruling Aristocracy of the United States has long exhibited a flagrant disregard for international law, world opinion, and most recently, for the United Nations (consider the appointment of John Bolton as America’s UN "ambassador").
While the rest of the world has many reasons to hate the United States, perhaps their most compelling motivation is the mayhem, abject poverty, and murder resulting from the imperialistic endeavors of the US military industrial complex, which includes the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy; the intelligence community; and the myriad private corporations which have incestuous relationships with the government (i.e. Halliburton). Spending $500 billion per year on the perpetuation of the world's largest and mightiest war machine, the US (with a mere 5% of the world's population) accounts for half of the world's military spending. Regardless of which half of the Democratic/Republican Duopoly has been in power, the ruling elite has perpetuated domination of the rest of the world through direct military intervention (think Iraq), economic warfare (i.e. the persistent yet failed policies toward Cuba), and overt or covert support of ruthless totalitarian regimes which advance the interests of US corporations (i.e. the Shah of Iran).
Not as free as we are taught we are, but still freer than most….in spite of them
Despite the ruthless devotion of our aristocratic leaders to unrestrained capitalism, the perpetuation of a majority of the wealth remaining in the hands of the few (the wealthiest 20% of Americans possess 83% of our nation's vast wealth), and the reduction of the civil liberties of "commoners", the brilliant Constitution drafted by our forefathers has maintained a semblance of a liberal democracy in the United States. The fact that I am writing this essay for publication is a testament to that fact. However, before celebrating too hard, remember that throughout American history there has been an ebb and flow of social justice, and the tide is clearly ebbing. Need evidence? Consider the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the declaration of a perpetual state of war on terror (increasing the authority of the federal government), higher regressive taxes, lower progressive taxes, a growing concentration of political power in the hands of legalistic Christians (the Religious Right), legislated discrimination against gays, an erosion of affirmative action, and a significant decline in funding for social safety net programs (i.e. Medicaid) coupled with increases in defense spending. As Americans, we still enjoy many of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but we enjoy them in spite of the true nature and intent of our leaders. We are taught and programmed to believe that we enjoy these freedoms because of the imperialistic endeavors of our elite leaders (like the "War to End All Wars"), which "keep the world safe for democracy". The reality is that Americans remain free because of the ongoing vigilance of many amongst us, and to some extent because allowing a degree of freedom amongst their own subjects enables the American ruling class to engage in aggression against other nations under the pretext of "spreading freedom and democracy".
Like Capra’s Potter, these “warped frustrated old men” view people as cattle….
The American ruling elite's ultimate goal of global domination precedes the well-being of its subjects. In fact, to the US aristocracy, the poor, working class, and diminishing middle class are disposable cogs in their monolithic money-making machine. They understand that they are endangering the American people by continuing to foster hatred and inspire terrorism, but it is of little consequence to them.
Concerning America’s current leadership, Noam Chomsky wrote:
For the political leadership, mostly recycled from more reactionary sectors of the Reagan–Bush I administrations, “the global wave of hatred” is not a particular problem. They want to be feared, not loved. They understand as well as their establishment critics that their actions increase the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terror. But that too is not a major problem. Higher on the scale of priorities are the goals of establishing global hegemony and implementing their domestic agenda: dismantling the progressive achievements that have been won by popular struggle over the past century and institutionalizing these radical changes so that recovering them will be no easy task.
While both parties of the bloated, corrupt Duopoly ruling the United States are guilty of blatant violations of international law and crimes against humanity throughout history, the current administration has operated more brazenly and with more impunity. Kennedy had Cuba. Johnson and Nixon shared the culpability for the deaths of over 3 million in Vietnam. Reagan bloodied his hands in Nicaragua. Clinton's bombing campaign killed thousands of innocents in Kosovo. Yet somehow, these presidents managed to maintain the United States' image of an aloof and perhaps even benevolent super-power. America's current administration has not maintained this facade nearly as well, and has led the United States down a path entailing a much more blatant disregard and disrespect for international law and the rights of other nations. There are numerous historical examples of the immoral, illegal, and repulsive US imperial dominance of other nations achieved through a variety of means, perhaps the most inclusive, perpetual, instructive, and relevant example is that of Iraq. Recognizing a nation rife with political instabilities and virtually incalculable riches through its oil reserves, the US Plutocracy has been targeting Iraq for years. Bush II finally bagged it, but got more than he bargained for in the process.
Today, staunch ally….tomorrow, sworn enemy
One of the most disturbing aspects of US involvement in Iraq has been our government’s schizophrenic relationship with Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld, an influential member of the Reagan, Bush I and now Bush II administrations made the following statements that demonstrate the gross inconsistency of the US Oligarchy’s position on Saddam and Iraq (explained by their shifting loyalties based on their shifting needs for more money and power rather than a commitment to their self-proclaimed Higher Purpose of spreading freedom):
"As with all sovereign nations, we respect Iraq's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity."
- Donald Rumsfeld, 1983
"This is a regime that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people."
-- Donald Rumsfeld March 21, 2003
In 1979, the year of the Iranian hostage crisis, Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq as a member of the ruling Ba'ath party, which the CIA had propelled to power in 1963. The following year, Iraq invaded Iran and the eight year Iran-Iraq war ensued. The cost was one million lives. Before Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency in 1981, the Carter administration had listed Iraq as a nation which sponsored terrorism. Despite this, and despite the knowledge within the US intelligence community that Iraq had been building an arsenal of chemical weapons (WMDs) since the mid 1970's, Reagan began supporting Iraq and Hussein in the war against Iran. Under Reagan, Iraq was no longer an "official" sponsor of terrorism and quickly became a clandestine strategic ally of the United States, with full eligibility for American economic and military aid waiting in the wings. The US started funneling weaponry to support Hussein’s' war effort through third parties like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and by 1983 was selling conventional arms directly to Iraq.
In 1983, US envoy Donald Rumsfeld paid a personal visit to Hussein and restored diplomatic relations, which had been cut during the 1967 Arab-Israel War. America’s rulers resumed relations with Iraq despite their knowledge that Hussein had used chemical weapons against Iran only a few months before. They also knew that Hussein was building manufacturing facilities to produce more WMDs. Rumsfeld, one of the strongest advocates of the removal of Hussein from power under Bush II, was a strong proponent of the relationship with Hussein under Reagan. By 1984, both the US State Department and European doctors had confirmed that Iraq was using nerve gas against Iranians. After digesting this information, the US Aristocracy decided to initiate a program which forgave $5 billion worth of agricultural loans to Iraq between 1983 and 1990, freeing up more cash for Hussein to fund his war machine.
Hussein's relationship with the United States came into full bloom in 1985. Protecting the flow of US weapons and money to Saddam, the Reagan administration pressured a member of Congress to drop a proposed resolution that would have reclassified Iraq as a supporter of terrorism. The US Commerce Department began a five year pattern of approving sales of US computers to Iraq for use in weapons labs. 1985 marked the advent of the Reagan administration supplying Hussein with biological weapon precursors like botulism and anthrax. By 1988, the US had made 70 shipments of these precursors to fuel Saddam’s WMD program.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the hypocrisy of the US Oligarchs in Iraq occurred in 1988. In March, Hussein launched a poisonous gas attack and killed 5,000 Kurds in the Iraqi town of Halabja. In July, one of the Corporatacracy's own, Bechtel (Secretary of State George Shultz’s' company), won a contract to build a petrochemical plant, which Hussein could use to manufacture more WMDs. Besides continuing to support Iraq and to enable its corporate darlings (like Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, and DuPont) to profiteer from the war, the Reagan administration crushed a Congressional attempt to sanction Hussein for committing genocide against Iraqi Kurds.
Fall from grace
Saddam Hussein committed political suicide in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. With the Iran-Iraq conflict over, our ruling elite no longer needed Hussein. Having the chutzpah to violate international law, which America's leaders hold to be sacrosanct when it suits their purposes, Hussein gave the US a justification for starting a war with him. The Gulf War served several purposes for the US Aristocracy. It enabled them to flex their military might as the Soviet Union, the world's other super-power, was collapsing. The victory over Saddam erased the American public’s memory of the embarrassing defeat in Vietnam. Most importantly, it enabled the Plutocracy to reap the bountiful harvest of corporate profits fueled by a war. America’s ruling elite class knows the true bounties of war, particularly if the opponent is relatively weak and hapless.
Estimates vary widely, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died during the Gulf War and the period of harsh economic sanctions which followed. On August 6, 1990 (shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait), the United Nations Security Council, led by the United States, imposed "comprehensive" economic sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions remained in place after the US-led coalition forces drove Hussein from Kuwait a year later. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most highly developed countries in the Middle East, offering a majority of its people electricity, potable water, free education, sewage treatment, and according to the World Health Organization, access to health care. Since the UN originated the use of economic sanctions in 1945, Iraq was the first (and only) nation to suffer under comprehensive sanctions, in which the UN controls virtually all of the exports and imports of a nation. The US, as the most powerful member of the UN Security Council, was instrumental in delaying or choking off imports of food, medicine, and other necessities. Again, estimates vary, but anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the economic sanctions. The mortality rate for children under five tripled between 1989 and 1997. From 1990 to 1995, the infant mortality rate doubled. Safe drinking water availability was down 50% from pre-Gulf War levels. Malaria and other diseases became epidemics. School enrollment for Iraqis from ages 6-23 dropped by 53%. While some of the statistics and numbers are subject to debate, what is indisputable is that the severe economic sanctions (spear-headed by the United States) resulted in suffering, misery and death for many innocent civilians, while Saddam Hussein, the target of America's wrath, continued to prosper.
It is worthwhile to note that while Iraqis were suffering under brutal economic sanctions driven by the US, Dick Cheney (a poster child for America's ruling Plutocracy) was the CEO of Halliburton Corporation (from 1995 to 2000), and was prospering nicely. When he left to become Vice President, they bestowed him with a parting gift of $34 million. The Washington Post reported that during Cheney's tenure as CEO, Halliburton sold $73 million worth of services and equipment to Iraq to rebuild its oil infrastructure. Cheney, a true capitalist, was not about to let Hussein’s enemy status stand in his way of making a profit.
The business of America WAS business….now it is war
When Bush II assumed office in 2000, US leadership took its obsession with Hussein and Iraq to a new level. Surrounding himself with men like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, three Neocons who were veterans of the reign of Bush I, Bush crafted the "Bush Doctrine". Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States proclaimed its indisputable right to engage in pre-emptive war against those they deemed to be terrorists or rogue states, and asserted the US right to act unilaterally (without regard for international law or the UN). Two other aspects of this hubristic, bellicose, machismo-driven set of principles included the US intent to keep its "military strengths beyond challenge" and the US objective that it would actively seek to promote "democracy and freedom in all regions of the world". The members of America’s military industrial complex were elated. America was (and still is) the largest war machine in the history of humanity. To ice their cake, the profit hungry Capitalists now had publicly-stated policy that its government partners were going to “unleash the beast” on the world. After seeing the "democracy and freedom" the US Oligarchy helped perpetuate in Iraq when Hussein was our ally (not to mention numerous similar examples in Latin America), do Americans really need to ask why many in the world hate us?
Lies and consequences…..
The weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had created with materials supplied by the US under the Reagan administration had been destroyed or rendered harmless under UN supervision by 1996. However, for over a year prior to the March, 2003 invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq, the Aristocracy governing America bombarded the “commoners” with a stream of propaganda designed to prey on fears fostered by 9/11. With little to support their pathetically flimsy arguments that Saddam Hussein (their own creation and former ally) had somehow amassed a cache of WMDs after his disarmament in 1996, and that Hussein (a secular leader) had formed close ties with Osama bin Laden (a radical Muslim), they utilized the power of the herd mentality to gain popular support for the war they craved. Growing bodies of evidence, including the absence of WMDs in US-occupied Iraq, the findings of the 9/11 Commission, and the Downing Street Memos, indicate that the US Oligarchs lied to Congress and to the American people to garner support to launch their war (in defiance of the UN).
As of 8/4/05, 1,827 US soldiers had died in combat and 13,559 had been wounded. Estimates of civilian casualties caused by the US invasion vary from 25,000 to the 100,000 reported in the reputable British medical journal, The Lancet. Discrepancies aside, an obscene number of innocents have been slaughtered. Human Rights Watch notes that a significant number of the civilian casualties resulted from the decision of the US military to use cluster munitions in highly populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian laws of war. These laws oblige armed forces to "refrain from attacks that are indiscriminate or where expected civilian harm exceeds the military gain." America entered the war in defiance of the UN and riding on Congressional and public support based on the lies of the Bush Administration. Thousands and thousands of people have died. They have wasted billions of dollars. American leaders have defied international law by using cluster munitions and torturing prisoners of war. What was that question again? Why do they hate us?
Get on the gravy train……
Now that the military industrial complex has torn Iraqi infrastructure down, someone will need to rebuild it. Who could possibly be up to such a task? With an estimated price tag of over $100 billion to rebuild post-war Iraq, the Corporatacracy is lining up for the contracts. Bechtel was at the head of the line as they received a $680 million contract in April of 2003. As Dick Cheney continues to receive deferred compensation from Halliburton at the rate of $1 million per year, Halliburton's subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root secured a 10 year contract (with an open-ended budget) to provide support services to the US military starting in 2001, and is heavily exercising that contract in Iraq. The US government paid KBR $3.6 billion in 2003 and $5.4 billion in 2004 for Iraq-related work. As the number two US contractor in Iraq, Bechtel's war-related revenue was over $4 billion in 2004. Halliburton is under investigation for charges of over-billing to the tune of $1 billion, while Bechtel has been plagued by problems related to shoddy work. While flag waving propaganda may fool some Americans into believing the war in Iraq is "making the world safe for democracy", many in the rest of the world see the profit motive that has led to so much human suffering. I cannot imagine what could possibly motivate detestation of the Red, White, Blue, and Green(backs).
Terrorist acts and acts of military aggression are morally repugnant. Those committing these crimes deserve to face justice. Regrettably, as evidenced by the poignant example of Iraq, the leaders of the United States have been committing war crimes and acts of terrorism for years without consequence. While the US has rendered justice upon its attackers throughout its tenure as the world’s superpower (and has rendered a grossly misplaced justice on the “terrorists” by invading Iraq), the rest of the world has had little choice but to turn the other cheek when it comes to the profiteering, imperialism, and state-sponsored terrorism perpetrated by America’s Oligarchy. Acting with impunity and arrogance, America’s leaders have an unprecedented military might at their disposal, possess a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to destroy the world thousands of times over, ignore international law but impose it on others, use the UN to inflict damage on other nations but openly defy its rules, hoard the world’s riches and resources, defile the Earth which sustains us, support ruthless dictators, and employ terrorism through the CIA. George Bush knows why they hate us, and he likes it……
Thursday, August 04, 2005
ARROWS MISSING FROM THE QUIVER?
By William Fisher
One of the major tasks likely to test Karen Hughes’ diplomatic skills most has nothing – and everything -- to do with winning ‘hearts and minds’ of people around the world.
It has to do with how effective she is in persuading the people who run America’s overseas broadcasting programs to accept her recommendations and suggestions.
We say persuading because, though Ms. Hughes is now President Bush’s top official in charge of public diplomacy, she has no direct authority over the radio and television broadcasts the administration considers so critical to reducing anti-American attitudes abroad, especially in the Middle East.
The best she can hope for is influence, based on her close relationship to the President and, of course, the budgeting process. In other words, a turf war!
The reason is that America’s overseas broadcasting programs are controlled by a government-funded but quasi-independent corporation called the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The BBG is chaired by Kenneth Tomlinson, the rumpled-loooking Bush friend who is currently causing a political tsunami by attempting to make the domestic public broadcasting system more ‘fair and balanced’, i.e. include more right-wing and less left-wing content. The Secretary of State is a member of the BBG, but votes only in case of a four-to-four deadlock.
The rest of the BBG -- four Democrats and four Republicans – have little experience in overseas ‘ public diplomacy’ broadcasting. Most made their fortunes in commercial domestic radio and television.
The Board, with a large staff and many millions in funding, has jurisdiction over a wide array of broadcast media: Voice of America (VOA), Alhurra, the Arabic-language satellite TV channel, Radio Sawa, radio beamed at the Middle East, Radio Farda, which broadcasts to Iran, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Radio and TV MartÃ, which broadcast to Cuba.
And they protect their turf zealously!
Yet it is noteworthy that in the 1,825 words of the opening statement she made at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the word ‘broadcasting’ was not uttered a single time. Not once.
Moreover, the mission she articulated had all the earmarks of a branding campaign for a consumer product – precisely the reason for the failure of Ms. Hughes’ two predecessors.
She laid out what she called “four strategic pillars -- the four "Es":
Engagement:” We must do much more to confront hateful propaganda, dispel dangerous myths, and get out the truth.”
Exchanges: “People who have the opportunity to come here learn for themselves that Americans are generous, hard-working people who value faith and family.”
Education: “Americans must educate ourselves to be better citizens of our world – learning different languages and learning more about other countries and cultures. And through English language training programs, we can give young people a valuable tool that helps them improve their own lives and learn more about our values.”
Empowerment: “We will create relationships with those who share our values and we will help amplify the voices of those who speak up for them.”
Ms. Hughes said little about the ‘how’ of it all, but not to worry. While there have been something like thirty major studies of U.S. public diplomacy programs during the Bush Administration alone, one of Hughes’ first acts as Undersecretary of State has been to request proposals for a $250,000 contract to carry out “a thorough and scientific study of how to address negative perceptions of the U.S., particularly in Muslim countries."
Having now been confirmed in her new post, Ms. Hughes will no doubt soon embark on the obligatory ‘charm school’ trip to far-off capitals. And, because she is a charming lady, she will probably get high marks.
But, then again, so did her predecessors.
Back home, she will have to confront not only the prospective turf war with the BBG, but an even more daunting reality: The critical juncture between George Bush’s foreign policy and the credibility of the messages we craft to send to the world.
Can anyone think of a job less doable?
One of the major tasks likely to test Karen Hughes’ diplomatic skills most has nothing – and everything -- to do with winning ‘hearts and minds’ of people around the world.
It has to do with how effective she is in persuading the people who run America’s overseas broadcasting programs to accept her recommendations and suggestions.
We say persuading because, though Ms. Hughes is now President Bush’s top official in charge of public diplomacy, she has no direct authority over the radio and television broadcasts the administration considers so critical to reducing anti-American attitudes abroad, especially in the Middle East.
The best she can hope for is influence, based on her close relationship to the President and, of course, the budgeting process. In other words, a turf war!
The reason is that America’s overseas broadcasting programs are controlled by a government-funded but quasi-independent corporation called the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The BBG is chaired by Kenneth Tomlinson, the rumpled-loooking Bush friend who is currently causing a political tsunami by attempting to make the domestic public broadcasting system more ‘fair and balanced’, i.e. include more right-wing and less left-wing content. The Secretary of State is a member of the BBG, but votes only in case of a four-to-four deadlock.
The rest of the BBG -- four Democrats and four Republicans – have little experience in overseas ‘ public diplomacy’ broadcasting. Most made their fortunes in commercial domestic radio and television.
The Board, with a large staff and many millions in funding, has jurisdiction over a wide array of broadcast media: Voice of America (VOA), Alhurra, the Arabic-language satellite TV channel, Radio Sawa, radio beamed at the Middle East, Radio Farda, which broadcasts to Iran, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Radio and TV MartÃ, which broadcast to Cuba.
And they protect their turf zealously!
Yet it is noteworthy that in the 1,825 words of the opening statement she made at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the word ‘broadcasting’ was not uttered a single time. Not once.
Moreover, the mission she articulated had all the earmarks of a branding campaign for a consumer product – precisely the reason for the failure of Ms. Hughes’ two predecessors.
She laid out what she called “four strategic pillars -- the four "Es":
Engagement:” We must do much more to confront hateful propaganda, dispel dangerous myths, and get out the truth.”
Exchanges: “People who have the opportunity to come here learn for themselves that Americans are generous, hard-working people who value faith and family.”
Education: “Americans must educate ourselves to be better citizens of our world – learning different languages and learning more about other countries and cultures. And through English language training programs, we can give young people a valuable tool that helps them improve their own lives and learn more about our values.”
Empowerment: “We will create relationships with those who share our values and we will help amplify the voices of those who speak up for them.”
Ms. Hughes said little about the ‘how’ of it all, but not to worry. While there have been something like thirty major studies of U.S. public diplomacy programs during the Bush Administration alone, one of Hughes’ first acts as Undersecretary of State has been to request proposals for a $250,000 contract to carry out “a thorough and scientific study of how to address negative perceptions of the U.S., particularly in Muslim countries."
Having now been confirmed in her new post, Ms. Hughes will no doubt soon embark on the obligatory ‘charm school’ trip to far-off capitals. And, because she is a charming lady, she will probably get high marks.
But, then again, so did her predecessors.
Back home, she will have to confront not only the prospective turf war with the BBG, but an even more daunting reality: The critical juncture between George Bush’s foreign policy and the credibility of the messages we craft to send to the world.
Can anyone think of a job less doable?
MILITARY LAWYERS’ COMPLAINTS IGNORED
By William Fisher
As early as March 2003, senior military lawyers complained to the Pentagon about the Justice Department's definition of torture and how it would be applied to interrogations of enemy prisoners captured by U.S. forces.
The lawyers were reportedly concerned that broadly defined, tough interrogation tactics would not only contravene long-standing military doctrine -- leaving too much room for interpretation by interrogators -- but also would cause public outrage if the tactics became known.
The disclosure – the first public acknowledgement of internal Defense Department disagreements over the issue – was made during a Senate hearing. The judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines said they expressed their concerns during policy discussions in March and April 2003.
"We did express opposition," said Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top lawyer. "It was accepted in some cases, maybe not in all cases. It did modify the proposed list of policies and procedures."
Republican Sen. Lindsay O. Graham of South Carolina, the reserve JAG officer who chaired the Armed Services subcommittee hearing, said he was concerned that the objections were not taken seriously enough, and that the resulting policy may have triggered the abuses at U.S. detention facilities around the world.
"If they had listened to you from the outset, we wouldn't have a lot of the
problems we've dealt with" over the past two years, Graham said.
Graham, along with two other Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia, recently introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would establish the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as the governing authority for prisoner interrogations. The UCMJ confirms the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees.
At the hearing, the Army's judge advocate general, Maj. Gen. Thomas Romig, said he cautioned the DOD that the Justice Department analysis could damage military "interests worldwide … putting our service personnel at far greater risk and vitiating many of the POW/detainee safeguards the U.S. has worked hard to establish over the past five decades."
Marine Corps JAG Brig. Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler said he cautioned that the techniques suggested by the Justice Department would "adversely impact … public support and respect of U.S. armed forces [and] pride, discipline, and self-respect within the U.S. armed forces." Also at risk would be military intelligence-gathering, efforts to encourage enemies to surrender and efforts to obtain support from allied nations.
Navy JAG Rear Adm. Michael Lohr said he wrote the DOD cautioning that at least one of the interrogation techniques suggested by the Justice Department "constitutes torture under both domestic and international law."
If harsh interrogation techniques are used, he asked in his letter to the DOD, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"
Sen. Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the committee, asked the JAGs if they felt the tactics recently reported by investigators were consistent with Geneva Conventions prohibitions on torture.
Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Rives said he believed they were inconsistent.
Levin also asked the generals if they would want U.S. prisoners of war treated that way. "No, Senator, we would not," Rives said.
Rives warned the general counsel's office at the Pentagon that "several of the more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law and the (UCMJ)"
According to senators at the hearing, the JAG concerns were overruled by the DOD general counsel's office. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita said their views were weighed along with those of intelligence and policy officials. The result, he said, was a “collaborative document”.
Di Rita said a new department-wide interrogations policy is being developed
and will "reflect the input of everyone who has a stake in it." The Army is also revising its field manual instructions on interrogations, he said.
The JAGs’ concerns were reportedly part of an internal debate during the formulation of the policy on treatment and interrogation of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
The State Department's legal adviser weighed in even earlier than the JAG officers. In 2002, State expressed concerns that the Bush administration had ignored the Geneva Conventions in deciding how to treat captured members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The Administration’s position was – and is – that because such captives have been categorized as "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war, rules governing their detention are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. The White House has merely said they would be “treated humanely”.
But a military investigation into abuse at Guantanamo Bay found that a number of specific interrogation tactics -- such as forced nudity and the use of military working dogs -- were used at Guantanamo Bay to extract information from a high-value detainee. They were considered "authorized" by the Army field manual and Defense Department guidance and were therefore not considered abusive.
Identical tactics were later used at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, after Guantanamo’s commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, was transferred to Iraq. An Army investigation of abuses at Guantanamo recommended that Gen. Miller be reprimanded, but the recommendation was overruled.
The issue of prisoner treatment has come under increasing scrutiny since the release of the photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, showing soldiers abusing prisoners there. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is currently suing the DOD demanding release of additional photos from that location, and the DOD has gone to court to defend its refusal to release the photos under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The abuse firestorm has been fuelled by disclosure of early memos from the Department of Justice and then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, now Attorney General, redefining the meaning of ‘torture’.
As early as March 2003, senior military lawyers complained to the Pentagon about the Justice Department's definition of torture and how it would be applied to interrogations of enemy prisoners captured by U.S. forces.
The lawyers were reportedly concerned that broadly defined, tough interrogation tactics would not only contravene long-standing military doctrine -- leaving too much room for interpretation by interrogators -- but also would cause public outrage if the tactics became known.
The disclosure – the first public acknowledgement of internal Defense Department disagreements over the issue – was made during a Senate hearing. The judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines said they expressed their concerns during policy discussions in March and April 2003.
"We did express opposition," said Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top lawyer. "It was accepted in some cases, maybe not in all cases. It did modify the proposed list of policies and procedures."
Republican Sen. Lindsay O. Graham of South Carolina, the reserve JAG officer who chaired the Armed Services subcommittee hearing, said he was concerned that the objections were not taken seriously enough, and that the resulting policy may have triggered the abuses at U.S. detention facilities around the world.
"If they had listened to you from the outset, we wouldn't have a lot of the
problems we've dealt with" over the past two years, Graham said.
Graham, along with two other Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia, recently introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would establish the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as the governing authority for prisoner interrogations. The UCMJ confirms the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees.
At the hearing, the Army's judge advocate general, Maj. Gen. Thomas Romig, said he cautioned the DOD that the Justice Department analysis could damage military "interests worldwide … putting our service personnel at far greater risk and vitiating many of the POW/detainee safeguards the U.S. has worked hard to establish over the past five decades."
Marine Corps JAG Brig. Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler said he cautioned that the techniques suggested by the Justice Department would "adversely impact … public support and respect of U.S. armed forces [and] pride, discipline, and self-respect within the U.S. armed forces." Also at risk would be military intelligence-gathering, efforts to encourage enemies to surrender and efforts to obtain support from allied nations.
Navy JAG Rear Adm. Michael Lohr said he wrote the DOD cautioning that at least one of the interrogation techniques suggested by the Justice Department "constitutes torture under both domestic and international law."
If harsh interrogation techniques are used, he asked in his letter to the DOD, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"
Sen. Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the committee, asked the JAGs if they felt the tactics recently reported by investigators were consistent with Geneva Conventions prohibitions on torture.
Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Rives said he believed they were inconsistent.
Levin also asked the generals if they would want U.S. prisoners of war treated that way. "No, Senator, we would not," Rives said.
Rives warned the general counsel's office at the Pentagon that "several of the more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law and the (UCMJ)"
According to senators at the hearing, the JAG concerns were overruled by the DOD general counsel's office. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita said their views were weighed along with those of intelligence and policy officials. The result, he said, was a “collaborative document”.
Di Rita said a new department-wide interrogations policy is being developed
and will "reflect the input of everyone who has a stake in it." The Army is also revising its field manual instructions on interrogations, he said.
The JAGs’ concerns were reportedly part of an internal debate during the formulation of the policy on treatment and interrogation of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
The State Department's legal adviser weighed in even earlier than the JAG officers. In 2002, State expressed concerns that the Bush administration had ignored the Geneva Conventions in deciding how to treat captured members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The Administration’s position was – and is – that because such captives have been categorized as "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war, rules governing their detention are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. The White House has merely said they would be “treated humanely”.
But a military investigation into abuse at Guantanamo Bay found that a number of specific interrogation tactics -- such as forced nudity and the use of military working dogs -- were used at Guantanamo Bay to extract information from a high-value detainee. They were considered "authorized" by the Army field manual and Defense Department guidance and were therefore not considered abusive.
Identical tactics were later used at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, after Guantanamo’s commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, was transferred to Iraq. An Army investigation of abuses at Guantanamo recommended that Gen. Miller be reprimanded, but the recommendation was overruled.
The issue of prisoner treatment has come under increasing scrutiny since the release of the photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, showing soldiers abusing prisoners there. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is currently suing the DOD demanding release of additional photos from that location, and the DOD has gone to court to defend its refusal to release the photos under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The abuse firestorm has been fuelled by disclosure of early memos from the Department of Justice and then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, now Attorney General, redefining the meaning of ‘torture’.
SO MUCH FOR PRISONER INTERROGATION RULES
By William Fisher
As Congress left town for its August vacation, the Bush Administration was congratulating itself on its legislative victories.
Critics, however, saw few victories in what Congress accomplished – bankruptcy ‘reform’ that they say heavily favors the credit card industry, an energy bill that does little to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, a highway bill larded with wasteful and unnecessary projects, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and more protection from lawsuits for the gun industry.
But when Congress returns in September – aside from the confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court -- it will be facing multiple other political tsunamis: reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, immigration reform, and consideration of the $491 billion defense bill.
Picking up consideration of the defense bill – which includes $50 billion for U.S. troops in Iraq -- is likely to cause widespread White House heartburn. Lively debate was already well underway when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee, abruptly pulled the bill from consideration.
The reason was White House hostility to amendments setting standards for the treatment of enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other military detention centers. The White House let it be known that the president would veto the defense-spending legislation if this provision was included in final legislation.
But White House angst about this amendment does not come from the usual suspects – the Democrats. Its authors are leading Republicans, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, a former military judge, and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
McCain had been working with Graham and with Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to respond to widely publicized cases of prisoner abuse. They proposed to set specific standards for the treatment of foreign detainees.
The McCain-Graham-Warner amendment would require that the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation cover prisoners in military custody. McCain said, “The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. I think we all agree to fight terrorism we must obtain intelligence. But we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals but undermines our efforts to protect the Nation's security.”
Together with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, they also introduced an amendment that would prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners and would require the United States to abide by the Geneva Convention and other international agreements on the treatment of prisoners.
The two amendments would probably have received substantial Democratic support, giving them a strong chance of passing in the Republican-controlled Senate.
McCain, a leading sponsor of the interrogation-standard amendment, said, "We need to make sure that every member of the Department of Defense understands the procedures that are being used in interrogation and we don't have a repetition of Abu Ghraib," referring to the prison in Iraq that became synonymous with detainee abuse.
Rachel Meeropol, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "The administration's actions in authorizing and condoning torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are clearly illegal, and contrary to American ideals. Continuing to ignore the abuses being carried out puts detainees, American soldiers, and even all of us at home in jeopardy. It is long past time to act, and the American people should demand a thorough inquiry, all the way up the chain of command. "
"These senators sent a message that until the Senate deals directly with the
issues of interrogation and detainee treatment, the DOD bill will not get
through the Senate," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights
First, a group advocating for stricter rules for handling prisoners.
Pressure on the senators to back off came from Vice President Dick Cheney, among others. The White House issued a policy statement saying, "The Administration strongly opposes such amendments, which would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war to answer unnecessary or duplicative inquiry or by restricting the president's ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law."
In support of his amendment, McCain read from a July 22 letter signed by 14
retired military officers, including Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former
commander of U.S. Central Command, and Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000.
"The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations," the letter stated.
A third amendment was introduced by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee to set up an independent commission to study reports of abuse at military detention facilities. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee, said he was considering support for an independent investigation.
Sentiment favoring such an investigation has slowly been gathering steam in Congress, since legislation was introduced last January by Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Sen. Graham charged that the White House and the Pentagon had issued confusing and contradictory directives regarding detainee treatment. He said, “Our people are trained to do it one way; you're confusing the heck out of them. And what have we learned in the last two years? If you know what the rules are about interrogating anybody, come tell me, because I can't figure it out.”
But the White House view was articulated by conservative Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who said, ”I reject the idea that this Defense Department and our Army and our military is out of control, is confused about what their powers and duties and responsibilities are.”
As Congress left town for its August vacation, the Bush Administration was congratulating itself on its legislative victories.
Critics, however, saw few victories in what Congress accomplished – bankruptcy ‘reform’ that they say heavily favors the credit card industry, an energy bill that does little to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, a highway bill larded with wasteful and unnecessary projects, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and more protection from lawsuits for the gun industry.
But when Congress returns in September – aside from the confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court -- it will be facing multiple other political tsunamis: reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, immigration reform, and consideration of the $491 billion defense bill.
Picking up consideration of the defense bill – which includes $50 billion for U.S. troops in Iraq -- is likely to cause widespread White House heartburn. Lively debate was already well underway when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee, abruptly pulled the bill from consideration.
The reason was White House hostility to amendments setting standards for the treatment of enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other military detention centers. The White House let it be known that the president would veto the defense-spending legislation if this provision was included in final legislation.
But White House angst about this amendment does not come from the usual suspects – the Democrats. Its authors are leading Republicans, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, a former military judge, and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
McCain had been working with Graham and with Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to respond to widely publicized cases of prisoner abuse. They proposed to set specific standards for the treatment of foreign detainees.
The McCain-Graham-Warner amendment would require that the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation cover prisoners in military custody. McCain said, “The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. I think we all agree to fight terrorism we must obtain intelligence. But we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals but undermines our efforts to protect the Nation's security.”
Together with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, they also introduced an amendment that would prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners and would require the United States to abide by the Geneva Convention and other international agreements on the treatment of prisoners.
The two amendments would probably have received substantial Democratic support, giving them a strong chance of passing in the Republican-controlled Senate.
McCain, a leading sponsor of the interrogation-standard amendment, said, "We need to make sure that every member of the Department of Defense understands the procedures that are being used in interrogation and we don't have a repetition of Abu Ghraib," referring to the prison in Iraq that became synonymous with detainee abuse.
Rachel Meeropol, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "The administration's actions in authorizing and condoning torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are clearly illegal, and contrary to American ideals. Continuing to ignore the abuses being carried out puts detainees, American soldiers, and even all of us at home in jeopardy. It is long past time to act, and the American people should demand a thorough inquiry, all the way up the chain of command. "
"These senators sent a message that until the Senate deals directly with the
issues of interrogation and detainee treatment, the DOD bill will not get
through the Senate," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights
First, a group advocating for stricter rules for handling prisoners.
Pressure on the senators to back off came from Vice President Dick Cheney, among others. The White House issued a policy statement saying, "The Administration strongly opposes such amendments, which would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war to answer unnecessary or duplicative inquiry or by restricting the president's ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law."
In support of his amendment, McCain read from a July 22 letter signed by 14
retired military officers, including Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former
commander of U.S. Central Command, and Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000.
"The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations," the letter stated.
A third amendment was introduced by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee to set up an independent commission to study reports of abuse at military detention facilities. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee, said he was considering support for an independent investigation.
Sentiment favoring such an investigation has slowly been gathering steam in Congress, since legislation was introduced last January by Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Sen. Graham charged that the White House and the Pentagon had issued confusing and contradictory directives regarding detainee treatment. He said, “Our people are trained to do it one way; you're confusing the heck out of them. And what have we learned in the last two years? If you know what the rules are about interrogating anybody, come tell me, because I can't figure it out.”
But the White House view was articulated by conservative Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who said, ”I reject the idea that this Defense Department and our Army and our military is out of control, is confused about what their powers and duties and responsibilities are.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
