Wednesday, June 22, 2005
assassination policy
International News Article | Reuters.com
BG: Not posting this to condemn, only to document seeming sad downward spiral.
BG: Not posting this to condemn, only to document seeming sad downward spiral.
Old News (2004) Max Cleland: Bush 'flat-out lied' on Iraq
Max Cleland: Bush 'flat-out lied' on Iraq
BG: This seems so familiar, where have I heard this before? Notice how the Bush defenders that were posting comment look in today's light.
BG: This seems so familiar, where have I heard this before? Notice how the Bush defenders that were posting comment look in today's light.
Old News: Scoop: UQ Wire: Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up?
Scoop: UQ Wire: Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up?: " Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up"
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry - New York Times
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry - New York Times: "June 22, 2005
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry"
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry"
News Hounds: Bill O'Reilly Unhappy - "Due Process" Takes Too Long
News Hounds: Bill O'Reilly Unhappy - "Due Process" Takes Too Long
You'd think such idiots as O'Reily would discredit Fox's pretense of being a fair and balances news org. You'd think.......
You'd think such idiots as O'Reily would discredit Fox's pretense of being a fair and balances news org. You'd think.......
The Secret World of Jack Abramoff
The Secret World of Jack AbramoffJune 21, 2005 -Venice, FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker
The MadCowMorningNews has learned exclusive new details about the gangland-style hit in Florida of Gus Boulis, whose murder figures prominently in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s rise to power.
The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.
So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.
One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.
Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats.
What were they doing there? No one knows.
Wrestling with alligators
There remains a strong suspicion that Atta’s terrorist cadre—supposedly unknown and friendless and burrowing into the woodwork—was able to call on the assistance, when necessary, of a friendly global network.
Could it be that this network is the same one being probed so gingerly today by investigators looking into Jack Abramoff?
What could a scandal involving Indian casinos and gambling boat “cruises to nowhere” & pay-for-play government officials have to do with the story of 19 hijackers planning a mass murder in supposed isolation in Florida?
Let’s take a look
by Daniel Hopsicker
The MadCowMorningNews has learned exclusive new details about the gangland-style hit in Florida of Gus Boulis, whose murder figures prominently in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s rise to power.
The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.
So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.
One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.
Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats.
What were they doing there? No one knows.
Wrestling with alligators
There remains a strong suspicion that Atta’s terrorist cadre—supposedly unknown and friendless and burrowing into the woodwork—was able to call on the assistance, when necessary, of a friendly global network.
Could it be that this network is the same one being probed so gingerly today by investigators looking into Jack Abramoff?
What could a scandal involving Indian casinos and gambling boat “cruises to nowhere” & pay-for-play government officials have to do with the story of 19 hijackers planning a mass murder in supposed isolation in Florida?
Let’s take a look
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
BG: It won't take long before they engineer an atrocity to cure this.
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics: "Scary news for Bush: We're not afraid anymore
The polls keep bringing bad news for the Republicans, and the new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll may bring the worst news for the White House yet.
Americans aren't afraid anymore.
The Bush administration has made fear its stock in trade. The White House used fear -- of another 9/11, of a Saddam Hussein with WMDs -- to sell the war in Iraq, and it used fear to get the president re-elected. Remember Dick Cheney's warning about John Kerry? 'It's absolutely essential that . . . on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. . . .'
But how do you sell fear when the people aren't buying it? According to Gallup, fewer Americans fear that terrorists will strike in the United States soon than they have at any point since 9/11. Only 35 percent of Gallup's respondents fear such an attack, down from 39 percent in January and from 85 percent in the days after 9/11.
It's not that Americans are suddenly thinking that the Bush administration is doing a great job of protecting them from a terrorist attack. To the contrary, confidence in the ability of the administration to fend off an attack is slipping. While a majority of respondents still say they have at least a moderate degree of confidence that the administration will protect them, 38 percent now say they have little or no such confidence. Only 52 percent of the public is satisfied with how things are going in the war on terrorism, down from 75 percent two years ago.
But the war in Iraq is making the world a safer place, right? That's wha"
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics: "Scary news for Bush: We're not afraid anymore
The polls keep bringing bad news for the Republicans, and the new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll may bring the worst news for the White House yet.
Americans aren't afraid anymore.
The Bush administration has made fear its stock in trade. The White House used fear -- of another 9/11, of a Saddam Hussein with WMDs -- to sell the war in Iraq, and it used fear to get the president re-elected. Remember Dick Cheney's warning about John Kerry? 'It's absolutely essential that . . . on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. . . .'
But how do you sell fear when the people aren't buying it? According to Gallup, fewer Americans fear that terrorists will strike in the United States soon than they have at any point since 9/11. Only 35 percent of Gallup's respondents fear such an attack, down from 39 percent in January and from 85 percent in the days after 9/11.
It's not that Americans are suddenly thinking that the Bush administration is doing a great job of protecting them from a terrorist attack. To the contrary, confidence in the ability of the administration to fend off an attack is slipping. While a majority of respondents still say they have at least a moderate degree of confidence that the administration will protect them, 38 percent now say they have little or no such confidence. Only 52 percent of the public is satisfied with how things are going in the war on terrorism, down from 75 percent two years ago.
But the war in Iraq is making the world a safer place, right? That's wha"
Guantnamo's Long Shadow - New York Times
Guant�namo's Long Shadow - New York TimesThe known and detailed treatment of Gitmo detainess "is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush." Mistreating prisoners makes the world see our moral claims as hypocrisy.
June 21, 2005
Guantánamo's Long Shadow
By ANTHONY LEWIS
Boston
WHEN Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that detainees at the American prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were treated better than they would be "by virtually any other government on the face of the earth," he was carrying on what has become a campaign to whitewash the record of abuses at Guantánamo.
Right-wing commentators have been sounding the theme. Columnist Charles Krauthammer said the treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners had been "remarkably humane and tolerant."
Yes, and there is no elephant in the room.
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed what went on in Guantánamo. One reported on July 29, 2004: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."
Time magazine published an extended article last week on an official log of interrogations of one Guantánamo detainee over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003. The detainee was Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who is suspected of being the planned 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001, but who was unable to enter the United States.
Mr. Kahtani was interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a stretch, according to the detailed log. At one point he was put on an intravenous drip and given 3½ bags of fluid. When he asked to urinate, guards told him that he must first answer questions. He answered them. The interrogator, not satisfied with the answers, told him to urinate in his pants, which he did. Thirty minutes later, the log noted, Mr. Kahtani was "beginning to understand the futility of his situation."
F.B.I. agents, reporting earlier on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said a dog was used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate" him. At one point, according to the log, Mr. Kahtani's interrogator told him that he needed to learn, like a dog, to show respect: "Began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come and bark to elevate his social status to that of a dog. Detainee became very agitated."
At a minimum, the treatment of Mr. Kahtani was an exercise in degradation and humiliation. Such treatment is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush.
The Geneva Conventions, which protect people captured in conflict, prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." The scope of that clause's legal obligation has been debated, but previous American governments abided by it. President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members who are detained at Guantánamo.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture, also ratified by the United States, requires signatories to "prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction ... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The Bush administration declared that this provision did not apply to the treatment of non-Americans held outside the United States.
Finally, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It makes cruelty, oppression or "maltreatment" of prisoners a crime. Armed services lawyers worried that some methods of interrogation might violate the Uniform Code and federal criminal statutes, exposing interrogators to prosecution. A Pentagon memorandum obtained by ABC News said a meeting of top military lawyers on March 8, 2003, concluded that "we need a presidential letter" approving controversial methods, to give interrogators immunity.
The idea that a president can legalize the unlawful evidently came from a series of memorandums written by Justice Department officials. They argued, among other things, that President Bush's authority as commander in chief to set interrogation methods could trump treaties and federal law.
Although President Bush decided to deny detainees at Guantánamo the protection of the Geneva Conventions, he did order that they must be treated "humanely." The Pentagon, responding to the Time magazine article on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said, "The Department of Defense remains committed to the unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard."
In the view of the administration, then, it is "humane" to give a detainee 3½ bags of I.V. fluid and then make him urinate on himself, force him to bark like a dog, or chain him to the floor for 18 hours.
No one can seriously doubt now that cruelties and indignities have been inflicted on prisoners at Guantánamo. Nor is there any doubt that worse has happened elsewhere - prisoners beaten to death by American soldiers, untold others held in secret locations by the Central Intelligence Agency, others rendered to be tortured by governments such as Uzbekistan's.
Since the widespread outrage over the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Americans have seemingly ceased to care. It was reported yesterday that Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal, is being considered for promotion. Many people would say the mistreatment of Mohamed al-Kahtani, or of suspects who might well be innocent, is justified in a war with terrorists. Morality is outweighed by necessity.
The moral cost is not so easily put aside. We Americans have a sense of ourselves as a moral people. We have led the way in the fight for human rights in the world. Mistreating prisoners makes the world see our moral claims as hypocrisy.
Beyond morality, there is the essential role of law in a democracy, especially in American democracy. This country has no ancient mythology to hold it together, no kings or queens. We have had the law to revere. No government, we tell ourselves, is above the law.
Over many years the United States has worked to persuade and compel governments around the world to abide by the rules. By spurning our own rules, we put that effort at risk. What Justice Louis Brandeis said about law at home applies internationally as well: "If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law."
Anthony Lewis is a former Times columnist.
June 21, 2005
Guantánamo's Long Shadow
By ANTHONY LEWIS
Boston
WHEN Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that detainees at the American prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were treated better than they would be "by virtually any other government on the face of the earth," he was carrying on what has become a campaign to whitewash the record of abuses at Guantánamo.
Right-wing commentators have been sounding the theme. Columnist Charles Krauthammer said the treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners had been "remarkably humane and tolerant."
Yes, and there is no elephant in the room.
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed what went on in Guantánamo. One reported on July 29, 2004: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."
Time magazine published an extended article last week on an official log of interrogations of one Guantánamo detainee over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003. The detainee was Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who is suspected of being the planned 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001, but who was unable to enter the United States.
Mr. Kahtani was interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a stretch, according to the detailed log. At one point he was put on an intravenous drip and given 3½ bags of fluid. When he asked to urinate, guards told him that he must first answer questions. He answered them. The interrogator, not satisfied with the answers, told him to urinate in his pants, which he did. Thirty minutes later, the log noted, Mr. Kahtani was "beginning to understand the futility of his situation."
F.B.I. agents, reporting earlier on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said a dog was used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate" him. At one point, according to the log, Mr. Kahtani's interrogator told him that he needed to learn, like a dog, to show respect: "Began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come and bark to elevate his social status to that of a dog. Detainee became very agitated."
At a minimum, the treatment of Mr. Kahtani was an exercise in degradation and humiliation. Such treatment is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush.
The Geneva Conventions, which protect people captured in conflict, prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." The scope of that clause's legal obligation has been debated, but previous American governments abided by it. President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members who are detained at Guantánamo.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture, also ratified by the United States, requires signatories to "prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction ... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The Bush administration declared that this provision did not apply to the treatment of non-Americans held outside the United States.
Finally, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It makes cruelty, oppression or "maltreatment" of prisoners a crime. Armed services lawyers worried that some methods of interrogation might violate the Uniform Code and federal criminal statutes, exposing interrogators to prosecution. A Pentagon memorandum obtained by ABC News said a meeting of top military lawyers on March 8, 2003, concluded that "we need a presidential letter" approving controversial methods, to give interrogators immunity.
The idea that a president can legalize the unlawful evidently came from a series of memorandums written by Justice Department officials. They argued, among other things, that President Bush's authority as commander in chief to set interrogation methods could trump treaties and federal law.
Although President Bush decided to deny detainees at Guantánamo the protection of the Geneva Conventions, he did order that they must be treated "humanely." The Pentagon, responding to the Time magazine article on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said, "The Department of Defense remains committed to the unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard."
In the view of the administration, then, it is "humane" to give a detainee 3½ bags of I.V. fluid and then make him urinate on himself, force him to bark like a dog, or chain him to the floor for 18 hours.
No one can seriously doubt now that cruelties and indignities have been inflicted on prisoners at Guantánamo. Nor is there any doubt that worse has happened elsewhere - prisoners beaten to death by American soldiers, untold others held in secret locations by the Central Intelligence Agency, others rendered to be tortured by governments such as Uzbekistan's.
Since the widespread outrage over the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Americans have seemingly ceased to care. It was reported yesterday that Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal, is being considered for promotion. Many people would say the mistreatment of Mohamed al-Kahtani, or of suspects who might well be innocent, is justified in a war with terrorists. Morality is outweighed by necessity.
The moral cost is not so easily put aside. We Americans have a sense of ourselves as a moral people. We have led the way in the fight for human rights in the world. Mistreating prisoners makes the world see our moral claims as hypocrisy.
Beyond morality, there is the essential role of law in a democracy, especially in American democracy. This country has no ancient mythology to hold it together, no kings or queens. We have had the law to revere. No government, we tell ourselves, is above the law.
Over many years the United States has worked to persuade and compel governments around the world to abide by the rules. By spurning our own rules, we put that effort at risk. What Justice Louis Brandeis said about law at home applies internationally as well: "If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law."
Anthony Lewis is a former Times columnist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)