“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
There is a clamoring on the "left" for President Obama to release the photos of Iraqi women and children being tortured. The ACLU (having won its brief before the court under the FOIA) claims that as a democracy the public has a "right" to see what is being done in its name. But the American people are already fully aware of the atrocities that have occurred prosecuting the War on Terror and by a whopping per cent they approve.
Looking back I am stricken to know just how naive I was four years ago when I was proudly proclaiming that Americans would not sanction the kind of crimes the Tacuba report describes in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Since then I have wanted to believe that the deafening silence was a leftover product of 9-11-- that the neocons had succeeded in filling us with so much hate and terror we could no longer think rationally.
But I was wrong on that one too. As David Frum, one of the War on Terror's main cheerleaders strains to remind us in: How We Got Here: The 70’s The Decade That Brought You Modern Life (for Better or Worse) Americans are no longer offended to see our military resort to torture and barbarism.
Frum: "My Lai is remembered as a turning point in the war, and indeed it was, but not in the way people usually think."
* In the 24 hours after the military court declared Calley’s guilt, the White House received more than i5,000 telegrams and 1,500 phone calls. The messages ran 100:1 in Calley’s favor.
* Congressional liberals like Senator Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut joined with conservatives like Georgia’s Herman Talmadge to condemn the verdict.
* Representative Don Fuqua, a Democrat from Calley’s home state of Florida, proposed inviting Calley to address a joint session. “We are his accusers. Let us invite this American serviceman here to tell his story.”
* The governor of Indiana ordered all state flags to be flown at half staff for Calley.
* The governor of Utah criticized the verdict as “inappropriate” and the sentence as “excessive.”
* Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia proclaimed “American Fighting Man’s Day,” and urged Georgia motorists to drive all week with headlights on.
* The Arkansas legislature approved a resolution asking for clemency.
* The lower house of the Kansas legislature demanded Calley’s release from prison. So did the Texas Senate and the state legislatures of New Jersey and South Carolina.
* The draft board in Quitman, Georgia, wired the White House that so long as the Calley verdict stood, it would not induct any more young men.
* Members of draft boards in Athens and Blairsville, Georgia, and in Elizabethtown, Tennessee, resigned.
* A Poughkeepsie, New York, radio station invited listeners to call in their opinions. It received more than 2,000 calls in just one hour. Only 36 defended the verdict.
* Governor George Wallace spoke at a rally in Calley’s defense at Columbus, Georgia, alongside Governor John Bell Williams of Mississippi.
* The Columbus rally was just one of a series of demonstrations across the nation; Jacksonville, Florida, Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Dallas quickly followed.
* By the end of the first week after Calley’s conviction and sentencing, 79% of Americans polled expressed disapproval of the verdict.
* Within the month, a Tennessee recording company announced that it had sold more than 200,000 copies of a song titled “The Battle Hymn of William Calley.”
Land of the "free" and Home of the "brave"? Not your daddy's America...
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The "Appearance" of Truth (updated)
Martin Luther King Jr. warned us before being murdered that America was on its way to spiritual death. That prophesy has all but come true. As a country our obsession with "being number 1" has left us financially, morally and ethically bankrupt.
[Journalist, Pepe Escobar explains why Obama is so keen on the war in Afghanistan:] "rest assured, nothing of significance takes place in Eurasia without an energy angle. In the case of Afghanistan, keep in mind that Central and South Asia have been considered by American strategists crucial places to plant the flag; and once the Soviet Union collapsed, control of the energy-rich former Soviet republics in the region was quickly seen as essential to future U.S. global power."
I fear for the next generation. They are about to reap the whirlwind.
In its lust for global hegemony no act is too low for our government. There is a simple reason why Obama has suddenly realized Guantanamo's "high value" detainees cannot be tried in Federal court. They are probably innocent-- certainly of the crimes for which they're being accused. Now the ghost of Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi appears like "Banquo" in the last act of Dick Cheney's repulsive tale of torture and false confessions.
Majid Khan's father believes that his son is innocent. Unfortunately his son's "guilt" was vital to the government's determination to go to war in South/Central Asia. In a letter placed in the record, Ali Khan describes how Majid, was convinced to "confess".
"The Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands feet and mind went numb. They retied him in a chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep. "When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read. But then it continued when Majid was unable to identify certain streets and neighborhoods in Karachi that he did not know."
In our present government "it is the appearance of truth that is important"-- President, John. F. Kennedy
James Farmer, author of "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11" 'the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security.'
And yes, as I opined years ago... Bin Laden is dead.
[Journalist, Pepe Escobar explains why Obama is so keen on the war in Afghanistan:] "rest assured, nothing of significance takes place in Eurasia without an energy angle. In the case of Afghanistan, keep in mind that Central and South Asia have been considered by American strategists crucial places to plant the flag; and once the Soviet Union collapsed, control of the energy-rich former Soviet republics in the region was quickly seen as essential to future U.S. global power."
I fear for the next generation. They are about to reap the whirlwind.
In its lust for global hegemony no act is too low for our government. There is a simple reason why Obama has suddenly realized Guantanamo's "high value" detainees cannot be tried in Federal court. They are probably innocent-- certainly of the crimes for which they're being accused. Now the ghost of Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi appears like "Banquo" in the last act of Dick Cheney's repulsive tale of torture and false confessions.
Majid Khan's father believes that his son is innocent. Unfortunately his son's "guilt" was vital to the government's determination to go to war in South/Central Asia. In a letter placed in the record, Ali Khan describes how Majid, was convinced to "confess".
"The Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands feet and mind went numb. They retied him in a chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep. "When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read. But then it continued when Majid was unable to identify certain streets and neighborhoods in Karachi that he did not know."
In our present government "it is the appearance of truth that is important"-- President, John. F. Kennedy
James Farmer, author of "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11" 'the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security.'
And yes, as I opined years ago... Bin Laden is dead.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
No Excuses
Sad but true- the Bush Administration was not the first U.S. government to approve the use of torture. Anyone who knows about the School of the Americas understands that torture and assassination have often been used to terrorize and intimidate those who have the nerve to protest U.S. foreign policy. However Bush is the first president to attempt to make torture legal. And for that Mr. Obama there can be no kicking the can down the road or simply "looking to the future." The lawyers and government officials who attempted to pronounce us a pariah nation need to be prosecuted and forever barred from government and the practice of law.
I am ashamed that despite all that the press has reported already most of us remain largely disinterested about what was and apparently continues to be done in our name. There was time when we Americans were better people. But be sure-- if we sit quietly and allow our present government to ignore such crimes we shall have become that which we once so deeply abhorred.
Honor Betrayed
The realization that her own officers were capable of such cruelty was probably what led to Alyssa Peterson's death. Unlike our "good soldiers" Army Spc. Peterson could not bring herself to torture prisoners.
"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."
We owe Alyssa Peterson an accounting for having placed her in such physical and moral jeopardy. Only after those who tried to legalize such gross atrocities are justly charged can we dare to beg for her forgiveness.
I am ashamed that despite all that the press has reported already most of us remain largely disinterested about what was and apparently continues to be done in our name. There was time when we Americans were better people. But be sure-- if we sit quietly and allow our present government to ignore such crimes we shall have become that which we once so deeply abhorred.
Honor Betrayed
The realization that her own officers were capable of such cruelty was probably what led to Alyssa Peterson's death. Unlike our "good soldiers" Army Spc. Peterson could not bring herself to torture prisoners.
"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."
We owe Alyssa Peterson an accounting for having placed her in such physical and moral jeopardy. Only after those who tried to legalize such gross atrocities are justly charged can we dare to beg for her forgiveness.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Untwisting Tortured Justice
"Unfortunately, it may have been legal..." President Obama's excuse for why intelligence officials may be immune from criminal prosecution despite engaging in torture.
Twice in U.S. history has a sitting president defied the courts and ignored the Constitution. Both Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Only Lincoln however did so without the imprimatur of Congress. So while it is distasteful in the extreme that Obama appears unwilling to prosecute Cheney and his henchmen for the disgraceful actions their "redefinitions" of torture inspired it is far from clear that such prosecutions would lead to a desirable outcome.
For that to occur Congress would first have to be pressed to undo their egregious role in this sordid chapter. But seeing the reason Bush was provided his legal fig-leaf was due to Congress' cowardice I would not hold out much hopes for seeing justice done if it depends on the same invertebrate lot that signed on to the abomination known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 .
Here is its outline as described by the NYTimes:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
Joanne Mariner explains why the Bush Administration was so eager to pass the Act before the 2006 midterm elections:
"The MCA was passed in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a ruling that called into question the legality of the Administration's secret CIA detention program. Hamdan made it clear that abusive interrogation techniques used by the CIA violated international law, and that CIA operatives could be held criminally liable for such abuses.
Reacting to Hamdan, the Bush Administration first pushed to redefine the scope of U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, in particular Common Article 3, the provision at issue in Hamdan. After opposition from within the Republican Party to such an overt repudiation of universally-accepted international norms, the Administration took a different approach. While the MCA does not explicitly rewrite the Common Article 3, it opens the door to the provision's effective redefinition. It does so by specifying that the War Crimes Act, as amended, satisfies the U.S. obligation to criminalize grave breaches of Common Article 3, and that the president may issue authoritative interpretations of the remainder of the provision.
The law also nullifies the legal impact of the Conventions in domestic courts. Section 5 of the law provides that the Geneva Conventions and related treaties are unenforceable in court in civil cases involving the U.S. government or its agents. It states, specifically, that they may not be invoked "in any habeas corpus or any other civil action or proceeding . . . as a source of rights in any [U.S. or state] court." And another provision of the law bars persons deemed unlawful enemy combatants from invoking these treaties as a source of rights.
Notably, the legislation narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act, decriminalizing certain past acts. Previously, the War Crimes Act criminalized all violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as well as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Anyone responsible for any Common Article 3 violation, including the cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment of detainees, could be prosecuted under the law.
The MCA revises this portion of the War Crimes Act, replacing the blanket criminalization of Common Article 3 violations with a list of "grave breaches" of Common Article 3, which are specified and defined in the legislation."
That cover makes bringing the actors to the bar of justice extremely complicated. As Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia University law school. explains, "If we’re talking about holding a particular individual liable, we’re talking about drawing a straight line between opinions given and acts done-- people who really were hurt by the government in ways that are legally offensive ought to have some sort of forum to get compensation or vindication-- but to go from there to say that part of that process should involve singling out one or two subpresidential actors in an area where the president really does dominate policymaking is a stretch for me.”
With a Democratic POTUS hopes were high that the lawbooks would be purged of this monstrosity, but seeing that our craven leaders (over 50 Democrats voted for that horrendous legislation) are no less culpable the chances of Justice winning the day may require a radically different Congress, not to mention a far more confident White House.
Twice in U.S. history has a sitting president defied the courts and ignored the Constitution. Both Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Only Lincoln however did so without the imprimatur of Congress. So while it is distasteful in the extreme that Obama appears unwilling to prosecute Cheney and his henchmen for the disgraceful actions their "redefinitions" of torture inspired it is far from clear that such prosecutions would lead to a desirable outcome.
For that to occur Congress would first have to be pressed to undo their egregious role in this sordid chapter. But seeing the reason Bush was provided his legal fig-leaf was due to Congress' cowardice I would not hold out much hopes for seeing justice done if it depends on the same invertebrate lot that signed on to the abomination known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 .
Here is its outline as described by the NYTimes:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
Joanne Mariner explains why the Bush Administration was so eager to pass the Act before the 2006 midterm elections:
"The MCA was passed in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a ruling that called into question the legality of the Administration's secret CIA detention program. Hamdan made it clear that abusive interrogation techniques used by the CIA violated international law, and that CIA operatives could be held criminally liable for such abuses.
Reacting to Hamdan, the Bush Administration first pushed to redefine the scope of U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, in particular Common Article 3, the provision at issue in Hamdan. After opposition from within the Republican Party to such an overt repudiation of universally-accepted international norms, the Administration took a different approach. While the MCA does not explicitly rewrite the Common Article 3, it opens the door to the provision's effective redefinition. It does so by specifying that the War Crimes Act, as amended, satisfies the U.S. obligation to criminalize grave breaches of Common Article 3, and that the president may issue authoritative interpretations of the remainder of the provision.
The law also nullifies the legal impact of the Conventions in domestic courts. Section 5 of the law provides that the Geneva Conventions and related treaties are unenforceable in court in civil cases involving the U.S. government or its agents. It states, specifically, that they may not be invoked "in any habeas corpus or any other civil action or proceeding . . . as a source of rights in any [U.S. or state] court." And another provision of the law bars persons deemed unlawful enemy combatants from invoking these treaties as a source of rights.
Notably, the legislation narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act, decriminalizing certain past acts. Previously, the War Crimes Act criminalized all violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as well as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Anyone responsible for any Common Article 3 violation, including the cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment of detainees, could be prosecuted under the law.
The MCA revises this portion of the War Crimes Act, replacing the blanket criminalization of Common Article 3 violations with a list of "grave breaches" of Common Article 3, which are specified and defined in the legislation."
That cover makes bringing the actors to the bar of justice extremely complicated. As Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia University law school. explains, "If we’re talking about holding a particular individual liable, we’re talking about drawing a straight line between opinions given and acts done-- people who really were hurt by the government in ways that are legally offensive ought to have some sort of forum to get compensation or vindication-- but to go from there to say that part of that process should involve singling out one or two subpresidential actors in an area where the president really does dominate policymaking is a stretch for me.”
With a Democratic POTUS hopes were high that the lawbooks would be purged of this monstrosity, but seeing that our craven leaders (over 50 Democrats voted for that horrendous legislation) are no less culpable the chances of Justice winning the day may require a radically different Congress, not to mention a far more confident White House.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
"This Is No Small Thing"
The Bush administration was very clever at distorting the debate about what constitutes torture. From Nancy Pelosi's explosive interview aired last night on the Rachel Maddow Show it appears that she and other ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee were presented with the government's "theoretical" use of sleep deprivation and "simulated" waterboarding merely as a ruse to blur the lines of what was legal. In fact, as we know from several disturbing reports between 2004 and 2008, far worse was already being done to Iraqi prisoners and Guantanamo detainees in our name.
Despite President Obama's clear reluctance to seek indictments at least two Senators in Congress are not so willing to overlook obvious war crimes. This is indeed "no small thing". Let the hearings begin.
Despite President Obama's clear reluctance to seek indictments at least two Senators in Congress are not so willing to overlook obvious war crimes. This is indeed "no small thing". Let the hearings begin.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Murder For Power and Profit (update I)
"In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme."
--Patrick Cockburn in Sulaimaniyah, Northern Iraq
Blackwater, Vinnell, DynCorp, SAIC, CACI, Titan Group, Ibis Tek, these are folks the Pentagon now depends on to fulfill its mission.
It is hard to define exactly what or who the United States of America actually represents. For the last twenty years, beginning with George Bush I the United States has seen the privatization of what should be a democracy's primary government functions-- defense and national welfare. Not only are the pharmaceutical companies now dictating the agenda surrounding public health, corporations are collecting intelligence, patrolling the "Homeland" and fighting its wars of choice.
"the privatization of intelligence metamorphosed from an instrument of limited application in the 1950’s into a broad-based core operating model of significant proportions in the 1970’s and ‘80’s. Simultaneously, a secret alliance was forged with Saudi intelligence. This alliance was orchestrated by CIA covert management, without the knowledge of Congress, and, in some cases, even the president."--Joseph Trento, "Prelude to Terror"
It is hard to consider a country as sovereign when foreign nationals are potentially in charge of its security. As R.J. Hillhouse reports more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. In fact their "analytical products" were part of George Bush II daily briefs. It has come to the point-- when we consider how much has been outsourced to private concerns-- that one wonders how much of America's military might actually still resides with the Commander-in-Chief.
What should be clear to the most trusting American citizen is that the coupling of military operations and the dramatic shift from congressional oversight to the wish-list of corporate lobbyists makes a mockery of the Constitution and the very concept of "checks and balances".
Mercenaries, otherwise known as "soldiers of fortune", are illegal under international law. Yet under Bush II they have been re-branded as private military contractors spawning an industry that generates yearly profits of over $US100 billion. As we have seen in the infamous case of Blackwater, these paramilitaries are permitted to function outside of and above the law, leading to tragic consequences for America's foreign relations and long-term security interest.
The Firm Formerly Known as Blackwater
According to Jeremy Scahill author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Arm, they provide ‘the US government with a way around declining military recruitment, the political cost of conscription, dead soldiers, a way to short-circuit citizen anti-war opposition, and other potential democratic brakes on the government’s unpopular wars’.
The ugly results have been only too predictable
March 7, 2003
Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base
The Guardian (UK)
Two prisoners who died while being held for interrogation at the US military base in Afghanistan had apparently been beaten, according to a military pathologist's report. A criminal investigation is now under way into the deaths which have both been classified as homicides. The two men, both Afghans, died last December at the US forces base in Bagram, north of Kabul, where prisoners have been held for questioning. The autopsies found they had suffered "blunt force injuries" and classified both deaths as homicides.
A spokesman for the Pentagon said yesterday it was not possible to discuss the details of the case because of the proceeding investigation. If the investigation finds that the prisoners had been unlawfully killed during interrogation, it could lead to both civil and military prosecutions. He added that it was not clear whether only US personnel had had access to the men.
Robert Fisk elaborates on the consequence of no responsible chain-of-command:
"Last August, I was invited to Abu Ghraib to see the million-dollar U.S. refurbishment of this vile place. Squeaky clean cells and toothpaste tubes and fresh pairs of pants for the "terrorist" inmates. But now, suddenly, the whole kit and caboodle is no longer an American torture center. It's still an Iraqi torture center.
Just as the unsupervised armed mercenaries being killed in Iraq are being described by the occupation authorities as "contractors" or, more mendaciously, "civilians" -- so the responsibility for the porno interrogations at Abu Ghraib is being allowed to slide into the summer mists over the Tigris River."
Saturday, May 22, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon has revealed that 37 people have died in detention in Iraq and Afghanistan, with one official saying at least some deaths "may be suspicious."
Four cases have been listed as "justified homicide" involving eight deaths of inmates trying to escape. Of those deaths, seven took place at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison where U.S. soldiers have been accused of abusing inmates.
Death certificates released by the Pentagon indicate one Iraqi detainee died from "strangulation" and two Iraqi detainees died because of "asphyxia." The certificate also noted "blunt force trauma" as contributing to one of those deaths. One Iraqi detainee was listed as having died from "closed head injury."
Thirty of the cases were said to have taken place inside U.S. detention facilities.
U.S. Army Major General George Fay conducted the key investigation into interrogation procedures. CNN has learned that, as a result of that investigation, a civilian contractor has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution.
If field operatives are being giving such latitude while acting (at least theoretically) within the purview of the U.S. military, it is not hard to imagine a future where corporations or perhaps even hostile governments will be able to infiltrate our national agencies in order to manipulate U.S. policy using spurious intelligence-- perhaps obtained through torture... or failing that-- manufacturing a major international crisis. Or did we in fact already cross that Rubicon on 9-11-01?
--Patrick Cockburn in Sulaimaniyah, Northern Iraq
Blackwater, Vinnell, DynCorp, SAIC, CACI, Titan Group, Ibis Tek, these are folks the Pentagon now depends on to fulfill its mission.
It is hard to define exactly what or who the United States of America actually represents. For the last twenty years, beginning with George Bush I the United States has seen the privatization of what should be a democracy's primary government functions-- defense and national welfare. Not only are the pharmaceutical companies now dictating the agenda surrounding public health, corporations are collecting intelligence, patrolling the "Homeland" and fighting its wars of choice.
"the privatization of intelligence metamorphosed from an instrument of limited application in the 1950’s into a broad-based core operating model of significant proportions in the 1970’s and ‘80’s. Simultaneously, a secret alliance was forged with Saudi intelligence. This alliance was orchestrated by CIA covert management, without the knowledge of Congress, and, in some cases, even the president."--Joseph Trento, "Prelude to Terror"
It is hard to consider a country as sovereign when foreign nationals are potentially in charge of its security. As R.J. Hillhouse reports more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. In fact their "analytical products" were part of George Bush II daily briefs. It has come to the point-- when we consider how much has been outsourced to private concerns-- that one wonders how much of America's military might actually still resides with the Commander-in-Chief.
What should be clear to the most trusting American citizen is that the coupling of military operations and the dramatic shift from congressional oversight to the wish-list of corporate lobbyists makes a mockery of the Constitution and the very concept of "checks and balances".
Mercenaries, otherwise known as "soldiers of fortune", are illegal under international law. Yet under Bush II they have been re-branded as private military contractors spawning an industry that generates yearly profits of over $US100 billion. As we have seen in the infamous case of Blackwater, these paramilitaries are permitted to function outside of and above the law, leading to tragic consequences for America's foreign relations and long-term security interest.
The Firm Formerly Known as Blackwater
According to Jeremy Scahill author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Arm, they provide ‘the US government with a way around declining military recruitment, the political cost of conscription, dead soldiers, a way to short-circuit citizen anti-war opposition, and other potential democratic brakes on the government’s unpopular wars’.
The ugly results have been only too predictable
March 7, 2003
Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base
The Guardian (UK)
Two prisoners who died while being held for interrogation at the US military base in Afghanistan had apparently been beaten, according to a military pathologist's report. A criminal investigation is now under way into the deaths which have both been classified as homicides. The two men, both Afghans, died last December at the US forces base in Bagram, north of Kabul, where prisoners have been held for questioning. The autopsies found they had suffered "blunt force injuries" and classified both deaths as homicides.
A spokesman for the Pentagon said yesterday it was not possible to discuss the details of the case because of the proceeding investigation. If the investigation finds that the prisoners had been unlawfully killed during interrogation, it could lead to both civil and military prosecutions. He added that it was not clear whether only US personnel had had access to the men.
Robert Fisk elaborates on the consequence of no responsible chain-of-command:
"Last August, I was invited to Abu Ghraib to see the million-dollar U.S. refurbishment of this vile place. Squeaky clean cells and toothpaste tubes and fresh pairs of pants for the "terrorist" inmates. But now, suddenly, the whole kit and caboodle is no longer an American torture center. It's still an Iraqi torture center.
Just as the unsupervised armed mercenaries being killed in Iraq are being described by the occupation authorities as "contractors" or, more mendaciously, "civilians" -- so the responsibility for the porno interrogations at Abu Ghraib is being allowed to slide into the summer mists over the Tigris River."
Saturday, May 22, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon has revealed that 37 people have died in detention in Iraq and Afghanistan, with one official saying at least some deaths "may be suspicious."
Four cases have been listed as "justified homicide" involving eight deaths of inmates trying to escape. Of those deaths, seven took place at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison where U.S. soldiers have been accused of abusing inmates.
Death certificates released by the Pentagon indicate one Iraqi detainee died from "strangulation" and two Iraqi detainees died because of "asphyxia." The certificate also noted "blunt force trauma" as contributing to one of those deaths. One Iraqi detainee was listed as having died from "closed head injury."
Thirty of the cases were said to have taken place inside U.S. detention facilities.
U.S. Army Major General George Fay conducted the key investigation into interrogation procedures. CNN has learned that, as a result of that investigation, a civilian contractor has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution.
If field operatives are being giving such latitude while acting (at least theoretically) within the purview of the U.S. military, it is not hard to imagine a future where corporations or perhaps even hostile governments will be able to infiltrate our national agencies in order to manipulate U.S. policy using spurious intelligence-- perhaps obtained through torture... or failing that-- manufacturing a major international crisis. Or did we in fact already cross that Rubicon on 9-11-01?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)